Movies that you wish you got

It was boring and it made no sense. What do you honestly think of it?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/PramR5oxn50
youtube.com/watch?v=W_hCoPa5kj4
youtu.be/E3rstWo_xSc
youtube.com/watch?v=s6jaYJx7yeI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Refns as big a fucking hack as Wed Anderson

The movie was advertised itself on style and then executed it about as well as a child trying to direct the next Matrix

i felt embarrassed for him after watching it

goat moty.

plebs gonna rage.

moty is the nice guys though

I have a special place for it in my heart since I've known a lot of people in the modeling industry and they really are that creepy, weird, insecure and narcissistic

Real lolita shit

can confirm.
I was a model in my teens for a couple of years and I met some fucked up people. Most of them were, tobh. Not only the models, the creators, event organizers... basically everyone. I felt like I was in a nuthouse most of the time.

LITERALLY SEMEN DEMON THE MOVIE AMIRITE GUISE? GET IT?
NEON DEMON SEMON DEMON HEHEHEHEH

I like it because I can pretend to not be a pleb this way.

Movie would be better if Elle wasn't a coalburning cuntwhore tho

>she wasn't even that hot

This.

I enjoyed it, the necrophilia scene was pretty good, had me laughing and cringing all at once.

Post jawline

she was great in it

elle fanning a shit

watch some of the Q&A's with Refn on YouTube

>Elle
>coalburning

WAT
Pls no

send 150$ to my paypal first

this

Quite enjoyed Finding Nemon Celine Dion Neon Demon desu

Shit was garbage
>inb4 you probably didn't get it

I for one liked it a whole lot. As I mentioned in a previous thread: It felt as though Refn had taken then best parts of his more recent movies ("Valhalla Rising" to "Only God Forgives") and cooked them up in a nice stew. It may seem like an exercise in "brand-recognition" (the "NWR" logo in the opening titles really just screams "I'm a brand now!") but it's bloody effective.

The thing is: People whine about lack of character development, lack of plot or Refn's approach to making movies in general. But don't be fooled: That guy knows full well what he's doing. His movies aren't actually "hard to get". They're WYSIWYG-movies. They're not "pretentious", as some people like to call them, because they never strive to be more than they are.
What you get are images, emotions and actually memorable, if archetypal characters.

Refn has called TND a "teenage horror flick" on a number of occasions. And yes, it's a movie about demonic possession if you will. It's not any kind of social commentary, allegory or parable, for fuck's sake. It's a horror movie, plain and simple. A suberbly cast, visually stunning, totally sexy and rather disturbing horror movie.

this desu

+1
I never knew Sup Forums would be as shit as it is now.
People are really fucking dumb, no wonder I stopped browsing this shithole for 2 years.

Even Drive didn't have a huge plot or allegories etc. and it was fine. For some reason that is expected of this movie, which were never in Refn films anyway.

source: someone who actually knows people involved in movie business

This is your problem:
youtu.be/PramR5oxn50

Refn's official over-the-hill movie
All of todays note worthy directors have them, once it's out there's no turning back. He's done for. Everything he'll do from now on will stink or at be mediocre at best

This will open the door for another up and comer, the cycle then continues until a true great emerges

OP here, i just watched a couple interviews with refn and his as autistic as his movies

"even if dey don't wanna, dey get doity. Dis ish a doity movie." – Classic!

Yeah if you watch his movies with that attitude, it's no wonder you think you don't "get" them.
Granted, Refn is a strange guy. Even unlikeable maybe. But he actually puts everything as straight as it gets. If it comes out sounding "autistic" it's mainly a language-barrier thing.
There was the Cannes 2016 PC on this movie. Look it up and skip to the parts where Refn talks. He basically tells you everything you need to know about the movie and his approach towards making movies.

...

THIS, so much. There are basically four things one has to know about Refn's movies:
1. He likes violence
2. He likes primary colours
3. He likes what this guy called "archetypal characters"
4. He writes his scripts on the go and accepts a whole lot of input from his actors

So in a way, OGF and TND are the ultimate Refn movies.

So in a way, Drive is the antithesis of Refn.

I expected more gore at the end and a little more sex in the lead up. Favorite sequences are Elle at the triangle mirrors, Keanu talking to the photographer about room 214 (god, he's so funny), and erm idk which scene to pick exactly but the two models were awesome.

I seriously hope you don't really think this

AAAARGH WHAT ARE THE LYRICS FOR THIS SONG
youtube.com/watch?v=W_hCoPa5kj4

quit this thread before proof is posted

Did Keanu really rape that girl or was it just Jesses dream/fantasy?

Drive is an adaptation, Bronson is a biopic. So in a way they are both atypical. They're Refn-movies but they're not auteur-Refn-movies. Of course they're both awesome.

Might as well have been his baseball bat-toting sidekick.

jesus christ dude

It was terrible, absolutely the worst movie I've seen in a long time.

