Some Critics Still Cry Out: Remember Marie Antoinette!
Filed under: Drama, Awards, Sony, Critical Thought, RumorMonger, Newsstand, Lists, Oscar Watch
.jpg)
On October 20 of this year, Roger Ebert published a glowing, four-star review of Sofia Coppola's third film, Marie Antoinette. It was matched by unvarnished praise from The Times' A.O. Scott -- "What to do for pleasure? Go see this movie, for starters" -- and The Los Angeles Times' Carina Chocano, who declared it "startlingly original." The Washington Post's Ann Hornaday went further, attacking the film's critics for having "missed the point." Entertainment Weekly, Salon.com, The Hollywood Reporter, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Rolling Stone and others raved. My own review on Cinematical was one of the only times this year that I actually lavished praise on a film, and rightfully so. Now, both main critics for Slant Magazine have stepped up, each declaring the film to be among the best of the year. So, the question asks itself -- what gives? Why is the film absent from nearly every recently released end-of-year list from the gilded halls of cinematic officialdom?
Obviously there were some substantive critics who simply disagreed with those I noted above, but a quick look at Rotten Tomatoes also reveals a lot of shin-kicks from websites I've never heard of and lazy quotes from other non-opinion makers like Richard Roeper, who dully declares the film to be "dreadfully dull." Did they poison the well? If you are a critic or a serious film fan who disliked the film, please humor me by summarizing one or two points in the comments section below. Do you really think a film like Marie Antoinette should be shut out while dreck like Bobby receives the highest praise from the Golden Globes? Also, if Marie supporters want to turn this post into an ad hoc petition, feel free.
Ryan Reynolds is The Green Lantern!
FilmBuff Goes Online! Discover More Gems!
Our Favorite Summers: 1981
To the Calendar! Comic-Con 2009 Schedule Released
Exclusive: Eli Roth Talks 'Thanksgiving'
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-18-2006 @ 9:06AM
Alex Billington said...
No comments so far? Wow... well it is early morning. I wanted to reply to this with a little bit of my own thoughts. I do write reviews, but I don't feel that I'm fully qualified or at all compare to any major critics out there by far, so I'm still quite humble. But anyway...
To preface, some people thought I "didn't know" that the idea of Marie Antoinette was supposed to be the modern twist with the 80's funk that Sofia Coppola added, but I certainly did. I read about this stuff all day long, and I knew exactly what she was going for.
That said I was still unimpressed. First, I thought there could've been "more" to emphasize that modernization (or 80's...) with more of the awesome songs she chose and more of those great scenes that were a whimsical flurry into the fun life of Marie, but instead there were too many droll and bland scenes. Now, don't misinterpret me, droll and bland in this movie compared to plenty of other much much more boring movies is nothing. But that flow just didn't keep up. It seemed a lot longer than it actually was - and I was just wondering "when is she going to get her head chopped off" and then it'd go from one dainty scene to the next boring one and take that rough ride back and forth.
I think the film on a whole is a very admirable creation from Coppola and I gave it only a 5.5/10 anyway (although I'm sure if I were to see it again, maybe slightly higher). I just don't think it deserves much awards or top list buzz in comparison, not necessarily on its own. I could look at it by itself, but then when I have to choose only 10 movies from this year, I have to compare everything against each other, and Marie Antoinette doesn't strike up against quite a few of the other much better films of this year.
That's my statement and I may be wrong, I may be right, but it's most importantly what I personally feel about the film. Have at!
Reply
12-18-2006 @ 9:14AM
Travon Boykins said...
I did see it and was isn't impressed. It looked amazing (definitely great production design and cinematography), but once again "blessed" with the screen writing of Coppola. And seem rather vapid. Granted, that was the royal court in general but the whole "poor little rich girl" does nothing to elicit my sympathies. Is Coppola an interesting filmmaker? Yes. Will I see her next film? Probably. But, was I in rapture? No. And do I feel bad about it? Not in the slightest.
Reply
12-18-2006 @ 10:50AM
Lane said...
I am all for ephemeral, sentimental, atmospheric films (e.g. Mallick). Lost in Translation was one of my faves from '03. That said, MA really struck a nerve. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time... ready to leave.
In an era of heightened political and social awareness, a film this self-indulgent, this focused on its own vanity is simply not going to fly.
Maybe one could chalk it up to me simply "not getting it." Perhaps MA is supposed to be a Jarhead-esque experience where viewers are meant to end up feeling cheated and empty by the end. MA surely satisfies on that level.
Reply
12-18-2006 @ 1:34PM
verbal said...
Though a beutiful and hip film, with lots of ingenious bits and bites, and probably the best soundtrack of the year, truth is, not a whole lot went on.
I wouldn't say it was dull --every once and a while, something would pop up to keep you watching and smiling at the teenflick winks. And I get the whole superficiality of the character passing on to the film, but for a 2hour runtime, it would've been kinda nice if S. Coppola had thrown in some kind of story in the bag.
Still, I second the notion that it's one of the most enjoyable films of the year, S. Coppola has a great eye, and IMO Judy Davis gives a great performance, worthy of a line in this years supporting category.
Reply
12-18-2006 @ 8:19PM
derby said...
The movie was dreadful. Truly awful. I just don't see it. How can anyone give this film anything more than 3 (maybe 4) stars? Visually I am willing to say there were some nice moments, but the acting was AWFUL, and I was bored senseless throughout. It lacked anything that could even remotely be considered compelling. If her name were Sofia Johnson, this insipid film would not have been made.
Reply
12-19-2006 @ 8:40AM
Karen Bell said...
I saw Marie Antoinette and agree it should be recognized for the Golden Globes and Oscar. A 5 star for sure! It was a cinematic achievement; Kirsten Dunst was spectacular conveying more in a look than some actors can convey in a monologue. The critics who didn't like the film, obviously just didn't "get it." Kudos to the critcs who understood what Coppola was saying and someone please wake up the the award voters.
Reply
12-21-2006 @ 7:04AM
verbal said...
@derby
If a dreadful, awful movie gets 3 or 4 stars, I dread to hear what would be a 1 star...
Reply
12-26-2006 @ 8:17PM
Steven said...
Agreed. 'Marie Antoinette' has been utterly sold short from the moment a bunch of French yahoos at Cannes hooted self-importantly at it. It's a beautiful film, completely refreshing and inspiring, one of only a couple of bright lights in a year of cinema that was otherwise as dank and unappealing as a barrel of bloody piss.
Sofia Coppola bashers, fsck off!
Reply