« You Just Thought You Were A Go... | Your New American Idol »
The Cannes not-a-blog continues at the New York Times with A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis going head to head over the Kirsten Dunst-starrin’, best-trailer-in-the-world-boastin’, Cannes-critic-boo-elicitin’, bewiggedy, New Wavery Marie Antoinette.
Here is a still:
sometimes it's better to recieve boos than to recieve cheers. just ask stravinsky and mahler.
and we all know critics suck. i'll reserve judgement for myself.
This is going to be one of the best films, based on the extended trailer I saw.
Great soundtrack - appropriate for a teenage bride - too.
I've never been a fan of Coppola, I think her films are pretentious, self-indulgent monuments to style over substance. I may be one of the only people I know who was bored to distraction by "Lost In Translation". "Marie" looks gorgeous, and clearly has great costumes & cinematography, but really - an entire trailer with no dialogue, only a New Order soundtrack? What, is she trying to do an 18th Century version of "Moulin Rouge" here? Doesn't bode well in my book.
Well, I didn't love Lost in Translation (and there was an awful lot of boom-mike bobbin' in that scraplet of cinema). But I also don't think an 18th-century version of Moulin Rouge sounds half bad.
All I know is this: When the MA trailer came onscreen- I was transfixed. These days...trailers suck SOOO MUCH, but this one is actually beautiful. It did what it was supposed to: made me incredible excited to see the movie.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).
Come on, Asia Argento plays that slut Mme. du Barry. How bad can it be?