Why is nobody talking about this ?

why is nobody talking about this ?

Looks like he's going for a sniff.

Uwe Boll ripoff

There's a thread about it every day. Also, it's far too kino for Sup Forums

What is it about

If that thread isn't in a cape, no one cares grandpa!

PTA pushed the patience of his fedora clad fanbase too far. We all know that no true disciple of cinema has ever respected PTA, but now not even his TWBB Sup Forumsedditors give a shit about his movies. The drop off started with The Master and by Inherent Vice his fanbase had been completely alienated. Daniel Plainview T shirt wearing wanna be cinephiles left scratching their heads over where their memes were. Even the Master gave them "pigfuck" now nothing.

If I met PTA I'd say "stick to what you're good at kid and keep the capeshitters happy.

Because it was garbage

I'll check it out when there's a good remux on P*P

It's too deep for this board.

They are but it's not a normal thread, it's on a phantom one. Just put phantom in all fields

Retards on here don't have the attention span for non-tentpole films.

phantom

because, like the rest of PTA's stuff, it's crap
a horrible misstep after the pleasant surprise of Inherent Vice

>PTA
>deep

i don't want to leave the house, pay MONEY to see something that might be shit when i can just wait for the bdrip

pta is one notch above capeshit

This board can't even understand BR2049, anything but capeshit is too deep for modern Sup Forums.

>BR2049
>understand
please. The Villeneuve version is basically capeshit with some fancy but worthless "cinematography", it has no aesthetic or narrative cohesion.

welcome back friend

Exactly, I'm sure Phantom Thread would be too deep for you too.

please be bait

'People' here are too brainlet to appreciate true kino so they'd rather talk about capeshit like nigger panther and soy wars.

Go back to your Black Panther threads friendos

Sup Forums is about shitposting, not discussing great film

Sup Forums is too busy being upset about a movie with black people in it being popular

literally at least 2-3 thread everyday. fuckoff

what the fuck is this supposed to be? some phantom of the opera ripoff?

ITS PHANTOM OF THE OPERA SET IN POST NUCLEAR WAR ENGLAND

(PHANTOM ON THE LEFT)

Its too bland to remember or note.

>why is nobody talking about this ?
Take a look at the catalog, do you think these underage redditors getting shilled by Disney moms care about actual good movies?

I liked it, but it was just average, nothing really stood out. Far from PTA, or DDLs best work. The soundtrack was kind of annoying at some parts thats whats stuck with me the most.

is this white-kino?

Yea, no niggers in it.

yes and it was great

i saw a dvdrip it was a decent romance but not kino

blade runner was not good but for a few ascetic scenes

We already did. There's not loads to say.
It's incredibly well made, very well written with fleshed out, complex and believable characters.
But the ending is divisive. At the very least, it's unsatisfying.
And this film does nothing to dissuade the usual memers from claiming PTA's an inauthentic hack playing auteur

>Didn't I tell you to fuck off?

5/10 joke. Keeping it to just the first sentence would've made it 7.5/10

not one black person

>If I met PTA I'd say "stick to what you're good at kid and keep the capeshitters happy.
pls not be bait

It looks boring.

THATS WHY ITLL GET SNUBBED, PTA'S AMERICAN ARROGANCE

BRIT DIRECTORS LIKE JOE WRIGHT KNOW HOW TO PANDER PROPERLY

unbelievably based

There's nothing deep in this movie.

A movie is deep when:
(a) there is a dramatic conflict, either between characters or internal to a character;
(b) there is a resolution to the dramatic conflict that is
(c) unexpected, but
(d) inevitable, which
(e) makes sense when the characters are understood in their entirety


>Phantom Pleb barely has (a):
Woodcock is not conflicted. He's difficult to be around, but there is nothing in the presentation of his character that hints at conflict. No, making the character suddenly conflicted two thirds of the way through the movie (as done here) doesn't make him conflicted.
The only conflict is between Woodcock and that broad he was fucking, and the conflict essentially was that they were both hard-headed. Not very interested.

>Phanton Pleb has plenty of (b):
It's a hamfisted deus ex machina. "Guess what, he actually liked being babied/tortured all along, and she's a psycho who likes to poison him!" A resolution so terrible words can't articulate it.

