That movie was retarded

That movie was retarded
there was litterally no plot and no pay-off
Even the main character wasn't even interesting in the end
what did you guys think?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/2-gs_oOokTo
thedirectorscommentary.tumblr.com/post/150798783009/the-neon-demon-2016-commentary-with-director
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

worst refn movie

he didn't even try

I loved it my favorite refn movie

>there was litterally no plot and no pay-off
>Even the main character wasn't even interesting in the end
Aboslute pleb, jesus christ kys

That said, this movie was shit

Based soundtrack yo

youtu.be/2-gs_oOokTo

2pleb4refn

Stick to Marvel

One of my Top 10 movies ever

back to rogue one, pleb

>>Even the main character wasn't even interesting in the end
no, for real
at some point it was interesting how she became cocky
but it ended up going nowhere because she was killed abruptly

god tier cinematography though

what the fuck was his problem?

...

>this movie genuinely wants you to believe they would choose left over right for castings

No way is this worse than valhalla rising

This is one of his only films that isn't like 90% intellectual wankery. Here it's like 60%

the point was that the other ones were damaged goods

...

>damaged goods
no, they weren't naturally beautiful and pure

sounds like shit and i wasn't expecting much from a movie with "neon" embedded into its title

...

It was great. A simple genre film beautifully directed.

she was the ugly one
the other blond girl was hotter

...

...

He was right.

Beauty's not everything.

It's the only thing.

...

...

what was the meaning of the ending?
why did it lookg like a music video?

Don't worry tomorrow I will make a thread that isn't shitposting pleb OP

I thought this was a Turbo Killer thread for a moment then I realized it wasn't and got disappointed.

Cougar in the desert. She was the one in Jesse's room.

...

Are you retarded?

I liked it. I think what trips most people up about this movie are 2 things:
1. Refn mixing his usual hyperrealism with surrealism, which makes it seem uneven rather than showing two perspectives (ours and hers); and
2. The movie feels undercooked or underplotted on purpose because it's supposed to be shallow to mirror the fashion modelling world.

plots are for plebs

...

...

the purity of Elle was what made her beautiful. She's not special, she's just next in a long line of girls to be chewed up and spat out by the fashion industry.

The trinity is a major theme, with Elle representing the pure beginnings of a model's career, Sarah representing the dog eat dog aspect of maintaining the vision of beauty, and Gigi represents the eventual rejection from the industry.
Ruby represents the industry itself, she holds the power in that she creates beauty standards.

The film can also be interpreted as a critique on Style over substance in relation to film making, especially Refn's style over substance.

Bravo Refn
You're a real human bean

Yes. This re: style over substance. That's why it's a visually gorgeous movie with something seemimgly too simple to say. That's the point! It's shallow.

Exactly, Refn doesn't give a shit and I love his films for it. He's said before that he just makes things he wants to see, there is no real deep meaning behind anything he does, he just enjoys making visually appealing works.

this is probably the only good shot in the entire movie

huh

I thought the other blonde girl was like a 4

Sucked

Anyone got a link to a 1080p torrent? Thanks

>He's said before that he just makes things he wants to see, there is no real deep meaning behind anything he does
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, you should probably judge a work of art with respect to what the creator intended. On the other hand, it seems to be at odds with everything I feel about what makes art good, part of which is that art has strong meaning.

It seems like from any common standard, Refn makes boring, pretentious shit. But maybe we should judge his films based off of his own standard instead of a common standard? Feels like a copout.

And to take it further, I think it's obvious that The Neon Demon DID want to explore something. But Refn didn't take the exploration seriously enough for it to be strong. Maybe he's just too used to making these minimal-effort visual pieces that he doesn't know how to actually say something when he has a subject he wants to explore.

>there was litterally no plot

What the fuck does that even mean?

OGF had the story of an emotionally immature manchild finding peace through God, not much else.

What "strong meaning" does classical music have?

I can think of nothing more pretentious than films that try to say something profound directly to the viewers. A film is not the right medium for putting forth philosophical arguments, it's a medium for emotion, just like music.

I honestly don't think Refn intended to say anything deeper than "the modelling world is shallow and it cycles through girls rapidly who buy into their own hype."

Also cannibalism.

It's a good movie. Get over it.

I don't think he was trying to say anything about the modelling industry in particular. He just wanted to make a film about beauty and narcissism.

