Marie Antoinette

[SpikeDurden]

MARIE ANTOINETTE

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1158195/photo_09.jpg

Written & Directed By Sofia Coppola

Starring: Kirsten Dunst, Jason Schwartzman, Rip Torn, Molly Shannon, Judy Davis, et al

Running Time: 123 Minutes

Release Date: October 20, 2006

Notoriously booed at the Cannes film festival (how rude!), Marie Antoinette is already garnering criticial praise here in the US (it's currently at 84% over at RT), and I couldn't be more happy. While I am admittedly not a big fan of The Virgin Suicides, my love for Lost in Translation is unabashed, and ever since then I've had high hopes for Coppola's next feature. It doesn't hurt that she's assembled a fine cast, created an absolutely *gorgeous* look, and put together a wonderful soundtrack (The 2 disc CD was recently released, and it's fantastic). I'll try my best to keep my anticipation in check, but I'm really looking forward to the film. Between this, The Prestige, Running With Scissors, and Flags of Our Fathers (currently at a mediocre 50% at RT), the 20th is going to be a hell of a day for cinephiles.

Speak, Schmoes, Speak!

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1158195/photo_05.jpg

[Lazy Boy]

I'm with you, I LOVE Lost in Translation, and Sofia Coppola is a good filmmaker.

But, I'm still skeptical about how this film will turn out -- either self consciously "arty," a half-baked mess that's still interesting nonetheless, or one of the best films of the year. I can't place my finger on the pulse of the film just yet, as I'm still unsure of its quality (not a big fan of Kirsten Dunst, either).

The 20th sounds like a good day, at least for The Prestige and Tideland, but I'm getting less interested in Flags as the days go by, and Running With Scissors is starting to get bad buzz.

[dman476]

I'll be watching this in the case that I get some major reccomendations.
Truth be told, I'm not the biggest fan of Coppola's work, and this film doesn't look that interesting. But if I hear it's a fourth as good as Barry Lyndon, then I might be there. I'm still deciding though...next weekend is going to be buys studying for midterms and I don't have time to see stuff like Flags of Our Fathers or Running with Scissors, both which I have no interest in.
I was a lot more excited for October 6th, and the films from that weekend, while good and interesting, where let-downs.
I had much higher hopes for both the Departed (though I still liked it a lot) and Little Children than what they actually turned out as.

[Fisting Ackbar]

Hope it won't be as shallow as the previous Sofia Coppola/Kirsten Dunst outing.

Oh, my mother (who had seen it a while back) told me that at one point, a pair of BASEBALL SHOES make an appearance. Maybe that blends well with the "modern" soundtrack, but it may just take viewers out of the movie.

[TylerDurden182]

I will probably see this in theaters. Looks interesting, but I don't have high expectations.

[Shockwave]

Im really looking for ward to this. I loved LOST IN TRANSLATION and im always up for something different.:cool:

[bigred760]

Have little to no interest in this flick. I like Sofia Coppola and Lost in Translation was a great movie, but I think it's Kirsten Dunst and the subject matter that turn me off.

[JCPhoenix]

Can't wait for this...THE VIRGIN SUICIDES (10/10) is one of my favorite movies and I like LOST IN TRANSLATION (7/10) so I'll be there opening day. This along with Running with Scissors and The Prestige will make that weekend awesome :)

[Tayzlor]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy

But, I'm still skeptical about how this film will turn out -- either self consciously "arty,"...


What I've gathered is that the movie's self-consciously hip (a turn off to some) but doesn't have much pretense for anything larger (but certainly ambition). Most of all it seems like a good time with a kickin' soundtrack -- almost every account I've read starts off recognizing its shallowness but continues to explain that that's the point.

Spike, I haven't read anything that pointed towards widespeard booage besides those intial press leakings. Maybe a few people booed but that entire story reeks of a bored press looking to salvage something American (in a festival where American movies take a backseat) for the public.

Most of all though, this is looking to make its way to my local cookie-cutter cineplex along with Clint's latest offering. Good deal I say!

[Strider]

I couldn't care less if this film was booed at Cannes. Marie Antoinette is one of my most anticipated films of the year. I'm a huge Lost in Translation fan, and I think Sofia Coppola is quite talented. Although I'm still a little skeptical about Kirsten Dunst in the lead role, I'm looking forward to this.

And yes, the 20th will be a good day. I plan to see everything opening that day.

Strider

[Bourne101]

Any movie that gets booed at the Cannes film festival enough for it to be annouced publicly that it was booed, is a movie I have no intentions of ever seeing. It looks completely boring and Lost in Translation (4/10) in my opinion was terrible, pointless and boring. I'm glad there are some good films out now (The Departed, Jackass, Trailer Park Boys, TCM, The Prestige etc), or I'd be left with crap like this.

