/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13488787]

Hey /lit/ what movie did u anons watched that was the equivalent feeling as reading a novel?
A movie so rich and detailed that u guys finished the movie with the thought of "damn I wish there was a book about this movie" ?
Op starts
>Stalker by Andrei Tarkovsky

[Anonymous No.13488811]

>>13488787
This is literally based on a book. 2/10 bait, made me reply.

[Anonymous No.13488820]

>>13488811
It's better than the book desu

[Anonymous No.13488834]

Bergman: Through a Glass Darkly

[Anonymous No.13488839]

>>13488787
Fanny & Alexander gets close

[Anonymous No.13488842]

>>13488820
too contemplative and boring. book's better.

[Anonymous No.13488845]

>>13488811
It's inspired in the book but the movie doesn't actually follow what the books leads, it's like 2 different stories, the movie only takes some details of the book to be based on

[Anonymous No.13488862]

>>13488842
>[artwork] is boring, therefore its not good
pleb critique
boring is relative, you need to develop your own tastes

[Anonymous No.13488868]

This thread sucks. No film that you watch is going to feel like something read. So you are proceeding off the linear superiority of literature over film instead of the contrary strengths and weaknesses. And what qualifies the literary superiority of a film here but 'richness' and 'detail'? The fact that you have posted a film by Tarkovsky who most embodies the temporal-visual qualities of a film that a novel lacks proves that your equivocation means nothing.

What can this thread be then but a posting of the same IMDB top 100 or Criterion Collection canonical art films with the added arrogance of someone who wants to anoint these universally praised works of art with the favorable comparison to the work of a different medium?

Retarded.

[Anonymous No.13488876]

>>13488862
I've watched many contemplative films, hell, 2001 is my favourite film, but sometimes filmmaker don't do it right and it shows.

[Anonymous No.13488880]

>>13488876
so you think tarkovsky don't do it right? do you dislike all of his work, or just this in particular?

[Anonymous No.13488909]

>>13488876
>2001 is my favourite film
lmao

[Anonymous No.13488917]

>>13488880
just this one, it didn't do it for me.
>>13488909
what? what's yours?

[Anonymous No.13488918]

>>13488868
War and Peace (1966), The Best of Youth, Satantango, Out 1, The Travelling Players, Ludwig, Berlin Alexanderplatz, Fanny and Alexander, The Human Condition, A Brighter Summer Day

[Anonymous No.13488926]

>>13488876
>2001 is my favourite film

[Anonymous No.13488928]

>>13488926
what's yours?

[Anonymous No.13488931]

>>13488834
good pick but every internet summary has massive pointless spoilers so don't read about it just watch it
>>13488839
literally the bottom of Bergman's barrel

[Anonymous No.13488935]

>>13488918
Jesus christ anon, get some personal taste. This is like a greatest hits of exceedigly long, overhyped films

[Anonymous No.13488937]

Lives of others

[Anonymous No.13488939]

>>13488931
>literally the bottom of Bergman's barrel
Terrible take.

[Anonymous No.13488945]

>>13488787
Pan's Labyrinth

[Anonymous No.13488947]

>>13488935
name some long novel type films then

[Anonymous No.13488953]

>>13488787
All film is garbage and plebeian. Filmfags don't get it. What The Avengers is to the "greatest films of all time" is basically what film is to the rest of art. The greatest film doesn't compare to even a mediocre novel. It's art for children and brainlets.

[Anonymous No.13488956]

>>13488947
La Haine, Irreversible, Son of Saul, Jeanne Dielman, The Ascent, Cries and Whispers

[Anonymous No.13488960]

>>13488917
>what? what's yours?
Out of Kubrick's, Eyes Wide Shut is clearly his best, and Barry Lyndon and the training scenes of Full Metal Jacket are surely better than 2001. Spartacus and Dr. Strangelove are on par with 2001. Holding up 2001 as the height of film is very college.