In interviews he talked about celebrating narcissism and making a horror film for Elle's generation of teenagers.

so much fucking NECKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

The epitome of cute-hot.

>No plot and no pay-off

That is because Scandinavian filmmakers are ascending into naturalism literary movement equivalent of films
Watch Louder Than Bombs and this, fucking plebs

kek, all literary/film analysis is about extrapolating meaning from a work. Meaning is an inherent quality in narratives. It's not about "saying something profound directly to the viewers," it's about telling a story where profundity comes out naturally in analysis.

Also I think you're naive if you think people don't find meaning from classical/symphonic music, or any music. Emotion isn't all that people get from it.

...

>there was litterally no plot and no pay-off
did all the flashing lights disorient you, OP?
this was a simple horror movie

>OGF had the story of an emotionally immature manchild finding punishment* through God, not much else
ftftheplebs

>all literary/film analysis is about extrapolating meaning from a work

No. For example analyzing that a director combines X filming techniques with Y audio techniques to produce a Z aesthetic has nothing to do with what it "means", just what emotions it evokes in the viewer.

>Also I think you're naive if you think people don't find meaning from classical/symphonic music, or any music. Emotion isn't all that people get from it

Now you're just talking vague bullshit. People can have revelatory experiences and imagine fantastic scenes when listening to classical music but that doesn't mean a particular meaning is embedded in the music itself.

You can't, like, use something he says as evidence of his intentions, man.

I loved the movie, what else was it about besides Julian's finding forgiveness for himself?

You're actually wrong. Film analysis, such as any descriptive science, tries to "extrapolate" as little as possible. It rather tries to "interpolate", not searching for any sort of deeper meaning within a film, at least not in reference to "outer reality". Film analysis is, first and foremost, concerned with intrinsic systems of films, viewing film as inherently self-referential. The next level would be intertextual analysis. Only on the third level – if you will – does film analysis concern itself with the way film references the socio-cultural environment whence it arose.
So stop kekking and start reading. I'd suggest James Monaco's "How to Read a Film" and "American Film Now" for starters. His survey on film analysis as a whole is a fine read and rather comprehensive to boot.

Incest

>what is aestheticism

I also second

That's our Nicolas!

holy shit look at the hands of the girl on the right
freaky cunt

nothing really, it's called Only God Forgives for a reason. people think refn films are deep because of all the asides but his movies only have one plot.

On of the things he's forgiving himself for.

I don't know why people get so hung up on the story or rather the lack thereof.

Go watch any interview he did for the Semen Demon. All it's about is 'my waif was bjoetieful, so I wanted to make a movie about bjoetie'. So that's what he did.
Sometimes people call this kin0 pretentious, and I think it's the exact opposite. The film doesn't pretend to be anything it isn't. It never hides its thematic simplicity and the fact that's it's just a visual wankfest. It's the viewers fault for looking to deep into it and thinking that it's supposed to represent things that aren't actually there.

That's why I like them, beautifully shot, simple stories told well visually. You don't need subtitles to understand the nonenglish scenes in OGF

>Sometimes people call this kin0 pretentious, and I think it's the exact opposite. The film doesn't pretend to be anything it isn't.

Thanks. I was just about to write something along those lines!

Jesus this woman is 10/10. You guys watch Man in the High Castle? Even better their as a sexy Master Race Lebensborn Nazi. Neon Demon was good too I guess.

...

Hmmm... I preferred Abbey Lee.

That's a bingo

I, for one, want to know what Jenny Nicholson thought of this movie.

Well you definitely targeted the weaker of the statements I made.

Some film analysis is about explaining why/how a thing is effective, but a lot of it is about explaining meaning.

>Film analysis tries to "extrapolate" as little as possible. It rather tries to "interpolate", not searching for any sort of deeper meaning within a film, at least not in reference to "outer reality".
I think you misunderstood me. Extrapolation is taking internal "intrinsic" elements and condensing them into something concrete. When I say that film analysis is trying to find meaning, I don't mean it is trying to find meaning with respect to other movies or with respect to a socio-cultural environment. I didn't mean to imply that extrapolating meaning has to be done with "reference" to outer reality, I'm aware that that is a different level of analysis. Extrapolating a film to find its meaning can be done without reference to other works or socio-cultural conditions. It can be done by just looking at the internal elements of the film. Still, that is what is being done on the "first level," as you describe it:

