Hacksaw ridge = christian propoganda

>hacksaw ridge = christian propoganda
Sup Forums eats that shit straight up saying it's the best movie they've seen of the decade

>sausage party = atheist propaganda
Sup Forums laments over it for months after release saying how offended they are over it

why does Sup Forums have so many christians?

DUDE

...

Did you consider the possibility that one is a better-made movie, regardless of the philosophy behind it?

Because The Tree of Life showed us the true path in 2011

>*tips fedora*

What are you saying?

i tried so hard to like this movie but it was 2 hours of people whispering and looking depressed and i just couldnt do it

i think i had to pause it about 20 minutes before it ended and i didnt ever bother to finish it anyway

Tv hated sausage party Because it was dude weed lmao with food

>20 minutes before it ended and i didnt ever bother to finish it anyway
It gets much worse in the end, specifically, a 2deep4u surrealistic scene.

>woah, all the cast walking on a beach in white cloahing, how deep, really makes you think

Fuck off.

God, that's an attractive woman.

And that kid got to fuck her

really?

This user is lying.

2deep4u
I'm sure edge of tomorrow is more your speed though

just because a movie is boring doesnt make it deep.

It's a pretty powerful film. Maybe you're a sociopath who has abandoned his humanity?

Edge of Tomorrow is a great film as well. A different film, but not one that deserves to be used in such a derogatory sense.

>Maybe you're a sociopath who has abandoned his humanity?
Not him, but I just found it immensely dull and so did so many other people, which hardly makes us sociopaths.

The cinematography was decent, but there are plenty of other films that look better while also having a story, so this isn't nearly good enough.

lmao weed

I guess by cinematography you mean "pretty pictures". Yes, there were a lot of great shots in the film, but like you implied, pretty pictures alone do not make a good film.

I find the film to be incredibly personal, and human if that makes any sense. It deals with matters that all people are familiar with. The loss of a loved one, growing up feeling lost and confused, the search for peace and meaning, and so on. I find that this film speaks to a lot of people in a lot of different ways, and find it a little strange that you are unable to see anything in it but boredom, when it is so rich in meaning.

What do you believe in? Is anything sacred to you?

Because Christian propaganda promotes white values instead of anti-white propaganda.

Are you going to compare an animated comedy to a live action war drama? Just to avoid admitting that Sup Forums is filled with legit triggered teenagers?

>The cinematography was decent
Please, "decent".

>but there are plenty of other films that look better
From the same year? From the following years? Barely.

>having a story
It told the semi-autobiographical story of Malick's childhood and dealing with faith.

Knight of Cups and To the Wonder are better films though.

>lmao Christianity
>lmao Bible makes me better than Japanese savages

I so very miss that I never showed it to my grandfather who died 2 years ago. I believe he would've loved it.

>unironically using the term "white values"

>>Sup Forums

>pretty pictures alone do not make a good film.
Depending on how long you've been here, you'd been surprised how many people here would think otherwise.

As to your reasons for liking it, I'm incapable of feeling something before I understand it, which is what the director has stated he thinks should happen in films. It's about a family of boys with a stern father and gentle wife and various scenes from that life. That's what I got from that movie, nothing more. I'm not even going to address the beginning and end of it.

>What do you believe in?
Strange question to ask here and I don't think whether I believe in anything should affect my ability to appreciate the film, as I'm sure plenty of people who weren't nihilists didn't like it.

>Is anything sacred to you?
Yes, but I don't get any sense of that from watching scenes of a family in the 50s.

But that's exactly what OP did, or at least he was comparing the response between the two movies. If it's valid to compare the responses, why I can't I compare the movies, considering I'm saying that's the source of the different responses.

Because comparing the responses is not the same argument as comparing the films. Those were indeed the general reactions on Sup Forums, OP was not wrong. You all sperged out over "dude food porn" but are heralding Hacksaw as some flagship beacon of Christianity.

wtf is a movie about a bunch of sausages have to do with atheism you dumbass .besides atheism is retarded , we're not all edgy religious 15 yearolds .
also you can have a good movie with a christian character,main characters of movies are not 'amazing and flawless in every way' because that would be boring as fuck .

it was gibson propaganda. just like apocalypto. i'm surprised you can't see that.

>From the same year? From the following years? Barely.
I don't know what films you have in mind which you refer to when you say, "Barely," but those films probably have proper stories, something to get invested in, a conflict, something that The Tree of Life lacks.

>inb4 calling me a plot fag
Without responding to me without any insults, I've never understood what's supposed to interest an audience in me in particular aside from having conflicts being resolved. What is supposed to interest me when watching The Tree of Life? Even if there's something incredibly deep message, (which I doubt), it's still mostly just scenes of the kids doing things with little character development. What I am supposed to be interested in? Just how pretty it looks? Again, if you're going to answer, try to avoid personal attacks.

>>pretty pictures alone do not make a good film.
>Depending on how long you've been here, you'd been surprised how many people here would think otherwise.

Judging by the Sicario spam 99% of the board thinks "good cinematography = pretty picture = good film".

