This movie is Veeky Forums's fantasy

this movie is Veeky Forums's fantasy

>user is a grad student studying fiction
>everyone thinks user is a weak sensitive pussy
>user has a qt gf who believes in him
>they fall in love together
>they get older and real world hit, gf goes "user do you really just want to write novels and work in a book store your whole life?"
>y-yes
>user gets cuck'd by Veeky Forums
>time skip
>user has a traumatic experience that leaves him shattered
>comes out of it as more of a "man" but at what cost?
>pours himself into novel
>becomes a success
>cheekily dedicate book to ex gf and send her the manuscript to read
>"oh user, l-let's reconnect"
> ok
> never show up to date thus reverse cucking ex gf who is now a 40 yr old with a saggy vag, and a husband who's cheating on her
>lmao

that's not exactly how the plot plans out. it's never revealed in the movie if the book is autobiographical or not. the film itself was adapted from a book that i've read is not that good but i might check it out in my free time - does it reveal in the novel if the book within the book is autobiographical? or is jake just being petty by dedicating the book? good movie though and i'm glad a gay guy directed it. not sure if a straight male would have gotten away with that ending

>tom ford directs

>decent movies

always blows my mind he's actually talented

>this movie is Veeky Forums's fantasy
>posts some /r9k/ shit with a normalfag success story and petty one-upmanship

Unaesthetic frogposter, contemplate 1000 sunsets before posting again

lol being this chicken fried salty the day after christmas

I thought it was a great movie

same

I loved how sexual the scenes of amy adams reading the script managed to be

the costume design was also great

Veeky Forums is /r9k/ for pseuds

Are you a girl? The movie was great but I can see why a woman wouldn't like it

>it's never revealed in the movie if the book is autobiographical or not

Its a retelling of how he felt. The characters wife and daughter being raped and murdered is representing how the author,felt about his wife having an abortion and leaving him for Chad.

You had me at Jake Gyllenhaal.

saggy vag is a good name for a band

This seems right but like it took him 20 years to get over it?

I keep flip flopping between the shallowness expressed in the film and it's depth. I guess either viewing is acceptable because you can't not say Jake wasn't vindictive, which one can argue is an incredibly shallow motive. At the same time we've all been there.

>I relate to it so it's deep

I don't know if that's what you meant to say

But it is, in fact, what your words are implying

What's the problem with that?

Did you watch the movie? I think you missed one of the themes if you did.
In the film there's a present dichotomy between depth and shallowness constantly expressed throughout.

He isn't. The movie is garbage. He has a real problem with character motivations and writing any dialogue that isn't on the nose.

Consider for a second the shallowness and stupidity of the conflict between the Amy Adams and Jake Gyllenhaal characters. In concept it might be believeable that a rich girl gets tired of living poor with an idealistic writer but there's a scene where Adams literally states "I'm a pragmatist" and another where they beat you over the head with the fact that she's turned into her mother.

And then let's talk about the story within a story. The way everything happens is garbage. The main bad guy has literally no motivation to do what he does. The entire way that Gyllenhaal is coaxed out of the car and makes the girls get out of the car when the setup for what is about to happen is really stupid. And worst, there's literally no mystery to it after the deed is done because we saw the guy's face and there's no mystery as to who it is. That makes for almost no conflict.

And then, worse, she reads this and her response to it isn't "wow, he needs to get over it. It's been 20 fucking years". Instead she thinks it's some literary masterpiece? Holy shit, man. She calls the book "beautiful" in that email.

It's such a patronizing, morally assuming and literal movie. I don't know how much of this was in what I assume is an equally garbage book, but Tom Ford cannot direct. He doesn't know anything about the craft.

>present dichotomy between depth and shallowness constantly expressed throughout.

How fucking deluded do you have to be to think this is a theme? Where exactly is the depth coming from here?

Jake Gyllenhaal's character? He's such a whiny fucker in this. And he's written in an incredibly self serving way (that is self serving to Tom Ford). He's an insert character that Ford wants to paint as scolded and justified in his bitchy vendetta. I see no depth anywhere in this movie.

this movie is Veeky Forums's fantasy:

>user is a high school student studying fiction; wants to be orignial
>everyone knows user is a weak pussy
>user dreams about having a qt gf who believes in him
>he masturbates daily to an idealized fiction which will never find its counterpart in reality
>he gets older and the real world hits, mom goes "user do you really just want to neet and pretend to write novels your whole life?"
>y-yes
>user kills his mother/landlady with an ax
>time skip
>user doesn't get caught, comes out of his traumatic experience a man
>pours himself into a generic genre fiction novel
>NYT best-seller, makes cash
>cheekily dedicates his book to his ex-mother
>Sells movie rights to novel, makes real money
>His book is actually trite unoriginal garbage
>He can't even kill himself, because that's already been played out
>ok
>Pinecone contacts him for a co-writing project about goofs and gaffs set during the Crusades
>lmao

Way to put a spoiler on this, you stupid newfag.

Kys

He must have a really good fucking agent now, he's been in in nothing but great movies for quite a while

You're using spiteful words and scaring me so I can't make this long but examine amy Adams character and Jakes gyllenhals. The former can't create art but instead becomes a curator. She has an eye for art and appreciates it's aesthetic yet she rejected the most creative part of her life when she left jake. Her life is very flashy and expensive yet shes miserable. She is shallow. Jake is a reserved and humble man from Texas, a place no one really associates with art. His aspirations are simple. When he is hurt he pours his pain into a novel dedicated to the one who hurt him. This is the difference. Susan is all surface and can't create to relieve herself of the past. Edward can, the fact that he didn't show up to dinner shows he has finally moved on.

