/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8493550]

Poetic Movies That Don't Suck

[Anonymous No.8493555]

>>8493550
you just post a movie that completely sucks

[Anonymous No.8493563]

>>8493555
It doesn't suck. You just have shit tastes.

[Anonymous No.8493568]

>>8493563
check your tastes senpai

[Anonymous No.8493572]

>>8493563
lmao that movie was garbage

[Anonymous No.8493577]

>>8493555
>>8493568
>>8493572
A bunch of retards

Good taste OP that movie is dope

[Anonymous No.8493582]

If someone genuinely didn't like this movie, i'm very interested to know why.

[Anonymous No.8493591]

>>8493582
I liked it but I don't think its great, its setting and allusions were pretty much entirely tangential to the plot and the characters were all totally uninteresting to me.
I enjoyed it simply for its occasional wit and nice imagry

[Anonymous No.8493596]

>>8493582
i love this movie so much. my favorite by wes anderson I think.

[Anonymous No.8493598]

[Anonymous No.8493599]

>>8493582
Would have been good if there was no dialogue.

[Anonymous No.8493602]

>>8493550

[Anonymous No.8493603]

>>8493591
>setting and allusions were pretty much entirely tangential to the plot

This is exactly my criticism of it,

[Anonymous No.8493610]

>>8493602
>the funeral scene
>the ending scene
holy... I want more

[Anonymous No.8493612]

Նռան գույնը
Зepкaлo
Dog Star Man
สัตว์ประหลาด
Trash Humpers

[Anonymous No.8493616]

>>8493550
Oldboy

[Anonymous No.8493621]

>>8493616
Have you seen the American remake? It's hilariously bad

[Anonymous No.8493627]

>>8493550
No tears for the dead
Dolls
Ikiru
Late Spring
Onibaba
Rashomon

[Anonymous No.8493628]

>>8493603
>>8493591
>setting and allusions were pretty much entirely tangential to the plot
care to elaborate a bit?

[Anonymous No.8493631]

>>8493621
Nope just the Korean original. How bad?

[Anonymous No.8493633]

>>8493612
>Dog Star Man
i can't remember the name, but his 6 second short is best

[Anonymous No.8493634]

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

[Anonymous No.8493644]

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

[Anonymous No.8493648]

>>8493631
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.

[Anonymous No.8493649]

>>8493550
Anything by Wong Kar Wai: In the mood for love, the days of being wild, etc.

[Anonymous No.8493650]

>>8493644
Also Welles, just watched F for Fake, damn good stuff

[Anonymous No.8493652]

>>8493648
sounds like a riot! Will do!

[Anonymous No.8493658]

>>8493582
I didn't "genuinely not like" it but its dollhouse aesthetic makes it seem as petty and inconsequential as a kid playing with toys

[Anonymous No.8493669]

>>8493550
The scent of the green papaya

[Anonymous No.8493683]

>>8493582

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.

[Anonymous No.8493684]

>>8493550
Hana-bi
Badlands
A Short Film About Killing
In the Mood for Love
Valerie and Her Week of Wonders

[Anonymous No.8493691]

>>8493644

>Cocteau

Orphee was a surprisingly touching one

[Anonymous No.8493705]

>>8493648
>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.

[Anonymous No.8493713]

>>8493644
miss you, Anon

[Anonymous No.8493730]

>>8493705
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.

[Anonymous No.8493738]

kubrick, jodorowsky, and lynch

[Anonymous No.8493752]

>>8493691
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

>>8493713
I'll be here, always. Have we met before?

[Anonymous No.8493764]

>>8493550

[Anonymous No.8493770]

>>8493644
Nice touch adding those Finns to your list. :^)

[Anonymous No.8493786]

Films by the Quay Brothers and Norshteyn

[Anonymous No.8493812]

>>8493770
Mans got to do what a mans got to do :--D

[Anonymous No.8493823]

>>8493628
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

[Anonymous No.8493825]

>>8493770
Saw this films 4k restoration the other day.

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

[Anonymous No.8493832]

>>8493577
It's nice that OP is friends with himself.

[Anonymous No.8493835]

>>8493752
not sure if you're the person I'm thinking of but if you are

Anon, 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

[Anonymous No.8493842]

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.

[Anonymous No.8493865]

>>8493842
Anon, 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.

[Anonymous No.8493869]

>>8493823
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.

[Anonymous No.8493884]

>>8493738
/r/movies get outta here

[Anonymous No.8493925]

>>8493835
No, I don't think you are immature or childish at all!

How is the Hamlet going?

[Anonymous No.8493965]

>>8493550

>"films" with dialogue

[Anonymous No.8493979]

Nietzsche fans should love this

[Anonymous No.8493990]

>>8493649
This.

>>8493627
>Roshomon
Though this is based on a story anyway...i definitely agree.

Gonna throw in pic related.

[Anonymous No.8494046]

>>8493582

LENS FILTER

[Anonymous No.8494054]

>>8493842

[Anonymous No.8494056]

>>8493582
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.

[Anonymous No.8494061]

>>8494056
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

[Anonymous No.8494148]

>>8494056
>>8494061

>opinion as fact

[Anonymous No.8494231]

>>8494148
pretty solid critique's if you ask me, even though i enjoyed the movie thoroughly

[Anonymous No.8494236]

>>8494056
>>8494061
this is a very poor review, who wrote this?

[Anonymous No.8494282]

>>8493823
So? This is a rather light criticism.

[Anonymous No.8494307]

>>8493764

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 /lit/ as it gets really.

Diary of a country priest, the human condition.

[Anonymous No.8494334]

>>8494231

alright cutey

[Anonymous No.8494363]

>>8494334
:3

[Anonymous No.8494446]

>>8494056
>>8494061
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.

[Anonymous No.8494458]

>>8493550
>they haven't started watching iranian movies

[Anonymous No.8494490]

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 >>8493644 knows his shit.

[Anonymous No.8494498]

No love for Bresson?

[Anonymous No.8494511]

>>8493634
The director explained the one shot style, said it represented the character's restlessness or inescapability or something.

[Anonymous No.8494519]

>>8493644
So, all the shit you watch the second month you're interested in film?

[Anonymous No.8494523]

>>8494511
>>8493634
It is also set IN A FUCKING THEATRE

[Anonymous No.8494536]

>>8494519
>This guy

So, how do Brakhages farts smell?

[Anonymous No.8494550]

>>8494536
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.

[Anonymous No.8494551]

>>8494498
absolute boss hog

[Anonymous No.8494564]

>>8494550

> 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.

[Anonymous No.8494615]

>>8494550
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)

[Anonymous No.8494624]

>>8494564
I'm not sure how you could be so off my point. That person already knows about Beckett.

[Anonymous No.8494626]

Not /lit/

Can /tv/ fuck off?

[Anonymous No.8494639]

>>8494615
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.

[Anonymous No.8494666]

>>8494639
>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.

[Anonymous No.8494679]

Gattaca

[Anonymous No.8494680]

>>8493550
Also, the Coogan Tristram Shandy.

[Anonymous No.8494757]

>>8494056
>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.

[Anonymous No.8494803]

a masterpiece

[Anonymous No.8494807]

>>8494498
a fucken doneky

[Anonymous No.8494812]

da best

[Anonymous No.8494814]

>>8494498
good one

[Anonymous No.8494815]

[Anonymous No.8494855]

>>8494803
Visually, sure. But it'd philosophy is pretty basic.

[Anonymous No.8494859]

>>8494812
Unironically this. Freddy Got Fingered is a severely misunderstood film.

[Anonymous No.8494861]

>>8494855
all philosophy is pretty basic, how a film executes is more important that what it executes