How is it ?

How is it ?
Normies say it's shit but some critics say it's Lynch level of kino.
Might watch it tommorow, it' the Goose so it can only be good right ?

Attached: 17-only-god-forgives-japanese-b1-2013-01-850x1200.jpg (850x1200, 213K)

OGF is one of the finest films ever made, it's so pertinent it should have been viewed as a step forward for the medium that others would spend decades analyzing and attempting to imitate. Instead it was trashed by mongoloid retards, which, as a Lynch fan, you fall in to that category OP

Well thanks for the review, but I'm interested in this movie because of the Goose and Nic.
>Bill Gibron of PopMatters wrote "David Lynch must be laughing. If he had created something like Only God Forgives, substituting his own quirky casting for the rather staid choices made by actual director Nicolas Winding Refn, he would have walked away from Cannes 2013 with yet another Palme d'Or, another notch in his already sizeable artistic belt, and the kind of critical appreciation that only comes when a proven auteur once again establishes his creative credentials."
That was the quote

>Lynch level of kino

I forgot about this movie the second I left the room, so this statement makes sense.

My argument is that Lynch is style over substance, he's been telling the same story for the last twenty years with minor modifications if the viewer is lucky. OGF is, to the retarded, style over substance, but if you understand the themes the amount of provoked thought Refn can draw from the viewer with striking minamlism and scant dialogue, there's nothing quite like it

It's great. It makes the disaster of The Neon Demon all the more difficult to understand. I mean, I have a theory that redeems The Neon Demon, but I shouldn't have needed a theory, or have the suspicion that I'm thinking more than Refn is.

it is not at lhe same lvl of lynch
but it's a good movie.

Share your theory user, I echo your sentiments

>if you understand the themes the amount of provoked thought Refn can draw from the viewer with striking minamlism and scant dialogue, there's nothing quite like it
Stop breaking off your sentences as though you were rephrasing something said out loud, you cunt, this is typing.

visually stunning film

Read somewhere that Drive is a dream, whereas OGF is a nightmare.

I like that.

>Lynch level
Lynch is a hack, so you being a retard that needs other people to tell you what to think of a movie before watching it makes sense.

This nonsense is so inorganic to any sense of globetrotter restlessness or anything explicitly or metaphorically to do with British or American colonialism that it just feels derivative. That Kubrickian scene in Drive of dead-eyed strippers watching an assault gets extended here in a more elaborate whorehouse sequence where catatonic hookers bear mute witness to instances of police corruption. Refn’s tableau of organdy-gowned call-girls listening to pop while watching violence in a bouquet-bedecked whorehouse is the ultimate David Lynch parody.

Gosling and Refn have art ambitions–a strange sense of fun. But how can film culture progress with fantasies like this? There’s no shock or outrage left. Refn relies upon a level of menace (unerotic, non-provocative) that precludes caring about or responding to violence, vulnerability, mortality. This is cinema for unsophisticated viewers who don’t already know Bunuel’s eye-slashing, Altman’s Coke bottle assault or Shakespeare/Julie Taymor’s Titus. Children of Kubrick, Friedkin, Lynch and Tarantino, they remain infantile about movies.

Attached: 1400671256912.jpg (1600x1381, 399K)

I remember the story was bad but it was super colorful

I watched it until the gook is singing, then I dropped it.

its that kind of creepy nightmarish film
Its a cool diptych with valhalla Rising

Its totally the opposite of Drive

Watch it buddy, that's G-d you're talking about

It isn't happening in her head, it's happening in the photographer boyfriend's. He's rationalizing why she dumped him, and his fantasies become increasingly unpleasant as reality hits him. She's a victim, she's a narcissist, she's an evil bitch, she gets raped, she gets eaten. The first shot is a p.o.v. shot of a tableau he sets her up in, then we cut to him.

And there's no way Refn intended this, unfortunately.

this movie is when NWR started being creative with lights an cinematography, truly kino

I liked the Neon Demon, but this movie wasn't Lynchian at all. When watching a Lynch movie, you know some bullshit will be on the screen, and you just accept it.
this is beyond that, the viewer is genuinely drawn in the plot and everything could make sense, even if visuals are often over-the-top

Okay that sounds more interesting, I'll give it another chance

Neat theory but I agree, the extra twenty minutes of tacked on ending prevent it from being possible

It sucks

I really liked it, but it does not have a traditional narrative arc and if you are looking for Drive 1.5 you will be really disappointed.

Watch out for the endearing fact that neither Ryan Gosling nor Refn nor Kristen Scott Thomas seem to have known how to use "cum-dumpster" correctly. Gosling provided a bunch of nasty misogynist terms for Thomas's character to use, but he apparently thought that "cum-dumpster" referred to the vagina alone, rather than to a woman. So Thomas, talking to Gosling's hired girlfriend, asks her about her "cum-dumpster", rather than calling her a cum-dumpster.

Also there's the whole "it's her fantasy" suggestion supported by the tracking shot drawing attention to Fanning's bad posture, Refn's "it's me imagining myself as a model", and probably other things I can't remember. All we needed was a wake-up scene, something. But yeah, as it is, it doesn't work.

>Drive 1.5
Indeed, it's more like Drive squared.

lynch is emotion over style-substance continuum