Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette

I love the soundtrack and thought it worked well. I Want Candy and Hong Kong Garden were excellent choices for the scenes. Costumes were fantastic.

I am to be queen! Queen of Frahnce!

Plus, that was the first time I saw Jamie Dornan and when I googled him I discovered the dick pics!

LOVE. Sofia is an excellent filmmaker, fuck the haters. Her claustrophobic princess world is too girly for most (male) critics but I think she's got a fascinating way of framing stories

Just watched for the first time recently too (it's on Starz). The songs and the cinematography were great; the story not so much. She couldn't have a baby and bam! the French Revolution.

It did not tell me anything I didn't already know.

Loved it. I don't know why it got the shitty reviews it did.

Haven't managed to finish watching the movie.

Like the cinematography and am a huge sucker for costumes.

Am also a history buff so don't like the story much

No need to slag on Luhrmann's Great Gatsby. I don't like his films but this one is pretty good. I am teaching it right now with the novel in summer classes. The movie works in a lot of the novel's language. It doesn't stand on its own but it really ticks off a lot of great stuff in the novel and visualises it dazzlingly.

Marie Antoinette is good but its a pretty macaron of a movie.

As a huge history buff I was a little dissapointed by the innacuracies, yes including the costumes were retold with a modern twist But the thing is, reading about Marie Antoinettes personality , she would have loved the film.

Drivel. Like her other two shitty films, Lost in Translation and The Virgin Suicides. Pretentious, empty, soulless shit.

But thats the thing MA was really what one would call nowadays an airhaed. France really got the short end of the stick with her. All her other sisters were either ambitious and politically savy or very intelligent. France got the frivolous and dumb one.

Drivel, I suppose, but gorgeous and surprisingly effective drivel.

Marie Antoinette is one of the few historical figures whose story can be told in such a shallow and glamorous way, she really was a small person who didn't care about much beyond her personal life. Still, she was a much more impressive person than her useless husband, at least she had the brains to realize the revolutionaries were a threat and the guts to face them down in person, while Louis ate and ate and tried to pretend it'd all go away. Yes, that scene where a mob came to Versailles and she came to the balcony and stared them down really happened.

My favorite part was the use of this beautiful aria of Rameau.

Kiki Dunst was perfect, the entire world of the film was like a Marchesa fever dream, and the music is used to grand effect.

I liked it. Beautiful to look at.

One of the best films of 2006. The reaction to it at the time was rather divisive, but a lot of people who disliked it have done a 180 since.

Farewell, My Queen is my favourite Marie-Antoinette movie. All-star French cast, mostly character actors down to the smallest role, spot on.

I also love Saint Cyr with Isabelle Huppert, but it's a different period and about a different woman.

Et moi?

The problem with Sofia Coppola's films is that she starts off with intriguing premises but has no clue how to develop them. At least with MA, there's an historical story to use as a guide, but other than just showing the main characters as shallow twits, she doesn't really have much to say. Thank God for the supporting players (esp. Judy Davis) who can provide a little energy.

THE BLING RING is another example of something that starts off well and then becomes repetitive. I couldn't get through more of 20 minutes of A VERY MURRAY CHRISTMAS - it reminded me how tiresome Bill Murray can be.

I have tried at least five or six times to get through his movie, but it so bad I can only make through half of it and then I'm ready to scream. Sofia Coppola can't direct and Kirsten Dunst can't act, and the horrific script doesn't help matter. r16 must have just been on a desert island for the last forty years to believe that.

I'm not a huge fan of Coppola nor period dramas but I loved this movie. Coppola tried to bring some fresh air to this stale movie genre and I think the movie was a success. I also loved the string intro version of Hong Kong Garden they recorded for this movie.

I can see why most critics hated the movie, complaining about "style over substance" and the lack of character development but I personally didn't care about any of that - the movie's visual style and the cast was enough to pull me in. And the critics have double standards too - whenever Mallick or the Coen brothers make a shallow movie that is all about visuals they go crazy, but when someone with less recognition does that they hate the movie.

I didn't like it. I saw it as soon as it was released and then I watched it again. It never grew on me, although I enjoyed what they were trying to do with the converse and soundtrack. In contrast, I really enjoyed The Great Gatsby.

When you see the trailer, it comes across as the ultimate girly movie because of the beribboned fashion period. But the ambiance is fantastic, the soundtrack works so well to generate mood and the light in it is so beautiful looking.

