The Austrian archduchess Marie Antoinette (Norma Shearer) is seen being married off by her mother Maria Theresa (Alma Kruger), the Empress of Austria, to the immature dauphin Louis (Robert Morley) grandson of France's king Louis XV (John Barrymore).

She is soon disillusioned at her first meeting with the timid, uninspiring Louis who proves to be an inattentive husband, frigid in his relations with his young beautiful wife... Louis lacks self-confidence and is completely dominated by his grandfather, King Louis XV... He also is ridiculed by his cunning cousin, the Duke of Orléans (Joseph Schildkraut) and the king's mistress, Madame Du Barry (Gladys George).

On her wedding night, Marie Antoinette is left confused and tearful by Louis, who admits he is incapable of being a husband... She soon becomes a hopeless forsaken figure at Versailles...

Denied the love of a husband and the counsel of trusted friends, Marie Antoinette becomes a pawn in the hands of the dishonest Duke of Orléans - cousin of Louis - who plays her against Du Barry: "Conquer Paris", he said, "and you will conquer Madame Du Barry."

Left into the companionship of a small circle of frivolous court favorites, Marie Antoinette becomes the most lavishly dressed woman in France, losing fortunes at the gambling tables... There she meets a Swedish nobleman with whom she falls in love, the attractive Count Axel de Fersen (Tyrone Power).

When the alliance with Austria is threatened, Marie Antoinette is persuaded by Count de Mercey (Henry Stephenson), her mother's clever ambassador, to give a ball at which she can in public recognize Madame Du Barry... Instead, her insulting manner toward the mistress of the king enrages Louis XV who informs her that he is annulling her marriage and he is sending her back to Austria...

Marie Antoinette goes to the Count de Mercey for help, where she meets there Axel de Fersen who reaffirm his love for her...

The sudden death of Louis XV places her husband on the throne and Marie Antoinette finds herself Queen of France... Fersen, realizing that he could not dare to love a queen, leaves her that night and sails for America...

Marie Antoinette, determined to become a good queen bears a son and a daughter... The king (a loving father) had not sufficient strength of character or power of decision to combat the influence of court factions...

Marie Antoinette's close associations with the more dissipated members of the court aristocracy prompted her enemies to circulate false and insulting reports of her alleged extramarital affairs... These vilifications culminated in the 'Affair of Diamond Necklace' in which the queen was unjustly accused...

Duke of Orléans plots against the throne and becomes a leader in the Revolution... As a result, Marie Antoinette becomes the main target of the popular agitators, and the royal family hostages of the Revolutionary movement...

Count Fersen, hearing of Marie Antoinette's danger, goes to her and arranges an escape from Paris...

Norma Shearer, billed by M.G.M as "The First Lady of the Screen" receives her sixth Oscar nomination for her performance... She plays with dignity the title role of Marie Antoinette, the unfortunate French queen sank to the deepness of cell, tumbrel and guillotine...

Tyrone Power is convincing as the Swedish nobleman who gave the ill-fated monarch romantic surcease...

Robert Morley makes a memorable film debut, playing the feeble-minded Louis XVI - a role that earned him an Academy Award nomination...

John Barrymore plays King Louis XV and in flashing traces of his old sardonic glee, he says: "The state will last my time. After me the deluge!"

Norma Shearer "come-back" picture, is an elaborate costume masterpiece, glamorized in satin wardrobes, elaborate costumes, elegant huge sets... It traces the life of the Austrian princess who becomes queen of France covering her romantic attachment for the Swedish Count Axel de Fersen...


Adrian went all out for this lavish, gorgeous production of "Marie Antoinette" starring Norma Shearer, who is never more beautiful or glamorous than in this epic biography. This Marie is quite the heroine, a woman of the people, generous to a fault, and never says, "Let them eat cake," and would only have said it in reference to her children. History tells us that Marie's downfall was really the "Affair of the Necklace," and she was no different from other aristocrats in being totally out of touch with what was going on with the French people.

This film is jaw dropping in its splendor. Adrian's costumes are totally magnificent, as are the palace settings. Tyrone Power is drop-dead gorgeous as Marie's Swedish lover, who comes to her aid in her time of need. Power was the inspiration for Barbara Cartland to say, when asked how she could write so convincingly about sex while she was a still a virgin, "We didn't need sex. We had Tyrone Power." The rest of the cast is fantastic, including Robert Morley, John Barrymore, Joseph Schildkraut, and Gladys George. As for Norma, she does a great job, giving a vivid, if movie star, performance in one of her last films. The last scenes are very touching and beautifully done.

I had no expectations for this film and as a rule am not crazy about period pieces, but this one swept me away. It does follow history quite closely - for those who commented that the Tyrone Power character was fictional, he was not, and he did try to help her.

Don't miss this one.

**A funny Marie Antionette anecdote: The studio wanted Shearer to use their contract star, Robert Taylor, but Shearer got a look at Power at a dinner, invited him to be part of the film, and got her way. During their first kiss, she held on so long the kiss had to be edited down. Power apparently did not return her affections. She became angry. At a photo shoot, she appeared with gigantic plumes that hid him as he posed behind her and the plumes shot up. The photographer gave Power a box to stand on. As the photographer activated the flash, Power crashed through the box and hit the floor. Though he escorted Shearer to the premier, he snuck out to see his soon to be wife, Annabella.


At the time, only MGM could bring forth this overproduced, lavish drama detailing the rise and fall of Marie Antoinette and her husband Louis XVI of France. Their preference for elaborate sets and ornate costumes made this story a natural for the studio to give it all their best and bring that dazzling, rococo period to life. The casting of Norma Shearer in the title role -- one of the perks of being married to Irving Thalberg who had had this movie in production for more than a year before its release in 1938 and was in many ways the person above Louie B. Mayer -- is a bit of an irony since she at the time was considered the Queen of MGM, now its Widow, at the height and end of her acting career. Never allowing her Adrian costumes to out-wear her, her rendition of Marie-Antoinette is moving, convincing as a girl about to be married, who evolves into a woman aware of her position as Queen of France but is a little out-of-touch, and who later becomes one of the many victims who lost their heads under the guillotine's deadly blade. One of her finer performances, she was Oscar nominated but lost to Bette Davis who won for JEZEBEL. Robert Morley, a character actor who made his film debut in MARIE ANTOINETTE and went on to appear in many films until the 80s, is also dead-on as the awkward Louis XVI and was also nominated for his supporting role but lost to Walter Brennan for KENTUCKY.


I just saw this on Turner Classic Movies (TCM), and from now on, Norma Shearer is the face I will put on Marie Antoinette. Such great acting from such a beautiful woman who truly embodied the role.

These days, it seems that every big movie has to have some cursing, nudity, sexual references of every kind or strong violence, but this old film is better than many of the latest, and it's in black and white, no nudity, or anything else that we have come to expect from movies.

For instance, if this film were made today, we would expect to see the beheading. This film doesn't show it, so it doesn't leave you with the shock or awe of seeing a beheading, but it does leave the cruelty of the situation which is much more enduring and meaningful to the tragedy.

Whether this is historically accurate wasn't a concern with me since all I really remembered from school was that she was beheaded, so this shouldn't be a spoiler. But the story was engrossing and very enjoyable regardless of whether it was historically accurate. Indeed, if anything, it may inspire personal research as to what Marie Antoinette was really like.

Full stars because this film truly is an excellent film and should be watched. I'm really liking some of these old great movies for some of the reasons already stated. Take away color, special effects, gratuitous violence and nudity, and you're pretty much left with having to make a movie with great photography, acting, and writing. Take the cream of that crop, and you're pretty much guaranteed an enjoyable experience.

Forgive me, I just recently became willing to pay for cable TV, and I'm really starting to dig these classics that I would probably never have seen otherwise. It's like finding hidden treasure in a way!


Often said, and, for better or for worse, just as often true: "Marie Antoinette" is one of THE definitive examples of an MGM prestige picture, 1930s style. Years in planning and preproduction, "Marie Antoinette" was Norma Shearer's first film after Irving Thalberg's death: little expense was spared in making the "First Lady of MGM"'s return to the screen a royal one in every sense.

Technically superb, the film suffers from erratic pacing and a patchwork script. But the supporting cast alone almost compensates for these deficiencies: Robert Morley side-stepping caricature to make Louis XVI touchingly human; John Barrymore and Gladys George contributing brilliant, razor-sharp vignettes as Louis XV and Madame du Barry (indeed, the confrontation between Marie Antoinette and du Barry is one of the film's highlights); and Joseph Schildkraut redefining the term "oily" as the scheming Duke of Orleans. Only Tyrone Power (borrowed from 20th Century-Fox) comes off less well; this, perhaps is due more to an ill-conceived role in the script than to a lack of acting ability as such.

But it is, first and foremost, Shearer's film and she is superb. From the young, light-hearted Austrian Archduchess to the fun-loving, lightheaded Queen to the prematurely aged but proud and defiant widow on her way to the guillotine, Shearer is in full command, giving a splendid display of her artistry (including, in the prison scenes, an outstanding example of silent film technique): it is her finest mature dramatic performance.

Carps, quibbles, and differences of opinion? Yes, every film lover has them, if only out of love for the medium or a specific film. But after viewing a film such as "Marie Antoinette," it can with utmost conviction be stated, "They DON'T make them that way anymore."


MGM's lavishly budgeted look at the French Revolution during the reign of King Louis and his famously selfish MARIE ANTOINETTE spares no expense in detailing the grim background of court conspiracies and the people's unrest that led to their downfall.

Too bad none of this eye-popping splendor wasn't captured in Technicolor, as originally planned--but with a budget well over 1.5 million it was decided to film it in glorious B&W. No matter, it's still a spectacle for sore eyes.

