Discuss

Discuss

I remember when these threads used to get a decent amount of replies every time.

The only thing that triggers me is that tarantino is up with those names

>Antonioni
Spot on

It does portray his films as fragmented and having too much negative space. It also portrays them as orderly though which is wrong

Explain this to me.

Malick is pretty nail on the head as well

This doesn't actually mean anything

what am I looking at?

Shut up

>no Coens

wtf is this shit?

You're low IQ

No Snyder

discarded

A few of them a really good desu

>Warhol
>de Palma
>Mizoguchi
>Kubrick
As much as I hate to see his name with these others Tarantino is spot on, and they took a fucking easy shot at Riefenstahl

>and they took a fucking easy shot at Riefenstahl
There's nothing "2 deep" about a straightforward propaganda movie.

somebody please explain this nonsense.

It's a Sup Forums fingerbox kind of shit, right?

I would have liked to have seen a better swastika all the same

I understand some of them, so I assume the rest are corect.

Buñuel = Subjects opposing traditional catholic values (Hence the cross)
Riefenstahl = Nazi
Godard = Small stories/Points of views of a whole
Leone = Panoramic beautifl shots
Malick = Style over substance
Lynch = Apparently simple plots that leads nowhere and usually without a resolution
Tarantino = "Comic book" style scenes, and dialogues

>Tarantino = "Comic book" style scenes, and dialogues
I was thinking more like some smaller stories completing or fitting into the main one.

Possibly, but if you watch Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill, they are heavily "comic book" influenced.

>Malick = Style over substance
lol pleb

Malick is style through substance