Is this the cringiest, most "numale" attempt at """philosophy""" ever created?

It's not that bad

dont even care about the movie. Expand your vocabulary.

It's the same shit as "problematic" or "misogynistic," you're regurgitating buzzwords without a clear meaning to show off to your peer group. Fag.

its kino

You're still asking me to make up words. Tell me if you understand this.

Hoff ginurtop yuin lbvgf.

I don't doubt it.

I love seeing the Ron Paul political ad in the background of the bookstore robbery scene.

God what a good fuckign movie. And that Joyce scene is hilarious too.

That scene was lifted right from Slackers too right?

Right at the end before Link throws the camera off the cliff.

>tfw hs drop out
>about to graduate with a bachelor's in april
lol

Maybe this'll penetrate your skull: What specific elements of the movie led you to call it cringy and numale?

Unpack those terms to show us what they mean, and show us what elements of the movie the terms apply to.

For example:

Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy is "reddit-core." Reddit-core books contain smug atheism (as if not believing in God makes you some kind of rebel genius instead of a standard non-retard), "witty" humor focused on word-play and people being sharp-tongued (sharp wit is funny in real life but it doesn't count in books where you have infinite time to think things up).

HHGTG has smug atheism and witty humor. That makes HHGTG reddit-core.

This is how functioning human beings have a discussion. Does that make sense to you, you god damn retard?

Grhm solpofaq nurrob th polnfads.

No, it's pretty good. Isn't Veeky Forums tho. Sage.

he's still exactly the same all these years later

literally the only difference between now and then is that he didn't say "infowars" like 5 times throughout the speech

calm down, richard, it's just a shitpost. though your movie did suck, by the way

lol

Rick's just here to have a good time.

This is a good film about the beginnings of self-reflexivity and philosophical consciousness. If you're actually a philosopher I'd doubt you'd find it that edifying, but you're not, and I can almost guarantee that even if you spoke seriously to other people, you wouldn't be able to come up with anything half as interesting to say as what's in this movie

>numale

Jesus Christ. Why is /pol/ so fucking stupid?

He means extend your vocabulary, you risible slubberdegullion. E.g. instead of "numale" you can say "effete" or "effeminate" or "posh".

Raised on a solid diet of chan-culture and YouTubers

The movie has so much variety though you're not being specific. The scene about evolution I loved, the music scene was great, tell me what you didn't like

I thank G-d Veeky Forums wasn't around during my formative years. Instead of chan-culture I got to spend quality time with my grandfather that had Alzheimers and would hit me. I prefer it to this retardation though.

I think that's the problem. The movie attempts to take itself far more seriously and operate at a greater depth than Slacker or Dazed, but employs the same kind of transient, roaming camera technique.

Because it moves so fast through so many ideas, ideas which in and of themselves are often hard to discuss in depth in real life without becoming cliche--lucid dreaming, Nietzche--it makes itself hard to take seriously on any level. Slacker and Dazed, for their lack of direct focus and tangential approach to existential problems, end up producing fascinating and highly amusing characters that stick with you. And end up, ironically, possessing far more depth due to their implicit meaning than Waking Life ever does with all its explicit meaning.

I can think of ten characters off the top of my head from Slacker or Dazed. I can't think of a single one from Waking Life. It honestly is a really pretentious movie, not because Llinks is pretentious, but because his style just doesn't work in an expositional way with all these concepts.

It's a good movie to watch if you're 17 years old and in an intro to philosophy class at a community college. If you're still really into that film by the tie you turn 20 chances are you are not evolving much as a thinker.

What did you guys think of Everybody Wants Some?

> Boyhood
> best at anything

The other two films are fine though. In Linklater's defence, I've personally always been torn on his work. He seems to sacrifice structure and pacing just to get a sense of drawn-out counter-culture authenticity which he does well but then I feel most of his films suffer where it matters most.

Bernie was fucking great though. I know that's a pleb choice but how can people not enjoy that film.

I guess it's a sort of intro to philosophy for kids. It pissed me off frankly, just utterly half-baked in a dude weed way.

Does anyone else think the movie is too ugly too watch? I only got 15 minutes in and it was giving me a headache.

>
It's a good movie to watch if you're 17 years old and in an intro to philosophy class at a community college. If you're still really into that film by the tie you turn 20 chances are you are not evolving much as a thinker.

Bogus. The movie is not supposed to be enlightening, it tries to capture the strange unstable atmosphere of a dreamscape, where the people talking don't always have to make sense. I like the film for its visuals and music and sense of wonder they create.