There can be no doubt about NORMA SHEARER's triumph in the title role nor is any of the acting in the large cast below standard. ROBERT MORLEY as the weak and indecisive Louis is immensely touching and effective as he realizes the gravity of their predicament. JOHN BARRYMORE is fine and Joseph SCHILDKRAUT is wonderful as an aristocratic fop. TYRONE POWER lends his romantic presence to a role that requires little more than his good looks. He and Shearer make a physically appealing romantic team.

It's interesting that Irving Thalberg died before production began on the film. One wonders whether his influence on it might have made it an even stronger production. There are definite lulls in the telling but it builds dramatically to all of the final scenes. It's the kind of film that leads one to read more about the actual events and that's always a good thing.

Summing up: Sumptuously produced, well acted and well directed--what more could you want for an interesting glimpse of a life of royalty among a time of social upheaval? Shearer's triumphant return to the screen after a two-hear absence.


Norma Shearer's turn as Marie Antoinette, the tragic 18th-century queen of France, will always stand out as one of the lushest of MGM's 1930s lush budget productions, and for that reason alone is always worth a look--and a very enjoyable look it is. Forget that the costume designs are more than a bit over the top, even for the Versailles of Marie Antoinette's day. Forget Shearer's uneven acting, which as in all her films veers from the truly affecting to the annoyingly melodramatic (e.g., her stagey, even hokey body language in the night meeting with Tyrone Power in the garden just after she becomes queen, when he makes her understand they must not see each other again). Just enjoy the experience of what Hollywood figured they could pass off as history in the 1930s and expect a worldwide audience to accept as history.

The film fails as history for two major reasons. First, it is based on a groundbreaking biography of the queen by Stefan Zweig, an Austrian novelist who was a close friend of Freud and was deeply influenced by psychoanalytic thought. Zweig's book created and popularized the view of Marie Antoinette's sex life that remained current for decades--that Louis XVI was unable to consummate his marriage with her for more than 7 years, and had to have minor surgery before he could seal the deal. Zweig's predictable view was that sexual frustration explained Marie Antoinette's notorious frivolity and spendthrift ways. We know today that Zweig fabricated his tale only by suppressing valuable evidence that would have weakened his theory, and giving undeserved prominence to other material that let him paint the kind of picture he wanted to create. Recent historians (and Zweig was not an historian) looked at the evidence Zweig omitted and proved conclusively that Louis XVI was not impotent and never had the surgery Zweig claimed was necessary. Louis was a lousy lover, true, and it did take some years before he got down to serious boudoir athletics, but Zweig's thesis has been thoroughly wrecked.

In the 1930s when Zweig's book was new and influential, MGM could base a movie on it but couldn't openly portray the sexual issues at the heart of Zweig's account. Screenwriters had to dance around Louis' bedroom limitations and had to find a way to imply that the queen and Count Axel Fersen (Tyrone Power) were not lovers as Zweig implied they were. Thus the film's version, that the noble Fersen gently but firmly told the enamoured queen that they could no longer see each other. In fact, Fersen was at Versailles on and off throughout Louis XVI's reign; it was rumored that he fathered the queen's second son, born in 1785 exactly 9 months after one of Fersen's visits. But Louis accepted the child as his, so he must have been visiting the queen's bedroom at the right time. There's no proof Fersen ever paid the queen that kind of visit.

The second major flaw in the film's historicity is that Shearer would not play Marie Antoinette as a featherbrained, shop-til-you-drop type, which would be nearer the truth than the noble character Shearer gives us. It's unlikely that Marie's sex life was as active as some writers want us to believe, but she could spend up a storm when she put her mind to it. Shearer preferred to act a queen seriously devoted to the welfare of France and the French people, a writer of Louis' speeches and a woman who labored relentlessly to improve her subjects'lot. The resulting queen bears no resemblance to the real deal. Attractive, charming, stylish, generous to a fault, yes; a skilled and dedicated politician, no.

The film's hold on history is thus slender. In 1938 Hollywood could not acknowledge that the real dupe in the Affair of the Necklace was a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church; here the fool appears as the duke de Rohan, a relative of the cardinal. Mozart's famous "Don Giovanni" minuet is played at the ball during which Marie Antoinette insults Louis XV's mistress, Mme du Barry. In the film's chronology the ball immediately precedes Louis XV's illness and death in 1774; Mozart wrote "Don Giovanni" in 1787. The film compresses the ball and Louis XV's death into 24 hours, but Louis XV's last illness lasted 2 weeks. Marie Antoinette never openly insulted du Barry as shown here, nor was there ever a formal decision to annul Marie's marriage. The royal family's return to Paris after their foiled escape attempt is here followed immediately by Mme de Lamballe's murder. The attempted escape was in June 1791; Lamballe, who was not with the royal party during the attempt, was killed in the September Massacres of 1792.

So enjoy this splendid piece of film purely as spectacle--a testament to Hollywood's world view in a bleak decade. Entertainment it truly is, and not at all bad. As history, it's bunk.


I was delighted to see this at the rental store because I absolutely adore Norma Shearer and had yet to see this piece of work. Overall it was very nice, with extravagant costumes (This must have been high up on Liberace's top 100 list), good acting, and fantastic directing. The only thing I have a major problem with is the fact that the director tried to cram in too much of her life into the span of only 2 and a half hours. You first start the movie with Marie Antoinette finding out she is to be married to Louis the XVI, then during the film so much goes on that you sort of have a hard time keeping up with how much time has past in her life, until finally you get to the crucial part in the film where her and her husband are to be executed. I don't know much about her life so I honestly have no idea how much they left out, but as a regular film watcher, I found this piece to be just wonderful. Norma Shearer did such a great job near the end, when she was about to be beheaded. When Count Axel de Fersen comes down the stairs into her dungeon to bid her a final fairwell, you really get the feeling that she is just completely drained with all emotion by the simple look in her eyes. I must admit to shedding some tears during that scene. Another highly recommended film. 8/10


10. The script

Uncredited as a scriptwriter is novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald. His love scenes are extremely elaborate and exquisitely structured. They also introduce innovations that have since become clichés and the hallmark of 'women pictures' everywhere.

9. The actors

Barrymore is unforgettable as the regally cranky Louis XV. Morley gives one of his best interpretations. Schildkraut plays the best two-faced villain of his entire body of work. As for Power... remember the anecdote about the reporter asking romance-writer Barbara Cartland (Lady Di's stepmother) how she could possibly have written so many romance novels before she was even married and while she was still a virgin? Her answer was: 'Oh! We didn't have sex in those days. We had Tyrone Power.'

8. The director

Van Dyke was an expert at handling large crowds and acts of God. His directing style was a compromise between time-efficiency and giving the stars leeway as long as they respected the general style of the piece. This 'honour system' seems to have encouraged the actors to do their homework and present a credible, coherent performance every time. He also got an assist here from uncredited French genius Julien Duvivier.

7. Artistic direction

What can you say about a period film that tackled the challenge of recreating Versailles in the XVIIIth century on the MGM back lot? The production values are staggering. The Gallery of Mirrors is actually longer, higher and wider than the original. The costumes tread a fine line between historical accuracy (covered shoulders and revealed cleavage) and the requirements of the movie code (exposed shoulders were tolerated but bosoms had to be covered) but still manage to convey the era and the fairy-tale quality of Marie's court. The costumes were also specially constructed to shine, glitter and shimmer on black and white film.

6. Historical accuracy

The film's script is based (in part) on Stefan Zweig's groundbreaking biography of the Queen, "Marie Antoinette, Portrait of an Ordinary Woman", which tried to create the first accurate, adult, factual but Freudian-inspired narrative of the Queen's life by using documents and correspondence that had long been overlooked or suppressed. The book was the first to reveal Louis XVI's mechanical sexual problems, which prevented his consummating the marriage during its first seven years (until a slight surgical intervention) and explained in turn the Queen's extravagant spendthrift personality, in Freudian terms, as extreme sexual frustration. This story actually makes it to the screen in a large degree. Compare this to recent biopics like "A Beautiful Mind", whose scriptwriters conveniently 'forget' essential but non-mainstream plot elements like the fact that John Nash's paranoia may have been caused or amplified by the McCarthy era persecution of homosexuals. Some historical events have been telescoped into one another in order to accommodate the general American public's limited understanding of French history and the Orléans character was used to maintain tension by representing the turncoat part of the nobility which exploited MA for their own various agendas.

5. The music

Herbert Stothart may not be a household word but he did win an Oscar for his original score to "The Wizard of Oz", based, of course in part on Harold Arlen's melodies. Besides giving Miss Gulch/the Wicked Witch her immortal theme, he is also one half of the composing team that produced the operetta "Rose Marie". Stothart shines in two respects: the approximate recreation of XVIIIth century dance music in the court scenes, emphasizing the bored grandeur of the proceedings, and the psychological music that accompanies everything from exciting chase scenes to the love scenes between Shearer and Tyrone. Note especially the use of the harpsichord in a rupture scene between Orléans and MA and the use of the viola d'amour in the garden love scene.

4. The cinematography

MA is in 'glorious black and white', but especially in the escape to Varennes sequence which has the most credible - and suspenseful - 'day for night' sequence ever filmed. The marriage scene may have inspired Queen Elizabeth II's coronation. Also notable are the matte paintings, the overwhelming use of cranes to move in on particular characters in a crowd scene and the chiaroscuro of the last meeting with Fersen.

3. Detail and scope

Every scene has something special added to it in characterization, movement, rhythm, lighting, art direction, choreography (and not just in the dance scenes). The costumes could have starred in a picture by themselves.

2. The lost art of story-telling

This film was planned with intelligence and skill and was built around the principle stated by Selznick when filming GWTW: 'The secret of adapting a book to the screen is to give the impression that you are adapting a book to the screen.' Which means that many literary devices are used to give the story many interesting arcs and recurring themes. The story is well balanced in terms of spectacular action, recreation of important historical events (giving the impression of the passage of time) and intimate scenes. It is truly 'the intimate epic' that Mankiewicz's 'Cleopatra' was supposed to be. Need I add I am really dreading the Sofia Coppola version...