>The thing is: People whine about lack of character development, lack of plot or Refn's approach to making movies in general. But don't be fooled: That guy knows full well what he's doing.
"It's bad on purpose" is a weak defence.
>What you get are images, emotions and actually memorable, if archetypal characters.
I won't deny that the characters are memorable, but I'd attribute that more to the appallingly bad acting and shocking nature of the film.
>suberbly cast
Not a single good actor in this movie.
>visually stunning
The aesthetic is tacky and outdated. Watch more movies, up your standards for what "visually stunning" is.
>totally sexy and rather disturbing horror movie
I'll concede this.

Its better if you watch in the cinerma

Damnit man, I was saying that they were "bad on purpose". What I meant to say was that you can ignore the classic devices of Hollywood storytelling and make striking movies nevertheless.
And where's the "appallingly bad acting" you're alking about? Naturalism isn't everything, you know.

And what's "visually stunning" to you? Don't tell people to "watch more movies" if what you mean to say is actually "watch the movies I like". Sio what's "visually stunning" to you? Malick? Noé? Kubrick? Tarkovsky? Lynch? VFX-heavy stuff?
"Aesthetic" isn't an absolute. A director can either adhere to his own aesthetic (like Wes Anderson) or borrow and shuffle (like Tarantino) and none of them is necessarily bad or good because he prefers one style over another.

*wasn't saying that...

Dan Schneider gave the movie a 5/5 I believe.

it's about women, female self worth and how beauty is a very important factor to it, it's about narcissism, everything you can see on the surface, and the fashion world is a intensification for all that , it's about beauty, and a lot more metaphors and symbolism ,it's a mastapiece

fag

the meme evolves.

could have been her ex "boyfriend" as well

got a webm of this scene?

NO but seriously

She's not really a race traitoress is she

Gf was a model in high school. While most of them are nut jobs, it doesn't make the movie any better. Turn on any modern reality show and you van see the same vain shit in bite sized episodes.

>yfw the soundtrack

Runway shows are my go-to nut houses, if you know what I mean

Actually all women are nutjobs by biological design and there's no exception to this whatsoever

It's no coincidence that women love manipulating others so much, it's literally their evolutionary survival strategy

nvm

>mouse cursor
kys

I really liked the sound track though. Give me a really strong Under the Skin/Black Swan vibe.
What are some movies similar to Neon Demon/Under the Skin/Black Swan?

what did he mean by this?

That's not the interesting part of the scene though.

He meant real Lolita shit.

I had mixed opinions. I thought the scenes with the fashion designer were GOAT but the other scenes were quite lackluster (despite beautiful visuals ofc)

Loved it. Elle a cute. CUTE!
youtu.be/E3rstWo_xSc (0:02)

It would have been better if it were an actual vampire movie instead of a pseudo one.

>that fucking cringe
I lost. Ugly and stupid, there's literally nothing attractive in here.

have you seen the movie Lolita or read the book? If not you should, it'll keep you rock hard throughout.

Actually, only the unseen tramp was of legitimate Lolita-age. Elle was already too old.

I enjoyed it. It was a fun watch, and weird enough to keep me thinking about it for a few days after I saw it. In fact i'm thinking of watching it again sometime this week.

Not having a straight forward plot has never bothered me so I don't mind that. I didn't find it boring at all, even the scenes when nothing was going on were fascinating.

yeah i was thinking of the Lolita movie

214 GOTTA BE SEEN

Spring Breakers

To be honest, when I got out the cinema I was kinda pissed. Not pissed in a way that it felt like a waste of money. The ending just really bummed me out. And I'm not a guy who's too easily impressed. I also sorta knew what to expect from a Refn movie and "Valhalla Rising" had a similar, albeit lesser, effect on me.
Well, anyway. I kinda sat there for a while, pondering what the fuck I had just watched. And then, after a certain period of frowning and pondering, something inside just told me: "Man, that was a damn fine movie, actually!"
And that's what it is. It sorta had me emotionally invested in a way that I didn't expect.

Vampires don't eat people. This has nothing to do with vampires.

I could only make it haflway through. Such a boring movie. Refn, what we're you thinking?

>keeping young through consuming some young girl's life

yeah nothing vampire about that

>lolita movie

which one? There are two and none of them really does the book honor. The first one was shot during the Hays Code era and marks the one time that Kubrick should've stuck to the source material. But he apparently was so gay for Peter Sellers that he had to fuckin open the movie with him playing piano, goofing around and getting shot. Yes, the novel is marked by a dark sense of humour but Kubrick supplanted that for crappy slapstick.

The second movie, on the other hand, is utterly devoid of humour and Jeremy Irons makes a surprisingly drab Humbert Humbert. Dominique Swain's performance was quite titillating though. Too bad that, even though she was only 15, she looked just a tad too old.

The second one

So I just watched it and ummmm.... That happened.

I'm hesitant to say it's good or bad in a story sense, upon one viewing but I will say the look of the film and the soundtrack were amazing.

How retarded are you that this movie was so hard to follow? Most of his movies are pretty straightforward. One or two instances of imagery and it throws you off? Ridiculous.

Had me dreaming about Elle's soggy panties for some nights.

They weren't soggy. They were just a tad too large.

it's about virginity you spergs

refn should have put this song in there

youtube.com/watch?v=s6jaYJx7yeI