>>Is anything sacred to you?
>Yes, but I don't get any sense of that from watching scenes of a family in the 50s.
If you didn't feel anything when he kills the frog you're just dead inside, it's a great scene.

>but those films probably have proper stories, something to get invested in, a conflict, something
There's pleb and then there's the King Pleb here.

>atheism is retarded
Ask me how I know you are 15 and a Christian

I know this is bait, but Hacksaw is legitimate Kino. You could cut out all the medic and Christian scenes and still have a masterpiece.
Meanwhile, sausage party is literally a bad joke.

>same argument as comparing the films.
True, but therein lies the answer. I could even go so far to say that Sausage Party is a stupid comedy film while Hacksaw Ridge is a historical drama, so it wouldn't be fair to compare the reactions because they're based on what type of films they are. But that would hardly be fair, and I see no reason why you can compare the reactions while I can't compare the films, especially when it's unlikely the reception would be so high for one and low for the other if the respective qualities of the film were so different, at least in Sup Forums's eyes.

Not an argument. I specifically said not to make a personal attack.

Because you are afraid people will call you out for what you are. Pleb that can't appreciate non-conventional storytelling.

If you can't for an hour and a half (or two, or whatever a film's run time is) immerse yourself into the world created before you then there is a problem.

The problem I have with your assertion of the film, is that you found it boring. You've simplified the events but even so it seems you haven't understand the deeper dynamics of their relationships. It was a troubled household. The kid grew up always feeling second best, until his brother died, and even then those feelings still lingered. The wife always felt like she had no power. There is so much to "get" from this film, i'm surprised people like you are so oblivious to it.

I only asked those questions to try to understand where you are coming from. It really does seem like you born and grew up in on alien planet bereft of all humanity.

because television is an activity for religious people...

>I see no reason why you can compare the reactions while I can't compare the films
Because the topic of discussion isnt about the films...

>same argument as comparing the films.
I actually didn't say that. What did you base that on? This is an important question.

>It was a troubled household.
I didn't really simplify it. I forgot that detail and I'm sure I was aware of it when I watched and I remember that being the case now, but that isn't nearly sufficient to make a conflict worthy of gaining my attention to see it resolved.

> There is so much to "get" from this film
I think I "got" all that when I watched it, but didn't really care and I don't see why I should care. So they have family problems. It doesn't resemble my childhood, I found their lives to be totally dull as far as screen depictions were concerned, and the film as such extremely self-indulgent. Why don't you try making an argument for why I should about anything that was happening instead of insulting me?

> It really does seem like you born and grew up in on alien planet bereft of all humanity.
Stop, don't be an idiot. You can take that as a personal attack, but when you make such incredibly stupid statements such as that, which are in fact personal remarks, you deserve it. Plenty of people did not like that film and asking why they didn't feel hard enough doesn't answer their complaints.

If we're going to keep discussing this, try something. If you see in any of your posts comments or assumptions about me as a person, delete it because I don't want to see it because it's irrelevant. Or I should I start insulting you and tell you what I really think of people who liked this movie? If you don't want that, don't apply a double standard to yourself and think you can make personal remarks because you're right. Try to explain why you think you're right because that's much more likely to convince me. If convincing me isn't your goal and you just want to shame and psychologize me for not liking this movie, I don't want to continue this discussion.

Just a tasteless gigapleb is what you are.

But the films themselves reveals the answer to your question.

Don't take it to heart, it's just people trying to fit in with board culture.

Still not an argument. Non-convention storytelling can't excuse this movie.

It doesn't need excusing, it is only showing your lame ass sensibilities not understanding what you are seeing. You have not even attacked its legitimate weak points which it has a fair share of, but you talk like a pleb about it.

Please, indicate what I didn't understand. I vaguely remember the movie, and aside from the beginning the ending, (which I heard an asinine explanation of which was probably the director's intention), I "understood" everything that was happening and I still failed to care and with good reason. Please, explain why I should have cared? Calling me a pleb doesn't answer the question and instead probably indicates you can't answer it.

I don't care that you didn't care. I just laugh at your plebeian sensibilities and arguments as to why you didn't care (which all signify your low cinematic understanding to be frank).

I myself don't consider it a good film nor even a good Malick but not because of dumb reasons like "proper story was lacking"

You didn't answer the question. Wouldn't it have been easier just to do so instead of calling me a pleb? You can keep doing it, but if you write enough, you couldn't use the excuse that it wasn't worth your time, considering how much you've written calling me a pleb.

Jesus christ, shut the fuck up you aspie

MEMEMMEMEMEMEMMEMEME MEMEME


lmao get it???

fucking memes
xxdxdxd

pls dnt ban me

...

Nothing I said was reddit. What sort of faggot names themselves on an anonymous image board?

There literally is nothing more rebbit than that

,

Both films sucked tbqh. Same old, same old.

> muh pole
> not reddit

My mind is going crazy. I've lost track of time. I can't tell if this is a repost or not. I feel like I've seen this already, a day or two ago, but I honestly don't know.
Help me.

You quite literally did a reddit thing. How do you fail to understand this?