1. Norma Shearer

Norma Shearer is an unjustly forgotten star of the first magnitude. MA is permanent testament to her uncanny abilities. In this film she portrays the main character from the age of sixteen to her death as a prematurely aged and debilitated woman of 38, all with perfect verisimilitude, thanks to her magnificent vocal instrument and stage presence. As a fairy-queen, she makes Cate Blanchett as Galadriel (in LOTR) look like Carol Burnett's charwoman. Her virtuosity as the fated widowed Queen is all the more poignant when one realizes that at the time she was Thalberg's widow in her last husband-approved venture and that the Hollywood suits were rapidly closing in on her.


Although the story of Marie Antoinette starts when Marie was a teenager, unlike in her Romeo and Juliet, Norma Shearer ages in this part. If she's not quite convincing as a teenager, Shearer more than makes up for it as the character of the luckless Queen of France ages into wife, mother and royalty.

Norma was the dowager queen herself of the MGM lot by dint of her marriage and widowhood to the late chief of production Irving Thalberg. She got the first call on properties at MGM with the exception of Greta Garbo.

The only problem with Marie Antoinette was the choice of a leading man. The story is such that her husband Louis XVI does not cut a romantic figure so none of the available leads at MGM would or could be considered for the part. Her great romantic love before she settled down into domesticity was Count Axel Fersen, the Swedish Ambassador and his screen time is probably not even 40 minutes. So Louis B. Mayer and Darryl Zanuck worked out a deal. MGM got the services of Tyrone Power who was Zanuck's number one male star at Fox. It was Power's last film outside of Fox until 1952's Mississippi Gambler.

But without a doubt the best performance in the film is that of Robert Morley as the shy and bumbling Louis XVI. The adage at least taught in American schools was that if Louis XVI had been a king, he'd have stayed a king. One of the great ironies of history is that Louis XVI was the last thing from a tyrant you could be. If family inheritance didn't force the issue, he would have preferred being a clockmaker. And about matters of sex, he was at best ill informed. Morley brings out the whole range of Louis's personality and makes the audience really care about the tragedy befalling his family.

Other performances of note are Joseph Schildkraut as the scheming Duke of Orleans who was not the prime mover of the events that took place as this film makes him to be. Also Gladys George as Madame Dubarry, the last favorite of Louis XV. What this film does not cover is what happens to Dubarry after Louis XV dies and Louis XVI takes the throne. She meets ironically the same end as Marie Antoinette although with hardly as much dignity.

This was the final large scale film of John Barrymore who plays Louis XV who arranges the marriage of the ruling houses of France and Austria in alliance. Hereafter Barrymore left the big studio of MGM for smaller studios, taking roles in films well beneath his abilities, but due to dissipation, all he could handle. Still he cuts a fine figure here as Louis XV, who aptly prophesied, apres moi l'deluge.

If it ain't good history, Marie Antoinette is great entertainment.


I first saw this excellent and powerful story on television sometime in the late 50's or early 60's, and had not seen it since until I caught it on television more than 40 years later. The powerful impression the story made on me had not dimmed with the passage of time. Norma Shearer, who here was toward the end of her career, puts in a topnotch performance as the doomed, conflicted dauphine and queen, which serves as the core of the film. Robert Morley gives us a superb portrayal of the dim and well-meaning but hopelessly incompetent Louis XVI. Joseph Schildkraut's portrayal of d'Orleans is a classic study in unctuous treachery. John Barrymore shines in his short appearances as the dauphin's father. The weakest major part, for my money, is Tyrone Power, whose box office appeal as far as I can see seems to have been rooted more in sex appeal than in acting ability. Not being sufficiently versed in the actual history I suspect the relation between Marie and Powers' Count Axel was blown up or perhaps even invented for drawing power, and indeed I find the film's weakest parts the rather purple moments between the two which do seem to encroach into the realm of melodrama. However, the powerful closing scene of Marie - prematurely old and broken - ascending the gibbet with memories of her girlish fancies ("Think of it! I shall be Queen of France!") is one of the great moments of cinema. Altogether a rich, sumptuous and multifacted portrayal of a tragic story which does pretty well by the historical reality.


The tragic figure of Marie Antoinette, an Austrian princess who married Louis XVI of France, has been the subject of many books and two films. This 1938 version was the brain child of Irving Thalberg, a man who was well connected in Hollywood. This project which took a while to go into production, was a vehicle for his wife, the reigning queen of MGM, Norma Shearer.

Marie Antoinette was the daughter of Maria Theresa, the empress of Austria, a woman who understood the role of power. The empress married her daughters in what she believed would be advantageous as she forged strategic alliances with other royal houses in Europe. Her daughter Marie Antoinette, like some of her sisters, married men that were not compatible with them, as proved by her union with the inept Louis XVI, a man that was childish and inefficient. A few years after the marriage both Louis and Marie Antoinette would be taken care by the popular justice of the French Revolution.

Before her horrible end, Marie Antoinette was the object of envy and disdain by the sophisticates of the French courtiers who saw in her a naive girl. Marie Antoinette became the object of gossip. Her attraction for Count Axel DeFersen was natural since she had no love for her own husband. Her notorious rivalry with her father in law's mistress, the calculating Madame DuBarry, didn't help things either. In spite of all that she found a kindred soul in the Duc D'Orleans, who saw in her a girl lost among the wolves of Versailles.

Norma Shearer, who returned to MGM after her husband's death, made a good impression as Marie Antoinette. Her take on the doomed queen seemed to be what was expected of her. Tyrone Power, as Count Axel projects his handsome presence; it's clear to see what the tragic queen saw in him. Robert Morley, who plays Louis XVI made quite an excellent contribution to the film. John Barrymore as Louis XV, is a welcome presence. Joseph Schildkraut appears as the Duc D'Orleans, and Gladys George plays Mme. DuBarry. Others in the talented cast include Henry Stephenson, Alma Kruger, Albert Dekker, and many others that were uncredited for their efforts.

The production owes big to Cedric Gibbons, the art director. His interiors of Versailles are stunning. For a black and white film, Mr. Gibbons' interiors look and feel like the real thing. The cinematography of William Daniels, a man with a great eye for what worked in the cinema, captures the action in his unrivaled style. The background music of Gluck plays well with what one sees. Donald Ogden Stewart's screen play does justice to his subject. W. S. Van Dyke directed with an eye for the spectacle he delivers in this picture.


Fairly accurate Historical Drama of the life of Marie Antoinette from when she left Austria (age 15 in 1770) to marry the Dauphin of France through her demise via guillotine (1793) in the chaos of the French Revolution. The beautiful Arch Dutchess, Princess of the house of Hapsburg, daughter of Empress Marie Theresa, Queen of Austria and Hungry & Francis 1, Holy Roman Emperor, foresees a glorious future with her marriage to the dauphin of France. Marie envisions palaces, magnificent jewels, breathing taking gowns & servants. All she dreams of comes true only for it to be swept away during the Reign of Terror. Norma Shearer brings her graceful elegance to the role of the Queen in this epic production, which is as vast & luxurious as the era it portrays.

Thousands of yards of satin & lace, a then gigantic 1.8 dollar million budget plus hundreds of extras made this movie one of the most opulent epic's of the 30's & shall forever shine as one of the most glamorous ever made.

Norma Shearer's nomination for an Academy Award was well deserved but, unfortunately she was up against another actress in equally powerful role & the award went to Bette Davis in Jezebel & though I love the movie Jezebel I wished Norma Shearer had won.

Shearer's very powerful role was a great challenge which she met with great skill. Her delightful performance makes this a film to be cherished as we see her as a giddy youth while she enjoys being the dauphine, flirtatious nature with Count Fersen, loving queen to Louis XVI, anxious escapee during Flight to Varennes, horrified spouse when she learns of her husbands fate, terrified parent when her child is taken from her & dignified condemned prisoner as she rides in the cart & up the stairs to die are all moments is this wonderful movie than begin when the movie begins & wont ever end in your mind. Truly a magnificent actress in her most glorious role which she brought to life as if she herself lived the part, and who knows, perhaps she did. It's interesting to note that the leading actors/actresses within this movie bear a strong resemblance to the people they portray. In reality Fersen was fair haired, but the facial resemblance is uncanny to say the least. No doubt MGM's way of making the movie more realistic. Definitely among my 10 favorite movies of all time.


A wonderfully done historical biography of the Austrian girl who eventually became the ill-fated queen of France during the French Revolution. Elegant, lavish production that spares no expense in flamboyant period costumes and majestic sets.

Norma Shearer is magnificent in her portrayal of Marie from age 14, when she was betrothed to the future Louis XVI, through their awkward marriage, and the years of their monarchy, culminating with their tragic destiny. Shearer's Marie is a sympathetic character, a victim of her circumstances. She is not the self-indulgent Marie with a taste for extravagance, and a patronizing attitude towards the people. She doesn't utter the phrase often attributed to her, "Let them eat cake." Instead, she is the victim of Court politics and intrigue designed to falsely implicate her as an insensitive, distant, and selfish monster.

Robert Morley is perfect in his role as the inept king who ascends to the throne at an early age, and probably lacked the smarts and the intestinal fortitude to perform the duties of a monarch no matter what age he had become king. Even though history paints him as inept and weak, the movie gives a heart to this unfortunate man (as it does for Marie) that evokes compassion and understanding. Although Marie's lover only existed in the tongue of gossip, the sequences with Tyrone Power added a passionate romantic flavor to the story, a definite plus with its dramatic contrast to the understated Marie/Louis relationship.

The story of the downfall of these two is intelligently and logically constructed with a fine script, an enthusiastic cast that all shine in their roles, and an uncommonly well scripted dramatization. Avoid the ridiculous new version with its out of place '80's music and woefully anachronistic depiction of the French queen as a partying Valley girl. See this version instead.


