What do Sup Forums think of it?

What do Sup Forums think of it?

Attached: 34212.jpg (1280x720, 150K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mL0FYUpXuoo
youtube.com/watch?v=FGTWdLGMkuE&t
youtube.com/watch?v=ftaFCm-vt8s
youtube.com/watch?v=JBlQ2-rXKn4
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

emma stone is one ugly toad

but she's the best emma

what the fuck are they doing? are they having a seizure?

too naive of a movie
mulholland presents hollywood in a more jaded, realistic light

The guy she ends up with is so ugly

>Muholland Drive
Trash

Attached: learn the differences 2.jpg (812x652, 67K)

>too naive of a movie
Get visual literacy, buffoon.

But muh waifu

>enjoying her youth with an attractive man
>marrying an ugly and rich one
nothing very special

I had binge of it last month and watched it three times. Once back to back

wtf

i bet emma stone's farts smell rancid

Incredibly dishonest flick
The looks of it was a parody of what way better directors than Chazelle can do (specifically, Refn and Inarritu)

Also, as always in these rom com, the conflict is always unrealistic and contrived.
Just stay like one year apart and like visit each other! If you're soooooo in love, than there is no reason the two couldn't achieve their dreams together

>No Ryan you don't understand!
>How am I supposed to go to Paris and not have french cock like immediately
>but I'll always love you

>dishonest
Fuck off, Malick fanboy.

lol, how did you know

Something I deeply perceive in post-mortem cinema is a concern for hypersubjectivity often through manipulations of framerate, slow motion, long takes with frames consumed by individuals, and use of few colors that draw attention.

Let's use this abovementioned model for comparison with Griffith and Eisenstein. Are Griffith and Eisenstein storytellers? Sure, there are events being portrayed and recorded in a perceived present that give inclination towards a form of story, but upon further inspection, do you see any examples of overt individualization and characterization that describes a story? Oftentimes, none of the individuals in Griffith and Eisenstein works are even given names. Now observe form. Anything that draws attention to details in a fashion that can be explicitly read as introspection of individual? Certainly parallels can be made towards the impressionistic, but impressionism is often one of imprint through creation and environment, not condensation.

Compare post-mortem cinema ( youtube.com/watch?v=mL0FYUpXuoo )
to phenomenopresentation ( youtube.com/watch?v=FGTWdLGMkuE&t )


And discuss what is being said in either. That will give you the answer towards the superior.

Attached: 1513385760117.jpg (500x274, 25K)

Griffith > Chazelle >>> Terrence "Soft Limp Dick Faggot" Malick

>too naive

the entire premise is that to make it you literally sell your soul to the devil. theres a reason the first fusion jazz number is filled with red and fire. He sacrifices what he believes in for material gain and in the end is left hallow.

it was fine. I enjoyed it. songs were decent. goose and best emma (not saying much) were likable and somewhat interesting. I enjoyed the heightened reality of the visuals hearkening back to old hollywood though i suspect I'd find issues with them if I rewatched it, lot of digital fuckery and I'm much more sensitive to that these days. doesn't hold a candle to the classic musicals in any regard other than visual fidelity and saturation of postmodern irony but that's to be expected.

i didn't get it. there wasn't any voicebox to literally tell me the point of the film :)

Attached: anon enjoying favorite passtime.png (800x533, 637K)

People whine over how didactic Gosling's dialogue is, yet they still can't figure out the point of the film.

I thought it was fun. I don't think I'd watch it again by myself, but it's a good movie if you need something wholesome to watch when you visit your mom.

which song did you like most?

Why do cinephiles want every characters opinion in a film to be expressive of the writer's personal opinions?

Attached: Isn't life disappointing.jpg (467x700, 45K)

It's the first movie I've ever watched to make me cry.

So yeah, I liked it,

Why do the opposite? That would mean layers! Reflection! That would mean destroying my bullshit veil of self-expression and making something decent!

what was the second?

dishonest

been over a year since I saw it (January '17) but of the ones I remember City of Stars I guess. I remember a really nice visual on a pier accompanying that one as well, don't know if that is a factor in my remembering it fondly

Adrift in Tokyo.

And... I think that's it really. No other movie has made me cry other than these two.

Attached: tenten.jpg (1280x720, 164K)

...

>visual flair is BAD
>when malick does it it's okay though because he's supposed to be artistic and stuff :)

> implying the guy she married wasn’t a producer or someone who has a solid spot in the hollywood circle
> implying she didn’t marry him as a leverage for her career

The dialectics are off the CHAAAAARTS!!!!

just learned a new word user, thanks

Sup Forums thinks it was dishonest. Whatever the fuck that means.

>Whatever the fuck that means.

Visual flair is bad if done badly.

Compare these two scenes, shot in similar location with a similar aestetich and you should get what I'm saying

youtube.com/watch?v=ftaFCm-vt8s
youtube.com/watch?v=JBlQ2-rXKn4

>Love letter to Hollywood
>something something homage to the classic days of Hollywood
Guaranteed to be overrated

They already drifted apart before she even got the Paris role. Her moving the Paris for the whole year just seal the deal in their relationship. Both of them sacrificed their love for their own career

Why do cinephiles lack irony?

Chazelle is mocking you without you knowing it, and that makes it all the sweeter. Your unleashed desires become confirmation and self-reflexive exposure.

watching some clips on youtube to refresh my memory, the dialog is pretty reddit-witty and they should have gotten real song and dance people, I'm sure they're out there. I don't know if I would enjoy it much now. I was basically a larva taste-wise back then

>irony
What Dancer in the Dark lacked. Why Dancer in the Dark failed. Too indulgent in how miserable everything is to say anything about itself.

that song went perfectly with goose being lone autist

Attached: lalaland.jpg (1277x530, 55K)

>I was basically a larva taste-wise back then
Genes can never change, you're born with them.

Attached: 1511828671006.jpg (616x480, 39K)