Beauty isn't everything. It's the only thing

your name looks dumb lol

Style is more important than substance

>you will never comfort a supermodel who is 22 years old and has aged out of the industry

It's not style over substance. It's the most thought out study of our behaviour towards beauty I've ever seen on film, with every character embodying a different approach one could take in dealing with a beautiful person. If you didn't get that on your first viewing you should probably rewatch it. It's quite obvious, really.

fuck off it's terrible
>muh aesthetics
>muh beauty

Not him but how about you rewatch it considering I agree that some of the more "surreal" moments are kind of bad but overall it's a brilliant film, from an interpretative angle.

i'm pissed at this film cause i saw it with my family and we were far from expecting the kind of shit that happenned during the film

lol, why would you do that? What did you expect?

what the fuck did you expect from a Refn film?

No, it took itself way too seriously but it just falls flat. There is no subtlety, no nuance to it. Here's what it has to say: the fashion industry is bad, the cult of appearance and beauty is bad. That's literally it, and he told it in the most boring way too. That's not what i call substance. What does Refn even know about the fashion industry, and why does he care

Maybe it is indeed the "most thought out study of our behaviour towards beauty [you]'ve ever seen on film"but that doesn't mean it's good, just that the other stuff you saw was utter garbage.
What annoys me the most about this movie is that it's trying so hard you can almost see the film sweating, and it takes itself way too seriously for what it is

style is substance, you fucking losers

you're looking into it way too much

refn makes good flicks

>Here's what it has to say: the fashion industry is bad, the cult of appearance and beauty is bad. That's literally it
How fucking dense are you? How did you even get that from the film? The fashion industry is the setting in which the action unfolds, not much more, and definitely not the focus of the film. The film follows Jesse, a character whose only perceivable trait is her beauty (not because the actress is astonishingly beautiful but because the film establishes her as extremely beautiful through the interaction with the female model scout character in the beginning), who over the course of the film meets an assortment of characters who behave towards her in certain archetypical ways in which we (as in humans; everybody) behave towards people who we perceive as particularly beautiful: Dean, the gullible lover who mistakes her outward beauty for force of personality and mutual affection; Ruby, who desires her primarily se...
Actually, fuck it, I'm not going to spell it out for you. This is a waste of time.

The film does not take itself too seriously, it is a serious film, treating its subject matter with care and nuance, emically and realistically. If you can not grasp that and walked out of it without even realizing what that subject matter even is, it's not the movie's fault, it's just you being unperceptive.

never spout your retarded shit near me again tasteless faggot

see

He's not looking into it enough, actually.
He's likely not used to interpreting things though, so his effort should be commended.

Are you not the guy who wanted to talk about how nuanced and and subtle the film might or might not be?

haha list your top 5 films

the dark knight
akira
there will be blood
the lord of the rings: the return of the king
the big lewbowski

delete this bait

Surely this bait, but if you really are the poster criticizing Neon Demon for its lack of depth, you may want to try to get into film more seriously before failing to understand "arthouse" films.

that's not me, its some other /tv/ autist false-flagging because his brain literally can't comprehend good taste

>failing to understand "arthouse" films
neon demon is made for pseuds too dumb for real arthouse who just want an easy "le deep artsy movie u just dont understand it" that they can feel superior to their friends who watch things like

No, it's a legitimate "deep" movie as in having a topic which is thoroughly explored over the course of the narrative. It is your interpretation of it dealing with the fashion industry and beauty standards that is shallow.

so, are you gonna post your top 5 films or what?

nice bait my man, almost had me for a sec.
it is shallow and unrealistic and addresses its topic caricaturally.

>it is shallow and unrealistic and addresses its topic caricaturally
what is its topic and how does it address it caricaturally?

it's not deep, sure it has its fair share of symbolism but refn always falls short when it comes to what "deep" is. He's really cutthroat with the visuals, he'd rather tell the story visually that's why people perceive it as "deep"

Stop talking out of your ass. This is not one of those super abstract films that could mean anything, it has a rather clear-cut topic and deals with it rather straightforward, not only through visuals as you seem to be implying but through characters and their interactions. It's not a David Lynch film, except for some of the more visual moments the concept is clear and to the point.

that's the point retard. What is fashion if literally style over substance.

Characters were straightforward but the messages that lie within the visuals weren't. If anything, the messages were pretty much lost through all the neon