What should i expect?

what should i expect?

Nothing refn is a hack

two hours of hipster garbage and underutilized Keanu Reeves.

it'll suddenly turn into a borderline retarded horror film that makes little sense. so be ready for that.

>nothing happens, the movie

Refn getting exposed

Nice visual and soundtrack. That's it

He'd be perfect if you could partner him up with someone who can write decent characters and smack him whenever he gets too CGI/panning-over-nothing happy.
Or just watch the Blue Ruin/Green Room films since that director is basically a version of Refn who isn't shit.

A art fart moving that's boring where nothing happens, but if you watch it, you can join the pretentious idiots whom pretend to "get it" even though there is nothing to get and praise this movie for some retarded reason.

I watched it yesterday and I liked it. I can totally see why people say it's boring and overrated but for me it was a nice trip!

there's no deep message or anything which isn't necessarily a bad thing in my opinion, because the movie makes no secret about being style over substance, in this sense I'd say it's honest

also this

Don't listen to them. Like it now before it becomes popular to like it on Sup Forums. You can't trust the hivemind anymore.

basically style over substance type of movie, the story and characters were paper-thin as fuck

>Thinking style and substance don't inform each other


This is the only decent movie refn has done and it's purely due to heavy stylizing

when can we expect a better quality release?

>it's purely due to heavy stylizing
that was my point?

Munchies

>nothing happens
>style over substance

Anyone who uses these phrases as criticism should be immediately dismissed as worthless mongoloids and taken to the back alley to be euthanized.

Holy shit why do you fucking idiots even come here to discuss film.

>style over substance

this is pretty much a fact though and not necessarily criticism

It's a meaningless statement because "substance" is so vague. What does that even mean? If you think the film is missing something, say what exactly it is missing. "Substance" doesn't mean anything.

probably one of the worst art films I've ever seen

Didn't you know? Movies are supposed to solve all of life's esoteric questions.

okay, for example one essential thing that is missing basically is the lack of information about the characters and their motivations, backgrounds etc.
they only fulfill some functions for the most part instead of illustrating some richer inner life

more than being persons the characters represent envy, narcissism etc. that constantly fuel and destroy the people involved in the industry, while the guy who wants to fuck elle is the viewer as the average joe

IDK what this so I'm going to guess that you should expect Vapor Wave.

100% unfiltered kino

>background

This is simply not required

>motivations

The motivations are as plain as day. They may be vapid (apart from Ruby's) but so are the character.

tfw german and "kino" becomes a fucking buzzword with no meaning whatsoever

Kino

Yeah but you can put a suit and tie on a turd and it'll still be a turd.

but then it's a aesthetically pleasing turd

>The motivations are as plain as day.
they aren't though, most of them probably share many motivations but to unequal parts
some will just try to make money, some rather want to be famous than rich, some just want people around them to admire them, some will want to improve their self worth while for others it's even out of the question etc.

it's really simplistic to say that they are all the same

A pleb filter just like pic related.

If you're patrician you'll love it.

Exploring those things would not have made the film better, it would have clashed with the tone and style of the film.

Examining the psychology of models in the fashion industry is not what the film is about.

An argento uninspired "homage", not to say ripoff, where Elle gets eaten by her model friends and jenna malone. It's a waste of time

This was mediocre

>It's a waste of time
>This was mediocre
Like I said. Pleb filter.

ah REALLY good film could hint at these things in the subtext

nice argument, you're twice the pleb i am

No point, none if has to do with examining beauty itself. Would have only been distracting.

>This stylish shocker by writer-director Nicolas Winding Refn (Drive) equates physical beauty with the life force—the metaphor is intriguing, but not enough to compensate for his cliched portrayal of the modeling business as a glamorous snake pit.

what did he mean by this

>Or just watch the Blue Ruin/Green Room films since that director is basically a version of Refn who isn't shit.
kek seriously praising Green Room

Who is the retard who wrote that?