I'm not sure if I could narrow down a favorite film but lately I've been heavily watching Bergman, Tarkovsky, and Kurosawa. Older, pulpier favorites'd be Lynch, Cronenberg, Deren. Kubrick is okay but I would class him with Tarantino, or Aronofsky, or Wes Anderson as having panache and popular appeal but not poesis.

[Anonymous No.13488963]

>>13488956
>La Haine
And you're calling him a pleb? Kys

[Anonymous No.13488967]

>>13488787
STOP MAKING FILM THREADS ON MY /LIT/ BOARD U FUCKING PLEB KYS

[Anonymous No.13488969]

>>13488868
Are u retarded or something, I didn't say that a movie would feel the same as a novel but the "equivalent feeling" of reading a novel
When u read something you are totally immersed in it and there are movies that can have this same immersive feeling either by the richness of the story of the detailed world in it, also movies can carry many philosophical views...

[Anonymous No.13488976]

>>13488928
picking a "favorite film" is a plebs game; picking 2001 as your favorite film is winning that pleb game. at least say Paths of Glory or Barry Lyndon.
I'm a fan of Polish surrealism, Has and Zulawski, but if you want a real master director check out Kieslowski

[Anonymous No.13488978]

>>13488960
>Spartacus and Dr. Strangelove are on par with 2001
I don't think so. 2001 is one of his best films, some critic even consider it his best one.
>Kubrick is okay but I would class him with Tarantino
So you're anti-Kubrick, then? No further questions.
What?

[Anonymous No.13488979]

>>13488969
This is a highly subjective and arbitrary distinction. If I read a great novel on the bus I am not completely immersed. If I watch a bad movie on a big screen in a darkened theatre I am.

Movies can carry philosophical ideas. This does not make them books.

[Anonymous No.13488981]

>>13488953
>Just because I don't like it then it's shit
Are u like 12 of something?

[Anonymous No.13488984]

>>13488787
Tragedy of Man

[Anonymous No.13488998]

>>13488981
i like some films, I'm just saying film is shit compared to other forms of art, esp literature and music

[Anonymous No.13489000]

>>13488963
Never called him a pleb, just that he has textbook “i like long movie” taste

[Anonymous No.13489006]

>>13488976
My taste changes from time to time. I've rewatched 2001 recently and I consider it my favorite. There's literally nothing wrong with liking this film.
>check out Kieslowski
You're talking talking to me as if I were a retard. I've watched Decalogue, Colours trilogy and Veronique. Kieslowski is not some obscure director. Red is one of the most emotional films I've watched. Truly a great picture. Should've won the Palm D'Or instead of Pulp Fiction.

[Anonymous No.13489010]

>>13488981
>Just because I don't like you, you have a scraggly beard, poor eyesight, and exaggerated facial expressions

[Anonymous No.13489011]

>>13488960
BASEDYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

[Anonymous No.13489012]

>>13488998
Maybe if you're watch blockbusters only. Film is on par with literature from these days.

[Anonymous No.13489023]

>>13489012
no it isn't fucking retard lmao i've seen enough art films to know how fucking dead film is, it was maybe good when it was silent and colorless, now it's just annoying trash fit for children, even the most artsy film is the equivalent of a shit novel

[Anonymous No.13489024]

>>13489006
Anyone bothered with someone claiming 2001 as their favorite film is just insecure. It’s like genuinely loving The Velvet Underground or something these days where everyone else has to like something more obscure and less impressive

[Anonymous No.13489030]

>>13489006
well then you baffle me friend. 2001 is like babbys first art film. both of Tarkovsky's sci fi films are better, and those aren't even the best Tarkovsky films

[Anonymous No.13489033]

>>13488969
>movies can carry many philosophical views
HAHAHAHAH philosophy is gay and so is film kys

[Anonymous No.13489037]

>>13489023
Don't let the new trash movie trend of superheroes blind u there are a lot of good movies out there with deep plots and histories

[Anonymous No.13489044]

>>13489033
>Philosophy is gay
Why are you on /lit/ then?

