Thoughts on this film?

Thoughts on this film?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=lGnTh1ukaro
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

A joke

it's shit, jodorokwsy is a hack

that is somewhat of the intention though

If I thought El Topo sucked, would I like this?

kino

I haven't seen it.

That's the thing. It's "I was just pretending to be retarded", the film.

Remember in Calvin and Hobbes when Calvin draws the painting of a polar bear blinking in a blizzard? It's like that. That's the level of this film operates on.

It is really fun to look at, though.

I knew a chick once that told me that if you want to be a good photographer you had to watch this movie

It's much better than El Topo, but it's still a Jodorowsky film, so expect some visual similarities. Blood, gore, shit, deformed people, weird sexual imagery, unsettling images, and a fuckton of religious imagery.

nice blog

trash Sup Forums trolled me into watching

every Jodorokwsy film is the fucking same
each time I watch a new one because someone convices me I haven't seen the best one yet, be it El Topo, Holy Mountain or Santa Sangre and it's all the fucking same

take a drink every time he kisses a midget or hugs a paraplegic

I mean I see it as a series of shorts and skits, closer than monty python than a super serious business art film

At least Monty Python is funny.

Jodorowsky takes his shit seriously, though.

I don't think having familiar visual motifs in your filmography is a bad thing.
thematically though, el topo and the mountain are different.

Inferior to the 1926 film of the same name.

>I don't think having familiar visual motifs in your filmography is a bad thing.
it is when your visuals are the storytelling and not the subtext

Really love it, but everything up until the part where the Thief actually gets into the tower is really slow and mostly forgetable. Everytime I watch it I'm just waiting to get to the alchemy bit.

I'm questioning now whether you've ever even seen multiple jodorowsky films

>Remember in Calvin and Hobbes when Calvin draws the painting of a polar bear blinking in a blizzard? It's like that.

You get all my internets today.

DE MAHN HE IS ALLEGORY FOR HESOOS CHRISTO HE GO TO DE OTHER MAN AND HE MAKE HIM SMELL DE SHIT THEN I SHOW FACTORY TO SHOW CAPITAHLISAHM IS VERY BAHD

I know this thread is specifically about The Holy Mountain, but can I take a second to say that I think most "art" films suck? I watched Chytilova's "Daisies," and I couldn't get into it. Same with Fellini's "Satyricon," which had some really great music and visuals, but was just a weird movie about two gay men wanting to fuck a little boy. Am I missing something? I love Stanley Kubrick, but his movies are still pretty normie-tier. I'm pretty sure every high school stoner has seen 2001: A Space Odyssey.

the problem is that many directors have this idea of throwing esoteric symbols and long shots at s viewer makes their films deep or artsy

this is why i really like lynch, he doesnt rely on insanely long shots to reel you in, and his symbols usually have meaning IN the universes and stories of the movies themselves.

Its fantastic.

I don't mind symbols and long shots. I'm an extremely visual person, and I'll watch a movie with amazing visuals or cinematography even if the plot isn't very good. I've actually been wanting to make an abstract film with no dialogue or plot that focuses entirely on visuals and practical effects. Just a series of beautiful shots and images. I actually find The Holy Mountain visually stunning at times, like the rainbow hallway leading to the alchemists' throne room. My problem is some of the gross-out visuals, some sloppy camera work at times, and the fact that it wants to have an over-arching story about self-realization, and be abstract/surreal at the same time. Those two styles don't mesh well for me, and it creates a mess of a film.

Daisies is the most honest depiction of what women are and how they behave

>I think most "art" films suck
then don't watch them

>then dont watch them
This is going to sound gay as fuck, but art is my whole life, be it film, visual art, performance art, music, etc. and I believe that art is about seeking understanding and expanding your knowledge and boundaries. I want to understand what makes these "art" films held in such high regard. I feel like they're not bad. I feel like I just don't like them because I don't understand them. What am I missing? I want to "get" them.

Satyricon is awful but dont let it ruin Fellini for you. A lot of his movies are nothing like that.

>You get all my internets today.

...

well i think Daisies is shit and i haven't seen Satyricon, The holy Mountain gets kinda fillery when he introduces the planet guys, in terms of meaning it is pretty straight forward to the point of over-explained (probably thought the audience wouldn't understand shit because people don't want to think and the visuals might be a turn-off) but i think it achieves what it wants, and visually he wanted to do something nobody had done before (and to this day imo)

maybe you're watching stuff that you don't like, the "art film" term is kinda vague and there's a lot of stuff out there, start with Lynch if you haven't seen his shit, Korine is also a good entry level, Lars von Trier, Kieslowski, Svankmajer, they're pretty fun and a good starting point, it depends on what you like and if you want to spend time analyzing what you watch. drink some tea and think about the film when you finish it, why would someone make a film like that, what did he mean by this, what did it made you feel, etc. i guarantee that after a while you'll want more abstract stuff

my final advice, study screenwriting and frame composition, it really changes your perspective on how to watch a film, you also realize that Hollywood movies are all the fucking same and they're made with the most basic formula to attract the mainstream audience

Watch his new movies The Dance of Reality and Endless Poetry. Pure K-I-N-O

It was so bad. Can't even be excused with the "its intentional its experimental" labe. It's experimental in the way my 60-year-old hippie aunt's home videos are experimental. As in indulgent and vacuous.

>all these capeshit-watching dilettante plebs shitting on based Jodo

shigaridoo

ITT: plebs who don't know how to ZOOM BACK CAMERA

And who else do you like, Wes Anderson?

This is the absolute state of Sup Forums

HOW CAN ONE SINGLE MAN BE SO BASED?!

REAL LIFE AWAITS

It's probably one of the most retarded films ever made, but it's so stupid it becomes absolutely hilarious

youtube.com/watch?v=lGnTh1ukaro

This is a pretty accurate way to describe a Jodorowsky film to someone who's never seen one.