>Phanton Pleb has (c):
But it's unexpected because it's retarded as all fuck

>Phanton Pleb doesn't have (d):
Because **nothing in the character developement at any point ever suggested that she was a psycho bitch and he had mommy issues**. And no, admiring your mother for her skills and being thankful for her is not the same as having mommy issues, you fucking kike.

>Phantom Pleb doesn't have (e):
Because **the resolution had nothing to do with the development of the characters until literally 10 minutes before the close of the film**.

This film is trash and people who admire it for anything other than its bare aesthetic quality should be gassed.

all those subpoints are what a redditor would call deep. you are like babby.

>trying this hard to make me upset

Your 9gaggery has no power here

Loved it

The couturier collections were frumpy and unimaginative. And in some cases, downright unflattering and ugly (vis-a-vis the Snow White frock). If the house of Woodcock was meant to be like Balenciaga or Charles James, just look at the designs of those geniuses and you see how far short the designs in “Phantom Thread” fall. If Daniel Day-Lewis is meant to be a genius, the designer of choice for the wealthy and aristocratic, who clamber to wear his clothing, this clothing does not make the grade. The clothing outside the collection was fine.

One tends to pop up during busier hours, but it's just not all that interesting. Pretty movie with a nice piano heavy score, but gutless. Boring one-sided romance story that DDL desperately tries to salvage. The leads also have no chemistry.

The most reddit thing ever posted here

What you wrote clearly proves what I was saying : it's too deep for you. It's like you didn't even watch the film.

its not a romance.
dvdrip isnt out.

>he has a checklist to decide whether or not a film is deep

Based

I very much liked the movie, despite agreeing with everything pointed by this user.
If there are things that went completely over my head could you point it out? Maybe Ill watch it again.

It was the final answer to the PTA mommy theory

I've actually seen Phantom Thread; it has an aesthetic and narrative vocabulary. BR2049 is an incoherent mess

>Woodcock is not conflicted. He's difficult to be around, but there is nothing in the presentation of his character that hints at conflict.
> the conflict essentially was that they were both hard-headed. Not very interested.


The conflict comes from Woodcock constantly driving away these women in his life and only using them as models for his dresses because he is so overly obsessed with his work and his art, and finally meeting a woman who decides she wont be discarded, who decides she genuinely loves Woodcock AND his work and deseperately tries to find a way to insert herself in his life (which ends up driving her to be as dominate of him as he is of everything else).


>It's a hamfisted deus ex machina. "Guess what, he actually liked being babied/tortured all along, and she's a psycho who likes to poison him!"


That is not what a dues ex machina even means you absolute retard. Also it wasnt that he liked it, it was that its literally the only way to get him to stop. He is so obsessed with his work that the only way to get him to stop is by poisoning him. A hard truth they both learn to accept and something his sister could never do (meaning she never loved him as much as the new girl).

>But it's unexpected because it's retarded as all fuck
It makes perfect sense with the character we have seen and falls within the thematic arc of PTA's other works.


>Because **nothing in the character developement at any point ever suggested that she was a psycho bitch and he had mommy issues**.

She doesnt have mommy issues you massive, massive retard. That whole bit is there to show how much more engrained Woodcock's mommy issues are than a normal person. Basically setting up that she has to become as controling as a mother to become a part of his life.

>the resolution had nothing to do with the development of the characters

the ENTIRE movie is showing us how dominating Woodcock is and how impenetrable his world is until she finally posions him.

holy shit, I can't believe you guys couldnt understand the narrative of BR2049. How are you THIS dumb? Its like entry level kino, and there is not a single wasted scene in the movie. Every single scene plays into the narrative in some form or another.

my post was the one that said
>please be bait
don't see why you replied to me or what you think you are talking about
i'll have to simply believe it was a mistake

I think "fucking chic!" is the "pigfuck!" or "milkshake!" of this movie.

>The conflict comes from Woodcock constantly driving away these women in his life and only using them as models for his dresses
That's NOT A CONFLICT UNLESS HE WANTS TO HAVE A PERMANENT WOMAN IN HIS LIFE

>That is not what a dues ex machina even means you absolute retard.
It literally is.
>THEY ARE MENTALLY ILL ALL ALONG, LOL

>He is so obsessed with his work that the only
Which was never a problem for him. He was not unhappy. He was not unsuccessful. He was not abusive to his employees, which were all faithful to him.

