So this film was voted as the best of 2015 by critics.
What did you think of it Sup Forums?
I have some questions about the plot: Why did it matter than Lord Wangshuningpingpong's wife was pregnant, such that she faked her period and that he got super pissed when Yinniang told him? Was the black magic hairy wizard dude trying to kill the baby with his shitty voodoo stick drawing?
...
...
...
...
I watched this about 5 months ago and I remember nothing at all.
I can't answer any questions about the plot. It sure was pretty though.
The wife was scared of her position because the concubine's son could rival her own sons. Don't forget that the wife was actually an assassin that married into the family to hold power over Weibo. She was working with the sorcerer to kill her, yeah. I think the paper doll was what revealed to Tian Jian that his wife plotted with the wizard, but I don't remember why.
I don't think HHH's style works really well with the genre. There were a ton of exposition dump scenes, and I didn't think it conveyed the assassin's struggle with deciding whether or not to kill her lover well enough. It looked good though.
Quality film. Terrible pacing.
That movie was nice to look at but boring as shit. Perfect for critics to wank over
I tried so hard to stay interested in this film but it was such a struggle. Cinematography is freaking 50/10 though.
Pretentious artsy fartsy trash that quasi patrician autist film students jerk over
Loved this movie, probably my no. 2 of 2015. Another user explained your question, and for me, i agree with everyone here about the cinematography, but not the pacing () I actually liked HHH's restraint and extended static shots for this one, helped build tension for me and focus on the looking/observing part of the assassin. Plus the fights were short, but really well choreographed and always got a point across
hated it.
can't answer shit about the plot cause already forgot it completely the few things i even get to comprehend. the movie was much more about the visuals, anyway. it might sound trite and pleb, but it was BORING and sterile. mainstream critics are pretentious retards
I thought the pacing was brilliant. The argument about exposition dumps isn't really valid because there's only one scene and it is gorgeously shot. I liked that the fights were done quickly -- she is an assassin after all.
With the final fight, does she simply cut the nun's cloth? I have a shitty quality rip so I couldn't really tell but in rewatching there's definitely a hit noise.
Maybe because it was close to midnight I watched this, but it was hard for me to stay awake. In the last few years, the film was the only one that genuinely did so.
Basically it was bird chirps, cricket cries, and wind blows: the movie. Shame, though. I was expecting much more.
Pretty much these that generally sums it up:
Since no one has answered you.
His concubine was pregnant, and he'd already had a few kids including a first born son with his wife.
At one point he tells the story of how he is the son of a concubine was favored by his lord father and inherited said lordship outside of tradition hierarchy. His first wife is afraid that he will show the same favoritism to his bastard son so she tries to magic poison the concubine.
The assassin can neither kill her former fiance nor watch his heart break, so she saves the concubine and leaves the assassin temple.
this is why we need /film/
i liked it but i think the critics are getting pranked hard as fuck and embarrassing themselves. its a near masterpiece of something, but its not REALLY a good movie, and the responses to it make me cringe.
the visuals are gorgeous but kinda memey at times, and the pacing is definitely a pleb filter. longest hour and a half or so movie i can recall since only god forgives.
the narrative structure is maybe a little too deliberately unwieldly but the plot is simple enough. the movie kinda feels like a dream by a painter, which is kind of the point i think; the style literally is a lot of the substance. very surreal. i like the brutal efficiency of the kill shots and how those actually werent overstylized, and the juxtaposition of that against the beauty of the environment and such.
overall i did like it but i think it tried too hard in a few ways for little real reason; reminded me of the revenant and inarritu at times (which i fucking hate), but it was still interesting and beautiful to watch and not quite forced enough to alienate or shut me off even though i know it did for others. calling it the "best of 2015" (even in a weak year) is fucking shameful tho, but personal pref wise it would probably be my 4th or 5th favorite of the year despite really only being a 7 or 7.5/10 or so.
No, "we" don't.
