itt: films that actually blow ass but get praised because of one or two superficial elements.
>>69077546
2deep4u
Boyhodd, although it's more like T W E L V E elements
>>69077546
Revenge of the Sith
>>69077546
ITT: surface level readings of art from non-serious, Michael Bay-loving moviegoers.
>>69077546
I'm not ashamed to admit I watched it purely to see Scarlett Johansson naked
Valhalla Rising
I'm a Refn fanboy but it was unbearable
>>69077546
>we share a board with people like OP
>>69077588
>>69077636
>>69077724
Explain why. I agree with OP btw, it was utter shit
>>69077546
care to expand your argument, OP?
>>69077546
Actually I did an essay on this film. I watched it three times and I can tell you it's not superficial at all, it's meticulously crafted and probably too subtle for you if you think it blows ass
>>69077758
explain why you want us to explain
>>69077777
DEM 7'S
>>69077546
What are the one or two superficial elements under the skin is praised for?
>>69077758
it has 85% on RT and was on numerous top 10 lists that year.
you're the one who should be explaining yourself.
>>69077720
His best film imo
>>69077803
What's good about it obviously. I watched it twice, both times with people who've watched it before and when it got down to brass tacks, nobody could explain to me what's so fucking good about it.
You won't change my mind most likely, but at least I might see something I have not before in the film itself. Or understand that maybe it just ain'tformestarts playin'
>>69077780
Can you explain the movie to me anon, I really didn't get it.
>>69077855
Nigga, Avengers has like 90% on it.
>numerous top 10 lists
So other people's opinions validate yours?
>>69077546
I 1000000% agree with you.
Don't let the fake patricians get you down.
>>69077944
look up the word "consensus" and get back to me, kid. If more people think something is of value than not, the people that don't think so should be stating their case.
And the critics of Cahiers have better taste than you anyway tbqh:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/criticwire/cahiers-du-cinemas-top-10-movies-of-2014-goodbye-to-language-under-the-skin-love-is-strange-20141201
Avengers was fine for what it was. No one argued it was art.
>>69077777
>wasting a great get by asking for a real academic film theory debate on a vietnamese coloring book forum.
>liking Under The Skin
>>69078002
>no one argued it was art
Are you retarded, it is art you fucking mong. Fucking Roger Corman's Fantastic 4 is art you inbred
>cahiers du cinema
How about you explain it fuccboy? In your own words like
>>69078036
>doesn't have any valid points so resorts to calling peple faggot
quality criticism there. I mean wew, really changed my mind.
Under the Skin is a great entry level pleb detector. People who only watch it for ScarJos tits and hate it will never be true cinephiles.
>>69078057
you have to be over 13 years-old to post here.
>>69077917
It's a film that explores what it means to be human. It's about our own limitations. How we can know that there's something greater than our own lives, but deals with the horror of knowing we could never truly attain those greater things because of our own physical limitations.
>>69078087
Nice argument. You still have not said shit about it by your own little self. Have a last (You)
>>69078143
I honestly don't get that from it. Where did yo uread that and how, it sounds interesting.
>>69077758
It was a well done deconstruction of everyday life
>>69078196
Where in the movie I meant obviously
>>69077546
The film is complete shit. I watched it after seeing the endless praise it gets on here. Nothing makes sense unless you have already read the book or seen it explained online. All the things people find good about it are things you cannot possibly know or get from watching the film alone
>>69078002
Yeah by that thinking nikky minaj it's the best musician ever because millions of people listent to her shitty music.
Consensus is not a valid argument when you are discusing quiality.
>>69077928
The plot itself is simple, and I assume you already know the barebones of what it's about (alien who harvests human bodies for unknown purposes, begins to empathise with the human form/consciousness)
Focus less on the plot and more on your tactile relationship with the film. The camera is seeing the world through an aliens eyes, let your eyes become the film's and begin to see the familiar as unfamiliar. Let yourself become unsettled when the alien acts differently from how a human would. Let your body be shaken by the discordant and atonal strings of the score. Be attuned to the subtle changes in her character as she begins to adopt some semblance of human compassion. Enjoy Glazer's beautiful, abstract conceptualizations of extraterrestrial processes. Basically, if you open yourself up to the film, you will experience the film.
Most of /tv/ is too cynical to enjoy films
>>69078196
I didn't read it. I got it from watching the film. ScarJo is a machine sent to do a task (collect and harvest humans). When it realizes that there's more to this simple task (the deformed guy messes with it enough), it goes off to try and explore and test the limits of its ability, but is violently punished for it (wants to eat cake, can't digest it). The guy at the end who kills it see his own limitations in the machine that liesunder the skin.
>>69078253
Like what? I haven't seen it since the cinema but it seemed a pretty simple, explicit film.
>>69078223
It's literally an alien learning how to "become human"
It's far from the deepest film ever but it's refreshingly experimental and has a great score and great cinematography
>>69078302
>>69078294
>>69078314
I'll take these. I still aren't a fan(and probably never will be) but at least I get why people like it. Thanks lads.
>>69078062
Its a very well paced movie thats is very visually distinctive, has almost no dialogue, and absolutely no retarded dumps of exposition to explain what is going on to people that don't pay attention. It explores the themes of alienation and identity in a way that plays to the strengths of the premise
But really, whats the point? This isn't your fucking debate club, no one owes you an explanation for anything, and to top it off you're being a weedy little passive aggressive cunt.
>>69078310
Everyone usually talks about an alien emissary, or something, harvesting humans for food. You get none of that from the film. You don't know if it's an alien, demon, machine, what is happening to the people, how it is happening because it seems like magic, why it is happening, who the motorbike man was. Just some things happen with no how or why. You don't even know what it is that is happening
>>69078369
>takes random anon's posts
>doesn't bother to read the swathes of existing criticism written by professionals
if you want to actually engage with difficult work that's what resources like RT are for.
>>69078472
I think its fairly obvious that she's "harvesting" them. That's all you really need. The rest of the backstory stuff with regards to that is irrelevant to the point it's trying to make.
>>69078496
>implying shitty tabloid newspaper critics are of any worth whatsoever
>>69078472
>who the motorbike man was.
Her handler. Hes the one who brought her the clothes in the beginning, and followed her around and cleaned up after her.
>>69078526
>jumping through all these hoops to avoid readily available critcism
this isn't 1992. print media is dead. criticism exists online you utter retard.
>>69077546
>>69078472
They're aliens, you see their ufo leaving at the start.
Shes harvesting their meat and blood for some reason. Maybe its food? Maybe they dont eat. Its alien, utterly unknowable to us.
The motorbike men are her superiors. They clean up after her, inspect her constantly and hunt her down when she goes native. After she dies/they kill her she'll be replaced. Just as she replaced the girl at the start.
Its not explained with words but its not hard to figure out with observation.
>>69077546
how to spot a pleb 101
>>69077777
care to expand these dubs?
>>69077546
I'm a pleb and I agree.
Under the Skin is the ultimate pleb buster.
>>69077546
