Watch "art movie"

>watch "art movie"
>long, slow, and boring
>little to no story, characters, or good dialogue
>only thing keeping you from killing yourself is that it looks pretty

Why do people like movies like this? They act like they're more sophisticated, but desu it's even more shallow than a "pleb" like me who enjoys an actual story or characters. Anyone can make a movie look pretty with the proper equiptment and the same few "rules" of composition, but not a lot of people make an actual emotional and engaging story. That's what real genius is.

>takes a small sip of drink
>BIG *SLURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRP*

I don't know why either. Like TV shows have the potential for emotional shows but then FALL SHORT always.

Then the art house movies have the potential for emotion AND THEN JUST FOCUS ON PRODUCTION. No one makes a good

name 50 movies that does this

I like looking at pretty things.

literally every movie.

name 1 milion flicks that do this

It's hard to tell, when a movie does it right, I don't think about it, and when it does it wrong, I expect it....

it's like name 50 comedies that made you laugh out loud

damn that's way more than 50

Don't forget symbolism. It is most patrician to feel a deep sense of accomplishment when recognizing obscure references in movies.

P A T R I C I A N

Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages (Griffith, 1916)
Greed (von Stroheim, 1924)
The Gold Rush (Chaplin, 1925)
Bronenosets Potyomkin (Eisenstein, 1925)
The General (Keaton & Bruckman, 1926)
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
La passion de Jeanne d'Arc (Dreyer, 1928)
City Lights (Chaplin, 1931)
L'Atalante (Vigo, 1934)
Modern Times (Chaplin, 1936)
La grande illusion (Renoir, 1937)
La règle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
The Magnificent Ambersons (Welles, 1942)
Ivan Groznyy I (Eisenstein, 1944)
Les enfants du paradis (Carné, 1945)
Ivan Groznyy II: Boyarsky zagovor (Eisenstein, 1946)
Monsieur Verdoux (Chaplin, 1947)
Ladri di biciclette (De Sica, 1948)
The Third Man (Reed, 1949)
Rashômon (Kurosawa, 1950)
Singin' in the Rain (Donen & Kelly, 1952)
Ikiru (Kurosawa, 1952)
Ugetsu monogatari (Mizoguchi, 1953)
Tôkyô monogatari (Ozu, 1953)
Shichinin no samurai (Kurosawa, 1954)
La strada (Fellini, 1954)
Pather Panchali (Ray, 1955)
The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
Smultronstället (Bergman, 1957)
Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
Touch of Evil (Welles, 1958)
Some Like it Hot (Wilder, 1959)
Hiroshima mon amour (Resnais, 1959)
La dolce vita (Fellini, 1960)
À bout de souffle (Godard, 1960)
L'avventura (Antonioni, 1960)
Jules et Jim (Truffaut, 1962)
Lawrence of Arabia (Lean, 1962)
Otto e mezzo (Fellini, 1963)
Pierrot le fou (Godard, 1965)
Persona (Bergman, 1966)
Andrey Rublyov (Tarkovsky, 1966)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
The Godfather (Coppola, 1972)
The Godfather Part II (Coppola, 1974)
Zerkalo (Tarkovsky, 1975)
Raging Bull (Scorsese, 1980)
Fanny och Alexander (Bergman, 1982)

Can you actually mention the title or you just felt like shitposting after browsing Sup Forums for a while?

Go back to watching capeshit, dumb frogposter.

>shit opinion general

>eat a steak at a 5 star restaurant
>big, tasty, fresh
>no gmo, no hormones, no bullshit only quality meat
>some pleb wants to replace it for a sandwich or a shitburger

I didn't mention a specific title because it's meant to be just a general "art movie". Though I recognize many of the films I've tried to enjoy in this list:

can you be more specific, name some movies and give examples from them that supports your arguments.

the days of frogposting is over NOW

grain fed meat tastes better, i think it's because the animal suffered its entire life

or maybe it's just because it's fattier, who knows

What's worse is that they call shit like Wes Anderson's movies plebeian tier just because they have a cult following.
He composes great pictures, his movies look great, and they're also funny and fairly entertaining.
This angers the depressed "patrician" because it allows "normies" and "plebs" to enjoy his carefully cultivated artistic tastes without having had to suffer through awful art house flicks.

> frogposter

thread hidden

>watch the art movie la jetee
>it's not a movie, it's a fucking slideshow

They're just that. They're meant to be pretty and make you feel aesthetic feels. It's the same with art (paintings). If you see a painting/artsy film and it does nothing for you it's ok, that particular one just isn't for you. Autistic retards try to make shit like that elitist and "hurr durr pleb filter" etc and say it's not real cinema if it has a story and doesn't have 10 minute shots of a glass blade. I enjoyed some art films and always appreciate if a "regular" movie has good aesthetics and cinematography but mostly I'm too ADHD to sit for 2h just for the looks. Some films are meant to tell a story, and some not. The one kind isn't necessary more "patrician" or "better" than the other.

>The Godfather (Coppola, 1972)
This one actually has a pretty good story and is entertaining to watch. The rest looks like pretentious garbage, tho

"""art"""house is just another excuse for pretentious faggots to jack off and think they are better than other people

More like
>order a steak at a 5 star restaurant
>they give you a plastic model of a steak
>you ask where is the actual steak
>they call you a pleb for not "getting it"

heh

>The General
>Pretentious garbage
underage embryo pls

You're just too dumb to get it

Duh

Like any media, you have to go into it with a willingness to like it, enjoy it, or at the very least take it for what it is.

It's because it's fattier.

Wong Kar-wai in a nutshell.