Why did the critics hate it?

Why did the critics hate it?

Attached: image-20170201-12649-h3b50.jpg (496x339, 25K)

Can't self insert

Lack of morals and a coherent narrative.

It was shit

It didn't use a traditional story arc. The protagonist doesn't evolve, there's no antagonist, it doesn't follow a linear story, it has highly controversial subject matter.

That's why it's great though

you people voted for hubert humphrey
and you killed jesus!

They were mad faggots.

Why did you emphasize the question mark?

Ebert despised this film in particular for some reason.

ebert is the scaruffi of film

He was and is a mad faggot

Ebert was definitely autistic

who is ebert

the absolute state of Yea Forums

Attached: acc.png (174x188, 38K)

Because it's so fucking childish and focuses way too much on the drug use instead of Hunter S. Thompson's life and the culture at that time. If you've never read Hunter S. Thompson, it's great I guess. Stylistically it's A+.

Didn't Ebert also give The Thing a really shitty review and completely not understand the movie? He's a moron

Backdoor beauty

Its long and also they were sober

Shit it was a bit boring and lost it's appeal except for the very end. The directors and them did good.

>caring about what people with one of the most useless ""professions"" say about movies

Hang on Ebert was right about Track 29

It falls off in the second half.

To his credit he also was recognizing some of the famous anime films like Grave of the Fireflies as the masterpieces they are when his contemporaries still considered all animation to be for childrens entertainment. He’s definitely wrong about some things but he’s generally a very good critic.

>hates anime
>wrong

ME!

Attached: 1558532341428.png (1080x1020, 475K)

>Stylistically it's A+
All it really needs

the structure, if you aren't comfortable with movies with weird structures or haven't read the book, it might be tedious and seem like stream of conscious nonsense

I've seen most of Gilliam's stuff and only Jabberwocky and Brothers Grimm are bad. Everything else is amazing and after seeing the reviews for Don Quixote I'm convinced that critics hate him because his movies (aside from Fear and Loathing) trick you into thinking they're not surreal.

Because it's shit.

All of these apply to Pulp Fiction as well

I actually read the book and felt that it was a pretty faithful adaptation.

I don't usually care much for unconventional narrative structures, but this is a classic example of how if you're able to pull it of you can just fuck the rules and do what you want.
This and Brazil is peak Gilliamkino

Gilliam isn't buddies with the important pedos in Hollywood, unlike Tarantula.

You need to be fucked up amongst others enjoying this film or stone sober paying VERY CLOSE ATTENTION to the dialogue and narration because a lot of what seems like nonsense is coherently setting up the next scene

movie is pure kino, definitely for a particular type of mindset or people perhaps slightly more interested in stream of conscious style plot. the book is a lot better for just the more intricate and bizarre detail, also makes more contextual sense than the movie, especially in some transitions. still one of my favourite cult films.

Attached: 1550566772901.jpg (752x378, 196K)

Art critique and reflection is important because it shows the nature of ideologies and norms within the state. Stupid fuckin bug person. This is why we keep you in the back counting shit or building iphones.

it was fun

>Art critique and reflection is important

Attached: 03-32-31-Drc-fyDUUAAOXa8.jpg (1200x675, 122K)

Gilliam is a cunt who couldn't tell a story to save his life

its fucking point by point retelling of the book you cunt

The movie or the critics?

The perfect most re-watchable movie. I've seen it hundreds or times. It holds a special place in my heart