>he's a retard because i don't like what he's saying
kys. it's rosenbaum

>person says retarded shit
>I'm not allowed to call him a retard

How does that work? It has nothing to do with that I like or don't like, it has to do with what is retarded and what is non-retarded.

ok. good job proving that

His """"""critique"""""" is based on 3 false premises: 1) That portraying the fashion industry realistically is somehow inherently a good thing for the film 2) That Refn's portrayal is false in the first place 3) That Refn had any intent to portray the fashion industry realistically, or say anything about the fashion industry

user, it's a bad movie just get over it

it wouldn't have to time consuming, for example you could have them talking about the modelling industry as a whole while one of them looks at jewelry, the other looks at some guy with authority in the business or some shit
stuff like this can be done within seconds if done right

are you autistic? all of your 3 points are irrelevant, he's saying that the movie is a cliche that doesn't have anything else going for it, that's his main point.

how is it bad

That sounds pedestrian as fuck but even if it was done better I repeat again, that would have only been distracting and would not add anything to the film. It's not a character study or a film that's trying to do political commentary on the fashion industry.

Do you have problems with reading comprehension? In the sentence quoted above the "cliched" part only refers to the film's portrayal of the fashion industry.

>the "cliched" part only refers to the film's portrayal of the fashion industry
That's the whole movie user.

>M-MUH SUBSTANCE

I'm here to watch a beautiful kino with a beautiful young actress, not read a fucking book. I don't need some big intricate plot to make me feel something, retard.

Not only is it barely even about fashion, the notion of the films socio-political commentary or lack there-of having anything to do with the films quality is grotesque. That man has no business talking about films.

why are refnfags so mad? lmao

>m-muh waifu

>That man has no business talking about films
lol i'm sure you know more about films than him

They care about film as a medium, unlike most of the useless faggots on this board.

>since that director is basically a version of Refn who isn't shit.
turbopleb

seeing this is Sup Forums 2.0, i might agree with you, even if you people sound like a bunch of annoying kids

It's premise is eye-rollingly clichéd, the acting and writing is terrible, the pacing felt inconsistent and the visuals and soundtrack are bad (get some taste Refn drones).

>These aspects X, Y and Z of the film are (insert bad adjective here)

Really insightful criticism, good job kiddo.

Don't respond to me as if you were my intellectual equal.

What you said is barely a tiny step above just saying "The film is bad"

I hope you don't think it actually meant something, that would be embarrassing

disappointed Armond White didn't like this movie.

I expected him to praise these kind of movies

The film is bad because those aspects are bad. If you managed to watch the movie without being able to understand why those things are bad, then you're either inexperienced or a lost cause.

It's like you think being able to name some parts that compose a film like "writing" and "visuals" and using adjectives other than "bad" somehow elevates what you're saying. It doesn't. All you are saying is "the film is bad, if you don't think it's bad you're dumb".

That's not insightful, that's not criticism, that's nothing except you saying "I didn't like it". You are garbage buddy.

That's precisely what I'm saying. It's a terrible film and any apologist is without a doubt defective.

That's a great argumentation tactic I admit.

I'll give it a try: Your mother is a whore who is disappointed in his son and anyone who thinks otherwise is without a doubt defective.

Says the Refn sympathizer.

Not him but you need to chill and accept valid criticism. How about you praise what you like in the movie and he'll debate on the points you consider "valid"?

>chill and accept valid criticism

There was no criticism given.

>How about you praise what you like in the movie and he'll debate on the points you consider "valid"?

Well just to name a few things the way the soundtrack starts building an atmosphere of menace from the very start pays off very well by the time we get to the blood bath part. The audiovisual set pieces like the club scene and the golden photoshoot are aesthetically perfect in their own right in addition to adding to the tone of menace. It's funny this moron called the premise "cliche" because Jesse being a typical figure in the industry is kind of the whole fucking point, she's a youthful virginal beauty that gets devoured because of her beauty (by herself in narcissism and by others literally) just like a thousand other girls before her.