[JCPhoenix]

Yeah but Bourne101, keep in mind that it was mostly the French critics who have received it with hatred (probably cause it is about one of their icons after all) whereas from what I've seen, English critics etc have received it maybe not ecstaticly but certainly not with booing...

And I thought The Fountain was booed at Venice...that doesn't mean I think it's automatically gotta be bad...

I know you don't wanna see it - and that's fine, but I'm just thinking the Cannes audiences aren't the be-all/end-all judgment-wise...I'm thinking it may not be the pile of crap it was made out to be at that time. Besides, JoBlo gave it 6/10 and his review sounded exactly like the movie I was expecting from her so I'm optimistic.

And in fact, while there's only 7 reviews so far out on metacritic, it has a 71 on there which is pretty good...and an 82 on rottentomatoes with 22 reviews...

[Duke Nukem]

I'm under the impression that this is meant to be a fun/loose portrayal of the title character and the times (thus the modern pop music playing in the background). Kind of like a unique/different point of view that isn't meant to be taken as fact. I don't see anything wrong with that and I am surprised to see so many movie fanatics and critics taking it so seriously. I mean, I'm not pushing myself to see the movie or anything, I'll probably not see it at all, but going by the previews it doesn't look like the worst movie in the world or anything close to that. Just relax and enjoy the movie. Have fun. That's all Sofia Coppola is probably going for with the movie.

[MonkeyGoat]

Well, that's my favourite time period, so I have to ee it just to keep my list of 18th century movies up. I don't care for Sofia, but what ever. She can't make ALL bab movies, I hope.

[Moviefan02000]

Originally posted by Bourne101
Any movie that gets booed at the Cannes film festival enough for it to be annouced publicly that it was booed, is a movie I have no intentions of ever seeing. It looks completely boring and Lost in Translation (4/10) in my opinion was terrible, pointless and boring. I'm glad there are some good films out now (The Departed, Jackass, Trailer Park Boys, TCM, The Prestige etc), or I'd be left with crap like this.

Please tell me you didn't just say the awful TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and the horrible seeming TRAILER PARK BOYS seem better than this. :confused:

[The Other]

I'm really looking forward to this. Though it's only Coppola's third film, she's yet to disappoint, plus I really dig period films.

[Shockwave]

..im actualy hoping for a vibe of something alongthe lines of A KNIGHTS TALE.

[SpikeDurden]

Originally posted by Moviefan02000
Please tell me you didn't just say the awful TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and the horrible seeming TRAILER PARK BOYS seem better than this. :confused:

Amen...

[daddiefatsacks]

I thought Lost in Translation was one of the most overrated movies in recent time, but i DID enjoy The Virgin Suicides, but i really have no clue what Coppola's intentions are with this movie? is it a modern day soundtrack in a period piece?

[blankpage]

I'm still kind of iffy on this one. I mean, I LOVED Lost in Translation and really enjoyed The Virgin Suicides, but something about this one is rubbing me the wrong way so far. I dunno, maybe it's the blending of a period piece with hip, modern music that's kind of turning me off. It's interesting, to say the least, but it could be a total disaster as the film is played out. No matter, I'm probably going to go check it out

[Tweek]

dear merciful crap.
no way in hell will i see ths.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I saw a preview and several clips from the movie, and it looks pretty bad. I won't judge it yet but I won't be surprised if I absolutely hate it. Lost in Translation was just an all right movie and I'm not exactly fond of Sofia Copolla. I just don't see how a film like this could be a critical smash. It might be one of those movies where all the critics give it like three stars, but I can't picture it getting rave reviews.

[powersauce]

Originally posted by JCPhoenix


And in fact, while there's only 7 reviews so far out on metacritic, it has a 71 on there which is pretty good...and an 82 on rottentomatoes with 22 reviews...

That's kind of why I'm planning on seeing it this Monday since I always have that day off. There are some that I've wanted to see and then heard the WOM of some movies and decided to avoid all together (All the King's Men) or atleast wait until it's on video (Man of the Year) for Netflix rental.

[dfd3657]

My sister really wants to see this, and I like the look of it, so I'll probably go see this. I'm definitely interested.

[EDsoulsurvive*]

I dug Virgin Suicides and friggin loved Lost in Translation, so Sofia Coppola's name alone is enough for me. Plus, I think this looks pretty unique and interesting.

[Kucha]

This has been my #1 most anticipated release of 2006 for quite some time so I will no doubt be there opening day. I liked VIRGIN, loved TRANSLATION and this looks just as great.

[Shockwave]

..i just want a FUN time at the movies. Thats all im asking from this.

[notchreturns]

Pretty pointless.

5/10

[cold]

Just got back from this. I was expecting a good time movie, I don't know why, I just kinda was.

