Self indulgently inept to the point of self parody

Rating: 1/10 (28 December 2006)

One of the worst movies of all time. What the hell was Coppola thinking? Her artistic license should be suspended, if not revoked...
So about the film- It's a disaster. From the black credits which metaphorically convey the total absence of virtue to be found in this turkey to the anticlimactic ending (Spoiler: we don't get to see Marie Antoinette put to death, which by the first hour was all I had to look forward to) this thing reeks. Hmm... A period piece in which the sets and costumes look sort of versailles-ish, (including Versailles itself) but the mannerisms, plot, and dialogue (not to mention the atrocious mix of bizarre accents) all seem strangely disjointed in time, space... and meaning. Hmm. There's a sort of New Wave soundtrack and title fonts, apropos of nothing. Hmm. Manolo Blahnik shoes. Hmm. And for all you reviewers who said this film is "beautiful"- You probably think that a cheap grocery store wedding cake is delicious, too. This film is the visual equivalent of that cheap, overly-frosted and -decorated cake: yes, there are plenty of sugary pastel details, but that doesn't make for quality, in film or pastry.
And the performances- Dunst is alright until she moves or, worse yet, speaks. Her finest work is clearly in the tent towards the beginning of the film, during her transition from Austria to France... She does convey the idea that Antoinette was vapid, and if that's what she was shooting for, she succeeds. Schwartzman looks anesthetized through the whole thing, mumbling his few lines with a stunned flatness befitting the dullness of the overall piece, but doing nothing to immerse the viewer in whatever the film was supposed to be about. What's the opposite of chemistry? That's what Dunst and Schwartzman have on screen together. Rip Torn adds a bit of leering lechery, but can't do much to help this floundering flick. The sparkling brilliance and danger of the real Versailles is absent entirely, along with any other vestige of historical reality, intelligence or wit.
This movie might have been interesting if it had been more of a serious period piece or if it had been a surrealistic punk rock romp through an alternate universe of Versailles as dreamed by a dumb, spoiled little American girl, which Coppola, Dunst, et al, might actually have been able to pull off. Instead, it's an awkward, deadly dull and bloated exercise in pure pointless self indulgence in a way that even Versailles itself never was. It simply doesn't work at all.
Technically, it's crap, from the awful cinematography to the wretched editing (many obvious and glaring errors- boom mikes, continuity, etc) all driven by the seeming absence of a script or anything to move the plot (such as it is) along. The awful fake "sunset"- what _was_ up with that? All the scenes seem to take four times longer than they need to, which makes it all the more painful.
This film takes an interesting historical character who lived at an amazingly dynamic time in history, and manages to render person, place, and time deadly dull. It was shot at Versailles, yet plays on screen as flat and claustrophobic rather than opulent and expansive. Politically, we are asked to identify with the symbol of a failed, corrupt monarchy, basically because she's cute and nonthreatening.
Which brings up the one interesting point about this shipwreck: Perhaps in its flatulent excess, this "film" somehow heralds a coming artistic revolution. After this, perhaps the peasants will storm the gates of the major studios, screaming for real creative bread. Or maybe we'll all just post on YouTube and quit wasting our money on studio garbage like this. Perhaps Sophia Coppola, and Kirsten Dunst along with her, will become the new Maries Antoinette of a new revolution in film and in art. Vive la revolution!