Only good film of the decade so far

>only good film of the decade so far
>everybody hates it
lmaoing at all you fucking plebs

Other urls found in this thread:

rogerebert.com/balder-and-dash/art-is-an-act-of-violence-an-interview-with-nicolas-winding-refn
twitter.com/AnonBabble

liking a movie because it's pink

Hey now, The Neon Demon was good too

The poster is clearly more blue.

Haven't seen it yet, as I wait at least 2 years after a movie releases to actually watch it.
Idiot.

Why does neo/tv/ hate it? Are they too dumb to understand art?

>Only Reddit Forgives

the neon demon was style over substance.

it's only ok to enjoy it while intoxicated.

Excuse me but you do know that ban evading is against the rules right?

>style over substance.

Thanks for letting everyone know you're a moron with nothing meaningful to say.

I bet you also enjoy movies by Korine lol

>pure ad hominem

Nice rebuttal.

The film is still pure garbage.

I asked you a question kid

This movie is a meme, but I'm not memeing when I say Gosling has been the best thing about this first half of the decade in film. I really hope Blade Runner 2 continues his streak and he isn't selling out to the franchise/capeshit machine for no reason. If not, hopefully La La Land is a good enough cap on his post-Notebook, prime era Goose run.

>Nice rebuttal.

There was nothing to rebut as there were no arguments.

>The film is still pure garbage.

How?

Neon Demon, Malick's kinos, Under the Skin, as well, Certified Copy if 2010 is this decade

Fair-weather Drive fans wanted Drive 2, having never seent other Refn

But we love it here.

I'm guessing you've hardly seen any films from this decade.
I can think of twenty better. Though I'd image there are thousands better, as OGF is actually quite terrible.

>as OGF is actually quite terrible.

How?

No texture in it's cinematography. Artificial lighting washes out the depth of images. No sense of space in scenes. No connective tissue in it's editing. Scene could be placed in any order. Actors don't even feel like there in the same room as each other.

I know you're trolling, but
>Refn: Well, the use of violence is ... I guess art is an act of violence, in a way. It's an emotional outpouring, and I don't really know ... I think that violence in the cinema is necessarily a fetish. Emotionally, our artistic expression consists of sex or violence. It all boils down to those two pure emotions that we have. But where erotica or sexuality is not fantasy, because most of us do it, violence, on the other hand, is fetish, is fantasy. There is a sexuality to violence that I find very intoxicating. But I think that that's what turns me on.
>rogerebert.com/balder-and-dash/art-is-an-act-of-violence-an-interview-with-nicolas-winding-refn

He made the movie to masturbate to it. He admits it, and it's very evident when you look at the lack of plot, and how the film sets a mood that can be best described as artificial. Throw in the fact that Gosling's character is known as the Angel of Death, the idea that somehow all the gore that finds place is supposed to say something profound about the cyclical nature of violence and retribution, and all the vapid attempts at making the audience give a reaction - such as when the mother laments the dead son's cock or calls Gosling's date a cum dumpster or any of the gory displays - and just to make it seem ironic the gook sings a bit of karaoke. In the end all of it feels complacent and contrived. The acting is choppy. Gosling shows barely any emotion and when he does it feels unwelcome. The plotline is non-existent and leaves the audience confused as to what exactly is going on, and half-way through the movie it's become such a bore you can just feel Refn nudging you in the side at every scene to check your reaction.

>Throw in the fact that Gosling's character is known as the Angel of Death

He's not though.

Have you even seen the movie?

>implying Refn is the least bit interested in "saying" things with his films
>implying "plot" matters
>implying anything about what happens in OGF is confusing

Gosling's character is a broken little boy, not the angel of death. He's fixated on him killing his father that it has enveloped his whole life. He's not in the room with everyone else, he's self-absorbed in his own misery. Chang represents God and he frees himself from his obsession over his sin by letting Chang take his arms. Like said, the plot itself is very simple.