A brutal disaster of bad writing, bad directing, and bad editing, Marie fails to entertain or even keep one's interest from the first minute on

Rating: 2/10 (30 October 2006)

What happens when you mix a famous actress with a relatively unknown cast? What happens when you mix eighteenth century history with modern elements? What happens when a director screws up the entire film? You get Marie Antoinette. Directed quite dryly by Sopia Coppola, Marie is nothing more than eye candy; a slew of visuals but absolutely no content to back it up. The boredom associated with this two-hour snoozefest can be traced back to the writing which has no dialogue, the director which gives no direction, and well, that is about it. With little material to work with, Dunst and the others couldn't work their acting chops; that is, unless, it takes talent to stare at the camera and eat for several moments.
Marie Antoinette is about the female-turned-queen whose antics were totally unfit for a woman of such high power, and also her wild life led to getting the blame when the country was short on money, and would eventually lead to her unexpected downfall. Along the way, she has trouble getting along with her destined husband, who unexpectedly becomes king. Both of them were expected to have a child right after marriage, but obvious conflicts in personality prevented this from happening for a very long time. From the very beginning, you see Marie getting ready to head to France to live a new life, and basically the film takes you through her entire life at the throne.
Where this film goes wrong, does not happen with the acting or the casting. Kirsten Dunst is one of the main reasons why the Spider-Man movies easily have the best acting in any superhero movie franchise out there, by far. Her bubbly, cute, and charming appearance is then defaced by danger and conflict, revealing a confused, upset, bitter, and soft-shelled Mary Jane. In here, Dunst has absolutely nothing to work with. She has to talk a little (not even with an accent, director's decision), eat a lot, and look at the camera; that is it. With the content presented, Dunst does a good job, but she should have been given more, she should have had a chance to prove herself as an actress. But, Coppola didn't focus on acting at all. If that were the case, then the other people would actually sound French, then the other people would actually talk with emotion attached. The acting was not the problem here.
Poorly written, poorly constructed, poorly edited, and poorly directed; all the major flaws of Marie Antoinette. It takes more than an hour for Marie and her husband, Louis XVI, to have any sort of romantic connection, but then it takes less than ten minutes for four years and three children to pass by. The pacing is practically awful, its too slow most of the time and then way too fast when it doesn't need to be. Repetitive shots of Marie waking up in the morning and repetitive shots of Marie and Louis eating in front of their servants doesn't exactly help the pacing either.
Where is the dialogue? People can actually watch the first half hour with their ears covered and not actually have to miss important tidbits of conversation. More or less, it's because there is about one or two conversations in the entire first act! What seems to be the focus is the costumes, the scenery, the landscape surrounding the lifeless cast of characters with nothing to say. But, then we have modern music being blasted amongst the fancy and sophisticated cinematography.
The reason for modern things being added to eighteenth century France? No idea. It's not proving a point, it doesn't enhance the experience, and it really doesn't help the movie in the least bit. With many things featured in the movie that at the time the film is taking place doesn't even exist yet (special fireworks, champagne bottles). With the direction being a mess, the viewer has absolutely no idea as to whether or not we are supposed to sympathize with Marie. On one hand, she looks like she's heartbroken; yet on several moments she is seen partying, having fun, and then cheating on her husband.
On another moment, it looks as if she is being unfairly blamed for the economic troubles of France. Yet there is much more footage of her spending too much money and not enough footage of the French leaders discussing the American Revolution, the actual reason behind the demise in economic status in the grief-stricken country. Coopla can find a good shot of flowers, but for the life in her cannot figure out where to go with this motion picture. Then, like Marie's life, the movie ends abruptly, in a most awkward and frustrating manner.
Bottom Line: This is a royal mess. With no dialogue, lack of direction, lack of decent editing, too much running time, and no willingness to make this movie even remotely resembling the time period, Marie Antoinette is bad enough to make historians throw up watching it, and it's bad enough to make even the most awake of viewers fall asleep. It must have been a lot more fun filming it than watching it. Dunst and the acting cast is not to blame, everyone else is. While classical/modern mixing is a tough genre (done well by "A Knight's Tale") Coppola had it wrong from the get go, to the very end.