>Film analysis is, first and foremost, concerned with intrinsic systems of films, viewing film as inherently self-referential
What you omit here is that film analysis is concerned (largely although not entirely) with finding MEANING in the intrinsic systems of films. It isn't just concerned with the intrinsic systems of films for their own sake, but for the sake of extrapolating something concrete.

by all means call me a pleb. But how is this great cinematography? I feel like that's a shot of a street that even I could take...

first mbts and now this. How hard is it to find an attractive blonde woman? they're not rare

fetal alcohol syndrome + man jaw. so qt

Valhalla Rising is great

>retarded
>litterally no plot
>no pay-off
>main character wasn't even interesting
>caring what Sup Forums thinks
what level of pleb is this

you should listen to the commentary with refn and elle, they explain alot actually.

how can I listen to this if I don't have the DVD?

he already found the cutest

They both have oddly-shaped heads but in different ways.

Find a torrent that has it

You're on the internet nigger

Why is valhalla rising great? I feel like it could've been a short and accomplished the same thing.

But that described basically every one of refn's films. And if you say so then people say "well it wasn't actually trying to accomplish anything. It was just trying to be pretty."

I got mine from here

thedirectorscommentary.tumblr.com/post/150798783009/the-neon-demon-2016-commentary-with-director

>I think you misunderstood me.
You're actually right. I did in fact misread your statement and it makes a lot more sense to me, now that you've explained your point.

I had a closer look at your posts a bit further up and I think that I find your opinion perfectly understandable even though I don't share it.

What it boils down to is trying to find a sort of INTENTION behind Refn's movies. It's indeed frustrating to see a movie and to be left high and dry in that regard. And believe me when I say that at first I DID feel that way after watching the film.
What followed, however, is hard to put into words, to be honest, especially since I'm on the verge of dozing off right now (it's rather late where I live).
But let me put it like this: Firstly, it's a film that kept popping into my mind – images, lines, things as abstract as "moods". I personally regard this as a merit in itself – not because I deemed the movie so utterly "unique" but rather because it was set up in a compellingly coherent, stringent manner. But that's a point on which I feel we might have to agree to disagree.
Secondly, however, I found the straightforwardness of this movie rather fascinating. Fascinating in a manner in which you could also find low-budget action schlock movies very appealing. You're sometimes just left a bit baffled, wondering "did I actually just watch that?". There's a disarming honesty in the simplicity of Refn's work: That man fantasizes what it would feel like to be a 16-year-old girl, he knows how to set up a shot and he goes for the kill.
Oh dear, I'm rambing on about what's either very simple to explain or maybe even boils down to a matter of taste.

Thus I suggest we agree to disagree. There's a reason why "polarising" is the one attribute that has been associated with this movie most frequently.

Elle's commentary is so lovely! I don't even like her voice a whole lot – at least not her normal speaking voice – but she's so refreshingly bubbly.

yeah, she seems like a normal person

How is that even remotely a man jaw

That would have to be one effeminate man.

Hey, I think that's all pretty fair.

To sort of side-step your points, I will say that I think the movie was interesting. I would recommend people see it. It didn't do what I traditionally "want" from a movie, and I'll hold that against it, but it's still worth seeing for a number of reasons. I would rather watch a dozen movies like this with a vision, however incoherent it sometimes is, than a single movie which has no vision and which tries nothing new.

As much as I criticize Refn, I'll still watch everything he ever puts out.

>As much as I criticize Refn, I'll still watch everything he ever puts out.

Oh there IS much to criticise about him and his work. No doubt about that. But weirdly enough this might be one of the reasons why I like his films. He's a "challenging" director in the truest sense of the word. And there might very well be a point when I tell myself "I feel like I've watched the same movie the tenth time over, I don't wanna put up with this rubbish anymore."
Thus far, this point hasn't been reached though.

What are some more directors with cinematography on Refn's level

I already like Stanley Kubrick and Wong Kar Wai and Akira Kurosawa

I can't think of any others at the moment.

Bump

Well, Kubrick might come closest to what you're looking for. In terms of framing and mise-en-scène, Refn was definitely heavily influenced by Kubrick.
You might want to go for the true classics. Expressionist cinema might be a good starting point: Lang, Wiene, Murnau...

If you're in for more transgressive contemporary stuff I'd suggest Gaspar Noé or Lars von Trier (but only his non-Dogme95 movies)

Oh yeah I forgot about Enter the Void. That was a great looking movie.