One hundred and fifty-seven minutes of lavish romance, intrigue, and politics, dished up by MGM's superb spectacle factory. There's an "entre act" and everything.

The problem, for me anyway, is that the thing is so exquisitely dull. The first half -- before the entre act, that is -- is a kind of late 18th-century soap opera. Norma Shearer is the young Austrian bride of the future king of France, Louis XVI, played by Robert Morley as impotent and inept but not unkind. When Shearer learns of this arranged marriage, she positively kvells. "Oh, just think of it! I'll be the Queen of France!" Things don't turn out all that well for her, though. (Do they ever, in these genre movies?) She's resented as a foreigner and barbarian at the French court, especially by the waspish Madame DuBarry, the consort of Morley's grandfather, the current king. Such gossip you never heard. And then there's Morley's apparent indifference to her. ("I like to be alone.") What's a girl to do? She drowns her sorrows in wine and flings with lovers in seriatim. This is nice work, if you can get it. You get to indulge yourself in every sensory modality known to man or beast -- AND you get the sympathy of the audience too, because they know you're just being flighty out of a desperate loneliness.

The second half turns a little darker, but then, as they say, it's always darkest just before it turns completely black. By this time Morley has come around enough to give Shearer two children, from whom she is of course eventually separated, giving the audience a reason for still more tears. Let's see. I checked the spoiler box so I guess I can give away the ending: Marie Antoinette gets her head lopped off.

Kids, I hope I didn't ruin it for you but, see, this is the French Revolution and revolutionaries tend not to be very kind. All through history, it seems that some merciless dictator, like a king, mistreats his subjects until they depose him. Then they show that, unlike him, they are full of New-Testatment-mercy by slaughtering the deposed ruler, his family, and anybody who was ever associated with him. (Fidel Castro worked his way down to mailmen.) At that, the peasants are treated in this movie with the contempt the writers think they deserve. What an uncouth bunch! Shearer explains the unrest to her children this way: We didn't do anything, but they're ignorant and unhappy and must take it out on somebody. In this movie, nobody ever says "Let 'em eat cake." Most of the cast overact, but this is understandable because it's common to the period. I don't know what "charisma" is supposed to mean these days. It was originally used to describe the quality of someone who was blessed by God and exuded a magnetism that was religious in its properties. Now, the word is slung around loosely to describe rock stars. Whatever it is, and however it's measured, I don't think Norma Shearer has any. Joseph Schildkraut, effete and painted like a mannequin, gives the best performance. Robert Morley seems to have only one note on his instrument. In a relatively minor role as Shearer's one true love, Tyrone Power has a part that is familiar to devotees of these kinds of movies. The woman is haunted by demons, surrounded by knaves, impostors, ninnies, and exploiters -- and this is the only man who will return from time to time to rescue her from some folly or to reassure her with his understanding and candor. (Cf., Paul Newman in "I'll Cry Tomorrow" or Sam Shepherd in "Frances".) This must have been an eye opener in 1938. Today it seems stale and bound by conventions common to genre films. Anyone who wants a more balanced and adult point of view should see Ronald Coleman in "A Tale of Two Cities." It would be a far, far better thing to do. It will jerk almost as many tears but it will challenge you too.


During the last week, I saw two movies with the same title that both focus on the life of the last Queen of France, Marie-Antoinette (1755-1793). Both films start when Marie is 15 and she leaves her beloved Vienna to marry the future Luis XVI, the Dauphine of France, one year her senior. Unlike the Coppola picture, W.S. Van Dyke's 1938 film, takes the royal couple through their imprisonment and all the way to the guillotine. The final chapter of Marie Antoinette's life from July 1789 until her execution in 1793 is filled with losses, falls, and deepest tragedy. We witness an unsuccessful attempt of Royal family to leave the country that brought both, the King and the Queen to the trial for treason; execution of her husband on the guillotine, separation from her son who was taken from her on the very day of Louis XVI's death, brought to court to testify against her, and died in captivity when he was 12 years old. She herself was accused among the other things in sexual abuse of her son. To this horrible accusation, the former queen, "the Widow Capet" or simply "Antoinette Capet" replied with the genuine royal dignity, "If I have not replied it is because Nature itself refuses to respond to such a charge laid against a mother..."

I did not like Sophia Coppola's boring horror in pink but I truly enjoyed the older film which was released on DVD for the first time on October 10, 2006. The movie made almost 70 years ago has everything right. With 157 minutes of the run time, it moves and breezes freely. It is lavish, staggering grandeur that perfectly represents the golden days of Hollywood and I am sure it still will attract and amaze the viewers many years from now. There are multiple reasons for it. One of them is the intelligent script based on the famous biography by Stefan Zweig, "Marie Antoinette: The Portrait of an Average Woman" which focuses on the human emotions of the ordinary people who happened to live and die during the extraordinary times. The love scenes between Marie Antoinette (Norman Shearer) and the Swedish count Axel de Fensen (Tyrone Power -just imagine the young Alain Delon but more passionate) are exquisite and emotional without being overtly sentimental. Acting also must be mentioned. Everybody shines in the film starting with powerful and extravagant Louis XV (John Barrimor) to whom belongs the famous phrase, "After me, the deluge." It turned out to be prophetic. Louis XVI (Robert Morley in his film debut practically stole the show and earned the nomination for the Best Supporting Actor), the grandson of Louis XV, was swept away in the French Revolution--even though he himself was relatively modest, unassuming, and moral. Louis XVI as played by Robert Morley would've made an excellent locksmith. He would've been an obedient and loyal citizen and perhaps a happy father of the family somewhere in the quiet province. Instead, he had became the King of France who would end his days on the guillotine. Joseph Schildkraut is marvelous as the snake-like intriguing Philippe Joseph II, Duke of Orléans who had changed his name to Citoyen Philippe Égalité, supported the French Revolution, voted on the National Assembly for the death of the king but was nonetheless guillotined during the Reign of Terror very soon after Louis XVI. Norma Shearer is very convincing playing a naïve average young woman in a beginning of the movie and she makes you forget that she was 20 years older than Antoinette in the first scenes. As her character matures and changes, her performance changes, too, becoming heartbreaking and very touching in the last scenes. The "Last Supper" scene is simply unforgettable with both Morley and Shearer on the peak of their abilities.

I can go on for long time praising a competent directing, masterfully created set and decorations, attention to the small details, moving and believable intimate scenes and historical accuracy  any way you look at it, "Marie Antoinette" (1938) is a triumph of film-making and I highly recommend it.


No movie could ever do more to personify the word "sumptuous". The film spared no expense in recreating the court of the French kings in pre-Revolution France in the 18th century. It is immensely enjoyable. It was definitely a prestige movie for the studio.

It starts with the young Austrian princess, Marie Antoinette, going to Paris for her arranged marriage with the grandson of the King who will be the next French monarch. (All of the king's male children had died young). Marie's reception as a wide-eyed innocent by the opulent French court, complete with fanfares, is remarkable and memorable.

Marie soon experiences the byzantine intricacies of the French court and the realities of her new life with Louis - her diffident and none-too-bright young husband. Both we in their mid-teens when married. France soon heads inexorably towards revolution and it will mean a tragic fate for the Royal family.

My only complaint bout the film is not that Norma Shearer was just a bit too old for the role; her fine acting and the makeup and lighting take care of that well enough. The complaint is an historical one: it was a bit too sympathetic towards Marie, and even Louis, both of whom ended up beheaded because they encourage foreign armies to invade France and put the king back on the throne. Marie's over-spending is also glossed over. But she was tragic in her way.

Louis, played beautifully by Robert Morley, was even more tragic. In another life he would have been happy and accomplished as the clock maker he always wanted to be.

Joseph Schildkraut was superb as the unctious and conniving Duke who had no problem switching sides as the political winds blew. Gladys George was very effective as Madame du Barry. Tyrone Power was merely OK as a love interest for Marie which seemed rather gratuitous.

Along with Abel Gance's "Napoleon", and "A Tale of Two Cities" (the Ronald Colman version), this is as good as it gets as an historical drama of the French Revolution. Exciting, emotional, sad, affecting, and very memorable. Superb.


MARIE ANTOINETTE is an amazingly lush production. The details on screen is at times staggering. The production team is to be credited for such an eye filling spectacle. With that said, the film doesn't really work. The script is badly conceived and its main star is as dull as a star can be.

First the script: it spends a lot of time on Marie Antoinette and very little time on why or how the revolution started. Little histrionic moments are blown up to gargantuan proportions and yet important events about her or the French Revolution are all but forgotten. The script is totally ill-conceived and no amount of great direction or production values can overcome this major weakness. Three quarters of the film revolves around MA and then suddenly, there's a revolution is in full swing. There's no smooth transition between the main storyline from MA to the French Revolution, which just happens almost out of nowhere. The switch in storyline is abrupt and jarring.

The second major liability is its star: Norma Shearer. Shearer is an actress of limited range and after watching her for almost three hours, her limited range became increasingly obvious with each passing minute. Whether she's getting married or when she falls in love with handsome Tyrone Power or when the peasants storm the Château, Shearer's expression hardly changes. As Marie Antoinette and her family try to escape the tumult, the stagecoach they're escaping in is eventually stopped by an angry crowd. The crowd is overwhelming and the situation is wrought with tension. So how does Norma react when the stage coach is stopped? She bites her lip.

But even actors of limited range can get away with this problem when they have star power or screen presence. Sadly, Norma has little or no star power. This is my first film with Norma Shearer and it's probably going to be my last. Shearer has zero star quality. She is as bland as can be. It also doesn't help that she's way too old to play the part. But again, this wouldn't have been a problem if she had some sort of screen presence.

The odd part of this spectacular film is that it's a feast for the eyes and in the middle of all of it is this bland, boring presence we have to watch for nearly three hours. Watching Norma Shearer in MARIE ANTOINETTE is like being handed a plate of tofu amidst a table filled with every conceivable meal imaginable. Everything, and I mean everything, including Robert Morley, outshines her.

