Imagine having shit taste like this and be given a Star Wars to direct

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Z_Cc20I-maM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

at least under the skin is original and interesting. star wars is just a parody of itself at this point

>when someone says a movie that came out in the last 5 years is the best ANYTHING
Do these people have memory spans THAT short? They can only think of things that just came out?

but hes right

Imagine giving a shit about star was beyond the empire strikes back

Under the Skin is great.

I haven't seen under the skin but eternal sunshine was good.

>Under the Skin is great.
Can you explain what is great about this joke of a movie. If there wasn't Scarjo in it nobody would have ever mentioned it. Once again she plays an unemotional alien to hide the fact she can't act. As for the film itself, it's artsy crap you'd expect from a film student trying to be edgy and having a 50$ budget

>If there wasn't Scarjo in it nobody would have ever mentioned it
That's wrong. I know you guys follow only the Oscars and Youtube celebrities but Under the Skin was loved by many critics. You will find it on virtually every list of top films of 2010s. Usually it's in top 10.

He said it's the best sci-fi film since Eternal Sunshine, not that it's the best sci-fi film of all time.

That's not true either.

Beyond the Black Rainbow > Under The Skin.

>get it on home vid

how about i just pirate it like any sane, well adjusted person would

>As for the film itself, it's artsy crap you'd expect from a film student trying to be edgy and having a 50$ budget
no it isn't. you faggots apply this criticism to any movie that tries to be creative

Honestly, the movie probably would've benefited from a different actress. Scarjo does good but it would have been more effective with an unknown (like the rest of the cast).

What was better?

>whats great about this movie
>uhhhhhhh critics call it good!!! I know I can't form a cogent case for the reasons I like it but these people did so you should!!!

yeah nice

Literally every other indie sci-fi mindfuck that come out sincd 2010 was better than Under the Skin

>is original
Kinda, yes.
>and interesting
There's nothing interesting about 90 minutes of a fattened Scarjo driving around.

This film is an extraordinary visual sensory experience, sound, and quasi tactile as one can not resist the texture of its materials and its magnetic influence. It begins with a succession of luminous and graphic experiments that evoke the unforgettable 2001 of S. Kubrick. Also a tribute to the moving Elephant Man by D. Lynch which is not anecdotal, since this encounter will be the trigger for a reversal in the vision that this beautiful and completely dry alien has humans.

The skin is a permeable organ, and bears the creature that dares to cover it, for humanity infiltrating it could make the beauty as vulnerable as human beings.

taste is subjective.
end thread

under the skin is what plebs think kino is like. boring and uneventful

Literally everyone just took it up to watch because they were told that Scarlet was baring her tits in it.

I wonder why a top 10 film of 2010 director hasn't done ANYTHING since that tosh of a movie? You'd think studio would be begging him to direct a $200 millions film anytime, or maybe everyone knows it was garbage and those positive feedback was just paid reviews. Rian Johnson is a moron who fell for the hype

The only thing wrong about this statement is the implication that Eternal Sunshine is better.

btbr gets pretty boring unless you really value visuals over everything else

>There's nothing interesting about 90 minutes of a fattened Scarjo driving around.
Johansson excelled both in the interpretation of an implacably insensitive thing and in that of a being distraught by the unexpected invasion of emotional fragility. She speaks little but invades the screen of her infinitely carnal presence.

well it is.

>people with shit taste direct movies made for numale man children

I see nothing wrong with this

Fundamentally wrong. Nothing is subjective.

Where was it creative? It was basically Locke, and Locke was much more interesting without the alien thing going on.

1. Scarlett had one facial expression throughout the whole film
2. Those who compare it to the works of Stanley Kubrick have obviously not seen a Stanley Kubrick film
3. The soundtrack was annoying which I would contribute to the director having made too many music videos
4. Too many holes in the script to mention here
5. Who were the guys on the motorcycle and how come they did not need to "feed" ?
6. The reviews I had read mentioned that it used ground breaking techniques in camera placement (in the van), Have these guys seen any episodes of COPS? That is inventive camera placement!
7. And what was she thinking when she signed on to do this film???

not him but their is enough plot to keep it interesting imo. and the soundtrack is good too people always forget that.

Not knowing anything Jonathan Glazer makes you like a fucking idiot for trying to further this discussion.

Both movies are great tough. This thread is shit, star wars is also shit

>1. Scarlett had one facial expression throughout the whole film
Stopped reading here. You haven't seen it.

Only Moon was better

>muh plotholes
>why wasnt everything explained reeeeeeeeeeee

This reads like a 1 star review on Amazon
>I didn't like it! It made my head hurt and I stubbed my toe trying to get the remote to turn it off!
I'm just glad that short of whacking my head and getting brain damage I'll never be as much of a brainlet as you

>7. And what was she thinking when she signed on to do this film???
She was exposed in a prior nude leak and used it as opportunity to make something artsy to go nude and actually make some bucks from it.

wwaaahhhhhh why wasnt the movie spoonfed to me?? wwwaaahhhhhh
The movie and soundtrack was great you uncultured plebian
youtube.com/watch?v=Z_Cc20I-maM

Plot less meaningless pointless unpaced actionless minimalist random frustrating film, with a horrible modernist soundtrack.
The only meaning the film has is that which has been laid upon it by the viewer; the film provides little to no substantial items to go off of. At it's base, it's a film depicting the confusion an alien feels at encountering humans. But the film could have easily done this without being confusing itself to the point of obtuseness.