[Anonymous No.13489049]

>>13489044
>implying all /lit/ is philosophy
cringe and lowIQpilled

[Anonymous No.13489071]

>>13489023
unironically Villeneuve is still on point, Eggers is making good shit, and the Coen Brothers made probably their best film ever less than 10 years ago (A Serious Man). It's not that people aren't making good shit, it's that it doesn't tend to do well critically or financially (Villeneuve is changing this with his sci fi trilogy, and if he pulls off Dune he will be able to do literally whatever the fuck he wants which would be the best timeline)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7nyIlwh9KI

[Anonymous No.13489075]

>>>/tv/ you have to go back

[Anonymous No.13489079]

>>13489071
>film about brown people
yeah no thanks retard

[Anonymous No.13489089]

>>13488787
>wanting a movie that feels like a book
just go read a book dumbass

[Anonymous No.13489090]

>>13489030
Well, I don't think of art as some video game with a progressive set of levels or difficulties. So, a film or a filmmaker being obscure doesn't automatically make it better or superior in my view. I tend to appreciate films based on my experience with them, not about about the social perception or whatever.

[Anonymous No.13489095]

>>13489079
>I'm a racist and a philistine
wow what a surprise

[Anonymous No.13489096]

>>13489079
It's about the Lebanese civil war and the brown people are literally terrorists in the movie

[Anonymous No.13489110]

>>13489095
>says the word "philistine"
>calls someone racist
oh the irony, ur brain has been colonized by ancient jewish racism against canaanites (brown people) and here you are calling me racist when i don't wanna watch a film about the descedents of the philistines lmaooooo

[Anonymous No.13489125]

>>13489110
>the meaning of words doesn't change over time
>why yes, I'm a retard, how could you tell?

[Anonymous No.13489148]

>>13488787

This board has contracted AIDS

[Anonymous No.13489156]

>>13488787
Why would I want a film in an inferior medium for what films do? Completely different mediums.

Watch Youth by Paolo Sorrentino.

[Anonymous No.13489165]

>>13488960
Kubrick is trash

[Anonymous No.13489168]

>>13488787
The first one that shot through my mind while reading the OP is "The Passenger", but I'm not really sure since it's a different kind of feel. I adore the 70's vibe of the movie and the theme.

[Anonymous No.13489196]

>>13489165
Kubrick is the GOAT.

[Anonymous No.13489223]

>>13489196
He is just an edgelord and should have been nothing more than a DoP. He can't direct actors or portray character for shit.

[Anonymous No.13489225]

>>13488960
>he doesn't rate Paths of Glory

[Anonymous No.13489252]

>>13489223
>edgelord
reddit buzzword
>should have been nothing more than a DoP. He can't direct actors or portray character for shit.
His films are not about character studies, but he does character portrayal well. In any case he shines on many levels beyond cinematography. His use of music for instance, remains unsurpassed. And many of his actors thought of him as a very visual filmmaker before working with him abut were surprised about his actorial direction when working with him. He was the whole package, a solid unity of a filmmaker. There isn't a more perfect filmography.

[Anonymous No.13489291]

>>13488842
the book is pulp trash

[Anonymous No.13489299]

mega yikes @ the pedestrian taste itt
Try finding art on your own, instead of clinging to the imdb top 250

[Anonymous No.13489305]

>>13489252
I haven't seen enough to argue because I don't like his films. The only one I like is strangelove and even that needs a lot more punching up.

[Anonymous No.13489312]

>>13489305
>punching up
go back to pleddit, same for >>13488787

[Anonymous No.13489327]

>>13489299
>dude obscure films are always better xD
I too remember being 16.

[Anonymous No.13489334]

[Anonymous No.13489343]

[Anonymous No.13489347]

>>13489312
Punching up means making more jokes and better ones. Every comedy needs to be punched up once the narrative structure is solid.

