Marie Antoinette

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 29, 2006, 4:58 am

Kirsten Dunst does a decent acting job portraying Marie Antoinette but the movie just really isn't very good.

The previews give the impression that Marie is a crazy queen but she really doesn't do anything out of hand in the entire movie or they failed to show her excessive spending.

What the move does do well is show how bored French royalty was during the late 1700's. Besides a brief scene of Louis XVI sending aid to America to fight the English, there is no historical happenings in the film until the very end when the peasants abruptly give the king and queen the boot.

I can't blame Kirsten for this bad movie. If the material was there, I think she would have performed well.

Nothing happens in this movie. Marie is sent to France from Austria to wed Louis XVI and the rest of the movie is Marie trying to get Louis XVI to make love to her so France has an heir to the throne...although she really doesn't do anything beside be patient and during that time, the viewer watches her experience the royal treatment. She screws a Swedish soldier later in the film but it doesn't affect anything in the movie.

This movie mixes in modern day music much like "A Knight's Tale" did to keep you awake during parties instead of have to listen to the "party" music of the era.

5/10

Nice costumes and settings
Successfully presents how the royals lived

Nothing else happens in the movie and it ends abruptly

redeemed · Post by **redeemed** » November 29, 2006, 7:33 am

winnow ur just like a real critic lolz >)
but yeah after "the movie just really isn't very good" I was like.. oh, ok, I didn't think it would be anyway

*hugglez*

miir · Post by **miir** » November 29, 2006, 4:25 pm

Yeah Winnow, we already knew this movie sucked. We didn't really need your cam job review to tell us that.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » November 29, 2006, 4:30 pm

lol, the thought of winnow sitting alone in his house in the dark watching this makes me laugh.

Syenye · Post by **Syenye** » November 29, 2006, 5:59 pm

that's not a wiimote he's jerking around!

i hope you pirated this one, because i don't want movie studios to think that people might have liked it.

miir · Post by **miir** » November 29, 2006, 6:03 pm

Syenye wrote:that's not a wiimote he's jerking around!

i hope you pirated this one, because i don't want movie studios to think that people might have liked it.

You just know winnow went out and bought a wii and is too ashamed to admit he loves it.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 29, 2006, 8:04 pm

1. Pirated
2. No Wii planned for this household!

I'm happy you're concerned with what I watch but I do like historical movies so gave this one a shot. It managed to get the costumes and settings right which were interesting in themselves. No need to make excuses at this point in my life! I'll watch what I want.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 5, 2006, 1:05 pm

I can't take it!!11!

Due to peer pressure, I'm changing my official review rating of this movie from 5/10 to 4.9/10*

*.1 deducted. There were only nine gratuitous cleavage shots in the film instead of the original ten noted on the review rating matrix.