This entry could just as easily be called 'Why Sofia Coppola Shouldn't Make More Movies (at least until she figures out how to do it properly)'. Marie Antoinette was, to use a cliche, a visual feast: beautiful costumes, lush settings and long lingering cinematography. But in every other way it was starved - no plot, hardly a script and nothing new even in the 'wow look at me I'm different' factor of using modern dialogue and music. Been there, done that. If you're going to do that again, use it to some effect, woman!
Why bother with the medium of film if you're basically going to produce a nice-looking picture book? The movie rambled on interminably with little tidbits of excitement (like when she meets that dashing fellow whose name I've forgotten) that never actually go anywhere. Much like the rest of the movie. Only for hardcore Sofia Coppola or Kirsten Dunst fans.
5 comments:
blah, blah, blah.. more importantly, which wonderful person did you go see it with???
ha ha, some primitive who thought it was a decent film, i believe...
you're so slack, that's no way to talk about glenda... i believe she said it was visually stunning with a sound track that shed new perspective to the period experience...
Well, only blogspot or gmail people can comment... but I decided it was about time I got gmail anyway.
Hmm! So like I said earlier:
Sofia Coppola's movies tend to grow on me a good while after I've actually seen them and once you get over the fact that they're not relying on plot, they make some pretty interesting portrayals of loneliness and awkwardness.
That doesn't mean that I loved Marie Antoinette, I could appreciate it based on what I said before but I was a little disappointed because I'd been dying to see it since they announced they were doing it.
I'm a sucker for the soundtrack, it saved the film for me.
"Why bother with the medium of film if you're basically going to produce a nice-looking picture book?"
See Baraka.
Post a Comment