[Anonymous No.13489653]

>>13489071
>NGO-tier exploitation of a viewer's empathy
There's nothing artistic in this scene, just the cheapest possible manipulation of emotions. I can't speak for the rest of the movie, as I haven't seen it, but this scene doesn't present a good image for cinema.

[Anonymous No.13489765]

>>13488978
I actually love all of the directors I noted.
>>13489165
>>13489196
He's neither trash nor great.
>>13489225
I almost did just to fuck with him but it's also the only of his very old ones I've seen and I wanted to be honest.

[Anonymous No.13489786]

>>13488960
>lately I've been heavily watching Bergman, Tarkovsky, and Kurosawa
Lmao and you call Kubrick entry level

[Anonymous No.13489789]

>>13489786

[Anonymous No.13489793]

>>13489789
Do you think they're obscure? Fucking lol

[Anonymous No.13489795]

>filmfags are even bigger pseuds than litfags
big surprise, really

[Anonymous No.13489801]

>>13489653
>the depiction of war is the cheapest manipulation of emotions possible
yeah that faggot Homer ruined everything with that pulp trash the Illiad

[Anonymous No.13489818]

>>13489793
Yeah they kind of are

[Anonymous No.13489836]

>>13489818
They're regarded as the best ever by tryhards and snobs. Kurosawa in particular is a total meme.

[Anonymous No.13489841]

>>13489765
Kubrick is not great? Is this a joke? You wish you've made his filmography, you envious cunt.

[Anonymous No.13489972]

>>13489818
'Tarkovsky, Kurosawa, the list goes on' is the film equivalent of 'Davis, Coltrane, the list goes on'

[Anonymous No.13490019]

aleksei german's films

[Anonymous No.13490042]

>>13489786
I never called Kubrick entry level, I called 2001 college, which it is. And although I classed Kubrick with Tarantino, Aronofsky, and Wes Anderson, I love all of those directors, as I've said. And I never said that Bergman, Tarkovsky, or Kurosawa are particularly deep, only that I've been watching them lately. It seems that you have reading comprehension problems; must be all those movies!
>>13489836
What don't you like about Kurosawa? I enjoy him more than the other two, presently.
>>13489841
Kubrick is overly apotheosized. If Kubrick is great, then Tarantino is too (and there's nothing wrong with that).
>>13489972
I don't listen to music, so I don't follow your analogy. Who?

[Anonymous No.13490046]

>>13489972
But in my case the list does go on for a while actually

[Anonymous No.13490078]

>>13489836
kurosawa is a meme but he's also amazing

[Anonymous No.13490086]

>>13490042
Tarantino doesn't have the same depth, emotional potency and craftsmanship as Kubrick. You're only grouping them together because they're Americans and well-known. If Kubrick were European you'd be putting him up there with the greats. I'm not sure you've watched Kubrick's entire filmography to say they're on the same level. To be honest it seems like bait to me.

[Anonymous No.13490096]

>>13490042
>I don't listen to music, so I don't follow your analogy. Who?
Two irrelevant niggers.

[Anonymous No.13490131]

Lost in Translation

[Anonymous No.13490134]

>>13490086
>Tarantino doesn't have the same depth, emotional potency and craftsmanship as Kubrick.
What are you talking about? Take Hateful Eight, the height of his historical pieces: that movie is perfectly choreographed not just down to scene by scene and action by action but character by character and feeling by feeling. If you don't feel that Hateful Eight is AT LEAST on par with the early scenes of Full Metal Jacket I'll have a hard time believing that you aren't being disingenuous. And besides, Kubrick wasn't even American, he was a British transplant; how would I possibly lump him together with Tarantino solely on the grounds of "Americanness"?
>>13490096
Oh, so they play sports?

[Anonymous No.13490144]

>>13488787
>Hey /lit/ what movie did u anons watched that was the equivalent feeling as reading a novel?

