Marie Antoinette

[Boomerang]

Just got home from the film..... I found the cinematography wonderful, colors , lighting and set/clothing design excellent. Otherwise the pace of the film put me to sleep.

I was worried it would be overally teen bopper but actually it was very dull and slow.

Leave the hip period pieces to Baz.

 

[Cynic821]

Same review Jan gave on 105.3 this morning. Hear Dunst isnt too great either. :/

 

[JimStrauss]

I enjoyed the film. Sure the film is boring at times but I think that was the point. Here is Marie, in her early teens, she was bored most of the time and when we see her, we are bored just like she was. I think she was very contemporary, tried to break free of all the rules like staying out late and going to the Opera. So the modern soundtrack reflects how much ahead of her time she was.
I think Sofia Coppola knew exactly what she was doing.
Strauss

 

[Boomerang]

I agree she knew what she was doing. I guess I just felt like it was not really affective. If the goal was to feel what Marie did by pacing the movie so slow why have such high energy previews. Just do not feel like it worked for my taste.

I only give that sort of attention and time to Kubrick.

I loved lost in translation so I went in with high hopes.

 

[Alex DePew]

Sure the film is boring at times but I think that was the point. Here is Marie, in her early teens, she was bored most of the time and when we see her, we are bored just like she was.

I disagree. No filmmaker should EVER set out to bore their audience. I haven't seen this movie so I can't comment on it but I have been to movies where others were bored but I was fascinated. This is usually just a comment on the type of movie and the target audience. "The Piano" comes to mind. Movies which have a slow and methodical pace should always do so for a good reason. Empathy for boredom is not a good reason. The movies which succeed in creating a mood of boredom always have me thinking, they never leave me time to be bored myself. The ones that fail inevitably leave me with a lesser opinion of the film.

 

[Boomerang]

Alex I totally agree... the problem was lack of fascination with the film.

 

[Ranger]

I enjoyed "Lost in Translation", but this movie was a disappointment. It was great eye candy, but lacked substance. I understand what Coppola was trying to achieve, but critical aspects of Marie Antoinette's life and events that led to the French Revolution, such as the affair of the necklace, attempted escape, imprisonment and eventual execution would have rounded out her transistion from an isolated and spoiled mall rat to a deposed queen that handled her fate with maturity and dignity.

What a shame. Great potential wasted on a half-baked story.

Also, the 80's new wave music (though interesting in concept) was out of place for a period piece.

 

[Zak Forsman]

there's a difference between a film that lacks substance and a film about the lack of substance.

 

[nycfilmmaker]

check out the original with John Barrymore. I haven't seen it but will tonight on TCM.

Sophia Coppola has lots to learn about how to make a period piece work. Plus, the editing was off. I think many scenes dragged. like for instance, why do we have to sit 30 to 40 minutes into the film just to witness that she didn't have a baby before ms. x. Was this the intended plot point? It bored me to tears. add some energy please.

Throw in some beats and inferring twists -- then maybe I would of joined her journey.

I see her point in modernizing Marie's life -- But Marie came from the upper echelon of vienna. she wasn't as hip as the movie portrayed her to be i.e. she would never walk into the room and say "hi uncle" or something to that affect.
the girl had some "upper" mannerisms before she hit the french territory.

Story about a lack of subtance (?) Please there's so much subtance in the life of Marie Antoinette. And if it lacked substance, then blame the director.

 

[Ranger]

there's a difference between a film that lacks substance and a film about the lack of substance.

I doubt most people will want to sit through two hours on "a film about the lack of substance". What's the point? This movie should have been more than the misadventures of the original 18th century rich chick. The real life events of Marie Antoinette, and those of the royal court, was much more complex and interesting than Ms. Coppola's version of it. This subject is just begging to be put on film, unfortunately this director was not up to the task (IMO) to give greater depth to this character and the events surrounding her. What potentially could have been this decade's "Amadeus" instead became just another a film school project on revisionist history.

It was no accident when many of the French viewers booed the movie at Canne.

 

[Zak Forsman]

I doubt most people will want to sit through two hours on "a film about the lack of substance". What's the point?

to learn something about the nature of superficiality, celebrity, its dehumanizing effects, etc, etc. how many films have there been about the facade of suburban life? countless.

This movie should have been more than the misadventures of the original 18th century rich chick. The real life events of Marie Antoinette, and those of the royal court, was much more complex and interesting than Ms. Coppola's version of it. This subject is just begging to be put on film, unfortunately this director was not up to the task (IMO) to give greater depth to this character and the events surrounding her. What potentially could have been this decade's "Amadeus" instead became just another a film school project on revisionist history.

that's not an argument. you can't argue what a work of art should have been, only the merits of what it actually presents and how successful the filmmaker was at rendering her intentions. if I said pearl harbor should have been casablanca, what does that say really? nothing. just that i would have made the film differently. to me, this film's intent was clear. to present a lyrical, anachronistic portrayal of a lonely girl shut out from politics, reality, poverty, and society. the film you expected has already been made. in 1938.

It was no accident when many of the French viewers booed the movie at Canne.

i would be honored to be counted alongside the class of filmmakers that have been booed at cannes.

 

[SPZ]

i would be honored to be counted alongside the class of filmmakers that have been booed at cannes.

That's funny. I'm already seeing your film's DVD cover "Officialy booed at the Cannes Film Festival", or The Official "Booed at Cannes" seal of approval...