I give 10 stars for the production values and excellent supporting cast. If you watch MARIE ANTOINETTE for the sets and costumes, you won't be disappointed. Just don't expect some compelling performance from its star.


I thoroughly enjoyed this movie from beginning to tragic end. I recently took a trip to France and had the privilege to go to Versailles. I watched the movie not really knowing anything of the history of Marie Antoinette. When the movie ended I rushed to the computer to check historic facts and was amazed that the movie was so factual with the exclusion of the Tyrone Power part.

I have to say I love old movies and especially historic period pieces. This was not a let down in any way, with the exception of a little over the top acting by Norma Shearer on some of the dramatic areas. The costumes, hairdo's, sets, casting and everything left me feeling like I had just seen a masterpiece.

I so enjoyed the movie that my plans for tomorrow have come to a screeching halt, as now I plan on going to see the 2006 Marie Antoinette.


I saw the original release of "Marie Antoinette" - I did not see it again until last night and also tonight; I had bought in on eBay. I was so fortunate to see the documentary on Marie Antoinette on PBS on Sunday night, the VHS-version arriving on Monday. So, seeing the documentary helped me remember some drastically needed French history. I will say seeing it again after all those decades, the movie had lost none of its beauty.

Although I've seen other films which attempted to depict the French aristocracy and Marie Antoinette, none of them measure-up to "Marie Antoinette". Norma Shearer was "the queen of Hollywood" through her husband's studio; it was fitting that every extravagant costume and fabulous wig was up-front-and-center for this film - that's the way people dressed in that era. W. S. van Dyke got it all together with the direction and character-development; Donald Stewart's script was great, all of the actor/actresses were brilliant. "Adrian" was truly the star of the film for his ultimately extravagant gowns (1250 of them) and the black-and-white photography lost none of the sumptuousness - even the men were beautifully costumed.

Today, Norma Shearer's (Marie Antoinette) acting would be considered "dated". One has to remember this was filmed in 1937, Ms. Shearer was "the queen" and her mannerisms were her own. She was brilliant in this film; her character was fully developed for the role from teenager-to-39-year-old hag. The movie could have shown more of the misery and suffering of French peasants and why they hated her so. This film could not be made today, unless all of the gowns and wigs had been preserved and used again. The expense would certainly have been too great.

Morely (Louis XVI) was stellar in his role. It opened his career for many great character-roles. His portrayal of an introverted, sexually-disabled teenage "dauphin" was perfect: he made it known up-front he was not the least bit interested in the beautiful Austrian princess who was to be his wife, nor did he want the throne. Being aware of his disability, he did not want the embarrassment of his condition to be publicly known, especially having two very handsome, virile brothers. Unfortunately, he had no choice because he WAS "the dauphin". As some other "users" have written, John Barrymore (Louis XV) could have given a much stronger performance as the lecherous old king, who publicly lavished every indulgence on Madame du Barry (Gladys George), who hated any female closer to the French throne than she......."Marie" was a princess, she was a commoner. The animosity between the two was tastefully acted, when it was a much nastier confrontation. Tyrone Power (Axel de Fersen) was at his height of popularity for his handsomeness and did a fair job in his role. Joseph Schildkraut (duc d'Orleans; that's a French name?) was wonderful in his treacherous role, a true example of a court's "fop". Anita Louise (Princess de Lamballe) was fabulous. Alma Kruger (Maria Therese) was much too sweet for her role, the mother of sixteen children to marry-off to other European courts. Her husband was Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor to her Austro-Hungarian Empress. All of these actors/actresses were big-name, and were cast to give stellar performances for one of the 30's biggest films. Bravo to all ! Stewart's script was historically close to the factual tragedy of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. They were doomed from the day the teenage princess arrived at Versailles (no mention of Fountainbleu), through the childless years of their marriage and near annulment of same; the extravagant lifestyle of Marie from boredom, the betrayal of the French court; the totally fictional "diamond necklace" hoax; their hopeless attempt to rule wisely as good parents; their attempted escape and capture; their separate imprisonment, with Louis XVI's execution much earlier than Marie's; her hoax of a trial including fictional accusation of incest with her son; and her eventual execution. Use your imagination of the glory of Versailles, good music and great cinematography - a scene with Marie running gracefully down dozens of stairs to meet her lover was like ballet - and you have a classic movie.

Now comes the new version - I've read every review on IMDb about it, to see how many people mentioned the original movie, only one did; most people who've seen the new version have no idea of French History, with many seeing what a shallow film it is, even without knowledge of the era. I shall view it, and then give my opinion. I KNOW I shall advise all to track-down the 1938 version and revel in its sumptuous debauchery. I would give it a 50 -


Of course 2 million dollars is nothing for a movie budget today, but back in 1938 it was the equivalent of what would now be about 40 million dollars. Fortunately, every penny of MGM's French Revolution tragedy shows up on-screen. The sets, the b/w cinematography, and of course the Adrian costumes (the large hooped gowns which barely pass through the doorways are a movie onto themselves) culminate in one opulent, frenzied, pageant of a story. Norma Shearer Thalberg is the quintessential queen; it's interesting to see her age throughout the film. Though there are always critics who need to nitpick at her age appropriateness (sp?) for this film, I think she does a perfectly credible job going from a teenager to a young adult at the time of execution (the queen was supposed to about 36 when she was guillotined). There are several astonishing moments: the wedding night sequence with Shearer and a somewhat frigid but endearingly shy Robert Morley; the costume party and blind man's bluff game with Shearer and Reginald Gardiner which becomes deliciously provocative; and of course, the final scenes with an imprisoned Shearer who has by now aged so severely she is barely recognized by lover Tyrone Power. A big movie in every way that would, sadly, be eclipsed barely a year later by GONE WITH THE WIND. Check it out.


So you thought that Norma couldn't make a hit without Thalberg, huh? Maybe Marie Antoinette didn't make a trillion dollars at the box office, but today film lovers treasure it to make up for this. Ty Power is gorgeous, as is Norma, in the gorgeous costumes and wigs, and the sets are magnificent. This movie is so sad and tragic and beautiful that it makes you cry by the time Marie is jailed with her family and has her son testify against her in court. This is Norma's "last best" movie.


Norma Shearer was nominated for an Academy Award for her performance in this film. A very powerful role, the part was even a greater challenge than THE BARRETTS OF WIMPOLE STREET or ROMEO AND JULIET simply because it really showcased all of her range. From girlish delight, to arch queen and dignified royal, flirting with Tyrone Power and then the deep love she felt for the dauphin. The scene where they take the dauphin away.....and then they come for her son, Shearer goes from sheer disbelief that they could be so inhuman, to fighting them off like a tigress, her hair and arms flying around, before they call in more guards. When she says goodbye to "my baby" saying; "we shall be together soon," knowing that all will perish, is nothing short of one of the most brilliant moments on screen.


Miss Shearers portrayal of Marie Antoinette had great depth. She brought humility and a great deal of human frailty to a character who could be viewed as "above common human emotions." The simplicity and beauty of her performance left me breathless and in tears over the death of one of Frances greatest women. Miss Shearer has given us the human side of this sadly remembered Dauphine "Queen of France."


"Marie Antoinette" is the epitome of classic Hollywood grandeur in film-making. No expense was spared in this lavish production which features sumptuous sets, intricate costumes, beautiful cinematography, and also some top-notch acting. Norma Shearer and Robert Morley give fantastic performances as the King and Queen of France, who live in luxury while their subjects starve. Norma especially draws kudos for playing a complicated part, which is definitely Oscar-worthy. Tyrone Power is also in it, although he is pretty much wasted in a rather small role. For anyone who would like to see classic films at their peak, "Marie Antoinette" is a must-see!


Although not nearly as historically accurate as it could've been, the 1938 version of "Marie Antoinette" still stands as one of the best films of the 1930s and certainly the finest ever made about the late queen of France. The high-powered and second-to-none cast includes Norma Shearer as the tragic queen and Robert Morley as King Louis XVI. Morley's sympathetic characterization of the king almost steals the picture, but there's too much happening in this film for anyone to be able to get away with that. The great John Barrymore plays Morley's father (Louis XV) with an understated cruelty and disdain for humanity. A radiant Gladys George is also on hand as his famous mistress, Madame DuBarry. Norma Shearer, one of the greatest stars of early cinema and wife to MGM production chief, Irving Thalberg, has the role of her life as the title character. Her "Antoinette" runs the gamut between frivolous coquette to protective mother and finally to one of history's most tragic figures. Shearer's silent film techniques are also put to good use near the end of the film when the totally distraught and prematurely aged queen is awaiting execution in her cell. Through her skillful well-honed hand and facial expressions, she's able to project her feelings of dread for the horrors that are about to be unleashed upon her without so much as one spoken word. A young and up-and-coming Tyrone Power is second billed in the film and his part seems more intended for box-office appeal than anything else. That said, he does an adequate job providing the love interest for Ms. Shearer, even though that subplot mostly gets in the way of the historical aspects of the film. Other cast members include an excellent Anita Louise as the queen's best friend, the Princess de Lamballe. Joseph Schildkraut rounds out the leading roles as the unctuous and oily Duke of Orleans. His voice-overs during the early days of the French Revolution give the film some much-needed gravitas and it quickly and effectively alters the mood of the entire proceedings. As any student of history knows, there's no happy ending to this story.

What's truly amazing is that most modern film-goers have never even heard of Norma Shearer much less know anything about her work. Her contemporaries (i.e. Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Greta Garbo) all outlasted her with the general public. That may be because Shearer retired soon after her husband died; her final film was 1942's forgettable "Her Cardboard Lover." The rest of the cast, however, went on to bigger and better things. Robert Morley worked forever in both films and TV as did Schildkraut. Of course, John Barrymore's body of work stands in a class by itself. Tyrone Power became one of the great superstars of cinema, dying too young at the age of 44 in 1958.

