director1616
A rejoint le janv. 2001
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges6
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis22
Note de director1616
The 2006 version of "Marie Antoinette" is one of the most beautiful movies to watch that has been put on screen in quite some time. But I say that in reference to the costumes, set design, and art direction. The term 'eye candy' that has been used by some of the critics and moviegoers alike is very appropriate for this film. Worldwide, there seems to be an even split among those who loved the film and those who loathed it.
I saw the film for what it was: a director's independent and different vision of a real-life character whose story everyone already knows. We know what the ending for the real Marie Antoinette was. I believe that Sofia Coppola should be highly complimented for her style in telling this version of the Archduchess of Austria & Queen of France.
That's not to say this film is without its problems. Though a big deal was made of Coppola's use of rock music during some scenes, it wasn't as 'horrible' as the French critics made it out to be. As a independent director myself, it is my belief that Coppola could have done a better job matching the music with the scenes with which she used them. The timing choices were a little jarring. And there aren't enough technical reasons in the world to excuse some of the obvious technical 'oversights'. I understand why half the people who saw this film had a problem with it - which is the lack of this film being story driven. The 1938 version of "Marie Antoinette" (starring the great Norma Shearer and Tyrone Power) is much more story-driven. If I had directed this movie, I probably would have gone deeper in the mind of Kirsten Dunst's 'Marie Antoinette'. There could have been more done visually to explain why the people of France hated Marie Antoinette in the end.
Having said that, I would give my right arm to be able to have access to Versailles in France. Sofia Coppola helped make the cinematography lush and gorgeous by agreeing to the pastel colors used for costumes and sets. The real 'behind-the-scenes' stars are Costume Designer Milena Canonero and Set Decorator Veronique Melery - each deserving of an Oscar nomination, at the very least.
Kirsten Dunst did well as 'Marie Antoinette'. Marianne Fathfull will probably never get the recognition she deserves for her performance as the Austrian Empress, Maria Theresa. Though her scenes were short, she played the imperial Austrian icon perfectly.
I liked "Marie Antoinette", and tend to side with critics like Roger Ebert of his assessment of the film. But as historical films go, this movie is not without its critics (some of it very justified). But I praise Sofia Coppola for being courageous enough to try something different.
I saw the film for what it was: a director's independent and different vision of a real-life character whose story everyone already knows. We know what the ending for the real Marie Antoinette was. I believe that Sofia Coppola should be highly complimented for her style in telling this version of the Archduchess of Austria & Queen of France.
That's not to say this film is without its problems. Though a big deal was made of Coppola's use of rock music during some scenes, it wasn't as 'horrible' as the French critics made it out to be. As a independent director myself, it is my belief that Coppola could have done a better job matching the music with the scenes with which she used them. The timing choices were a little jarring. And there aren't enough technical reasons in the world to excuse some of the obvious technical 'oversights'. I understand why half the people who saw this film had a problem with it - which is the lack of this film being story driven. The 1938 version of "Marie Antoinette" (starring the great Norma Shearer and Tyrone Power) is much more story-driven. If I had directed this movie, I probably would have gone deeper in the mind of Kirsten Dunst's 'Marie Antoinette'. There could have been more done visually to explain why the people of France hated Marie Antoinette in the end.
Having said that, I would give my right arm to be able to have access to Versailles in France. Sofia Coppola helped make the cinematography lush and gorgeous by agreeing to the pastel colors used for costumes and sets. The real 'behind-the-scenes' stars are Costume Designer Milena Canonero and Set Decorator Veronique Melery - each deserving of an Oscar nomination, at the very least.
Kirsten Dunst did well as 'Marie Antoinette'. Marianne Fathfull will probably never get the recognition she deserves for her performance as the Austrian Empress, Maria Theresa. Though her scenes were short, she played the imperial Austrian icon perfectly.
I liked "Marie Antoinette", and tend to side with critics like Roger Ebert of his assessment of the film. But as historical films go, this movie is not without its critics (some of it very justified). But I praise Sofia Coppola for being courageous enough to try something different.
Sondages effectués récemment
Total de 9 sondages effectués