I don't believe a movie can be equivalent of a novel and vice versa.
Tarkovsky was great because he created things which could only exist in cinema. He totally realised the potential of film. That is why he is a genius

[Anonymous No.13490176]

>>13490134
The Hateful Eight is good as an entertaining piece but it has the depth of a genre comic book. An adolescent's violent wet-dream. Well-crafted and suspenseful but it fails as a historical piece. It triumphs as a quasi-play. It's a good movie, but it's at least three or four steps below a Kubrick picture. Scorsese said it himself: "One Kubrick picture equals ten from somebody else." And Kubrick was American, make no mistake about it. Listen to his interviews or behind-the-scenes docs, he sounds like an American. He remained an American all his life, he just happened to live in England.

[Anonymous No.13490181]

>>13488931
>literally the bottom of Bergman’s barrel
What? That’s a very strange opinion...

[Anonymous No.13490189]

>>13489012
>>13489023
They’re totally different mediums you absolute fucking retards. Film does things lit can’t, lit does things film can’t. End yourselves, holy shit.

[Anonymous No.13490198]

>>13489030
2001 is very good. Stop being a faggot who requires obscurity to make himself feel good about liking something. You are such a stupid faggot. This board is full of people like you. Leave and go annoy everyone in your university class.

[Anonymous No.13490205]

A Brighter Summer Day
Dead Man
Love Exposure

[Anonymous No.13490210]

>>13490042
Aronofsky is literally fucking terrible, and Anderson has more hits than misses, is formulaic, and has a shtick that runs pretty thin. He’s not terrible though.

Tarantino is an unironically bad director.

[Anonymous No.13490214]

>>13490176
>The Hateful Eight is good as an entertaining piece but it has the depth of a genre comic book.
You should try rewatching it several times. Pay more attention.

[Anonymous No.13490217]

>>13490210
>more misses than hits, regarding Anderson
My b. His movies are still enjoyable.

[Anonymous No.13490221]

>>13490210
I disagree! :)

[Anonymous No.13490229]

>>13490198
why is the only defense of 2001 strawmanning some shit about popularity? no one said anything about popularity. why can't you defend it as a work of art? and Tarkovsky isn't obscure, he is one of the most famous directors in history.

[Anonymous No.13490231]

>>13490042
You've got to be kidding me with this shit, Tarantino and fucking ARONOFSKY on par with Kubrick? Hey man it's all subjective but lol.

Honestly only a handful of filmmakers better than the Stan Man - Lynch, Bergman, Maddin, Yang, Sono, Chaplin, Godard, maybeee Rivette, Carne.

[Anonymous No.13490237]

>>13490214
I've watched it three times and once was at the cinema. I like it a LOT but it's simply not close to a Kubrick picture. Kubrick played in another league, another dimension, perhaps. Not sure why my generation (people in their 20s) fails to acknowledge Kubrick. Everytime I'm talking to a Kubrick detractor he happens to be young.

[Anonymous No.13490239]

>>13490231
>Honestly only a handful of filmmakers better than the Stan Man - Lynch, Bergman, Maddin, Yang, Sono, Chaplin, Godard, maybeee Rivette, Carne.
is this a /tv/ meme I'm unaware of?

[Anonymous No.13490243]

>>13490229
Tarkovsky is a lot more obscure than Kubrick, and since most people on this board are college students that seems to matter a lot.
>defend 2001 as a piece of art
I enjoy watching it. I’m not spending hours on a 2001 dissertation. It’s not one of MY favourite movies, but it’s good, we can leave it at that.
>>13490221
>watched Mother
>still likes aronofsky
I actually can’t believe he has a single fan. His movies are embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.13490245]

>>13490239
Lol nah dude, just my take.

[Anonymous No.13490253]

>>13490243
Pi was good, Black Swan was pretty good, everything else...

[Anonymous No.13490258]

>>13490253
The Wrestler was good.

[Anonymous No.13490260]

>>13490237
It’s because he’s a very popular director and most people in that age see art as a culture commodity they use to distinguish themselves from others. Even people’s uncool uncles will like Kubrick films so, of course, Kubrick = bad.

To be fair, A ClockWork Orange is one of the most overrated movies ever, though it’s still pretty fucking good in its own way.

