GamerTab That was an excellent one.

AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

haltoy I have seen this movie for second time on tv and again couldn't find anything wrong with it. I consider myself a cinefil, regarding number of movies of different kinds I've seen in my life so far. Someone here wrote, this movie will get more appreciated in the future. I agree. Don't understand negative reviews about historical inaccuracies if French education association awarded the movie. Also, you often have documentaries on the subject on tv, if you want. There I found out, that king demanded all of the aristocracy to move to Versailles after it was built, to surround the king and entertain him. Maybe this also contributed to revolution, if this remained the case 100 years later, because the "upper management" was removed from different parts of France and maybe this also showed in economy? Just my thought.. From first time I have seen this movie, I remembered especially the excellent dinner scene at the end, when royals were dinning in mortal silence, still following court protocol, while the angry mob on the other side of windows was shouting for their heads. It makes you relate to that moment in history, how the disliked couple must have felt..The modern soundtrack is very innovative approach and probably also brought more youth to the cinemas to see historic drama. The birthday party scene stands out. Kirsten Dunst is lovely and witty with her facial expressions in this role. She should have received some awards for it. She's shown also in Fargo she's an interesting actress..Pitty Sophia Coppola doesn't make more movies, I very much liked Lost With Translation as well.

skuggi_drago This was a gigantic disappointment. I was expecting a period drama focused on the history of the time and the actual events taking place, but what I got was over 2 hours of a bunch of young adults playing around in fancy dresses and very bad wigs. The soundtrack is great, but does not fit in any way. This film turned Marie Antoinette's life into a bad teen drama and left me disgusted.

Wuchak RELEASED IN 2006 and written & directed by Sofia Coppola, "Marie Antoinette " chronicles France's iconic but doomed queen, Marie Antoinette (Kirsten Dunst), from just prior to her betrothal & marriage to Louis XVI at 15 in 1770 to her reign as queen at 19, her eventual decline, and the close of her reign with the fall of the Palace of Versailles, located a few miles West of Paris.This is an opulent and beautifully stylized interpretation of the historical events combining period tunes with anachronistic modern music (new wave, post-punk and electronica), which successfully humanizes the historical figures and their world for a contemporary audience. The first two acts effectively show what life in Versailles was like for royalty & nobles in the 18th century; but the last act subtly conveys the looming upheaval of the brutal French Revolution, which was the consequence of foolish spending and blithe, luxuriant living without concern for the common people. THE FILM RUNS 2 hours 3 minutes and was shot in France with studio work done at Pinewood Studios, England. WRITER: Sofia based her script on Antonia Fraser's book Marie Antoinette: The Journey. BOX OFFICE: With a budget of $40 million, the film took in a little over $60 million worldwide. GRADE: B+/A-

michaelmunkvold Historical costume dramas suck. With one or two exceptions ("Amadeus", "Elizabeth") they're stuffy, pompous and boring. That's why I had such high hopes for "Marie Antoinette", Sofia Coppola's punk rock take on the doomed French queen's reign. It sounded like such a great idea: French aristocrats kicking it to Siouxsie and the Cure! Day-glo royal wigs! Rock'n'roll, French Revolution-style! But when I saw it, my high hopes were crushed. "Marie Antoinette" has all the affectations of rock'n'roll, but none of the energy and passion. It's just a stuffy, pompous and boring historical costume drama, with Manic Panic hair and a decent soundtrack.In 1770, Marie (Kirsten Dunst) is married off to Louis XVI (Jason Schwartzman) to create an alliance between France and Prussia. She feels lost and alone in her new kingdom, where she is disliked by the Royal Court and ignored by her manchild husband. She numbs her unhappiness with extravagant parties and expensive toys, which take a toll on the French economy and anger the starving peasantry, ultimately setting the stage for a bloody uprising. And yes, she listens to cool bands and dyes her hair. But there the fun ends; the majority of this movie is spent watching Marie lounging around the palace and having lackluster affairs with people who look just as bored as she does. The characters are given little to do but stand there and look pretty and go through the motions of a flat, boring story. My God, this movie is dull, and all the hair dye and mix tape soundtracks in the world doesn't make a bit of difference.As the title character, Kirsten Dunst has an air of sweetness and charm, but it's stifled by a one-dimensional character. We want to like her, but the script never gives us the chance - we never meet the person behind the crown, because there doesn't seem to be one. She's a Barbie doll, pretty but plastic, with nothing beneath her shiny surface. The supporting cast goes to waste, as well. Schwartzman seems bored with the only part in the film more underwritten than Dunst's; the great Steve Coogan (as Her Majesty's royal adviser) has maybe 10 lines, none of them funny; and Rip Torn (as the young king's father, Louis XV) looks flustered, as if he doesn't know what he's doing there. Watching the film, I could relate.To call "Marie Antoinette" a failed experiment gives it too much credit: the word "experiment" implies that someone took a risk in trying something new. This movie just trudges through the motions of being a boring historical picture, with the occasional stream of neon and a Blondie or Gang of Four song in the background. That's not experimentation; that's putting Day-Glo lipstick on a pig.