I secretly love this film. While it doesn't have the dialogue of "Amadeus", it does as well drawing an audience into a very difficult to relate to period for today's audiences (by style, social structure, etc.) Judy Davis plays the best snooty bitch, too. I also have a personal love of "New Wave" music and it's packed full of it.

R21, let's just say "when it's directed by a woman". Coppola is one of the female directors with the highest name recognition, and still she doesn't get a pass, critics-wise anyway.

R24 That's the one thing you can say about hardcore movie critics: The real ones are just passionate geeks for medium and tend to be fair in dispensing their ruthlessness or praise.

I actually laughed aloud at the fantasy scene with Jamie Dornan but also thought "don't stop."

Loved it.

Racists like OP just don't get JayZ.

The film is absolutely awful.

Historically it is EXTREMELY inaccurate, and it reads more like the stupid fantasy of a teenage girl obsessed with fashion who wants to be a princess, than anything else. The overextended Vogue photo shoot-lite scenes showing shoes, dresses and cakes are utterly pointless, and don't reflect anything other than Sofia Coppola's own immaturity, imbecility and lack of talent. It not surprising that she frivolously made a silly film about a vapid, boring and superficial cheerleader type playing Queen-for-a-Day dress up. After all, the only subjects that she seems to be able to struggle to discuss at an adult level are clothes, fame, antiques and how it all relates to her (read any of her interviews or watch her make extreme efforts to string a coherent sentence, and you will see what I mean). This film was her own fantasy, and that's about it. There is nothing else to it, and it doesn't have any substance at all.

So yes, her films look very pretty (her cinematographer and stage designers are EXCELLENT), but never have anything to say, other than presenting the empty-headed musings of privileged idiots with oversized egos.

As for MA, her life was a lot more complex than what the film reflects. Yes, she was not intelligent and hated life in France, but she did a lot more than walk around wearing pretty dresses and jewellery, eating cakes and lying down in the grass at the Hameau de la Reine. She played a key role in the American Revolution by ensuring that Russia and Austria would support the French and American colonists against the British, and as a radical reactionary, adopted positions and supported people that she shouldn't have, but she was far from an 18th Century Bratz doll, which is what that Coppola idiot came up with.

In short, the film could have been quite interesting if:

A) It had shown how life REALLY was at Versailles (insalubrious and oppressive). B) It had placed everything in the political context and shown how Louis XVI and MA were part of if, as opposed to a bumbling cretin and a shopping-obsessed strumpet. C) Greater emphasis had been placed on what was happening outside of Versailles, and why the royal family and MA in particular, were so unpopular.

If the collection of stupidities I've already mentioned were the only things that Sofia Coppola got out of Antonia Fraser's book, I am shocked that she is not a vegetable.

Sorry girls, it really is an awful film.

...but Sophia finally found the perfect subject and era to investigate the unbearable ennui of isolated privilege, R29. Of drowning in stuff and handling. Being a meaningless speck of a person, just filling a space in this vast institution that's always on the verge of collapsing around you. I found it numbing the first time I saw it and felt like that was important to what it was about.

R32 "...ennui of isolated privilege [in]..."

Let's just say it's superior to her acting in GODFATHER III.

R30 Thanks for rubbing salt in the wound.

Of course, Sofia's career has nothing to do with nepotism (eyes rolling).

Again, Farewell My Queen is the good one.

R29 is of course correct about inaccuracies and omissions, but I am okay with this film showing so little of what was happening outside Versailles. It's an intimate film, showing what it was like to be Marie Antoinette, someone who was more concerned about her own unhappiness at court than the ruin of the country she was supposedly co-ruling. I'm okay with a director who assumes that the audience knows enough about the history of the era that she doesn't have to show everything that was going on, and she can focus on the personal life of the queen.

However, IMHO the film's one big omission was they didn't make it clear that a lot of Marie A's unpopularlity at court and at large was based on her being a foreigner. As the film has everyone speaking with the same modern American accent, that just doesn't come across.

PS: I wish someone would make a film like this about Lois XVI, the most useless king in the history of royalty. He stuffed his face and made locks as a hobby, and stuck his head under his pillow and wish the Revolution would go away.

I'd classify this flick as a guilty pleasure. I enjoyed it, but just saw it as momentary entertainment.

It was the first time I saw Jamie Dornan & that I DID remember. Those eyes alone...wow

Jamie Dornan is unreasonably beautiful. VERY effective use of The Cure's All Cats Are Grey at the end--ideal "the party's over" music played over the ransacked room at Versailles. Otherwise the film was tripe.

