>amazing plot
>gorgeous photography
>spectacular cinematography
>beautiful soundtrack
>top tier acting
>well written characters
>excellent direction
>great themes
>no women
10/10 film. Why don't people discuss it more often? And what are your thoughts on it?
>>67749064
shit
>>67748931
Because its boring. Cinematography and soundtrack can only go so far until you fall asleep because you watched a film about faggot araboo running around in the desert.
>>67749162
This teebeeoness familia.
It practiced what is no longer practice--polishing.
Each scene, whether it be transitional or significant has a beginning, middle, end, and climax.
Nothing was allowed to be boring--every scene was turned over and over and over until it was done right...
And those mesmerizing faces and movements, that wasn't all the actors, there is an acting specialist instructing them how to phrase, intonation, and what faces to make.
Movies are now a money laundering scheme.
>>67749162
Agreed, they should call it Lawrence of Ambien.
I'm not even ADD or anything, I can watch Gone With the Wind and enjoy all four hours of it, but I can't even finish Lawrence.
You said it already, OP, no women.
I swear, nearly every movie nowadays has some female character, either to force a romance subplot or to appeal to the women demographic.
It's ridiculous, really.
>>67748931
another excellent film with no women aside from 2 or 3 lines of dialogue in the first 5 minutes.
>>67748931
> Movies without naked bitches and guns
>>67748931
Don't you ever describe a great film like LoA with fucking generic green text blanket statements you plebeian fucktard faggot. Eat shit and die. Back to /v/ you fucking piece of shit.
>>67749162
this
also something just really annoys me about how the dialogue is written, can't put my finger on it
