Just saw this

Just saw this

wtf, it was pure kino.

why the fuck did it receive such low scores?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=wNtxgxYY7sI
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>why the fuck did it receive such low scores?

Quite a simple reason: plebs

>People in fashion industry are all sociopathic assholes obsessed with beauty
Wow, such fresh, original idea! How does Refn keep coming up with such amazing shit?

It lacks the qualities that the average moron needs in film (sympathetic and generic characters, spoonfeeding everything that is happening through dialogue).

>implying the film is primarily about the fashion industry
>implying Refn attempts to make his film have some great socio-political or philosophical messages

Good job on completely misunderstanding his work. And the film medium as a whole, for that matter.

>NUH UH 2DEEP4U
Okay, enlighten me, totally-not-Refn

I have to say I loved this movie, though it creeped me the fuck out being alone in my house, locked my bedroom door.
Really captures that feeling of having absolutely no-one.
Tonight I'm going to watch starry eyes and the skin i live in as a follow up. You guys have any other recs?

>trying to talk to a Marvel pleb

Spare yourself

1. Neon Demon "The" is a pretentious piece of shit made by a pretentious wanker, for pretentious wankers.

2. Where can I get an indigestible eyeball from?

3. See 1.

Is it at least fappable?

First half was great. Then it dropped the ball and became pretencious shit. Ending was more like Eli Roth movie ffs

>Is it at least fappable?
Well, the film features, amongst other things:
>lesbian necrophilia
>occult rituals being practiced in the nude
>dazzlingly gorgeous & elegant human female specimen
Go figure.

The film is about feminity.

shit moive kys

Deep. Hope you didn't forget to post it on lettboxd, people must know of your genius analytic

I thought It was Cara Delavigne in the thumbnail

>The.Neon.Demon.2016.2160p.AMZN.WEBRip.DD5.1.x264-NTb
Do I watch this or wait for the blueray?

I didn't say it was too deep for him, I said his view on how Refn sees filmmaking itself is wrong.

>the semen demons
Jesus christ Refn

>x264

Stop fucking posting this garbage. Nobody gives a fuck and refn is a hack.

How is he a hack? I have my pleb bingo card ready to receive your reasoning.

>beauty isn't everything, it's the only thing
Whoa! Really made me contemplate

>Neon Demon "The"

Stop posting.

>2016
>caring about scores and critics

grow up kid

Yeah, it was the only thing for her. She didnt have a family, friends or even character.

That quote wasn't about her though. He was talking beauty as the only real currency.

I don't think so. I think it's a celebration of narcissism and "self-empowerment".
I think that despite what Refn says, beauty is not the core of it. It could have been about a very talented singer, writter, etc...
It also reminded me a bit of Kanye West's philosophy (yes, I'm serious). In a way at least.

I don't see how the film celebrates narcissism. It directly causes the main character's downfall.

It directly causes her rise I think.
And I don't think you should look for a moral here. It's clearly a tragedy.

I see it the other way. Her rise causes her narcissism. I mean the runway scene makes it pretty explicit that only at that point has she begun to believe everything people have been telling her.

The skin i live in is good as fuck watch dat shit with love

Yes that's true. But then, it's also when she turns more confident and powerful.
I mean, it's not her fault that she ends up being eaten, jaja

Under the Skin is similar in tone and filmed just as competently.

neon demon? more like semen demon, amirite?

Good one, lad.

Watching refn movies for the plot is like being a starving person eating at a fancy restaurant with tiny little portions.

You go for the aesthetic experience.

Yay, style over substance every fucking time.

Style is substance, nothing will change that.

>style over substance

This is the go-to phrase for the mindless pleb. It's so vague you can say it without having to think of any real arguments.

...

Kino if you are simply minded enough to be thoroughly entertained by pwetty visuals for 2 hours, because that's pretty much the only thing it has to offer.

>Bach is just pretty sounds at the end of the day, there's no substance

This is literally you.

Refn is dogshit for teenagers

Music is difference, it's less of a commitment. I shitpost while listening to Bach, can't do that while watching boring movies.

What you're implying there is that listening to music by itself would be boring.

You know what else is pure kino? Problem Child 2

>jaja

what did the spic mean by this

haha, huehueh, lol, wwww, ))))).

you choose.

It would. Who just listens to music while staring into a wall? It's 2016.

You're right. I forgot it was the CURRENT YEAR. I apologize.

Which kino was better?

>look the muh colors
>look at muh cool visuals
>look at muh nihilistic views

>love muuuuuh

Jesus fuck that was awful. I liked Drive but NWR can fuck right off with this,

>nihilistic views

This was the point where you made it clear you haven't got a clue. Feel free to elaborate what "nihilistic views" you are referring to.

sounds like pic related. is it comparable?
youtube.com/watch?v=wNtxgxYY7sI

>why the fuck did it receive such low scores?
Let me answer your question with a question: Why did Ghostbusters 2016 receive such high scores?

Refn (or his marketing guys or whoever) didn't bribe the film review industry like everyone else does. If you don't pay the piper, you don't get to call the tune.

If I check out a reviewer's history and it turns out they shit on GB2016 then maybe they're honest. But it's a lot easier to simply ignore reviews altogether and assume that every single opinion on a current release that you hear from a stranger, even on Sup Forums, has been bought.

But of course, most people, even after the blatant Ghostbusters 2016 shillfest, will STILL read and believe reviews, even online. And they'll go see what the studio tells them to see via their "reviews," so quality will no longer factor into a movie's success, and cinema will die a slow, ugly death.

Thanks shills.

I'm a proud catalan, ma dude. I'm blond and pale. And my country has 100 times more history than yours.

You're actually whining about a filmmaker concentrating on the visuals in a visual medium.

>it's another "Refn puts lipstick on a pig with a hilariously-shallow message and imbeciles eat it up" episode

Stop with the re-runs.

It's pretty, but that's about it. It's a shame because his earlier films had actual character, he seems to be getting worse

>he thinks a film's quality is strongly tied to how deep of a "message" it has

How do you mongoloids manage to operate a computer?

>he thinks pretty lights and bright colors are strongly tied to a film's quality

>looking for a "message" in a movie
How old are you

Film is composed of two aesthetics, visuals and audio. The aesthetic quality of those components and the response they elicit from the viewer is literally what the medium is about.

I feel like I'm talking to crazy people over here. As said before what you're saying is like saying "pretty sounds" aren't strongly tied to the quality of music. You're talking nonsense.

I know for a fact you only watch capeshit and popcorn flicks if you think like this, it's fitting that you like Refn too

>Film is composed of two aesthetics, visuals and audio. The aesthetic quality of those components and the response they elicit from the viewer is literally what the medium is about.
You can have all of that without compromising depth, watch more films

Oh I remembered her talking in the bathroom with that psycho model and when she asked what is it like to be so flawless she answered "It's everything.".

>depth

Nice vague word you got there. What does that even mean?

it means you should watch more films

I bought a set of glasses from an online place once, and they sent me an eyeball gobstopper with it. (I assume you actually mean digestible)

No, it means you can't comprehend the notion that a film can produce a maximal emotional response from the viewer without attempting to put forth some great socio-political/philosophical message.

In fact, I think films that present it's themes and let's the viewer mull them over themselves are more timeless than films that are trying to make a specific point.