Flawed as The Virgin Suicides was, the Air score combined with effective location choices and almost Bressonian non-acting left me feeling something strange.

R39 He was a much needed injection of masculinity in an otherwise pastel cupcake of a film. I love it for its ambiance, the artificial contrasted strongly against the natural World but I'm aware it LOOKS frou-frou. But the styles were very effeminate for men of the time and the women were dressed to take up space and project power. It was a very feminized aesthetic.

Oh yes, the era had a massively feminine aesthetic, which is probably why Coppola likes it so much. Men wore pastel brocades, coats with skirts, lipstick and blusher, silk stockings to show off their legs, dainty little pumps, etc. It must have been a great time to be a queen - a male queen, that is.

It is truly remarkable that Jamie Dornan could look masculine in the clothes of the era, it's really too bad his career has been sidelined by those awful "Fifty Shades" films.

I'm not sure how historically accurate Dornan's costumes were, cause I remember an interview where Coppola said that they tried to make him look like Adam Ant.

A friend of mine calls this movie, MARIE ANTOINESQUE because it's so gay. lol

R43 I read that, too.

R44 Except no gay characters are explicitly pointed out. Although there is a quip about the Dauphin and his stableboys.

I will draw no conclusions about the hairdresser, who may have just been of "an artistic temperament".

Little WOP cunt should team up with BAZ LUHRMANN since they both make movies that resemble extended MTV music videos.

What else is she going to do ? Maybe she'll stay with the winery thing.

Hey, I'll let you all in on a little secret about GODFATHER III: that man in the end, he wasn't a priest rather gay film critic WILLY WAFFLE

It's very pretty to look at, and sometimes that's enough for me.

It's a great movie. I loved how they used modern music instead of music of that error. I also liked the dance scenes, where they appeared to be doing a period-appropriate dance, but to a modern song, with a faster beat. I imaging the dancers had to move at twice the rate used in ancient France.

I went to Versailles a few years ago, and it was cool to see it as depicted in a movie, Versailles, like other museums, are closed on Mondays. I imagine the filming there must have been on a Monday.

Thank you for your very fine introspection, R49 . It clearly came from a very deep place, for you. Like, I think you dug really deep for it. With a shovel of understanding.

I prefer the relatively unknown 1954 Si Versailles m'était conté by Sacha Guitry.

R50, it's not my fault that you're stuck in your Mom's basement.

Many things are your fault R52. Let's clarify that for you as soon as possible.

I loved it and found it to be decent, mindless entertainment.

you loved that it was decent, and mindless?

the olden days were so sweet

I just watched this for the first time--been knocking "want-to-see" movies off my list during this quarantine period. It was one of the few Sofia Coppola movies I hadn't seen (the other is "Somewhere"). I really liked it. The cast is an odd mishmash of actors but they fit together nicely,, and the contemporary music worked too IMO. Beautiful locations, too (they actually got to shoot in Versailles!). I have loved Kirsten Dunst since I was a kid and have enjoyed watching her career, so I felt a bit guilty that I'd never seen this.

Like Wolf of Wall Street it's not about making a movie about likable characters being nice and philanthropic. It's about giving the audience a peek how privilege can make you oblivious of other people's struggles and instead party like rock stars and revel in your own greed and selfishness (on the expense of others). Coppola is practically the Queen of that genre.

Only Oscar was best costumes which it won but the art direction and cinematography was gorgeous.

[quote] The film is absolutely awful. Historically it is EXTREMELY inaccurate, and it reads more like the stupid fantasy of a teenage girl obsessed with fashion who wants to be a princess, than anything else.

Well you sound as fun as a bucket of pus.

It's much more about Marie A's lifestyle than her life, but for all that I kind of like it. It's gorgeous to watch, a glimpse into another world, a shallow glimpse to be sure but such a pretty sight.

I once spent five days alone in a cabin in the woods, with no TV reception, just a shelf of DVDs. "Marie Antoinette" was the perfect film to have on in the background, every frame of it is a lovely sight, but it's also easy to ignore while you do something else.

Not much of a film but it introduced me to the wonderful world of New Wave music so, for that alone, it will always hold a special place in mon coeur.

Saw it in a theater when it opened. Didn't think much. However, upon many many subsequent viewings, I can't suggest a director who'd do a better job at making a more appealing biopic, box-office wise. The two-disc soundtrack is what lured me to re-watch.