Ah, yes. The famous strawman!

>1. Scarlett had one facial expression throughout the whole film
See >2. Those who compare it to the works of Stanley Kubrick have obviously not seen a Stanley Kubrick film
Are you implying watching something as entry level as his filmography is remotely difficult or prosperous? Why would these comparisons be made in the first place?
>3. The soundtrack was annoying which I would contribute to the director having made too many music videos
Maybe f0r you
>4. Too many holes in the script to mention here
Go on
>5. Who were the guys on the motorcycle and how come they did not need to "feed" ?
Clearly they were either collaborators or aliens themselves there to enforce whoever they send to get skin
>6. The reviews I had read mentioned that it used ground breaking techniques in camera placement (in the van), Have these guys seen any episodes of COPS? That is inventive camera placement!
Link?
>7. And what was she thinking when she signed on to do this film???
Theres probably an interview somewhere explaining her reasoning

>Eternal Sunshine
>SciFi
Just because it uses a SciFi device doesn't mean the film should be defined as a SciFi. Doing so literally dismisses the entire point of the film.

None of you fags has explained what's good about this movie except that it hat a fucking high score on review sites. This shit isn't even sci-fi, but it was labelled as such to trick curious people into seeing it.

Don't worry. He been fired. Just like the directors for the Han Solo film were fired.

daily reminder that even robot chicken star wars episodes were better than the new movies that are out and any that will be out in the future.
Robot fucking chicken, seth retard as a writer... better. If that isn't a new low I just don't know.

The fact that he wasn't fired is even more worrying since that means he did what Disney wanted

>how about i just pirate it like any sane, well adjusted person would
ur kidding right?

Yeah well, fuck the last, ludicrously verbose and pretentious attempt to explain why Under The Skin is very good but actually, I think it IS.

(I was equally shocked by how good the same director's "Birth" was nearly ten years before).

I suppose what is great about it is its pretty consistent refusal to conform to any of the usual expectations placed on a film as regards narrative, location, characterization etc. while resisting at the same time the temptation to drift off into complete unwatchable artsy-fartsy tedium and free association.

Casting Johannsen was actually a very wise decision there because her glamour and very crude and tangible "star presence" provided the audience - and it wasn't aimed at an audience of film buffs whose idea of "going to the movies" is watching Un Chien Andalou over and over again - with something to hold onto in what could easily have become an overdose of weirdness, desolation and ugliness.

As was the case with "Birth", I think the magic of the movie consisted in a special alchemy achieved by the combining of a relentlessly weird and inhuman atmosphere with the viseral human appeal of a beautiful female star. The really disorienting weirdness of the scenes of her "harvesting" humans really did successfully cast a pall of extreme weirdness also over all the infinitely dull, prosaic "cinema verité" scenes of Glasgow streets and the Scottish countryside. It achieved what the Russian Formalist critics believed was the true aim of all art: a "making strange" of the world as a whole.

Under the skin
7/10
Best I can give it

Your opinion on Under The Skin
0/10
Quantification on a scale of 1 to 10 of how close you are capable of coming to a defence or explanation of why you hold it.

kek of course he has no reply because he knows his opinion will be shat on

Lol. Master class in how to stop a Sup Forums thread dead in its tracks: write something halfway intelligent and sit back and watch the drool dribbling slowly out of the corners of the gaping mouths of all the capeshit-gobbling junior-high-school kids.

Under the skin is great you fucking plebs

Please do tell us why you think so.
(Drooling sound intensifies)

but its not sci fi its mostly horror

it's neither sci-fi or horror, it was just very bad and extremely boring.

OP's committed autism aside, good to know some people on Sup Forums really enjoyed and got something out of Under the Skin. Similarly think it's great.

It very successfully manages to create an air of alien or "other" with its beautiful cinematography and clever use of Scottish accents and scenery. Honestly if you watched it and thought "this is boring, looks cheap and edgy" you probably have a very short attention span and would do poorly in higher education.

You're a clever guy and that's a good review.

So many words to say essentially nothing
Reddit is thataway

Yeah, as a viewer I felt alienated. In that, the director was indeed successful.

same
first half was great but the second was either boring or laugh out loud hilarious.
eating the cake and sexy time killed me

I'm imagining you laughing in the cinemas and everyone else what is wrong with you, and if you are an austistic who accidentally wandered in from a superhero film.

>trying to talk about good movie in a capeshit board
most of these shitters don't have any sort of cinema culture and only enjoy what's popular

>ppl in this thread shitting on glazer
Sexy Beast and Birth are top tier Kino