Watch Marie Antoinette For Free

Simply Perfect

Nice effects though.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Norma Shearer was at her best during the silent era and the pre-code period between 1929 and 1934. Once the Hays Code rolled in, she was stuck with what have been described as "queenly roles" in rather stuffy period pictures like Romeo and Juliet (1936) and this film, Marie Antoinette (1938). Despite its reputation, this is not a bad movie, just a rather standard Hollywood biopic.Shearer does well as the queen and undergoes the transformation from innocent teenage bride to weary tragic queen beautifully. Tyrone Power is handsome and solid, but doesn't get to do much as the queen's lover. The rest of the cast is good, but not exceptional.The sets and costumes are breathtaking. It's a shame this was not filmed in Technicolor as was planned. The ornate settings beg for it.All in all, not bad, but nothing special.

If there is a real-life equivalent to the fictional "Dueling Cavalier" in "Singin' in the Rain", this is it. The film, laboring under the weight of massive sets, elaborate costumes, and W.S. Van Dyke's dull direction, is a sort of soap-opera retelling of the life of Marie Antoinette, with the Queen of MGM, Norma Shearer, as the fictional Queen of France. When she receives news of her engagement, she giggles and exclaims, "Just think! I'll be the Queen of France!" Shearer's co-star, Tyrone Power, is stuck with a starched-collar hero with a penchant for self-sacrifice. If you can accept that Tyrone Power is a Swedish ambassador, then maybe the film won't seem as ridiculous to you as it did to me. He's fine, underplaying somewhat, and the rest of the cast is also very good, particularly Joseph Schildkraut as a scheming cousin of the King, Robert Morley, who turns in the film's other memorable supporting performance. John Barrymore, as the dying King, is only suitable, and looks so bloated and slack-skinned that he resembles his brother 10 years later. It's not hard to believe he's dying.Dramatically, the story lacks enough impetus to really carry us through a 2 and a half hour running time. Shearer's performance and star quality are not enough to compensate, not by a long shot. But the worst thing about this movie is its political naiveté -- the revolution is never even remotely explained, and the film is extremely apologetic towards the handsome nobility. Meanwhile, the people who take part in the revolution are depicted like some kind of 19th Century newspaper cartoon anarchist. They all have unkempt hair, ragged clothing, dark splotches of charcoal on their faces, and they're all uniformly bestial in their behavior. They are like angry children, and the royal family are portrayed as loving parents who can no longer control their charges.Basically, it's fair to say the film reflects the fascist attitudes of the people who made it. It's shocking to see Donald Ogden Stewart's name as the screenwriter, because he was known in later years for his anti-fascist activities (and was blacklisted for his efforts). It's possible that he thought of the film as satire. One can never know, I suppose, but one could hope.

This movie is more interesting to watch if you have a decent knowledge of the history that is being changed by it. I don't think I have ever seen such a sympathetic portrait of the French queen. She is truly presented as without flaw, a wonderful, warm woman. This makes her end truly difficult to bear, especially given the highly emotional final scenes of the movie. When they take her son from her, it is hard to hold back the tears.The truth, of course, was otherwise. This is, therefore, a whitewashing of the historical Marie Antoinette, and it is worth asking why.In part, it seems to be a conservative's rewrite of history. The revolutionaries are portrayed as uniformly bad, so this is a condemnation of revolution and a positive presentation of absolute monarchy. MGM had done the same sort of thing just a few years before with the much better A Tale of Two Cities, which also centers on the French Revolution.I suspect MA is also whitewashed so that Norma Shearer would have a sympathetic character to portray. That backfires, though, at least from hindsight. A good actress could do more with a complex character who has merits but also flaws. Here, MA is less difficult to portray, and comes off as less interesting than, say, Shearer's portrayals in "The Women" or some of her other better-remembered movies. She may not have been the greatest of actresses, but she would have been more interesting, and more memorable, if the character had not been written in such a one-dimensional fashion.There are lots of lavish ballroom scenes, lots of magnificent costumes, by Adrian. If you like that, you will love this movie. It's just a shame that the characters so beautifully costumed don't come off as more interesting, especially given the exceptional length of this movie.

Norma Shearer was about about 36, looking about late 20's; Robert Morley was about 30, looking about mid 30's. And, this is where the problem lies.The prologue that tells about the announcement of the engagement, the first meeting with Louis, the marriage and the night of the marriage make no sense if your basis is that the actors are over 30 years old.The fact is that Louis was 15 and Marie was 14 when they were married. Their young age, without benefit of sex education, might explain much about the awkwardness of their relationship in their early years together. To watch 30 year olds trying to play-out the ignorance of kids, is too abstract, and a distraction.I would love to see this film remade with actors who can look like they are still in their mid-teens.But Norma Shearer gives a wonderful performance. And, Tyrone Power looks as hot as any guy could.