This movie seems about setting the records straight for one of the most misunderstood historical characters. It starts well with Antoinette's girlhood and her introduction to the French court as the Austrian bride. But then it drags on about her vanities, bitter marriage, her addiction to gambling and lavish lifestyle by completely missing the point that she lived at a time which makes up one of the most interesting historical turning points of the mankind. Only at the end of the movie, the revolution is depicted with an angry mob carrying pitchforks and sickles in a perfunctory manner. Indeed, her last years in the dungeon after her arrest are completely ignored, which could be a much more interesting subject than her superfluously narrated court life.Add to that, the pop soundtrack in the first half sounds too cheesy and turns a potentially historical gem into a chick-flick. The only positive side is the superb acting by Kirsten Dunst, who almost single-handedly saves the movie from a complete train wreck. Ironically, this also emphasizes the fact that she was alone in the leading role with a very obscure portrayal of her husband.

One of films seductive more for details, rooms, clothes, location than for story itself. and, knowing the historical events or discovering them , the film has the virtue to be a decent and charming sketch of a period, proposing a perspective, superficial at first sigh, in same measure nice, story of the transformation of a girl in young woman, using the humour as significant ingredient and giving the right end as bridge to the tragedy of the Revolution. an easy film, for teenagers, who remains impressive for the insides , for the art to use the fragments of history, for Kirsten Dunst performance, for the flavours of the life of a princess in different universe and her decisions, so familiar for young women. so,, a beautiful film. the use of different music styles is one of precious arguments.

This movie might upset people who dig in to this movie of historical intentions but that is not what you should look for when you watch this beautifully shot movie. Lance Acord who has worked with Coppola on her debut short "Lick the star" (1998) and her Oscar winning "Lost in translation" (2004) make a beautiful movie together. The costumes, the scenery, the light, the photography - wonderful, mesmerizing. This film is more like visionary poetry than historical. When you watch a Sofia Coppola movie you should now her thin dialogue because she wants the pictures to tell you a story than words. I can't praise this movie enough it's so wonderful and I like how she had silent scenes where you her the sound of nature instead of music and I also like how she used modern music instead of classical music of Antoniettes time which gave the movie a very nice, atmospheric edge to it. Visual poetry is what this movie is all about!

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.