Yes, being selected for Cannes is a feat very few can achieve, but... ( In other words, I haven't seen the movie yet. Sofia Coppola only impressed me on the Virgin Suicides. In my opinion, Lost In Translation was a disappointment and showed her limitations as a storyteller. Marie-Antoniette, thematicaly, seems way over her capabilities. I'll reserve judgment after seing the movie)

 

[Ranger]

that's not an argument. you can't argue what a work of art should have been ...

And why not? Of course it’s an argument. What’s the point of having a discussion then? These are my opinions. Naturally, it’s your right to disagree with the points I make, but it’s a bit pretentious on your part to pigeonhole my value judgments in what I felt would have improved the film.

... only the merits of what it actually presents and how successful the filmmaker was at rendering her intentions.

Yes, but the merits (or lack thereof) of what is presented is dovetailed into what I felt would have made “Marie Antoinette” a much better film. It’s obvious to most what the director’s intentions were, but there were major events in the young queen’s life that should have been addressed, but was either glossed over or completely omitted.

if I said pearl harbor should have been casablanca, what does that say really? nothing. just that i would have made the film differently.

No one is suggesting that a director should follow lock step in the path of previously successful films. By citing Amadeus, I only illustrated the potential of what could have been by highlighting the example of a similar (and IMO excellent) 18th century period drama.

to me, this film's intent was clear. to present a lyrical, anachronistic portrayal of a lonely girl shut out from politics, reality, poverty, and society.

The intent was clear to me to, yet I still think the movie was half-baked and the complex subject matter was way beyond Ms. Coppola’s ability to present coherently on film.

the film you expected has already been made. in 1938.

And so was "Batman", “King Kong” in 1933, 1976 and 2005 or “Ben Hur” in 1907, 1925 and in 1959. It doesn’t mean I should have to settle for a 68 year old film. This story deserves to be retold again. Hopefully, next time with more fidelity and depth and without soundtracks from Britney Spears or Kevin Federline.

Yo, yo, yo, Mozart in da house!

Look, did I expect Ms. Coppola to cover in two hours the entire history of the French Revolution? That would be silly. However, there should have been flushed out better contrast between the disparity of Marie Antoinette and her French subjects. It’s all well and good to see the young royal insulated in her 14-carat cocoon, but it does lose its impact if the viewer is not sufficiently acquainted with a backdrop of the events that was taking place outside the gates of Versailles. There were so many dramatic opportunities that would have given this character great depth, but unfortunately were lost. What a shame.

i would be honored to be counted alongside the class of filmmakers that have been booed at cannes.

Wow, such low expectations. If that's your idea of a honor, oh well. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

 

[Zak Forsman]

so...... it looks like i'm not going to be able to convince you that criticizing a film for what it isn't, is an empty argument; it attacks something that doesn't exist and in most cases was never intended to exist. i didn't like Dumbo because it didn't have real elephants in it.

Wow, such low expectations. If that's your idea of a honor, oh well. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

*smacks forehead* some of the world's most daring filmmakers have been booed at the cannes film festival. for example...

Michelangelo Antonioni (for L'avventura!!!)
Olivier Assayas
Luis Bunuel
Jane Campion
David Cronenberg
Carl Th. Dreyer
Bruno Dumont
Michael Haneke
Richard Kelly
David Lynch
Nikita Mikhalkov
Gaspar Noe
John Sayles
Lars von Trier
Wong Kar Wai

 

[Alex DePew]

i didn't like Dumbo because it didn't have real elephants in it.

I didn't like it cause I didn't believe his ear to weight ratio would allow him to fly.

And as for being booed I would never want to be booed, but if it was by a predominately French audience it wouldn't have much effect on how I thought of my film.

 

[rsbush]

Who was it who said, "If everybody likes it, I know I've done something wrong."?

 

[D_and_G]

Ms. Coppola is paving the way for the acceptance of my "Nero" screenplay + film.

He has a much undeserved reputation. My film will incorporate the classic 'high school' films of the 80's vibes, with Beyonce' as Nero's no-nonsense stop that fiddle dancing, biootch. Nero will attend a special high school (or private school) after hours detention club, where he'll learn that not having gold on your toga doesn't make you a bad person.

I haven't decided whether to include a country folk dance, with Nero as the geeky outcast who surprises everyone and wins the girl (or girls in the orgy NC 17 version). Funnily enough, my query to P.Diddy to score the whole film has gone unanswered. He's probably too busy thinking of a new moniker...

I may see Marie Antoinette just to see what the hubub is. The cinematography looked good (in the trailer) anyway.

 

[nycfilmmaker]

did anybody mention the big error made on the film?

there are a pair of CONVERSE ALL STAR sneakers in one scene, major mistake. did coppola or the editor not see this pair of kickers ( close up at that) in the shot.

funny. 18thcentury Queen wearing 20th century sneakers or sneakers for that matter.

 

[Zak Forsman]

considering the anachronistic nature of the film, where "The Now" intrudes upon "The Then", i'm not so sure its really a problem.

 

[SPZ]

so...... it looks like i'm not going to be able to convince you that criticizing a film for what it isn't, is an empty argument; it attacks something that doesn't exist and in most cases was never intended to exist. i didn't like Dumbo because it didn't have real elephants in it.

*smacks forehead* some of the world's most daring filmmakers have been booed at the cannes film festival. for example...

Michelangelo Antonioni (for L'avventura!!!)
Olivier Assayas
Luis Bunuel
Jane Campion
David Cronenberg
Carl Th. Dreyer
Bruno Dumont
Michael Haneke
Richard Kelly
David Lynch
Nikita Mikhalkov
Gaspar Noe
John Sayles
Lars von Trier
Wong Kar Wai

Please tell me which film of Wong Kar Wai was booed at Cannes. I don't recall that happening.