Do you even watch movies?

Because I don't believe you guys.

Post a paragraph about ANY movie along with an image that, to you, describes its tone. Or just post the poster.

I'll grade you.

You got me. I don't watch movies.

I only watch flicks

i didn't really like it
maybe it's because i couldn't relate to it
i didn't like the slow pace, i've watched shoah, and even then, i found this flick somewhat boring
i liked maika monroe better in the guest, i guess it's because she was more pure there
i don't know

A dreamy description of the concept of "The One". Showcases two broken, yet consistent, characters who give up after a big fight and decide to forget each other. This movie emphasizes that getting over relationships with "The One" is pointless, because you can't. They both forget each other, and get together in the end. Was it fate? The movie explicitly denies it.

I found this to be a wonderful synthesis of horror with love, for he loves her but he fears losing her, and hence decides to leave her by "deleting" her from his memories. Carrey's psyche is shown from his childhood to his present state, and everything points to her.

Is this movie realistic? Maybe it is, for some. But if you like to think that the world is not full of suffering, this might be the movie for you.

I watched this because I'd been led to believe, by this board, that it was another Taxi Driver/Drive type movie. In a way it was, but it was fucking garbage compared to those two - and Drive is mostly a meme.
It's most like Taxi Driver I guess, but, in this case, the main character is totally unlikable and has no motivation beyond >muh autism.
The aesthetic feels like a cheap attempt to feel like Drive without getting the music or feel right, and the way everything is treated seems extremely edgy, right up to the end when he just gets let go because of his fedora-tip worthy superior intellect.

Sup Forums here, I only watch anime
does Sup Forums watch chanbara?

Literally the only anime I watched and enjoyed in the last year or so was Welcome to the NHK.

fuck movies

Apocalypse Now is probably the greatest war movie ever made, mostly because it isn't a war movie, but a horror movie. It perfectly captures a slow descent into madness, with each checkpoint progressively increasing in lunacy. What begins as a pretty straight forward war flick ends with the slaughter of a mad cow. The aesthetics are beautiful (source: pic related), characters rich, it never lacks tension (the theatrical version at least), and is probably captures the horror and morbidity of war better than any other film made today

Watched Wake in Fright recently and I'm certain it's the best australian film of all time.

Too lazy to write a whole essay about it now, but it's comedic and scary, beautiful and disgusting, absurdist and completely real at the same time.
Perfect representation of the outback, the human condition itself and the effects of isolation and the depraved wilderness that lead to complete moral and social degradation of a man.
It's raw and uncompromised, well-acted, brilliantly photographed and edited.

A must watch for every male individual.

It's definitely my favourite film, but I think there's a distinction to be made by the naturalness of the madness of savagery and not just a phenomena caused by war
how'd you like Heart of Darkness?

>What's plan B? -This is Plan B!

Started reading it but never got around to finishing it. Not that it was bad, just life got in the way and I started reading blood meridian

>no time to finish heart of darkness
>better read blood meridian from front to back
what the fuck lad?
get back into it m80, it's very relevant to BM as well

It's not a "war movie", it's a shittily adapted novella set against the backdrop of a war.

It's amazing how a film can depict such interesting aspects of a man's life and be so utterly tedious at the same time.

Also weird how such a "strange" movie can be so predictable.

you take that back right now

if you kill your enemies, they win

It's a comfy Christmas movie too

No, and I'm sick of plebs fawning over what's essentially a Coppola family vacation movie. Pretentious self indulgent tripe, Keitel saw it for what it was early and bailed.

Lou Bloom is nothing like Travis Bickle. Travis is a lonely and asocial burnout who basically suffers a psychotic break that leads to the actions of the film (or the longform delusions of a lonely cab driver).

Lou Bloom, however, is a self educated, highly motivated entrepreneur who uses his natural talents to rise from the bottom up in an industry he loves. Also, he is glib and charming, which are two characteristics of psychopaths, who are the opposite of autistic.

he used the "pretentious" word guys!

cite your argument with evidence
why isn't a good film or adaptation?

Yeah, I started reading it around September, but shit got busy and I stopped reading all together for months. I was given Blood Meridian as a gift, so

Not an argument.

I recommend you try them both again, friend. I have a personal meme trilogy of moby dick, heart of darkness and blood meridian which I would make everyone read if I could

just like "pretentious" isn't one aswell

ffs they made a whole documentary on how it was a half assed script coppola abandoned and made up as he went along with hopper and brando's autism padding the entire 3rd act. It was shit, yeah duvall was good and The End is a good song, quit trying to make more out of it than that.

Yeah, I'll probably finish it next time I have time off. Loved Moby Dick, so

4/10
2/10
3.5/10
4/10


Everyone else can kys

get the fuck out of Sup Forums

>muh script

The execution of every single filmmaking element in Apocalypse Now is flawless.
You can't dismiss a whole movie just because you read that the ending was not figured out until it was in the editing room.

though I agree the tone shift of the third act is quite jarring

get out of my thread you dumb bitch

Hello, French Firefox user!

no u

u = bitch

Welles would have done a better job with the source material 2bh.

