What do you do for an encore after making the best film of the year? Sofia Coppola couldn't possibly be expected to make something as wonderful as Lost in Translation, and for her follow-up she attempted something daring. It didn't work, but at least she reminded us that she's not going to be satisfied making average films. This is based around the conceit of using 1980s pop music in a film about Marie Antoinette. It's a good idea; I envisioned strong parallels between the 1980s and the 1790s. One could certainly make them: crass, empty commercialism and the elevation of the upper class at the expense of the poor, and big hair to boot. The film's main problem is that it doesn't go far enough with it. There's a smattering of pop songs, some of which are used well and others not so well—the opening sequence, set to Gang of Four's "Not Great Men," is brilliant, but nothing in the film was as uncreative as using Bow Wow Wow's "I Want Candy" over a montage of dresses and sweets. But that's the end of it. Coppola really needed to drench the film in anachronistic pop-culture references for the conceit to mean anything. We're left with a shallow portrait of a shallow woman, played by a shallow actress. At times I felt bad for Kirsten Dunst: she'd be in closeup, attempting to express without words her changing understanding of a situation, but she came across as a blank, forcing Coppola to keep the camera on her in the hope that an uncomfortably long take would somehow translate into depth of feeling. Too bad it seldom works. There were touches of brilliance, such as having King Louis XV played as a randy old codger by Rip Torn, and the film's use of non-pop music was unexpectedly clever: every time there's period instrumental music playing, the establishing shot would reveal a gaggle of musicians in the corner, sawing away while their sovereigns eat or lounge. For the most part, however, the film fails to live up to the promise of its premise.

—November 14, 2006