Also based on ford's interviews he doesn't necessarily insist on Edward being in the right. Existential revenge is still petty. Don't try to watch movies looking for who's right or wrong. I mean maybe that works in star wars.

Last thing before I go back to being scared, how could Edward be a stand in for Ford when ford isn't even the original author? I do think the whole movie is an argument against for how people see a fashion designer attempting to transition to film can be regarded as just an exercise in style over substance though.

Adams and Jake are caricatures. I mean this isn't some deep look into the struggle between art and commerce. Both characters are very poorly realized with little beyond a single motivation each.

> Also based on ford's interviews he doesn't necessarily insist on Edward being in the right.
> how could Edward be a stand in for Ford when ford isn't even the original author?
I've watched multiple Ford interviews and he clearly states multiple times that the movie is about loyalty and based on personal experiences he had and how he felt when he was, as he saw it, betrayed. He chose the book for a reason. He adapted it and is responsible for what was left in of the content. Not that I read the original book, but I know that he changed several things, for instance in the book Gyllenhaal doesn't drive the car out after his wife. I have literally no idea why Ford would change this detail seeing as it makes substantially less sense but I know he did.

I'm sorry for scaring you, but I feel pretty strongly about how poorly constructed this film is in most respects. It isn't even stylish and I can stand hearing people talk about how well "directed" it is.

Look, I'm not stating this is the worst movie ever made but it is vapid and doesn't stand out in any way other than people heaping praise onto it because it isn't terrible.

I see, I see. This is isn't to disparage you but you wouldn't happen to be a girl would you? Also I can grant that the characters are caricatures but I don't exactly subscribe to the notion that all art must be true to life, at least in the sense of a characters actions. Sometimes it's better if theit purpose serve the art instead of the art serving them any purpose in bringing them to life. Have you seen the counselor? I'm sure you have the same gripes with that movie as you do this one, but the script is a perfect reflection of comarc Maccarthys style

>you wouldn't happen to be a girl would you?
God, you're one of those morons. No I'm not a woman. I don't dislike this movie because it "unmasks" the "reality" of women.

> characters are caricatures but I don't exactly subscribe to the notion that all art must be true to life
Characters do not need in every context to be believable. Most comedy characters for instance aren't particularly deep but this is a psychological drama. Having believable conflicted characters is key.

>have you seen The Counselor
No. I also don't intend to. I have seen other Cormac McCarthy adaptations however and none suffered the same problems as this film. Maybe the Sunset Limited had characters that suffered from being simply mouthpeices for opposing philosophies but Tommy Lee Jones at least understands film as a medium.

Look. Let's get past the argument about the writing for the second. Tom Ford fundamentally does not have a good understanding of film as a medium. Nearly everything is told through dialogue, it has excessively choppy editing which denotes poor knowledge what is needed on set and, just like so many other new filmmakers, it seems like he watched too many fincher movies.

OP posted this movie because it has book story telling element in it, actually this movie tries to be better than books, omg, shame that OP resinate with movies better than books stuff, but OP, thank you for trying to fit in here.

My fantasy is to have a loving wife, not a bitter revenge fantasy against some random slut.

You have serious issues with women, OP.

>Veeky Forums's fantasy
>it's not about me oiling up to hang out and wrestle with Socrates and friends

You have a very militant view on what film should be. What did you like that was released this year?

>says almost nothing about direction
>the director cannot direct
Seems your main gripes are with the writing son.

yeah that does sound like shitty wish fulfillment fiction but for Veeky Forums lol

>wanting to fit in here

Has someone read the book?

I would agree that I'm a purist when it comes to film. I don't watch too many films that are up to date.

I saw Arrival, Moonlight, and Jackie recently and all were good but nothing I think is exceptional. The best is probably moonlight so far this year but I could be forgetting something.

You have to understand that I purposely place myself in a bubble of only the best things ever made (according to my tastes) in music, film and literature. I only reluctantly see things that I don't have some implicit interest in specifically because I subscribe to the "you can never have too much of the good and too little of the bad" attitude. I try new things a lot, mind you, and generally attempt to have an open mind but some things really rub me the wrong way. I will lump Tom Ford in with Spike Jonze, Charlie Kaufman, Tarantino and the other filmmakers that I cannot stand and I will defend that opinion as I see fit.

Talking about direction without direct video evidence is often difficult or impossible.

I also am basing my critique on my viewing of the movie from maybe 2 weeks ago.

But back to direction. A good director will generally have a vision and know how things will cut together prior to the first day of filming. There are exceptions to this, many talented directors also accommodate a decent amount of improvisation into the final film but in those cases it is that vision that allows the director to decide how the improvised material will be integrated into the existing vision. Bad directors have no real vision and shoot a ton of coverage on the day so they can hide seams and flaws in the editing process. This is sometimes okay when there is an exceptionally talented editor at the helm. Walter Murch or Steven Soderbergh have done this before. But in general when a film is edited for continuity yet has an average shot length of under 8 seconds (as I have a suspicion, this movie does though I won't have proof until the blue ray is released) it is because the team that is working on it is not talented and is constructing something from scraps that were gotten during production. Proof of this is in the DP/30 interview with Ford where he states that when he got to editing on the film, his vision went out the window and he had to deal with what he actually had.

None of this is fool proof analysis but I'm just giving you a sense of where I'm coming from.

>You have to understand that I purposely place myself in a bubble of only the best things ever made (according to my tastes) in music, film and literature.
Tell me your taste in literature then, user.

I'm currently reading V to finish up Pynchon when he was in his prime

In the last couple months I read the following.
The Book of the New Sun
The Invention of Morel
American Pastoral
The Crying of Lot 49 (re-read)
Bleeding Edge

On my to-read stack is
Faust
Gespensterbuch
Underworld

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Kino