Movie was just BLAND. Maybe it was the acting, I didn't mind Kirsten Dunst getting the part. She can be attractive, but this entire movie I couldn't get the quote off my mind that someone had made about her being "trailer trash with expensive makeup and a new dress". Seems very true. Not really sure what to tell you, if you like the trailers, you might not be disapointed. If you didn't, I wouldn't waste your money.

5/10 also.

[powersauce]

I thought it was going focus very much on the music like Moulin Rouge and Romeo/Juliet and even though those were very good movies, I liked that it didn't primarily focus on the modern music that much compared to the other two.

I give it an 8/10.

[Strider]

Marie Antoinette - 8/10 or ****/***** stars

Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette, a biopic about the Queen of 18th century France, who was famously beheaded, strays away from historical accuracy and complete seriousness in favor of something whimsical, fairy tale-like, and for the most part, lighthearted. The gifted filmmaker's surprising vision of the titular character's story is, needless to say, fresh, and the film's greatest aspect. Kirsten Dunst, in a career-best performance, creates a charming, lively, and gorgeous Marie Antoinette. The supporting cast, which includes Coppola's cousin, the very amusing Jason Schwartzman as the reserved, sexually immature Louis XVI, is quite good. Coppola ends the film prior to Marie Antoinette's aforementioned famous beheading, and instead provides the viewer with a brief glimpse of her downfall. This is where Marie Antoinette stumbles just a little bit. Alas, the glimpse Coppola provides occurs very late in the film, and it feels as if she is rushing to finish the story. Marie Antoinette never gives the impression that it is a factual biopic, so those expecting such a biopic will be disappointed. The film should not be taken too seriously, and it can only be appreciated for what it is: a highly entertaining, visually striking fantasy in which Coppola turns the concept of the biopic upside down.

Strider

[Lazy Boy]

Marie Antoinette - 7/10

Okay, the rating might seem low, but it's only because I'm comparing this to Lost in Translation, and it's not as good an effort for Sofia Coppola. Too much dragging out of scenes we've already witnessed; how many times must Marie be royally awakened and go about her day only to end up not being able to, uh, service the king? The Bill Murray effect must've worn off on Coppola, as it feels like Groundhog Day for a good portion, until it finally settles into a nice groove, eschewing guffaws for historical tragedy, seen as tabloid fodder for the Versailles commoner. Holding all of this together, surprisingly, is Kirsten Dunst in her best performance since Crazy/Beautiful, and really worthy of year end mention, even though the best this might get is art direction citations. Speaking of which, the effort put into this area, despite the trivial nature and tongue-in-cheek humor, really excels. The film is about the superficial decadence of the bourgeoisie/royal class, and how fitting is it that the entire film is like a giant cream puff pastry.

[RandalGraves]

I'm gonna wait and check this one out on dvd...

[MadsenOMC]

SPOILERS

I didn't like this as much as I hoped and expected to. I am a big fan of The Virgin Suicides and Lost In Translation, but I think Sofia bit off more than she could chew here. There are some interesting ideas here and there and the movie is beautiful to look at, but ultimately it does not work. I thought Dunst was awful. I don't think she has much range and her performance did nothing for me. Casting her was a huge mistake and alone is enough to sink the movie. She couldn't be more wrong for this role. Plus, she is supposed to age about 20 years in the movie and she looks exactly the same at the end as she does at the beginning. No accent and she hardly looks French or Austrian. Louis is also too one-dimensional. I realize the movie is called Marie Antoinette but we learn nothing about this guy and what makes him tick. It is incredibly hard to tell a story that spans two decades in under two hours in an effective, comprehensive way. Coppola fails to do this. There are great individual scenes and some of the supporting performances are good, but the movie as a whole does not work.

5/10

[EDsoulsurvive*]

What's going on with the release of this movie? Is it going to expand?

[SpikeDurden]

It's a polarizing film, there's no doubt about it. For me, its a remarkable achievement. So rarely do I get sucked into a film so completely, do I fully believe in its world, in its characters. Which is strange, seeing as how the film makes some extremely bold choices in terms of character, music, and what exactly it depicts. The film doesn't remotely show the exact historical details of Marie Antoinette's life, and it doesn't pretend that it does. Coppola isn't interested in the history and the politcs of it all, though something tells me she did quite a bit of reading about it; she's interested in Marie, the person, the teenage girl thrust into an unfamiliar world with a huge weight on her shoulders. And in that respect, the film succeeds whole heartedly.

Kirsten Dunst is a revelation. I've always liked her, but I've never been so impressed and confident in her acting skills. Its a quiet film, dialouge wise, and therefore it is left mostly up to her facial expression and her body language to portray her feelings and her thoughts, and Dunst does it wonderfully. A single look expresses a thousand and one emotions, and you always know exactly what she's thinking and how she feels. Jason Schwartzman is every bit her equal, showing an inherint wit and sense of humor that truly makes his king a multidimensional character.