Full Metal Jacket is also mediocre imo. The rest of his stuff is all great.

[Anonymous No.13490265]

>>13490131
Yes. Sofia Coppola is amazing. I loved this film and to a lesser extent The Virgin Suicides.

[Anonymous No.13490267]

>>13490253
Pi was borderline embarrassing, though I also enjoyed it for the most part. Aronofsky is the ultimate pseudo intellectual. The film Mother retroactively destroys all credibility, and if he ever made a good film it was due to Lucas tier collaboration. He’s retarded.

[Anonymous No.13490268]

>>13490253
The Fountain

[Anonymous No.13490277]

>>13490260
It’s like how often do you see Hitchcock in these threads? Hitchcock movies are mostly really fun, enjoyable to watch, and important, but they’re also really popular and lack the sex appeal of a Tarkovsky or whatever the fuck else.

I love Tarkovsky too, but the slowerest most visually textured movie isn’t always the best, and even if it’s best in genre other genres are equally valid. Annie Hall is as good as any Tarkovsky movie, but totally different.

[Anonymous No.13490291]

>>13490277
>Annie Hall
>good

[Anonymous No.13490298]

>>13489000
Those are terrible films and don't feel anything like novels.

[Anonymous No.13490301]

>>13490291
Yes, it’s an excellent movie. God you’re probably insufferable.

[Anonymous No.13490315]

>>13490301
Pedoman has never made a good film and if you think otherwise you haven't seen many good movies

[Anonymous No.13490324]

>>13490315
Annie Hall and Hannah and her Sisters are both amazing. I’m sorry that you’re a genuine pleb, but that’s life.

[Anonymous No.13490326]

>>13490301
fuck these people Woody Allen is great. Midnight in Paris is /lit/ af.

[Anonymous No.13490329]

>>13490324
t. "Never watched a Bergman film"-let

[Anonymous No.13490335]

>>13490326
Midnight in Paris is quite literally the Family Guy of "artsy" films because WOW HE GOT INTO THE CAB AND SAID "Mr. Joyce?" AND I KNEW WHO THAT WAS!!

[Anonymous No.13490336]

>>13490315
I have 130 watched from 1910s and I like him.

[Anonymous No.13490343]

>>13490326
Midnight in Paris is aggressively bad, sorry anon, I’m the Allen defender too. It is sort of comfy though.
>>13490329
Ya because Bergman is so obscure. Chriiiist you’re embarrassing. I hope you’re not much older than 20 dude.

[Anonymous No.13490363]

>>13490343
I don't know where you got the idea that anywhere it was said that Bergman is obscure, but you're delusional to think that Allen isn't just poorly emulating Bergman's early 70s output

[Anonymous No.13490366]

>>13490335
That's not why people enjoy it you retard. It's the main character who makes it enjoyable.

[Anonymous No.13490374]

>>13490343
>Midnight in Paris is aggressively bad,
It's pretty plain. I would give it enjoyable and not bad. As close as you can get to good without being good but I wouldn't say aggressively bad. Why do you think so?

[Anonymous No.13490382]

>>13490363
I’ve seen every single Bergman film. Allen is a huge Bergman fan and their movies are not particularly similar. Allen makes comedies... the movies don’t look particularly similar.

Fucking what are you talking about? I’ll admit Hannah and her Sisters has an obvious origin in ?Fanny and Alexander, but so what?

Bergmans oeuvre obviously trashes Allens, who made more bad movies than good ones. Annie Hall stands up there with the best of them though.

[Anonymous No.13490392]

>>13490374
I found the Owen Wilson character to be a joke and since the entire movie revolves around him it’s unbelievably one-note and one-dimensional. The Hemingway/Fitzgerald shit is also mildly embarrassing.

It’s a watchable movie, looks pretty, and I agree on the comfy. Imo it’s for girls, lol.

[Anonymous No.13490394]

>>13490335
Congrats you watched an entire film about how knowing famous authors doesn't make you cool and came away thinking its for people who thinks it makes them cool.

