Is this kino

...

>divisive
>visually beautiful
>Oedipus Complex: the film
>Wanna fight?
yes, dear user. Epitome of kino

i can't tell if you are being sarcastic

nobody really knows what kino is

>i want to be edgy but i'm a shitty director working with a medicore actor

Kino is a sarcastic term, so no. It's legitimately good.

I do

this isn't kino it's cinema

DELET

No this nonsense is so inorganic to any sense of globetrotter restlessness or anything explicitly or metaphorically to do with British or American colonialism that it just feels derivative. That Kubrickian scene in Drive of dead-eyed strippers watching an assault gets extended here in a more elaborate whorehouse sequence where catatonic hookers bear mute witness to instances of police corruption. Refn’s tableau of organdy-gowned call-girls listening to pop while watching violence in a bouquet-bedecked whorehouse is the ultimate David Lynch parody.

Gosling and Refn have art ambitions–a strange sense of fun. But how can film culture progress with fantasies like this? There’s no shock or outrage left. Refn relies upon a level of menace (unerotic, non-provocative) that precludes caring about or responding to violence, vulnerability, mortality. This is cinema for unsophisticated viewers who don’t already know Bunuel’s eye-slashing, Altman’s Coke bottle assault or Shakespeare/Julie Taymor’s Titus. Children of Kubrick, Friedkin, Lynch and Tarantino, they remain infantile about movies.

Your autism is showing

Literal pleb filter

Cry more, neckbeard pseud.

Yes.

You sound like the one crying

wow

What's the movie on the right ?

No. It's complete trash.

The Crying Game. S'worth a watch.

Thanks.

Babbys first arthouse

I legitimately want to hear criticism about it, not vague weak shit like "boring symbolism".

The subtext of the film is present but it feels pointless, like it has nothing to say or examine.

literal ""pseud"" behavior

Why does it feel pointless? Just because the subtext isn't about "the world".

>no u
wow