The film is far funnier and wittier than expected, and because of this it does a great job of humanizing the situation. By humbly showing the proceedings, yet always knowing how slightly ridiculous some of it is, the film is able to keep an even hand, never taking sides on the matter. I laughed more during this film that I have in most comedies this year, simply because its so effective at showing true human begins.

The music helps to create a unique tapestry of feelings and emotions, and while quite a few recent songs are used, they never feel out of place. They help us relate to Marie, to understand who she was and why she acted the way she did. By using modern songs we are able to sympathize with what she's going through in a modern sense.

Rarely does a period piece feel so real, so unstaged, so natural. The film is absolutely stunning, with some of the best costuming, art direction, and cinematography I've seen in years. Its like a piece of moving classic artwork, with modern pop sensiblities. Its a wonder.

Even more on how little dialouge there actually is in the film, consider this: a short, but extremely effective scene towards the end of the film: two servants place a painting of the royal family on the wall in a wide shot. A few seconds later, they take the painting down. The shot punches in a bit, and the servants immediately replace the painting, buts its difference. A family member, a child, is missing. Coppola has always believed that its more important to show and to say. So often do films, particularly period pieces, get bogged down in expository dialouge that sounds fake an unnecesary. A fact that could have taken another film 10-15 minutes to explain takes less than a minute in this film, and its all the more effective for it.

You can love it, or you can hate it. I loved it to death, and its one of my absolute favorites of the year.

[Derek237]

I enjoyed it but it had its share of flaws. All together, though, I thought it was a lovely film. It's no Lost In Translation, but it's a fairly worthy follow-up.

8/10

[yoyoyah]

Its surely all about the costumes worth it for that alone - Oscar winner for sure I reckon

[ilovemovies]

I'm sorry but Danny Houston is WAY too old to be playing Kristen Dunst's brother.


I was disappointed with this movie. A letdown from Sofia Coppola coming off of Lost in Translation, which remains one of my all time favorites.

Kind of enjoyable in some parts. Kind of boring in other parts. The movie looks great. Kirsten Dunst and Jason Schwartzman give fine performances. But ultimately I thought it was so-so.

[SpikeDurden]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
I'm sorry but Danny Houston is WAY too old to be playing Kristen Dunst's brother.


I was disappointed with this movie. A letdown from Sofia Coppola coming off of Lost in Translation, which remains one of my all time favorites.

Kind of enjoyable in some parts. Kind of boring in other parts. The movie looks great. Kirsten Dunst and Jason Schwartzman give fine performances. But ultimately I thought it was so-so.

Care to be more elaborate? I'm really interested in trying to find out why people didn't really care for this film.


As for the Danny Huston being too old thing, that's just COMPLETELY ridiculous. My oldest brother is 21 years older than I am, and my youngest sister is 13 years older than I am. Not all people have their children close apart. Besides, do you know anything about history? Marie's brother Joseph, whom Mr. Huston played, was 14 years older than Marie.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by SpikeDurden
Besides, do you know anything about history? Marie's brother Joseph, whom Mr. Huston played, was 14 years older than Marie.

Yeah cause I'm sure you didn't have to look this up. Everyone is supposed to know the age difference between Marie Antoinettte and her brother Joseph. It's just common knowledge. Huston is 20 years older than Dunst, and I thought he looked too old to play her brother as well. Then again Dunst was totally wrong for the role in the first place.

[SpikeDurden]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Yeah cause I'm sure you didn't have to look this up. Everyone is supposed to know the age difference between Marie Antoinettte and her brother Joseph. It's just common knowledge. Huston is 20 years older than Dunst, and I thought he looked too old to play her brother as well. Then again Dunst was totally wrong for the role in the first place.


Was it really necessary to take on such a condescending tone? I simply meant to state the facts without causing any harm, and I don't appreciate being bashed for that. I like you Madsen, I do, I think you're one of the most interesting posters on here and one of the few who's posts I always read, but sometimes you can get a little bit worked up over nothing. Chill, man, we're hear to have fun and discuss, not yell.

[JDfan]

You know what I hate the most about this movie so far is that they are trying to place a modern feel to the movie with the soundtrack. I think the costumes and all of that looks amazing even thought Kirsten Dunst is a terrible actress for this role, BUT what is the purpose of adding a modern soundtrack to a movie that takes place over 200 years ago.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by SpikeDurden
Was it really necessary to take on such a condescending tone? I simply meant to state the facts without causing any harm, and I don't appreciate being bashed for that. I like you Madsen, I do, I think you're one of the most interesting posters on here and one of the few who's posts I always read, but sometimes you can get a little bit worked up over nothing. Chill, man, we're hear to have fun and discuss, not yell.

Who is yelling? I'm not. And you are accusing me of being condescending? I am not the one who accused someone else of knowing nothing about history. That was you.