But he wouldn't have been able to incorporate Vietnam, the best part of the flick

Unlike Marvel, who repackages the same generic macguffin-plot into a new movie every year while stopping only to change the actors and dialogue to keep up with the newest tumblr obsessions and reddit memes, DC's films are actually attempting to be visually and tonally distinct in an effort to elevate the superhero genre from mediocre blockbuster garbage to artistic tales weaving themes of morality and sacrifice into monumental and dynamic epics on screen while also questioning the very essence of what society deems a 'hero'. The difference is honestly night and day; during a Marvel movie the viewer is more likely to gobble down popcorn while during a DC film the viewer will likely take out a pen and paper and start taking notes.

I don't know about that.

>Blue Ruin

The general concept is that a restless vagabond returns to his home town when he learns that the man who killed his parents is being released from prison. The movie exists in this odd headspace of forging new ground in a well-tread genre, while not running too far off the rails, and sticking to what made those movies of the past work so well. The movie succeeds in part by presenting an under-explored character archetype in these films, in the form of the protagonist Dwight Evans, as played by Macon Blair. It's obvious from the start despite Dwight's mangy appearance and his on-the-run form way of life, he's not very good at doing bad things. He continues on his path despite that, overcoming fatal dangers through quick thinking, a bit of luck, and a certainty that is unshaking in its resolve.

This journey is the centerpiece of the film, as Dwight's quest takes him from beaches, to old friends, to home, to the very people he's chasing, or who are chasing him, depending on the point in the movie. This unraveling uncertainty as the plot moves forward is another driving force of Dwight's, as the body count rises and he must make up his mind if the bloodshed is worth the original goal, before that decision is taken from his hands.

Dwight's journey is captured in a gorgeous example of vivid color cinematography, wherein the brightness of the day seems to be snuffed out by darker parts of Virginia themselves, leading to an atmosphere of dread and anticipation, as the game of chess as played with crossbows and hostages continue, leading to an edge-of-your-seat climax that is both unexpected and inevitable.

The strength of the film comes not only from a unique character take on the genre, nor the blood spilled, but rather the skill, vision, and determination of the creative team behind the movie, leaving a distinct mark on this particular corner of American film.

Funny how you can't say almost a single sentence about DC without mentioning Marvel flicks and their viewers.

Also protip: it's all just different tasting degenerate capeshit trash my dear amigo friend

7/7

eifht and hald was really funny film that delt like a fever dream,.nightmare and self realizatio come alive in a perfect way

I'm confused, because, we're supposed to believe in the ministry. Is the church and state supposed to be separate? I'm confused because I never went to school. Is a confused person get a resolution? I don't understand. See when you go like that, you have a cross, two sticks. And that's how I felt when I was in Waterloo, because when I walked in Waterloo, and smiled at people, they treated me like I was a vampire.

Those who know me, I'm a nobody, and you can't kill a person with no body.

This is one of the best films on the topic of WW1. It perfectly captured the feel of being a kid and getting drafted, while also managing to display the hardships of war and how the lines between good and evil were quite blurred in WW1, because most soldiers fought for interests they didn't care about and died in great anguish.

My favorite Saulnier film, great post!

I barely watch movies and watch almost no tv shows. I'd say maybe 3 movies per month.

>Dude, war is BAD, mkay?

Epic. I cry everytime.

>I'll grade you.

No thanks, I'll grade myself.

saged

What good did WW1 bring?

fight scene. expostition. explosion. quip quip quip quip quip quip quip. expostition. fight scene. quip. fight scene. quip. explosion. fight scene. quip. fight scene. quip. expostition. credits. post-credit scene.

did I pass your kino connoisseur test?

cheap bones

I haven't watched a movie in months and I never really watch TV shows.

I watched pic related the other day. It was good. The film is about subjectivity and what is good and what is from different perspectives/situations. Every character decides to tell the story the way it suits him, while putting blame on himself, adding or hiding information that would shame them if they didn't.
>bandit says he killed the husband but describes the fight as epic
>wife says she killed him, not that she had him killed
>husband says he killed himself after being shamed by his wife, not that he lost the fight and he behaved like a coward
Having seen only one other Kurosawa film, 7 samurai, the only common element I can see is how the audience has a very good idea of the area action is taking place. The acting was good and I was surprised how good the medium thing looked ( and sounded). It was surprising that with this idea and story the film didn't resort to a cynic message like "everything is fucked and everyone is bad" but showed that there is chance, faith to be people should not be lost.

Also, while writing this I searched the medium scene and also watched a bit of a reviewer/analyzer who said that Rashomon is supposed to be dying light of honesty or something and that we see it being taken apart etc. This is over analyzing IMO. Am I wrong?

bump

How many images of various hats/outfits shopped onto Tucker Carlson do you have?

I really liked the movie, but I thought that the the roles of the bandit and the wife were overacted. Otherwise I agree with pretty much every thing you said. The lighting is also great, although that doesn't have to do with the plot