>mfw /tv/ dislikes this film bcoz of its story and direction
I liked it.
>>68258974
No it was confusing.
I loved it.
>>68258974
It's good but after The Master you would expect something better from PTA
>>68259079
is that a bad thing?
>>68259079
>confusing
So, you didn't pay attention.
You don't even have to pay close attention; everything is presented right to your fucking face.
>>68258974
It was good, but it's Pynchon's worst novel, and it feels like a rehash of better neo-noirs that have come before it.
>>68259167
go away paul
>>68258974
Saw it months after his release.
A Saturday morning of May, alone in the theater.
Get home walking under a beautiful Spring's sun finishing my popcorn.
Fapped listening Lana del Rey in my apartment after releasing a solid 8/10 dump.
Best Saturday morning ever.
>>68258974
D R O P P E D
>>68259209
nah, mate, Bleeding Edge is Pynchon's worst novel. Inherent is a hilarious pastiche of noir, it's nearly a stoner noir masterpiece.
as for the movie, i appreciate it but it doesn't move me or make me laugh the way the novel did. i do love Sortilège's/Joanna Newsom's intrusive narration, though.
>>68259470
there was a good 20 minutes that had me rolling... from the drug consoler drug addict to when he arrives at the chicks hotel up to when he gets "let go" by josh brolin
>>68259079
>No it was confusing.
That's the point while in progress to match Doc's stoney understanding, but it all makes sense by the end.
>>68258974
Why don't we take this conversation someplace else?
>>68258974
No, I didn't like it because it was uninteresting and indecisive about the tone used.
I don't dislike it, but it didn't do very much for me. I feel like the Coen Brothers would have handled it a lot better. This is coming from somebody who thinks The Master is one of the best pictures this century.
>>68258974
/tv/ doesn't dislike this film bro. I mean this is a pleb board but not THAT pleb
I rank my movies by the quality of the boner it gives me.
I admit, that may make you laugh, at first, and it's understandable. I assure you, it is not as cut and dry a process as it seems. You might think that the boner, as judge and jury, is inherently flawed (pun intended, indeed). That there are too many factors that can "corrupt the data", so to speak. That my perspective would be too easily influenced, leaving the results with too high a standard of deviation.
I disagree. My boner has never lied to me. It is incorruptible. It is Sean Connery in The Untouchables. I can not deny my boner, I can only deny that I had a boner. I can only lie to myself. My boner has never lied to me.
No two boners are the same. They are all different. Some engorge quickly. Others are more of a slow burn. Don't be mistaken. That doesn't mean the quicker the boner, the better the boner. Not at all, my friend. Boners, like life, are far more complicated than that.
I had my doubts about this film and the first few scenes of the movie did little to assuage my uncertainty. I was nearly certain I would leave unsatisfied. Then, something changed. And as the film went on, it slowly began to softly stroke its middle finger along the skin of my inner wrist and, before I knew it, it felt as if it had wrapped its long, thin, golden tanned under the southern California Sun legs around the head of all my nerve endings. A wonderful sensation.
Dear reader. Today, I can tell you, without hesitation, that it is, indeed, a very, very good film. It gave me a very, very good boner.
>>68261104
Underrated.
>>68261104
>tfw no tall skinny gf with perfect nipples
>>68259079
THAT'S THE POINT
It's a stylistic choice. The book was written like this too.
You're seeing everything from Doc's point of view. There's not a single scene where he's not in it or involved in some capacity. Seeing as Doc's a stoner, of course that view's gonna be really skewed and weird, stumbling and confused.