[Anonymous No.13490590]

>>13490315
Match Point, Blue Jasmine, Midnight in Paris were all good.

[Anonymous No.13490592]

>>13490335
???

[Anonymous No.13490602]

>>13490392
I like the way the characters interact in an almost natural way and I like the main character. I wish I could write movies like that, in terms of character interactions.

[Anonymous No.13490614]

>>13490260
orange is one of his finest pieces. we take it for granted, but it's amazing if you really think about it. the overrated one is lolita. it shoudn't even exist.

[Anonymous No.13490617]

>>13488842
"Boring" as a description that describes the critic more accurately than the work itself.

[Anonymous No.13490625]

>>13490042
don't ever compare a great film maker like Kubrick with plebs such Tostino and his shit legacy:

>four rooms
complete dogshit and yes this counts no matter how bad he wants it not to

> Reservoir dogs
rip off of city on fire

>Pulp Fiction
decent, but a B- at best and only because of Roger Avary

>jackie Brown
great film. funny how he can only tell a cohesive narrative without "muh disjointed chapters" when the material isnt his.

>kill bill 1
rip off of lady snowblood

>kill bill 2
trash

>death proof
the less said about this one the better

>inglorious bastards
decent. suffers from meme chapter directing. the shtick gets old

>Django
fucking horrible

>hateful 8
his second worst movie (next to DP). what a waste of good talented actors and 70mm film on what essentially is a boring as play.

tortallini is a meme director loved by first year film students who think he actually ever made anything worth a damn

[Anonymous No.13490637]

>>13490614
Lolita is considered one of his worst movies. It’s underrated, not overrated.

[Anonymous No.13490645]

>>13490625
Inglorious Bastards is fucking terrible. Brad Pitt is death to movies. He’s awful. Maybe the worst actor to cast.

[Anonymous No.13490658]

>>13490637
>Lolita is considered one of his worst movies
Yeah, I could go on and on why I hate it (the only one of his that I hate, not just dislike) but let's just say it's the least Kubrickian Kubrick film in my view.

[Anonymous No.13490667]

>>13489125
be honest anon, he gotcha bretty gud

[Anonymous No.13490686]

>>13490625
I don't know what Tarantula was thinking when he made Death Proof. The worst of his excesses show here. Seriously, it's a shitty movie, with perhaps one good scene (when that rock and roll song plays and the chicks get killed, I don't even like the scene just the song, being honest with you). Basterds is a masterclass in stagecraft, though, as is Hateful Eight.

[Anonymous No.13490712]

Honestly just read books. Film is too young if a medium to even compare, and strangely the best stuff that was created early on like Man With a Movie Camera that tried to create a language unique to cinema is not the path film has taken at all with the result that even the best films that don’t do anything uniquely cinematic are just the shadows of books

[Anonymous No.13490719]

OP and all his petty quibbling about completely pointless nonsense (film) is the reason all threads mentioning film should be immediately deleted by mods, this is a literature board and this thread hasn't talked about books once. delete @ mods fucking end OP

[Anonymous No.13490734]

The Book Thief but it's actually based on the book of the same name.

[Anonymous No.13490762]

>>13490658
I quite like it! What makes you so hateful towards it?

[Anonymous No.13490778]

>>13490645
He was well cast in Fight Club which used his limited range well.

[Anonymous No.13490787]

>hey anons can you help me find stuff in this one visual art form (that only took about 100 years to become the bee movie and the avengers) that is like this verbal art form (that is centuries old and has produced thousands of excellent titles)

[Anonymous No.13490789]

>>13490625
Once upon a time seems kino. Read a review which said its his most artsy film there is a scene where that blonde girl buys a book and walks down the street and its 5 minutes long. sounds kino t ome.