>She doesnt have mommy issues you massive, massive retard.
I didn't say she. He does. (1) Read the post (2) Watch the movie (3) Kill yourself


>the ENTIRE movie is showing us how dominating Woodcock i
Amazing that people who are excellent at and completely committed to something can also be dominating and difficult to be around. Have you ever heard of Daniel Day Lewis?

Jesus fuck you two have autism

You bought this post with 60 seconds of post cooldown.

THink about thtat.

no good rip yet

It should be said that this film is much better the second time around. I noticed things in Alma's character that I never noticed the first time around.

Anyway, it's a fascinating movie about marriage and power struggles in relationships and like Eyes Wide Shut (which also had a mixed response when it first opened) it will last the test of time.

>he doesnt use proxies
How does it feel to be technology illiterate?

>fascinating movie about marriage and power struggles

This movie doesn't hold a far to Heat by that criterion

Speaky English?

>That's NOT A CONFLICT UNLESS HE WANTS TO HAVE A PERMANENT WOMAN IN HIS LIFE


Yes it is you retard, the conflict COMES from him not wanting the woman but the woman wanting to be in his life. You are seriously retarded. There wouldnt be a conflict if he did want her to begin with. He ends up wanting her because she is the only one to truly, actually do anything for his own good.

>It literally is.
No it isn't.

>THEY ARE MENTALLY ILL ALL ALONG, LOL
It was shown throughout the movie how fucked up Woodcock is, you'd have to be retarded to not see it. Which I guess you are.

>Which was never a problem for him. He was not unhappy. He was not unsuccessful. He was not abusive to his employees, which were all faithful to him.

It was a problem because he had an unhealthy obsession with the dresses to the point where he couldnt enjoy anything else in life. Its also a problem FOR THE GIRL who wants to be in his life because she loves him. How are you this dumb?

>He does

Exactly, he does.

>Amazing that people who are excellent at and completely committed to something can also be dominating and difficult to be around. Have you ever heard of Daniel Day Lewis?


Yes, that is literally the point of the movie. PTA made in collaboration WITH DDL from the start to be partially about him and his own life. PTA takes this universal idea and brings it to an allegorical extreme to create this story.


Also good job ignoring everything else I said that proved you wrong. Way to be a total failure at

narratively the story is initially about an individual's struggle with self identity, but at some point it turns into a collective struggle about group identity and social change, then at the end it reverts to the inititial themes. These choices are weak because each "twist" undermines the emotions hitherto established. Also, the aesthetic stays constant despite the narrative changes, which further leads me to label this movie as INCOHERENT, not INCOMPREHENSIBLE, pretty basic vocabulary.

>movies have to follow particular prescriptive guidelines in order to be good or interesting
anti-art post

I want an alma mommy gf RIGHT NOW

Conflict:
>i want to be with you only a little while
>i want to be with you a long while
Resolution:
>poison me so i can pretend you're my mommy

This is the film, in all its depth.

When I saw Alma on the screen I have never seen anyone as beautiful since the French princess in Braveheart.

Fuck off, romantic

it's a fairly interesting movie, well made.
PTA does "merchant ivory" and more Kubrick.
But there's something missing. Should have been PTA's comeback movie. It's not.

It may be her make-up or hair, because I've seen photos of that actress in other things, and while still very cute, she's not nearly as lovely as in PT.

Come at me. Romanticism saved European art.

Not even true in the slightest. First off you are talking about themes not narrative. The narrative are the actions that happen, and K's struggle is constant throughout until the very end where he sacrifices his personal identity/specialness for someone else (the person who was sacrificing her personal identity for the sake of the masses).


> at some point it turns into a collective struggle about group identity and social change

Not really, it only becomes that at the very end. If you are referring to the underground group that helps K then you really misunderstood their entire point in the movie.


>Also, the aesthetic stays constant despite the narrative changes

Not even remotely true. Las Vegas looks entirely different from LA. The outlands with the orphans looks entirely different than everything else. The opening scene at the little hovel looks entirely different than everything else. Even the battle in the water has an entirely unique aesthetic that seperates it from every othe scene in the movie.

