SC has no talent and this film is horrible

Rating: 1/10 (23 October 2006)

Let me begin by saying that I did not have high expectations for this film because I feel that S.C. has no talent as an actress (essentially ruined Godfather #3), or as a writer or director (Suicide flick was a waste of time and Lost in Translation sucked. Sure, Bill Murray was funny, but SC can't claim any credit for that. He would be funny at a funeral) So I walked into this film after seeing the Prestige, so I would not have to waste my money.
That being said, this film sucked. Why? Geez, where do I begin? Ms. Dunst walked through the film. she was the same character she was in Crazy / Beautiful. Not that is is Ms. Dunsts' fault. Obviously, that's what SC wanted, but LIFE WAS DIFFERENT back then! You didn't have to be alive then to know that. There are plenty of journals and plays and books that have been written throughout history that give us an indication of how people behaved. If she grew up as royalty, she should have behaved as royalty. Even Princess Diana was slightly rebellious, but she didn't act like a fun-loving slut at the mall! The first 20 minutes of the film can be edited down to 5 minutes. How many times do we need to see them eating and then sitting in bed? The "funny" line about how he will get her pregnant when he returns from his trip "Things will go swimmingly.") was stupid. This was the 1700s. No one associated SWIMMING SPERM with pregnancy back then. They didn't even know what sperm was.
Um .... this film covers 23 years???!!!!! From the time she was 15 until she is 38!!!!!! REALLY? No one ages! No one grows their hair? Nothing changes in 23 years! The directing was terrible. How many times were actors walking in one direction and then there is a camera change and they are walking in the other direction? what was with the SNEAKERS in that shoe scene? NO ONE NOTICED A PAIR OF SNEAKERS????? The cinematography sucked. 1/3 of the scenes were hazy, another 1/3 looked like an Estee Lauder or Palmolive commercial, and another 1/3 were so well lit that I thought they were going to start doing brain surgery! Didn't anyone tell SC that in the 1700s people lived by candle light? HOW ABOUT SOME DARK, MODDY, REAL-LOOKING SCENES? The dialog sucked? I think SC knows she can't write dialog and that is why she kept it to a minimum.
Thecasting sucked. I normally like pretty little sexy blond chicks like KD, but she put no effort into the film at all. Obviously I was not there, but the idea of her character acting so "girly" is really a disgusting way to portray a historic figure, who everyone knows WAS NOT girly! Um .... she cast a Jewish guy to play a FRENCH KING? Oh, the anti-Semitic Europeans will just love that.
simply put, Marie Antoinette was NOT a likable historic figure. She was a spoiled, bratty, self-righteous, obnoxious, self-centered bitch who had no regard for anything or anyone outside of her immediate orbit. That is why they cut her head off. If SC wanted to show that there was more to her than that ... that she was just a dumb-ass girly girl who liked to during champagne and eat pastries than well ... she STILL ScrewEd up this movie because --- there was NO DRAMA, NO SUSPENSE, NO CHARACTER ARC, NO STORY ARC, NO INTERESTING SCENES, NO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT, and on and on and on.
If SC never made a film again it would be of absolutely no loss to the arts whatsoever. She has no skills as a writer or director and does deserve the opportunities she has.
Ms. Copolla, has wasted my time! I want my 2 hours back! she has robbed me of my time and my energy and has insulted me and others. She should go and live in daddy's mansion and watch some movies and learn how to make them. I honestly do not feel she has ever seen a movie before. How in the world can she be so out of touch with what a movie is ... and all it can be.
She screwed up. This film sucked. Please save your time and money and go see something else.