"Marie Antoinette" is competently directed by W.S. Van Dyke and MGM studios spared no expense for their First Lady (Shearer). The carefully constructed sets for the lavish parties at Versailles are extravagant to the extreme and the total cost of the film was astronomical for its time. Even critics of the film agree that there's an eye for detail in nearly every scene. It's unfortunate that Norma Shearer isn't as well-known as she should be in this day and age. Maybe now is the time for her "revival." The same goes for this excellent film. Compared to Sofia Coppola's modern-day well-deserved flop on the same subject, W.S. Van Dyke's "Marie Antoinette" is a film for the ages.


This beautiful black and white film literally sparkles with the most beautiful costumes in cinematic history. Shearer and Power are luminous and the performance of Robert Morley is a gem. I believe he IS Louis XVI! It is SO much better than than that tedious monstrosity directed by Sophia Coppola. If you've read Antonia Fraser's brilliant book, you'll see the tragic history she describes so vividly come to life. The old-fashioned nature of the film making actually contributes to our ability to surrender our modern sensibility to see a long-ago style of living recreated. And unlike the Coppola film, it is not dull and boring and static, but is filled with action and excitement. Like Fraser extraordinary book, the life of Marie Antoinette is dramatized from her becoming queen of France as a teenager to her white hair and ravaged countenance as she meets her fate. It also dramatizes the so-called Affair of the Necklace much better than the 2002 film of that title. If you can get past the somewhat corny style, you'll really enjoy what old films could do better than all our contemporary technology.


Indulgent MGM version of the life of "Marie Antoinette", as portrayed by Norma Shearer. The production is very beautiful looking, and well-performed. It is, however, excruciatingly long, and is without enough story embellishment to sustain interest; an even more fictionalized account might have been a wiser course of action. Ms. Shearer must be credited with crafting an vivid character; it's difficult, however, to feel much sympathy for her predicament, in this presentation. Robert Morley (as Louis XVI) elicits more sympathy, due to an almost oafish, but sensitive, portrayal; he is impressive, in his first feature film. John Barrymore (as Louis XV) and Gladys George (as du Barry) are among those delivering expert support. Particularly recommended for viewers with a longer life span than Marie Antoinette.

******* Marie Antoinette (7/8/38) W.S. Van Dyke ~ Norma Shearer, Tyrone Power, Robert Morley


From MGM comes a big budget historical drama which tells a great story with the accuracy of real history, not common-knowledge history, or (God forbid) the trash they teach as history in public schools these days. Engrossing from start to finish.

Norma Shearer is the star; no doubt about it. Tyrone Power has the top star box office power, but herein he's a supporting player. John Barrymore, 3rd in the cast, was every bit inferior to his offspring Lionel and Ethel; and inferior to Drew Barrymore as well. Ever the booze hound and womanizer in real life, his on screen presence is wilted and insignificant. ROBERT MORLEY is 4th, and he is the finest thing in the film, delivering a truly stunning portrayal of Louis XVI, a shy introverted man with no interest in politics, social functions, or even his new and beautiful wife; preferring keeping to himself and tinkering in his clock shop where his real ability shines bright. Giving an A+ performance as a quiet person who gradually assumes the initially unwanted roles of husband, father, and king; that's no easy trick for an actor.

Two things are omitted or downplayed. The absolute thoughtless cruelty of the royal class crushing the common citizens into poverty is shallowly and inadequately reflected in most history books; as it is also in this film. Omitted entirely was the role this very King and Queen played in the American Revolution. It was at this time that Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Ben Franklin were on their mission to acquire French aid to fight England for our freedom. According to my encyclopedia, it was their financing of the American Revolution that's given equal credit with Royal Court extravagance which bankrupted France, ended Royal rule, introduced the Reign of Terror, and ended the lives of both King Louis XVI and Marie at the guillotine.

Americans ought not watch this history with excessive dispassion. We have endured decades of degeneration of our own traditional values by our home-grown liberals, while they infected our lives with welfare excess, crime toleration, agenda-based education, personal merit based on skin color rather than character, the eradication of our religion, and the trashing of our Founding Fathers.

By any standard, MGM'S "Marie Antonette" is a great movie to refresh our history, and perhaps to inspire a look at our own shortcomings. "Let them eat cake," she never said it in real life, does not say it in this fine film.


After reading the couple of negative reviews of "Crumb" on IMDB I re - viewed the movie one more time just to make sure that the many times when I had seen this movie before, on the silver screen and on video, I have not been in a state of delusion. With the movie fresh in my mind I want to put out this message to all the people who have made depreciating statements such as "what is Crumb moaning about, he's famous now", "the Sixties weren't really like that", "it was just two hours of whining, rambling and unjustified complaining" etc. etc.: go back to your Kevin Costner, Tom Hanks, Tom Cruise big budget Oscar winners, and stop smearing dirt on one of the best documentaries ever made. So frigging what if it's shot with a hand - held camera and without studio lighting? "Crumb" is the real thing, it does not need any trickery or gloss. Basically it shows Robert Crumb, the artist famous for "Keep On Truckin'", "Fritz The Cat" (though he does not like to be associated with either of them) and "Mr. Natural", telling the story of his life through his wife and brothers, with a few scenes of him at a vernissage and a comic book store (etc.) thrown in for good measure. Call it a modern - day version of the van Gogh - story, or a look at the darker (or even just the non - Warner - Brothers) side of the flower - power generation, the human condition, the power of art, the battle of the sexes, a case history of mental illness, psychotic families, whatever. The story, and with it the film, is amazing and totally captivating. I have watched it many times and intend to watch it many times over. Give it a miss only if you expect some good, clean, family entertainment, but do so at your loss.


'Crumb' is a fascinating, unsettling, but equally hilarious look at Robert Crumb. Even people who have no artistic talent or interest in the arts would be impressed with this movie. Watching how this man endured a brutal childhood and how he tried to escape it all. His candid remarks are a riot. The interview with Dian Hanson was hilarious, [does anybody have a copy of that issue]. The segments with his brothers were funny but sad at the same time. There were only two items I wish they would have included, I would have liked to seen him talk about his tax problems, and second, I wish he would have played a number with band he is in.


What are the odds that an artist can survive family violence, mental illness, sexual rejection, and Big Mac culture? As far as this film can make clear, three members of the Crumb family had strong artistic temperaments and significant talent. Only one, Robert, made it out alive, and his life and work are defined by resistance to what should have been a sad fate.

To many, this documentary may be depressing, offensive to women, or just too damn ugly to sit through, but it made me as happy as anything I've ever seen on screen. Art's ability to reveal truth and promote survival is evident in every frame. I admire R. Crumb's courage to speak unpopular truths, to draw what gets him off, and to ferret out the art he loves at considerable expense and trouble (he's a blues maven; one of my favorite scenes, where's he's sitting on his floor absorbed by aching music, is echoed in Ghost World, when Enid takes home Seymour's record and gets lost in her favorite song). And like Ghost World, ratty, real American culture is railed at hilariously: another favorite scene involves R. on a park bench, disgustedly commenting on the ugliness of everything around him: logo-emblazoned clothes, graceless music, ugly plastic everything.

By the end of it all, I respected and liked him Crumb enormously. I'd take his scary-woman worship over the banal musings of a dime-store philosopher any day. And Terry Zwigoff deserves much praise for being able to pull it off (especially as a first-time filmmaker who had very little idea what he was doing). From high art and family pathos to a lovely animal appreciation of big round female asses, this is far more a "roller-coaster, I laughed/I cried" film than most others so touted.


Robert Crumb became an idol among hippies in the 1960's because of the psychedelic comics he drew at the time. In this excellent film, directed by Terry Zwigoff (who also directed the excellent, and also comic book related, "Ghost World" and "American Splendor") Crumb starts out by telling that he hates just about all the work he is most famous for. This is typical, Í think, of Crumb: he is uncompromisingly politically incorrect, completely unafraid to speak his mind openly, and above all disgusted by the idea of selling out for money.

I have been a fan of Crumb ever since I advanced beyond Donald Duck and Marvel Comics about 20 years ago (this is not to say that I don't love Donald or Marvel anymore, because I do). Crumb is probably the most talented comic book artist of the latter half of the 20t Century. Quite simply, I don't think anyone can draw as well as he does. He is not much of a storyteller, but like I pointed out above, that is more than made up by the fact that he is always totally candid about his life, sometimes painfully and embarrassingly so.

"Crumb" is an excellent portrait of an exceptionally talented artist who also happens to be a total pervert. However, as this film makes abundantly clear, Robert Crumb is practically the ideal model of a stable, well-adjusted person when compared to his mother or his brothers Charles and Maxon. We see once again that great suffering makes a great artist.


When I first saw this film at an art house in L.A. I was blown away. I had been reading Zap Comics and it's brethren since the 70s and loved them w/out really knowing why. In this great documentary I found that Robert Crumb was telling TRUE stories ins his comics. Which makes him a great story teller as well as an artist that now enjoys accolades from museums around the world. He is one of those very rare people who can be called a MASTER. He also maintains an honesty and a level of integrity that is just not seen these days, the exception being Dave Chapelle when he walked away from $50 million. It also sheds light on his dark childhood and how he turned out to be the "normal" one. Music plays a vital part in this movie as well. Crumbs passion for mostly blues music from 1936 and before and his premier collection is fascinating. He easily could be considered a music historian. I live in Colorado and will be visiting Roger Ebert today as part of his annual trek to speak about film near the CU campus and hope I can talk to him about his commentary on this updated DVD. You don't have to be a fan of Crumb's to enjoy this film either. His life story is more than enough. For me this movie led me to become the largest collector of Crumb art in the state of Colorado and enjoy an inside circle status. I can't wait for his book of Genisis to come out. This movie is NOT for children so be warned.


