Is it actually good or did leftist critics overrate it for featuring homosexuality in a positive light?
Armond White simply contrasted it negatively and called it a decadent family film (nationalreview.com
"Son of Joseph > Call Me by Your Name
Eugène Green’s religious allegory about a 21st-century youth longing to know his father evokes a timeless quest for meaning. The year’s most artful conservative movie is a witty antidote to the year’s most decadent family film."
Its a comfy movie regardless if you care it's about fags or not. If you can overlook your raging homophobia you'll find a visually amazing movie about growing up
The film is a pretty redpilled look into how Jews are prone to neurosis and degeneracy, and how this leads to generational decay.
Do you want to listen to Armond White or Paul Thomas Anderson?
>Do you want to listen to Armond White or Paul Thomas Anderson?
Armond
It's really good and not at all a LGBT circlejerk.
That being said, it can be obnoxiously "arty". A few scenes of long discussions about classical music compositions, word origins, Greeks, etc. Rich, cultured European shit. The book it's based on was worse about this though so I can't blame them for being faithful.
Hm that's a tough one
nothing about the movie is trying to cash in on being gay in replacement of a good dialogue and characters. in fact the way they get to the point is one of the most natural relationships ive seen.
I just saw the film and I didn't understand how they arrived at their relationship. Elio says he knows nothing about the things that matter, and somehow Oliver infers from this that he's in love with him?
Probably because Elio tell him the story about the Knight and the princess (is it better to speak or to die?) before they go to the square. But I think there are clearer signs even before that
Is it a video?
Is it a video?
Is it a video?
I think it's a nice film. It is kind of toothless in a sense; because it's a generally happy film about two people slowly falling in love, it doesn't get into a lot of meaty dramatic territory. But that's kind of the nice part, there's a slice-of-life aspect to it.
Or at least, there is if you can tolerate all the homosexuality, otherwise you might just find it disturbing. I don't mind personally.
If I were going to Armond White it, I'd say that at the very least this movie is better than Moonlight. Moonlight is a gay love movie that pretends to also be a hard look at growing up gay with a single druggie mom in an impoverished black community with rampant drugs and violence, but completely ditches that whole element in the third act so you can watch two grown-ass men giggle like schoolgirls about who's sleeping where that night. I watched the fucking jerk-off-on-the-beach scene and felt less visceral disgust than I did watching the director throw away all the serious shit he built up in the first two acts.
Also, the actual gay stuff is much better in this movie. You really believe that these are two guys that fuck other dudes, it's so much less developed in Moonlight.
There's also the shoulder rubbing thing he does really early. Oliver references that later as a deliberate attempt to indicate interest to Elio.
Some of it's relevant though, like the body discussion with the statues.
faggots
it was pretty gay, but good.. not flaming poofter gay. just a nice romance eyyyy
t. straight white male
how gay is this movie? On a scale from bear hunting to hunting bears.
...
Why the homophobia?
Angsty gay teen bullshit with an okay soundtrack. They go cat and mouse 3/4ths of the movie and when they finally gay it up everything just fizzles. Stuhlbarg and Armie deliver good performances but the rest is just shit to mediocre
charles nelson reilly
>it was pretty gay, but good.. not flaming poofter gay
I disagree with this, it's super gay. The head rolling on Elio alone is possibly the gayest stuff I've ever seen, and I've seen men making out on a car.
also t. straight white male
You realize being white makes you more likely to tolerate gays right?
why.. do tell
It's even more boner-inducing than 50 shades of grey. And it's not portraying homosexuality in positive light at all. Leftist is already saying it's predatory because the boy is 17. Actually i wonder why they don't just change it to 18 just to be politically correct since the film doesn't mention about the age at all
It’s hoenstly extremely fucking boring. And I like Antonioni for reference.
It’s actually pretty great OP. The acting, the mood and atmosphere- kino.
He says he’s 17 after he gets the nosebleed.
It's a deeply homophobic film about a young man being sexually abused by a paedophile and then crying for literally five minutes in front of a fire once he realises what happened to him. That's how it ends.
>did LEFTIST critics overrate it?
nah my boy Ralphthemoviemaker loves it as well top 13 of 2017
>17
>paedophile
americans are pathetic
...