You must be blind.

It's too understated.

It should have built up towards the girl killing Woodcock's sister.

BTW, if you liked this film - watch pic related.

good art is true art, and truth is not dependent on fixed and easily quantifable criteria. thinking so is debilitating and symptomatic of autism and maladjustment.

you dumb nigger, art that is "true" reflects something about life, and all of life __ALL OF LIFE__, is resolving conflicts. when the conflict and it's resolution are fantastical, it ceases to be true.

go watch some marvel flicks, faggot

>checklist to appreciate films
You're probably somewhere on the spectrum, which is fine, but at some point you should understand that the impact a movie has on the audience is firstly subjective to each viewer, and secondly not based in seperate and hermetic categories. The fact that you didn't pick up on the growth of the characters says more about your limited capacity for abstraction than it does about the film itself.

No, the conflict is that Woodcock doesnt actually want to be with her. He just wants to use her as a thing to make dresses. The girl genuinely loves Woodcock for his amazing dresses and can see how unhealthy his obsession is (to the point where he literally cant enjoy anything going on becuase the wrong person is wearing his dress). First she indulges this side of him, but she sees that it leads to him becoming even more crazed. She then realizes that he applies that same level of obsession and control to every single aspect of his life, and not for any actual reason--just because he can (case in point, the movie opens with him berrating his current model/temp gf for bringing buttery pasteries becuase he said he was done with them, but then later with the new girl he is eating them again--he didnt actually care about the pasteries, he just needs to exert dominance in every aspect of his life).


the girl wants to make him better and break his obessive tendancies, so to do that she has to go to lengths as extreme as his need for control.

>makes abstract theory of depth
>user alleges he has limited capacity for abstraction

WEW

>when the conflict and it's resolution are fantastical, it ceases to be true.

>what are allegories
>what are metaphors
>what are themes that carry beyond the literal

you are so autistic, it hurts.

>makes abstract theory of depth

Nothing about that was an abstract theory of depth you retard. It was a checklist.

Allegories, metaphors, and themes beyond the literal are ways of describing reality. That's literally what they do.

>A movie is deep when:

Theory.

exactly, so apply that to

>when the conflict and it's resolution are fantastical

you autist

No, a theory has some level of evidence to back it up and can be repeated. You came up with a non-abstract hypothesis.

You keep acting retarded.

Never actually proposed a theory of "depth, just rejected yours for it's superficiality. Also, I stand by indicating your limited capactiy because, once again, you fail to abstract from the items in your dumb checklist the relations by which they are ordered.

You are so retarded I am beginning to believe you're only just retarded enough to try to troll me, because I cannot conceive how anyone could be so retarded as you seem to be right now.

The conflict/resolution are the SIGNALED not the SIGNALS, which images, metaphors, and allegories are.

fantasy and dream have their place in art. ringing true (=aesthetics) is more important than expressing an objective reality, especially since such a thing is hardly verifiable. I doubt most people share your vision of what reality is, but they wouldn't be wrong for thinking so. you dislike fantasy because it clashes with YOUR vision of reality, but it doesn't do so with everyone's. many people find some fantasies (see religion, Campbell's archetypes, etc.) more "true" than many "real" occurrences, and their opinion holds value.

I doubt she actually cared about making him a better person, she just wanted him to love her and so made him love her the only way she knew how.

>some people think their delusions are not delusions, and that's ok
Fuck off, post-modern

I thought the opposite. I thought it was a solid redemption after the piece of shit that was Inherent Vice.

Not even true in the slightest. First off themes can be narrative: let's call them narrative themes, e.g. an individual's struggle with identity.

Second off,
>their entire point in the movie
It felt so forced I honestly believed that the studio was trying to set up a franchise.

Third off,
>Las Vegas looks entirely different from LA
That's precisely my point, the aesthetic perspective changes even though the same narrative theme is still being explored, not even in a new light. That's just sloppy, Villeneuve's only talent in his other films is picking people who work well together. Sometimes it works, like Enemy, and sometimes it just falls flat, like BR and Arrival