"Crumb" is a strangely enchanting enigma. The film is essentially an in-depth character study of Robert Crumb, primordial underground cartoon genius of the '60s. As I watched, I felt drawn into his world of frustrated sexuality and tormented sensitivity, pulled along pathways of familial dysfunction I didn't even know existed.

Although he is the center of the movie, Robert is hardly the only compelling character in the film. His family, his friends, his admirers, his former girlfriends, his critics, all come through in very sharp focus. This film could easily have been nothing more than an homage to R. Crumb's 'seminal' works, but instead offers nuanced interpretation from some intelligent people. Even the master himself takes a dim view of his creation at times.

Yet one comes to understand, through R. Crumb's contrasting interactions with his family, what a curious combination of inner strength and minute perception it is that makes his comic art so accessible to others. Simple yet mindblowing things, like how he approaches sketches of photographs from a 19th century sanitarium, or his sourcebook with pages of photos of suburban streetlights and electrical substations, give insight into the mechanisms of his genius.

Highly recommended, 9/10


I first found out about R. Crumb through "Fritz The Cat" even though he was opposed to the movie (which I must say I thoroughly enjoyed!) Anyway, I decided to do a bit of research on the character and found out that a man named Robert Crumb created this spaced out little creature. For a couple of years on, I forgot about the subject. Then, last year I remembered Robert and his controversial works. I was in the city and I happened to stumble across this rather "hidden" DVD. It was entitled "Crumb". At once I stuffed my hand down my pocket and fished out my hard earned $30. And I have got to say, it is the best damn $30 I have ever spent. "Crumb" will shock you, intrigue you, provide you with facts about R. Crumbs life that you could only hear from the man himself. This movie shows how Crumb reacts to events, what he thinks of the world and what makes him tick. As far as the whole storyline goes, the movie has an excellent soundtrack to add to the whole experience.I'd have to say, if you see only one documentary this year, definitely make it "Crumb". You wont be disappointed!


I found this to be a very interesting, very sad, and very revealing look at a dysfunctional genius. Crumb's work is generally intriguing (if not always likeable) so I decided to watch this documentary. Crumb is to the world as his family is to him. Crumb is by no means what many people would consider normal, but it was only through his art that he found his salvation. While his personality has tons of odd quirks both troublesome and entertaining, his family demonstrates how far he had to go to escape. Both of his brothers were talented artists as well, and the differences between them and Crumb are telling. It's also interesting as a true look at mental illness, not the candy-coated or nightmarish visions typically put forth by the media, but mental illness as experienced by everyday people. This movie isn't terribly exciting, and no one character is enormously sympathetic, but it's an extremely interesting look at the madness that consumed a family and how it shaped the brilliance of the one who managed, almost imperceivably, to escape.


I'm writing this mostly as a rebuttal to some of the bad reviews. This is an honest portrait of an artist, like him or not, it's well done, and certainly thought provoking; and while he may not be the best spoken man on earth I thought the film was amazing. But be forewarned he is, to put it plainly, perverted and incredibly eccentric but also honest and self aware, take it for what you will.

**possible spoilers below** One comment accused the film of being voyeuristic and going against what Crumb's art is about-which is ludicrous, in the film he sits in a few lounges and draws portraits of people in his sketchpad that are more than voyeuristic- everything about his art lends itself to this kind of look into his life. Hell, he has autobiographical comics that are just as voyeuristic as the film. It's Crumb in his own words closing a chapter of his life.


Robert Crumb is not everybody's cup of tea. He has been accused of being a racist and a misogynist. This film does much to deal with misconceptions about the artist, but not all the misconceptions are negative.

As typical for a documentary like this, there are several artists/critics interviewed about Crumb's work. Invariably, there is some sort of analysis given. Crumb's compared to Brueghel, to Daumier, he's spoken of as a great political satirist.

The fact is the first thing discussed in the film is what motivates Crumb's art, what is he trying to express. After a slightly amused, slightly annoyed "Jesus! I dunno..." he speaks that he doesn't think of his work in conscious terms until _after_ he's drawn it; then he figures out what it's about.

This film very subtly points out Crumb is not really anything he's been accused or praised for being. His work "is the purest form of his id," his wife, Aline, comments.

The film is really his triumph to be himself through a number of horrendous hurdles: a brutal father and drug addicted brother; being rejected by women; being tempted to sell out; and legal problems over cartoons. While his two brothers, Charles and Max, both show in differing degrees how their youths were permanently scarred then, Robert Crumb emerges whole, even admirable, in spite of the uncompromising nature of his art. He is unique, his work not easily separable into allegorical meanings or expression of political beliefs.

Crumb is a great artist, and he cannot be understood from a few interviews and his art can't reduced into something understandable in clichéd artistic terms. Zwigoff's film shows Crumb in every way available and tries to express his art similarly. At the end, all we can do is be astonished that the man not only survived but flourished, and marvel at the wide range of what he's produced.

Zwigoff's style is so seamless, it doesn't feel like his film, but Crumb's. Of course, it is not Crumb's, but that impression is an indication of Zwigoff's mastery of the form. If his own personality intrudes in the fabric of the film by what he shows and how he orders it, he complements rather than obscures Crumb's genius.

The result is unforgettable, not just for its exposition of Crumb, artist and human being, but for the experience of letting Zwigoff's work flow over the film and us.


First, I liked this movie very much. But, as you can see from the previous comments, this is a movie that you'll either love or hate. But its hard to be indifferent to it. Zwigoff does a wonderful job of setting a mood that allows you to examine an artist who is depraved, perverse and, yet, insightful.

Everyone seems to come away from the movie with an idea that Robert is spared the obvious insanity of his two brothers because of his art. But I see it differently(hence the title of this comment). Even Robert admits that his brother, Charles, was a better cartoonist. Another way to view Robert's "success" and his brothers' descent into "crazy" is fame. Crumb was an involuntary icon of the 60's. Where would Robert be today if he wasn't recognized and rewarded in the 60's? If Zap comix had turned him away for his misogynist and racist comics, would he have had the subsequent female relationships that seemed to normalize his existence? What would his fantasizing over a high school yearbook and habitual masturbation meant if he was an unknown sharing a room with his brother at Mom's house?

When I watch this movie, I am always mindful that Robert's obvious genius would be lost were it not for his luck at being discovered. I suppose that is an obvious statement but, in Crumb's case, fame has managed to gloss over many unacceptable characteristics. And, maybe, that's not such a bad thing.

The film lightly touches on Crumb's relationship with his son and daughter. For some reason, Crumb's bumbling attempts at affection with his children were a bit disturbing. Or maybe its just that Crumb's fixation with wrestling and piggyback riding lingers in your mind when he hugs his daughter.

On a lighter note, I've noticed that no one has mentioned the soundtrack of this movie. Designed to be in keeping with Robert's love of old American music, the music helps to define the subject. I wonder why Zwigoff made no mention of Crumb's Cheap Suit Serenaders band.

Crumb comments against the crass commercialism of America. And, yet, I first saw this movie at a theater in Baltimore where the lobby was chock full of Crumb comic picture cards, mugs, etc.

Crumb, the movie, is a crazy world of contradictions and well worth the ride.


Fascinating documentary about a US underground cartoonist, Robert Crumb. Although I'd heard of Crumb (mainly through American Splendour I wasn't that aware of his work although some of his cartoons were images that I'd seen before. Basically the guy did an assortment of freaky and surreal images straight out of the darker recesses of his mind. Criticised for his portrayal of women in his comics by some, the film delves into what can only be described as a unique family background, where his brothers appear to be as divorced from reality as his comics are. It was good enough to get me to go and check out some of his stuff.


I don't like Crumb's work. I don't even know if I like Crumb as a man. But what I do know is that I like this documentary just about better than any other documentary I've ever seen.

The things that are revealed are astonishing. The levels to which these people present themselves is nothing short of amazing. I've often wondered if I've ever made myself this vulnerable to anyone ever, and yet Crumb and his brothers do it for the whole, entire world.

It's a shame that Terry Zwigoff hasn't done yet another documentary, because he obviously has a knack for the genre. While I have liked his other movies, they haven't been nearly as good as Crumb. He seemed to really understand just how close and yet how far back he needed to be at the same time.

Crumb is a movie that won't let you go for a long time. If you haven't seen it yet, prepare yourself for something both vulgar and heartwarming, charming and repulsive.


In my opinion documentaries rely on the subject matter more than how the film is shot. To say the least Robert Crumb is an interesting character, which makes this an interesting documentary. I had no previous knowledge of him, so I sat down and watched it. A few minutes in, my first impressions of Robert were he was a quirky cartoonist. Nothing special.

The film rolls on. Being someone who can't even draw dog poo if I was give a brown crayon and a piece of paper I was immediately envious of the ease he seemed to draw with. The talent didn't stop with Robert, I was equally amazed with his brothers exploits with the pen.

Fast forward to the end. I told my friends I saw this amazing documentary. They asked me what it was about. I said a guy drawing cartoons. -blank looks- "oh" Didn't quite give the doco justice. The premise of this doco is about a guy drawing cartoons, but where this doco excels is the exploration of the depths of the human psyche with such brutal honesty. This film explored the stuff that is as far back in the human consciousness that you don't even want to know is there. It was absolutely fascinating the quirky and humorous interplay between the brothers and how they had evolved/de-evolved from their childhood interactions to adult life. All brothers sat on the line of the full circle of sanity that meets around with insanity. One of the most interesting things i've seen.


This documentary explores two aspects of Crumb's life: His family life and his sexual interests. The man is an incredible artist and his works are pure art, even if they are comics. To defend this position, we hear from a British art critic who praises Crumb's work, no matter what the offensive subject matter is. On the other side, we see women - past girlfriends, fellow artists, and others who admit that Crumb is a great illustrator but are extremely wary of the sexist and racist messages Crumb's comics contain. Is Crumb really a sexist and racist or is he commenting on the world? The answer is hard to determine but, after seeing this movie, I think that its both. It's amazing how Crumb, this skinny, ugly, fake-toothed weirdo is so incredibly tapped in to the crazy male id and its sexual desires and racist beliefs.