Seconded desu
Look at this user () describe the visuals as "memey" as a way of criticizing them.
it looks like the new meme for pretentious tryhards is to pretend not to know what "meme" means within the context of whatever its describing.
you know what im saying, and if you really dont than you're worthless and wouldn't belong on an honest /film/ board anyway.
stick to the reddit sub kid
Never heard it
Some started a /film/ general
>meme
>reddit
ok friend
What the hell is he even talking about now?
Based HHH
Kid, bitching about reddit doesn't make you cool. It makes you look like a self-entitled millennial hipster. Sorry the downvote system over there hurts your precious little feelings.
...
Are there any HHH films as pretty as this? The rest look like sad political dramas which don't really entice me.
>using buzzwords
>defending reddit
>not knowing the definition of millennial
0/10 b8 m8. Apply yourself
I think westerners just "liked" it to appear culturally enlightened and because it was so vague they could see anything in it they wanted.
I'm chinese and it bored me out of my mind.
None of his films are just political dramas.
Yes they are.
I saw it in theaters, it was too slow for me but the photography was beautiful and there were some great scenes. It sticks with me aesthetically but I barely remember the plot
The fact people don't seem to recall the plot shows how bad this movie is.
If people want to look at pretty pictures they can literally look at pretty pictures. Why waste money and time watching something that isn't worth your time and money?
>Here, the temporal duality is uneven, and favours audience. Film’s most powerful tool for maintaining audience involvement is, according to Elsaesser, narrative. Plots regulate psychic pressure, through means of investment and payoff, but what happens when we do away with plots entirely? Though Adrian Martin noted a trend in Slow Cinema, that so many of them end—after so much banality, mundanity, and deliberate nothing-much-happening—with a sudden burst of seemingly inexplicable violence, this is not always the case. Often Slow films simply meander, offering an elongated yet brief slice of life, and the audience is invited to adopt the point of view of the camera and protractedly study images as they appear onscreen in their unexplained literalness.
>In theory, this should result in a loss of audience attention, where the union of filmic and audience temporality would be undone. But this doesn’t seem to be the case. Rather, Slow Cinema utilizes audience time in a new way. Bordwell believes that these films become engaging, even entertaining, when we realize that they are to some extent shifting our involvement from characters and situations to the manner of presentation. Not narrative but narration is what engages us.
more pretend ignorance
spotted the redditor
literally this
the plot wasnt that complicated, its just the narrative structure was (intentionally?) messy as fuck.
a lot of the responses make me think a lot of people just dont know how to pay attention or are just fucking retarded. the fact that all they get and praise are muh pretty pictures is even more hilarious.
suspecting that the movie is just an elaborate pleb filter on multiple levels and going in both directions.
>Bordwell’s contention is that Slow Cinema offers us a new perspective, and this replaces our need for traditional narrative modes. He states:
>“The details and dimensions of a world surge forward, not simply as a backdrop for characters hurtling toward a goal, but as something valuable in their own right … They also ask you to transfer those viewing skills to life outside the theatre. They encourage you to find a new way to look at the world”.
>Theo Angelopoulos, who has been labelled the Master of Slow Cinema by some, agrees with this sentiment, in the way reduction creates reflection: “the pauses, the dead time, give the spectator the chance not only to assess the film rationally, but also to create, or complete, the different meanings of a sequence.”
I get what you mean by political drama, but really that's just the first part of his career (and most of them are excellent)
Since he made Goodbye South Goodbye his films are very different, and I'd say you should watch Millennium Mambo, it's gorgeous and interesting.
But The Assassin isn't like anything he's done
The political undertones are confusing as fuck, but really the story is as simple as it gets. It's just about love and redemption, with a great central character. It's great and not pretentious at all
Well shot but boring
>the visuals are gorgeous but kinda memey at times
holy shit
a movie can be a masterpiece just because of its cinematography (e.g. man with a movie camera, anything ron ficke, some malick stuff).
laser focus on script is an inexplicable tendency on american mainstream media, is like they want to make radio dramas instead of movies, as if everything should be explicitly stated in words in a primarly VISUAL media.
>anything ron ficke
lelkek
or was it Godfrey Reggio? i don't remember which one is the hack. Koyanisanisquatsi=good, Powaqqatsi=shit