The cinematography was amazing!

>the cinematography was amazing!

>it was a little too long. it could have used some editing.

>nothing happened!

t. brainlet frogposter
t. your mom to me after i drilled her
t. your mom to your dad after i drilled her

>if you didn't like it then you're a numale cuck who needs to go back to rëddit

>People who say ''Film is supposed to be entertainment!''
>People who have 2001, Seven Samurai, Citizen Kane, other pleb shit on their top lists
>People who have seen 1 film made before the 50s and think they have taste
>People who like Wes Anderson and think they somehow have taste
>People with most movies on list made in last 20 years
>People who have no foreign language movies listed
>People who think korean cinema is good
>People who have movies from Nolan, Tarantino, Aronofsky, Kubrick, Refn, Snyder on their list
>People who have any comic book movie listed
>People who say comfy/based

This is a completely valid criticism. A Cure for Wellness needed a solid 20 minutes cut.

>>People who have movies from Nolan, Tarantino, Aronofsky, Kubrick, Refn, Snyder on their list

What list is this? Movies I enjoy?

I enjoy movies from Nolan, Tarantino, Kubrick, and Snyder.

Refn is a pretentious faggot although I would still watch Drive again.

Also by the way if you base your enjoyment of a movie on how popular or unpopular it is, then you are a pretentious faggot and you need to be euthanised.

>it's all symmetric shots

>people who don't like my favourite movies
I refer you to

>the cinematography is amazing
>why is it amazing
>b-because it looks so pretty and bright(starts posting high def stills off google images)

Fucking plebs

t. college film student

Every review in
>INSTANT CLASSIC!
>THE BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR!
>_____ DOES IT AGAIN THE MOVIE WAS AMAZING!!!

>why did he do that?
>where are they going?
>what's going on
>who are they

just keep WATCHING they're going to explain god DAMMIT

If you are watching movies for enjoyment and not for historical archiving or film review purposes there is literally no point in watching old movies. The budgets were worse, the technology was worse, the "seinfeld effect", but worst of all is that they lack the fundamentals of kinography that every filmmaker today has.
This partially applies to low budget film too, but atleast low budget film exists in our zeitgeist and can be contrasted to mainstream work meaning they can take larger risks.

It needed a lot more than that, like an explanation of what they were pretending to explain and less tropes and cliches

>tripfaggot
>says something retarded

What a surprise

filtered

>anyone who doesn't share my super-well-informed objectively-correct positions on cinema

My post has inherent value, even if you disagree with the points I bring up you can contemplate why you feel differently and maybe come up with a response?

>Anonymous
>pointless shitpost
What a faggot

>movie is called nocturnal animals
>it's not about nocturnal animals
what the fuck

>what is 90% of Korean movies

wtf, I love transformers now?!

Some humans are nocturnal animals

>the best boy grip had a really solid grip on things

Stay on Sup Forums or Sup Forums

>movie is called lion
>it's not about lions
wtf

>implying Sup Forums isn't the only board i frequent
>getting bustblasted so publicly

Stay on Sup Forums or Sup Forums.

>but it has a plot hole!

Just because you haven't found an old movie that entertains you doesn't mean that they don't exist

"no"
:)

:D

>it was too long