And, at the same time, he's barely able to function in society. He just blends into the crowd and doesn't really understand the world around him. A lot of Crumb's observations on the changing world are used by Terry Zwigoff, who directed this film, in his next movie, "Ghost World." That movie is also an adaptation of a comic book so maybe it was there that Crumb's influence was made. Either way, he's the comic book version of John Waters - ahead of his time in grossness, incredibly influential, and not yet surpassed.

As for Crumb's family life, the amazing part is that he's the most normal member of his family. His brothers are also great artists but are even worse at functioning in the world. Maybe it's genetics. Maybe it's the torment of being an artist. Seeing Crumb's family humanizes him. Then we see his comics. And we can decide for ourselves if we can separate the artist from the art but, more importantly, we have to decide if we can separate ourselves from the art. Can we laugh at sexism and racism and not be sexists or racists? Does the fact that we find it so offensive mean that we hate sexism and racism or that we are afraid to face our own beliefs (or the beliefs of those close to us)? Bringing out these questions is the greatness of this movie.


have you ever wondered if maybe woody allen isn't such a bad guy for marrying his younger asian step-daughter (or whatever she was to him)?

did you like the movie "harold and maude" for being sexually deviant and dark?

or remember when george carlin said the dreaded "n-word," apparently in protest of the rule that blacks and whites are supposed to use separate vocabularies? were you impressed by that kind of honesty? i was and i liked crumb for that and many other reasons.

crumb is impressively human and real. he's totally candid about the abuse he's recieved and possibly metted out. robert crumb is part geek and part lover, part racist and part woman-hater. yet these and other "bad" and "good" elements of his personality were not labeled, but accepted. nor were they censored from his comics or from this movie. in fact, the only things crumb doesn't offer are apologies. eminem, eat your heart out.


Ever feel like your perversions are beyond human comprehension?? Rent this movie; you will be patting your own back and congratulating yourself on your high morals in no time. At the next family get together you will look around at your normal (newly realized of course) ancestry with admiration. For no social circle, other than those seen in paradise lost and my brothers keeper, is odder than those seen in crumb. So enjoy - and buck up young camper, you're not so odd after all.


Anybody and everybody should see this film at some time or another. We are introduced to Robert Crumb, an artistic genius who has gained fame through drawing underground comics, and his eccentric family. We also meet some of his friends and people who find his work marvelous and others who despise it. Robert Crumb emerges as a man who isn't as strange as he first appears. What makes him someone to respect is his ability to say exactly what he feels and not hold back. He is giving our right of free speech here in the states a good exercise. I especially suggest that bullies see this film, in that they may see what their taunting and cruelty can do to a person (namely Robert's brother Charles). If you're looking for a true story about an underdog who hits it big, watch Crumb.


Crumb has not gotten its due credit. Very few films of the 1990s have been universally accepted as masterpieces. Crumb should definitely have been one of the few. On the back of the video's box, it proclaims "one of the most critically acclaimed films of all time." It is probably the only film of the decade besides _Schindler's List_ that could have claimed that without stretching the truth. Every critic proclaimed that it was one of the very best films of the year it was released. Gene Siskel put it as his #1 picture for the year (having said in his original review "I doubt I'll see a better movie this year"), and Roger Ebert put it as his #2 only after _Leaving Las Vegas_ (the only 1990s film I'd put above it myself, too).

So why do I claim that it is so great? Well, I particularly think that documentaries are much more important than fiction films if they are done well. The purpose of [great] art is to study and try to educate us about human nature. Documentaries, since they are fact and not fiction, logically can tell us more about human nature than fiction films, which can tell us about human nature, but they necessarily teach it through the eyes of the artists who created the work. For instance, _Hoop Dreams_, which has been accepted by many already to be a masterpiece, s by far the best sports film ever made. No fiction film could have had more insight into the appeal of sports. Also, it is one of the most important films ever made to deal with racial issues for the same reason.

Crumb is the most important film ever made on the subject of the artist. Never has a film had more insight into an artist's work than Crumb does into R. Crumb. Each time I watch it, his artwork becomes more deep and complex. Each drawing becomes extremely multi-layered. R. Crumb was hardly inhibited while Zwigoff was filming him, nor were the other people who were interviewed. Crumb spares none of his personal life. Because of this, we learn more about him than we have ever learned about a single fictional character in film history. Not Charles Foster Kane, not Jake LaMotta, not Travis Bickle. No one.

R. Crumb is also extremely anti-capitolistic. I love this! He has inspired me with his thoughts. He never existed as an artist to make money. He has enough to exist happily, but he does not live in a mansion, nor does he own a sports team. He does not own a fleet of vehicles. In fact, he can't even drive!


This film was a remarkable look into the life of an artist known as Crumb. This film shows us that perversion, loneliness, desperation, drug abuse, suicide and genus can all survive in one "unique" family. I loved this film because it shows life on the other end of the spectrum. Many movies are glamorous and exciting, where this movie is real, honest, dysfunctional and bizarre. The film is a display of Crumb's art work as well as him home town and family. This documentary shows that dark dismal conditions (completly contrary to the normal and healthy conditions of a "good person")of Robert Crumb lead him to alternate and original ideas. His unique world view is enlightening and explanatory. I loved this film because it was a vacation into darkness and creativity, and a vacation from the average film experience.


This is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. Hearts and Minds, and Roger and Me, and Farenheit 9/ll, and even Supersize Me are way up there for me, but this one is compelling. I live in a part of the country where controversial documentaries are seldom seen, so I'm a long time getting to this one, but, wow! I just rented it and I'll be watching it again before I send it back. It's very, very good. I'm a woman with some years on me, so a documentary about a man admittedly so hostile to women, whose work is sometimes pornographic, and racist as well, is not someone I would ordinarily pay any attention to, except in a forensic kind of way, but Crumb's story is riveting. What a wacky family! He and his two brothers (his two sisters declined the spotlight) seem to have been just a skosh away from becoming serial rapists or worse--yet it didn't happen. This documentary leaves you wanting more. There are hints, broad hints, about what caused the three brothers to become so dysfunctional. Yet, it's very, very odd isn't it? Crumb, in spite of it all, is a likable and familiar sort of a guy. This documentary, apparently now 11 years old, will leave you wanting to find out more about this family.


Absorbing profile of Robert Crumb, an underground cartoonist. Shows him at work and interacting with his friends and heavily dysfunctional family. I had no idea who Robert Crumb was (all I knew was that he created "Fritz the Cat") and I find underground comics repulsive but I was never bored or repelled by this movie. It has him talking about his life and his work along with interviews with his family and friends also discussing him and his work.

The film shows many of Crumb's graphic work (VERY graphic for an R rated movie) and has him discussing, analyzing and (at times) defending his work. We also see oppossing or agreement from other art critics or artists. What's most interesting is that we see he came from a very destructive family and puts all of his hatred and childhood misery into his drawings. I still don't like underground comics, but this movie helped me understand them...to a degree. Also a haunting look at a disturbed family...but it's treated sort of lightly...not dark and heavy.

Very interesting and well done. Not for everyone but great for those with VERY open minds.


Mr. Natural: "Don't Mean Sheeit..."

One day while searching through my father's closet (about 12 years ago) I happened to come across a couple of comic books. The comics weren't in the best condition, a tear here and there, but they still held up pretty well. Being a slightly big comic book fan at the time (even bigger now) I took a peak at these weird looking comics. Well, I immediately found something special in these comics. Maybe it was the nudity, the drugs or the swears, but I was obsessed with these two comics for quite some time. The two comics were Zap #0 and Mr. Natural #2. I remember on the back of the Zapped comic there was directions on how to smoke a joint or a muggle. Great directions by the way. Ever since I found these two gems, I've become a fan of R. Crumb's work. The first time I saw Crumb the movie, I suppose I was a tad too young to grip what was going on. Thankfully my brother bought me the DVD this past Xmas. I've put if off for a while now, but I put it in last night, and I was immediately brought back to that same type of infatuation with drawing. But something I didn't pick up on the first viewing was all the emotion this documentary delivered. Crumb is a documentary that covers almost all bases of his life. From his tough childhood all the way up to the present as rich and famous artist. If you ever wanted to know who R. Crumb is or how he acts, or what he thinks, this is a must see movie. The film also focuses on Robert's family. Be it his ex-girlfriend, ex-wife or his mother and brothers. When they show up at his mother's house where his brother Charles still lives, the movie takes on a different feel. The scene with Robert, Charles and his mother in the living room is classic stuff. The scenes with Charles are incredibly funny yet pretty damn sad. If you ask me, a movie based on the life of Charles would have been just as good as this. For the reason, Charles might have been a better artist than Robert when he decided to stop drawing.

By the end of Crumb, I immediately put on the special features, which unfortunately is only a commentary, but a great commentary nonetheless with the director and Roger Ebert. I usually just check back at the special features down the road sometime, but with this film I had to watch it immediately....even at 2:30 am. If you're a fan of art, R. Crumb or just a fan of well-made documentaries there's no reason you shouldn't enjoy the hell out of this film. It's definitely one of the best documentaries on a person I've ever seen. 9.5 outta 10


It's amazing to read the negative critiques for 'Crumb'-- the venom poured onto it by reviewers with little explanation as to why they reacted so strongly. Just like the negative critics in the film itself, the critics here take everything Crumb produces at face value and lash out blindly with declamations of misanthropy, misogyny, racism and whatever other damning indictments they can lay their hands on. It seems the more emotionally honest and direct a film is (or a cartoon strip for that matter), the more people will hate it.

I suppose if you hold a mirror up to someone's ugly face, you shouldn't expect him to be grateful for being given the chance to see the way he really looks, even if this is the way we all really look.