Poetic Movies That Don't Suck

Would have been good if there was no dialogue.

...

>setting and allusions were pretty much entirely tangential to the plot

This is exactly my criticism of it,

>the funeral scene
>the ending scene
holy... I want more

Նռան գույնը
Зepкaлo
Dog Star Man
สัตว์ประหลาด
Trash Humpers

Oldboy

Have you seen the American remake? It's hilariously bad

No tears for the dead
Dolls
Ikiru
Late Spring
Onibaba
Rashomon

>setting and allusions were pretty much entirely tangential to the plot
care to elaborate a bit?

Nope just the Korean original. How bad?

>Dog Star Man
i can't remember the name, but his 6 second short is best

More like Turdman or the Unexplained Reason Why this Movie is a Single Shot Even Though it Takes Places over Three Days

Cocteau, Tarr, Kaurismäki, Tarkovsky, Bresson, Niskanen and Bergman films

Really despicably bad, they essentially copied everything, but put a dull generic American guy as the protagonist in place of someone with a lot of nuances and an interesting character. They copied the iconic fightscene too, with the hammer, and I believe they changed the ending and story somewhat because well, you know why.

If you're ever up for a laugh, watch it, but not if you actually want to enjoy a movie for anything other than its comedic value.

Anything by Wong Kar Wai: In the mood for love, the days of being wild, etc.

Also Welles, just watched F for Fake, damn good stuff

sounds like a riot! Will do!

I didn't "genuinely not like" it but its dollhouse aesthetic makes it seem as petty and inconsequential as a kid playing with toys

The scent of the green papaya

Because it's the same as all of Wes Anderson's other films other than Bottle rocket. He remakes the same movie over and over and over again.

Hana-bi
Badlands
A Short Film About Killing
In the Mood for Love
Valerie and Her Week of Wonders

>Cocteau

Orphee was a surprisingly touching one

>because well, you know why.
Why?
I have not seen the movie, and I don't plan to either, but it was my understanding that they did the original manga ending, and not the korean one.

miss you, user

Because I suppose the Korean ending was too grotesque. He just offers to pay the guy in order for him to be locked back into the same room he's been kept, since he's so filled with guilt. In the original it is way, way different.

kubrick, jodorowsky, and lynch

I agree, I think however that Cocteau topped himself with The Testament of Orpheus
The scene where he reconstructs the flower with Badinerie playing in the background is just beautiful

I'll be here, always. Have we met before?

...

Nice touch adding those Finns to your list. :^)

Films by the Quay Brothers and Norshteyn

Mans got to do what a mans got to do :--D

Its a pretty self explanatory statement, you could have placed the hotel in any other historical period or literary world and the movie would have functioned the same, its just wallpaper

Saw this films 4k restoration the other day.

Haven't seen other Blomberg directed films, but this one was amazing!

It's nice that OP is friends with himself.

not sure if you're the person I'm thinking of but if you are

user, you probably think I'm immature and childish and you're completely right but I want to keep in touch with you because I like you a lot and you're such a good person

if you're not, probably the right person will see this and would not think of me but in someone else

birdman? more like tour-de-forced

the virtuosity on display evidently is enough for many to praise this stunt to the sky, but even that virtue isn't all it's cracked up to be: a lot of the performances suffer as the result of the long-take format. keaton's teeth-grinding approach is up and down, and emma stone appears completely lost without the editorial control afforded by traditional cutting. (norton on the other hand is a force of nature and puts everyone else in the cast to shame)
the script is riddled with "punchy" lines that whiff terribly, and the "enigmatic" final shot is a copout (especially frustrating because the film teases us over and over again with faux-suicides).

but mostworst is that the film is a daisy chain of potshots. this is meant to be an "incisive" film but it's more like a manic stabbing at an empty pillowcase with a butterknife. what exactly is this film's perspective, besides the fact that everyone and everything is riddled with bullshit? the only truth "birdman" actually clarifies is that inarritu's purview is hopelessly jaundiced and pathetic. this junk isn't really inside riggan thompson's head (despite the gimmick-laden scenes of "introspection"), it's just underneath his wig. a simpleminded piece of unenjoyable trash whose countless shortcomings are masked by competent execution of choices made in the pre-production process, and in some ways one of 2014s worst releases.

user, your opening line is a superb example of not only being concise, but providing an awesome hook. A great opening line causes the reader to want to more. In this case, my immediate reaction was "why was it forced?" Great concept, with great contrast, and I would love to read more.
Great prose also has great flow-great rhythm. Again, yours is a perfect example. The cadence is so perfect. Sounds great and feels great.
My friends and clients know me as often being over critical. On the other hand, when I see greatness, I am equally blunt. Your opening line is nothing less than superb.

aha, i didn't mind that at all, though.
although, the second world war was relevant for the plot development, and i'm guessing for the novel it is 'based' on aswell.

/r/movies get outta here

No, I don't think you are immature or childish at all!

How is the Hamlet going?

>"films" with dialogue

Nietzsche fans should love this

This.

>Roshomon
Though this is based on a story anyway...i definitely agree.

Gonna throw in pic related.

LENS FILTER

...