[Anonymous No.13490798]

>>13488956
>La Haine
This

[Anonymous No.13490799]

>>13490762
It feels like Walt Disney's Lolita, instead of Stanley Kubrick's Lolita. Completely sanitized. Fairy tale ending. Mediocre adaptation. Bland characters. Not a single memorable line. Imperceptible use of music. It absolutely ruined the life of the main actress (I'm not kidding when I tell you her life is as tragic as Lolita's). Perhaps the only time Kubrick didn't improve on the source material. Even Kubrick's wife think it's a failure.

[Anonymous No.13490846]

>>13490719
>>13490787

[Anonymous No.13490929]

>>13489801
It's not the depiction of war itself which is the issue, it's the very crudely implemented, tear-jerking, "oh wow this is horrendous, thoughts and prayers to these victims" framing of the conflict which is the issue. It lacks all subtlety and comes across as incredibly forced. It's the same portrayal of conflict that NGOs and other such organisations use to manipulate people into giving them money, which is why I made that comparison before. It's dishonest and exploitative.

[Anonymous No.13490985]

>>13490625
>Reservoir dogs
>rip off of city on fire
there are two scenes in City on Fire that were homaged in Reservoir Dogs, they are nothing alike as films
>muh diamond heist
fuck off, City on Fire had a fucking love story as a major plotline. Jackie Brown is disjointed that was one of the major critiques of the film, that the heist scenes/practice scenes were cut too ambiguously. do you watch movies or just meme spicy opinions you hear?

[Anonymous No.13491008]

>>13490929
it's a scene of a terrorist cell murdering a bus full of people, did you want it to be more sympathetic to the terrorists or is that subject matter just too emotional to put on film?

[Anonymous No.13491056]

>>13490846
not mad, im having fun mocking OP

[Anonymous No.13491067]

>>13491008
There's nothing inherently wrong with having bleak scenes like this in a movie, but in this example it seems like it's being shown just to signal "look how bleak and violent this is, my movie is so artistic guys, give me awards now please". I could be wrong, and this scene might work well within the context of the film (which I admit I haven't seen), but my point was that violence and depravity for the sake of violence and depravity should not be taken seriously, it's just pornography at that stage. The scene came across to me as being an example of said pornography, as it felt similar to many films and adverts I've seen that share similar qualities.

[Anonymous No.13491097]

>>13491067
if you haven't even seen the film then your opinion doesn't count

[Anonymous No.13491106]

>>13491067
the middle east is violent as fuck, though.

[Anonymous No.13491113]

>>13491067
link the adverts of people getting burned alive; these NGO's sound metal af

[Anonymous No.13491129]

>>13491106
nah, the majority of the middle east is peaceful, esp the parts without americans or jews in them

[Anonymous No.13491341]

>>13489795
It's because film requires less effort.

[Anonymous No.13491932]

>>13490260
>>13490277
Tarkovsky has "sex appeal", sure, but he's also very spiritual and has a depth of feeling in his work that might not be present to the same extent in those directors' movies. It's the difference between making a movie to make a great movie, which is a worthwhile and respectable goal to have, and making a movie to reach the viewer's soul.

That being said, it's better to evaluate a piece of art on its own terms, and the directors you mention are likely all great at accomplishing what they set out to do. And of course what you say about people using directors for cultural capital, that's what happens when you make beautiful films, teenagers on the internet end up posting screenshots from them 50 years later, and they serve the same function as the calls primates use to assert their social position or attract a mate. It's really impressive how good groups of people are at desecrating art.

[Anonymous No.13492133]

>>13488787
"The Process" by Orson Welles

[Anonymous No.13492191]

On Top of the Whale(1982) by Raul Ruiz

[Anonymous No.13492217]

>>13492191
i need to watch more of this guy's films
he was prolific as hell

[Anonymous No.13492946]

>>13488842
>t. watches tarkovsky for the plot
Universe brain

[Anonymous No.13492960]

>>13488842
t. visually literate npc

[Anonymous No.13493014]

OP made this thread since the actual board for film is absolute off-topic /pol/ infested-garbage. /tv/ is the last place where actual film-discussion can take place.