![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lesbiassparrowI found this gem on IMDB after the front story said the film had been jeered at Cannes:
"OK. Marie-Antoinette is not an historic film. It is about the loneliness of a young, spontaneous woman caught in the strict etiquette of a ruling class that died for refusing to relax. The barbarians had the last word in 1789. Now think of the monarchical republic of France today, and the Islamic barbarians in its midst biding their time... Some beautiful passages in Le Petit Trianon and Marie-Antoinette's farm. Sofia Coppola is great at conveying moods. Still, the film is just a little bit too long, and so slow at times. To my mind not as great as Virgin Suicides and Lost In Translation. Another thing: is the anachronism about the Garnier Opera in Paris really necessary? What is the point? Versailles has its own theater and the opera-ballets of the baroque era could be quite fabulous. And finally, most historians, I believe, agree that there is no historic evidence of Marie-Antoinette and Fürsten actually having been lovers."
There is so much wrong with this review that my mind cannot handle it. So many issues in such a few lines, that it is really is quite impressive on some bloody insane level. Usually I try not to jag myself against things that are sure to wound me deeply, but...okay, I have no excuse, because really you ought to stay well away from things that are sure to raise the blood pressure. Please make that point in comments if I say anything else about this film.
"OK. Marie-Antoinette is not an historic film. It is about the loneliness of a young, spontaneous woman caught in the strict etiquette of a ruling class that died for refusing to relax. The barbarians had the last word in 1789. Now think of the monarchical republic of France today, and the Islamic barbarians in its midst biding their time... Some beautiful passages in Le Petit Trianon and Marie-Antoinette's farm. Sofia Coppola is great at conveying moods. Still, the film is just a little bit too long, and so slow at times. To my mind not as great as Virgin Suicides and Lost In Translation. Another thing: is the anachronism about the Garnier Opera in Paris really necessary? What is the point? Versailles has its own theater and the opera-ballets of the baroque era could be quite fabulous. And finally, most historians, I believe, agree that there is no historic evidence of Marie-Antoinette and Fürsten actually having been lovers."
There is so much wrong with this review that my mind cannot handle it. So many issues in such a few lines, that it is really is quite impressive on some bloody insane level. Usually I try not to jag myself against things that are sure to wound me deeply, but...okay, I have no excuse, because really you ought to stay well away from things that are sure to raise the blood pressure. Please make that point in comments if I say anything else about this film.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-25 06:31 am (UTC)(I mean, all that said, I am totally going to see it because I’m a sucker for the pretty clothes, but you know things can’t be good when the guy who plays Axel Fersen, the putative lovah, has as his only previous credits a career as a Calvin Klein underwear model.)
no subject
Date: 2006-05-25 06:41 am (UTC)Whatever about the film, though, that review is so seriously messed up that it blows my mind. I don't even know where to start.