I saw the original release of "Marie Antoinette" - I did not see it again until last night and also tonight; I had bought in on eBay. I was so fortunate to see the documentary on Marie Antoinette on PBS on Sunday night, the VHS-version arriving on Monday. So, seeing the documentary helped me remember some drastically needed French history. I will say seeing it again after all those decades, the movie had lost none of its beauty.<br /><br />Although I've seen other films which attempted to depict the French aristocracy and Marie Antoinette, none of them measure-up to "Marie Antoinette". Norma Shearer was "the queen of Hollywood" through her husband's studio; it was fitting that every extravagant costume and fabulous wig was up-front-and-center for this film - that's the way people dressed in that era. W. S. van Dyke got it all together with the direction and character-development; Donald Stewart's script was great, all of the actor/actresses were brilliant. "Adrian" was truly the star of the film for his ultimately extravagant gowns (1250 of them) and the black-and-white photography lost none of the sumptuousness - even the men were beautifully costumed.<br /><br />Today, Norma Shearer's (Marie Antoinette) acting would be considered "dated". One has to remember this was filmed in 1937, Ms. Shearer was "the queen" and her mannerisms were her own. She was brilliant in this film; her character was fully developed for the role from teenager-to-39-year-old hag. The movie could have shown more of the misery and suffering of French peasants and why they hated her so. This film could not be made today, unless all of the gowns and wigs had been preserved and used again. The expense would certainly have been too great.<br /><br />Morely (Louis XVI) was stellar in his role. It opened his career for many great character-roles. His portrayal of an introverted, sexually-disabled teenage "dauphin" was perfect: he made it known up-front he was not the least bit interested in the beautiful Austrian princess who was to be his wife, nor did he want the throne. Being aware of his disability, he did not want the embarrassment of his condition to be publicly known, especially having two very handsome, virile brothers. Unfortunately, he had no choice because he WAS "the dauphin". As some other "users" have written, John Barrymore (Louis XV) could have given a much stronger performance as the lecherous old king, who publicly lavished every indulgence on Madame du Barry (Gladys George), who hated any female closer to the French throne than she......."Marie" was a princess, she was a commoner. The animosity between the two was tastefully acted, when it was a much nastier confrontation. Tyrone Power (Axel de Fersen) was at his height of popularity for his handsomeness and did a fair job in his role. Joseph Schildkraut (duc d'Orleans; that's a French name?) was wonderful in his treacherous role, a true example of a court's "fop". Anita Louise (Princess de Lamballe) was fabulous. Alma Kruger (Maria Therese) was much too sweet for her role, the mother of sixteen children to marry-off to other European courts. Her husband was Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor to her Austro-Hungarian Empress. All of these actors/actresses were big-name, and were cast to give stellar performances for one of the 30's biggest films. Bravo to all ! Stewart's script was historically close to the factual tragedy of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. They were doomed from the day the teenage princess arrived at Versailles (no mention of Fountainbleu), through the childless years of their marriage and near annulment of same; the extravagant lifestyle of Marie from boredom, the betrayal of the French court; the totally fictional "diamond necklace" hoax; their hopeless attempt to rule wisely as good parents; their attempted escape and capture; their separate imprisonment, with Louis XVI's execution much earlier than Marie's; her hoax of a trial including fictional accusation of incest with her son; and her eventual execution. Use your imagination of the glory of Versailles, good music and great cinematography - a scene with Marie running gracefully down dozens of stairs to meet her lover was like ballet - and you have a classic movie.<br /><br />Now comes the new version - I've read every review on IMDb about it, to see how many people mentioned the original movie, only one did; most people who've seen the new version have no idea of French History, with many seeing what a shallow film it is, even without knowledge of the era. I shall view it, and then give my opinion. I KNOW I shall advise all to track-down the 1938 version and revel in its sumptuous debauchery. I would give it a 50 -