Movie is boring and a bummer

>Movie is boring and a bummer

Dropped it when Natalie Portman came in--do not plan on finishing the shit movie--it's made by indie pot-heads to watch stoned.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=lFkyAD9gS6g
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

How many cups did he collect?

That's basically a gratuitous perfume commercial.

I liked girls with nice asses, and Portman feet scene because I just like nice-looking feet in general.

Otherwise, it's on the bottom of the thrash can.

Not very many. He was too busy fighting in tournaments/ slaying dragons/ rescuing damsels/ etc.

>watching art like this and just caring about muh feet and ass

Fucking slug

Muh feet and ass are the highest forms of art, my child.

>watches an art movie
>can't connect with it
>I-It's the movie's fault
like clockwork

>"Remember... You have a soul..."
What did he mean by this?

Oh shit, it's not another "let's not have a coherent plot or narrative or anything, let's just get high-profile actors to wander through a variety of locales and have them act in vignettes while they look depressed" episode is it?

Seeing as Malick is a pretentious hack who hasn't produced anything of note in the last 18 years.

It's exactly that.

I understand what Malick is trying to do, but I cannot help myself. I fucking hate it. It has no structure whatsoever.

>it's dreamy and aesthetic so it's bad

brainlets like you are why we're flooded with capeshit

>boring
>And a bummer

Please, tell me what's the moral of the story, or, if there's no moral, what the director wanted to accomplish with his movie.

Failure to do that will forever brand you an underage tryhard.

I think you're being duped matey. "There has to be some deeper meaning to this torpid dross". No, there isn't. Also, his films haven't been aesthetic since the 70s with the exception of The Thin Red Line.

What a fucking ponce.

>Also, his films haven't been aesthetic since the 70s with the exception of The Thin Red Line.

The New World would disagree with you

I think it proves my point. Boring, sterile cinematography that's far too sharp and saturated. The kind of thing any film student could produce given a large enough budget.

It's the new Boyhood.

And it took 12 years to make.

Wow.

>Boring, sterile cinematography that's far too sharp and saturated

Couldnt disagree more

youtube.com/watch?v=lFkyAD9gS6g

No one will respond to this. And even if they do it will be some relativist bullshit like "the point is that there is no point man."

>those native people bouncing around like monkeys

stopped watching there

"As an intellectual I can appreciate this without stating any reasons, I also look down on people who don't enjoy watching a jumped up perfume ad for two hours". Clearly it's just too deep to be comprehended by anyone except Malick himself.

...

Post jew feet.

...

That is the exact scene which made me close the video and delete the movie.

What the fuck movies were you clowns watching? It's about a depressed guy trying to find meaning in his empty life. The rest of the film is just a very pretty and dreamlike tour of exactly that. It's literally spelled out in the first ten minutes. This isn't super secret deep meaning wheres Waldo you cucks, the whole movie is how the visuals and mood resonate with you. You niggas still sound like you're paddling away in the imdb kiddie pool

I really enjoyed some of the cinematography in the first half but found the second half just tiresome

I watched Stalker, and it was the best thing that ever happened to me.

I watched Antichrist, and I hated it because Von Trier is an egotistical douche.

I watched this piece of fine craftsmanship, and it was an empty shell, and a total waste of budget.

Does the depressed guy represent Malick, and his empty life represents Malick's career in the last 20 years?

LUCKY BASTARD.