The most prevalent criticism of Wes Anderson's oeuvre is that he puts more effort into the his intricate dioramas than writing, plot, characters, etc. I don't find that to be an accurate criticism of his other movies, but it definitely fits here. All the sets are very ordered and detailed, to an absurd and frankly off-putting level. There's next to no character development in the movie; characters are whisked in and out before we get to know anything about them really. Kovacs has a cat and he's a lawyer. Agatha is a pastry-chef and has a Mexico-shaped birthmark. So what? Why should we care? The characters we do get any sort of real characterization of are either one-note baddies or one-note dandies (i.e. M. Gustave). Everyone is a complete caricature. It's almost funny that Anderson's two previous movies had much more rounded characters, and they starred animated foxes and children, respectively. The script is absolutely atrocious, flitting between sickening sentimentality and sudden-vulgarity-is-funny-right-guys?. It's also, tellingly, the first script written entirely by Anderson.

Perhaps most infuriating was Wes Anderson's use of emotional manipulation in the movie . He uses such things as the hotel being oppressed by the SS - sorry the "ZZ" - and Agatha being killed by the "Prussian grippe" as cheap methods of sympathy while also using them as stupid jokes. "ZZ" stands for "zig-zag," a joke that seems very characteristic of his sense of humour, but one that is totally inappropriate, especially given that the hotel isn't persecuted for any reason other than Nazis are mean and do bad things and are short-hand for bad guy. The tone-deaf preciousness is echoed in the "Prussian grippe" name; it's funny because the Spanish flu killed 50 million people? This sort of thing is practically unprecedented in Wes Anderson's movies, but then again there hasn't been one so hollow thus far so either.

The infuriatingness of his quasi-ideology doesn't end there either. I found M. Gustave to be a pretty terrible character, and yet the movie doesn't really try to satirize him so much as it lionizes him as a noble spirit from a bygone age or some such bs. He talks about treasuring things like "civilization" and the way things are supposed to be and Romantic poetry and "purity" in women which just makes me want to throw up. It just kind of encapsulates all the shitty things about the way Wes Anderson thinks into one truly unlikeable character.

Honestly, this movie was so bad I'm having paranoid thoughts that I don't actually like the rest of his movies. Is The Royal Tenenbaums actually any good? If I rewatch Rushmore will it seem just as bad?

tldr: A 1/5 movie

>opinion as fact

pretty solid critique's if you ask me, even though i enjoyed the movie thoroughly

this is a very poor review, who wrote this?

So? This is a rather light criticism.

no i don't want to see anyone post jodoshitsky.

Very few movies are what you'd call poetic, but I think Wim Wenders in a few of his movies capture the feel decently like kings of the road, wings of desire.

Also The ascent is poetic enough just in visuals alone.

Un homme qui dort is based on a book by Georges Perec so it's as Veeky Forums as it gets really.

Diary of a country priest, the human condition.

alright cutey

:3

This, t b h, though I still appreciate the film aesthetically and would give it 2/5. It's his worst by far but it does expose the rest of his work.

>they haven't started watching iranian movies

You plebs need some Parajanov. Color of Pomegranates is literally an attempt to capture poetry on film, although I personally prefer Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors.

Shit, I don't even hate most of the movies in this thread, but to call something like Birdman poetic is a joke.

This guy knows his shit.

No love for Bresson?

The director explained the one shot style, said it represented the character's restlessness or inescapability or something.

So, all the shit you watch the second month you're interested in film?

It is also set IN A FUCKING THEATRE

>This guy

So, how do Brakhages farts smell?

I'm not saying they're bad. Just would be nice to be exposed to something that people with a cursory knowledge of film would not know. It's a lot like telling someone to read Beckett.

absolute boss hog

> It's a lot like telling someone to read Beckett.

> It's a lot like telling someone to read one of the best and most original authors of the 20th century.

Why not tell them? His work can be reread over and over and still have value. Just like relatively well-known, artistic movies like he listed.

Have you seen all of the 49 Bergman directed fictitious films?
How many papers have you written on Niskanen's work and themes?
Can you recite the radio transmissions in Cocteau's Orpheus?
Have you walked in the rain and wind of the Hungarian plains while listening to Vig's soundtracks of Tarr's films?
Can you estimate the amount of vodka Pellonpää drinks in Kaurismäki's Take Care of Your Scarf, Tatjana?
Do you even see Tarkovsky films when you sleep?

If you answered even one of these questions negatively, you can hardly say that you have a "cursory knowledge of film" and in the future not overestimate yourself, while giving weight on exposition instead of scrapping it all because you spot Bergman (since everybody knows enough of him already lol xP)

I'm not sure how you could be so off my point. That person already knows about Beckett.

Not Veeky Forums

Can /tv/ fuck off?

Nothing I said warranted your sperging. I said something very simple. I wasn't degrading these directors because they are well known, I am saying you are useless because I already know these directors are valuable, and so does anyone with several weeks of interest in film.

>I already know these directors are valuable, and so does anyone with several weeks of interest in film.

My problem here is, that you say this but I don't believe you. I don't think you and many others understand exactly how valuable these people are.
Also, I doubt that any person within weeks of interest in film would have seen a single film by Kaurismäki, Tarr or Niskanen or the full oeuvres of the better known directors that I mentioned.

Gattaca

Also, the Coogan Tristram Shandy.

>The most prevalent criticism of Wes Anderson's oeuvre is that he puts more effort into the his intricate dioramas than writing, plot, characters, etc.
That's retarded as fuck considering that it's a visual genre.

a masterpiece

a fucken doneky

da best

good one

...

Visually, sure. But it'd philosophy is pretty basic.

Unironically this. Freddy Got Fingered is a severely misunderstood film.

all philosophy is pretty basic, how a film executes is more important that what it executes