Goddamn this is a good movie.
no actually pretty mediocre
>>67167969
solid 6/10 flick
>>67168008
This.
>>67167969
Never saw it but the trailer looked pretty dope
reddit tier desu
Entertaining enough for what it is. Not kino.
>>67168008
give us an example of a good one that came out recently
>>67168043
>>67168008
Not enough people getting shot or something exploding every 10 seconds, apparently.
>>67168060
Room
>>67168098
This is p accurate desu senpai
>>67168098
NICHE TRASH, BARELY RELEASED ON 800 SCREENS
SICARIO IS
M O V I E
OF THE YEAR
REVENANT IS RUNNER UP, BECAUSE WELL SHOT 1800S INNAWOODS SHENANIGANS IS AN ABSTRACTION WHILE SICARIO IS EQUALLY WELL SHOT WHILE BEING TOPICALLY RELEVANT
I don't like Emily Blunt.
It's far from good. Pretentious as hell with director that is hacking it up really hard.
>>67169254
Revenant was even worse, Congragulations on your plebeian status.
>>67167969
i expected more. it felt like everything happened too quickly
>>67169355
WHATS IT LIKE BEING WRONG
POST ANOTHER INSIGNIFICANT FLICK THAT BARELY GOT A WIDE RELEASE DISQUALIFYING IT FROM THE RUNNING FOR MOTY 2015
GO ON DO IT, BE A TRYHARD FAGGOT
>>67169407
>A release format telling anything bout the quality of film.
>If you don't like b-thriller with nothing to offer you are tryhard
mmkay
>>67169355
Nuh-uh bruh
Revenant > Sicario
>>67169474
That's like saying steaming pile of shit A > steaming pile of shit B
>>67169474
NOT REALLY, BUT THEY ARE BOTH 3000SCREEN WIDE RELEASEMOVIESPRODUCED FOR THE INTENT OF PROFIT, SO THEY ARE CATEGORICALLY COMPARABLE
UNLIKE ROOM OR SOME OTHER NICHESHIT OR FOREIGN LANGUAGE FAGGOTRY THAT TRYHARDS LOVE TO TOUT
>>67169549
>average dudebro who sees 2 films per year
>>67169592
ARE YOU GONNA GO BEYOND NAMEDROPPING ROOM? BESIDES NOT BEING COMPARABLE TOMOVIES, THAT SHIT IS PEDESTRIAN AS FUCK
YOU CAN TRY HARDER, TRY HARD
DO YOUR WORST, GO HIT UP YOUR LETTERBOXD FOR THE MOST PRETENTIOUS NON CHARTING BULLSHIT OF 2015 YOU CAN FIND
>>67169650
>He now sees 'Room' in his alphabet soup andk eeps on capslock cruising
you are not helping your case dudebro
>>67169474
maybe it's a haard choice desu
>>67167969
Agreed. Some of you might be putting off watching this because it has a female lead. Her being a female has no impact on the story, she is not a stronk womyn character. If anything, she is a weak female in over her head in a man's game.
Don't avoid watching this just because of Emily Blunt, it's a solid movie.
>>67167969
Watched it a few days ago and was pleasantly surprised. No deeper meeaning bullshit, it just was what it was.
Recommend me some similar stuff, /tv/.
>>67171629
I am concerned at the state of this website if there are people that will not watch a movie because of a female lead.
>>67169666
Stop replying to obvious bait, you fucking tool.
>>67168008
>aerial desert scene
>it's going to happen
>nothing happens
>aerial desert scene
>something will happen now
>nothing happens
>aerial desert scene
A solid 6, or 7 movie.
