Spring Break
Coppola fails to deliver with historical 'Antoinette'
Jenna Santelli
Issue date: 11/10/06 Section: Diversions
Sophia Coppola's third film, "Marie Antoinette," brings an imaginative and innovative approach to this historical figure. Her approach, however, doesn't quite meet the mark, despite some great acting and creative looks.
Kirsten Dunst ("Spiderman," "The Virgin Suicides") stars as the 14-year-old Austrian princess Marie Antoinette, who is sent off by her family to marry the France dauphin Louis XVI (Jason Schwartzman) in 1768.
Her new life as being a wife and the new princess of France is frustrating. Her husband would rather pay attention to his odd collection of locks, then help her produce an heir to the throne.
After her beginning frustrations, Marie becomes quite content with her new life. After seven years, Louis XVI finally stops obsessing with his collection of locks, and starts obsessing with the primary intention of marriage, which is to produce an heir to the throne. Marie fills her days of "hard work," with fancy clothes, cakes and lots of parties, unaware with what the current population of France thinks of her and her so called "hard work."
If you are remotely interested in history or consider yourself a history buff, this movie might annoy you.
The script, which was based off the book by Antonia Fraser, is weak. The movie deprives viewers of the biggest part of her biography - her execution - surely the climax of the whole movie.
The film is so slow at times. Some parts just drag on, and are redundant. How many times do we have to see wake from her bed only to be greeted by her personal staff? One time should do the trick. Coppola could have cut out some of the slow parts, which would have made the movie flow better.
Granted, even though this movie wasn't one of my personal favorites, there were some beautiful parts to it. Coppola's attention to detail is a gift in itself. The set of the palace, the garden, and each room within the palace was absolutely beautiful. Also her willingness to be stylish paid off as well with a modern and fun soundtrack and creative pink credits.
I am a Kirsten Dunst fan and again she delivered a masterpiece of acting. She took a passive, boring character like Marie and gave her spunk. She brought out Marie's beauty with help from a talented supporting cast as well.
Overall this movie had potential to be historical, creative and still have Coppola's magical touch - too bad it never achieves that greatness. The script is too weak and the movie drags on too much to be considered a masterpiece. I would wait till it comes out on DVD to see. That way you're only spending somewhere around $3 as opposed to the approximately $50 it costs to see it at the theater.
Kirsten Dunst ("Spiderman," "The Virgin Suicides") stars as the 14-year-old Austrian princess Marie Antoinette, who is sent off by her family to marry the France dauphin Louis XVI (Jason Schwartzman) in 1768.
Her new life as being a wife and the new princess of France is frustrating. Her husband would rather pay attention to his odd collection of locks, then help her produce an heir to the throne.
After her beginning frustrations, Marie becomes quite content with her new life. After seven years, Louis XVI finally stops obsessing with his collection of locks, and starts obsessing with the primary intention of marriage, which is to produce an heir to the throne. Marie fills her days of "hard work," with fancy clothes, cakes and lots of parties, unaware with what the current population of France thinks of her and her so called "hard work."
If you are remotely interested in history or consider yourself a history buff, this movie might annoy you.
The script, which was based off the book by Antonia Fraser, is weak. The movie deprives viewers of the biggest part of her biography - her execution - surely the climax of the whole movie.
The film is so slow at times. Some parts just drag on, and are redundant. How many times do we have to see wake from her bed only to be greeted by her personal staff? One time should do the trick. Coppola could have cut out some of the slow parts, which would have made the movie flow better.
Granted, even though this movie wasn't one of my personal favorites, there were some beautiful parts to it. Coppola's attention to detail is a gift in itself. The set of the palace, the garden, and each room within the palace was absolutely beautiful. Also her willingness to be stylish paid off as well with a modern and fun soundtrack and creative pink credits.
I am a Kirsten Dunst fan and again she delivered a masterpiece of acting. She took a passive, boring character like Marie and gave her spunk. She brought out Marie's beauty with help from a talented supporting cast as well.
Overall this movie had potential to be historical, creative and still have Coppola's magical touch - too bad it never achieves that greatness. The script is too weak and the movie drags on too much to be considered a masterpiece. I would wait till it comes out on DVD to see. That way you're only spending somewhere around $3 as opposed to the approximately $50 it costs to see it at the theater.
Note: writers will not reply to comments.
Be the first to comment on this story
Comments by registered users are approved by default.