A Film for Fools?

>someone that calls Villeneuve the best director calling anyone else edglord 14 year olds
It's a big fuck you to women, the spiders represent women, specifically mothers - This is a peace of art by called Maman, by French artist Louise Bourgeois, which is french for mother, or mum. (the metaphors of creation, spinning and protection, her mother repaired tapestry as her job) When he walks in at the end and sees the spider and sighs, it's his realisation that all women are his mother, and he is destined to be stuck with her forever.

Attached: maman-titlew-2.jpg (500x333, 48K)

Actually i'm pretty sure it's the other way around. On my first viewing I thought "well there's probably more to this, i'd better watch again because the message cant be that 'women are spiders' ". On second viewing I thought "ok... so women are spiders and jake is going through some sort of mid life crisis? is that it? for real?"

This movie was basically a fish market's worth of red herrings that push it way beyond the protections of an "unreliable narrator" to the point that it's just brainlet food to make you feel smart. in conclusion, you guys are the fags.

I believe you'll find my lemmas air tight and in order.

Attached: proofs.png (435x261, 52K)

holy mother of BASED. OP status: Annihilated

This is exactly what i'm talking about. This film Enemy is like an old french film (persona) knockoff. There is no originality to it, just some dude saying "hey lets regurgitate an old french style movie". It's like boomers buying up harley motorcycles for $50,000 when the bikes are made with 1940's technology.

>calls Villeneuve the best director
Reading comprehension issues.

I know you're 14 so I thought i'd mention that.

First post, Based post

fpbp every single time

tits or gtfo

Plenty of tits in this thread already. It's what you expect from a "this movie makes me feel smart" movie.

>prob best director currently
Which bit did I fail to understand?

how new are you

Wait what? You cant see the difference between
>the best director
and
>the best director currently
?

you have to be an ESL

If you faggots don't demand originality from capeshit, I don't see why you demand originality from any other type of movies.

I agree with you. But I also think you're a fag for glossing over the fact that the core of the movie was so topical and implemented in an almost juvenile way. There was literally a spider web fracture on the car crash window. this is brainlet shit for retards.

>If you faggots don't demand originality from capeshit,
This is called projecting user. Try to keep with the topic at hand, which is "Enemy is a dumb movie to make dumb people feel smart"

based

EFF
PEE
BEE
PEE

Attached: indubitably.png (500x764, 158K)

Attached: enemy.webm (1920x800, 2.16M)

I don't think it was aimed at dumb people at all. That's what capeshit is for, to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Why can't a movie just be a small curious thing? Why does it have to be a complex and overthought spectacle?

>Persona
>French
You have no idea what you’re talking about, quit acting like you’re above these movies

they stole that shot and pose from another movie btw

Attached: 1429442785801.jpg (566x480, 54K)

I'm not saying i'm above the movie. I'm saying i'm above you (imagine that in italics for effect).

>Why does it have to be a complex and overthought spectacle?
This is exactly what i'm talking about. Enemy tried to trick you into thinking it was a much more "spectacular" than it really is. All the red herrings between "reality jake" and "desires jake" were unnecessary and detracted from the simple premise. It's using spectacle/false-mystery as a crutch

>Vallaneuve (prob best director currently)
your clearly the 14 year old here kiddo

>ironic

Based and FootFetishistPilled

>when you read the Da Vinci Code

>thinks Persona is a French film
>can’t even use Google to double check
>can’t present a single critique that doesn’t rely on meaningless buzzwords
How can you think you’re above anyone? Maybe you should grow up a bit before you call others 14-year-olds.

>Enemy tried to trick you into thinking it was a much more "spectacular" than it really is.
I didn't view it like that. To me it's just a small curious movie. You can overanalyse it, sure, but that's your problem, not the movie's.

>level 2 opinion
you are wrong, fgt

>your

>You can overanalyse it, sure, but that's your problem, not the movie's.
I know people are getting pretty lazy with film making these days, but I still believe that if it's in the film then it's there because the director wanted it there. Especially for a director like Villeneuve (as opposed to transformers director). So Villeneuve put a BUNCH of shit in the movie that can be analyzed and you choose to ignore it? That's just picking and choosing to fit your own plot narrative. Which is gay

Sorry OP, you have to have had a relationship with a woman to appreciate this movie

Attached: 1553157571809m.jpg (727x1024, 224K)

roll

I used to race in the AFM so i've fucked more women than you've met. And the movie's premise isnt limited to women, it's just a facet. The core premise is a man dealing with desires vs realistic (safe)-decisions.

Nice larp

So if it's there, you don't like it and if you ignore it and simply enjoy the movie, you don't like it, either. I think you just didn't like the movie and it wasn't for you. Why make a thread whining about the movie in the hopes people could convince to change your mind? Sounds Reddit tier.

>ywn impregnate sarah gadon

Attached: worried gadon gf.webm (1400x800, 2.99M)

No larp. I'm just better than you in every way. AFM was tight but not as tight as all the cooch i smashed.
>AFM raced 600 production/superbike, 750 production/superbike
>got licence through Kegwins
>dito at gotbluemilk is my homie
>cranky aussie guy with Catalyst Reaction hates american beer.

have fun with your "life" friend.

Also it has way more to do with the feeling of being "trapped in the web" of a relationship. It's why his wife is represented by a spider, and why he takes pleasure in the beginning by watching a spider being crushed by a beautiful woman. He accepts the love for his wife towards the end, and is then re-tempted by the key because he is stuck in a loop of both loving his wife but also was wanting to give in to his desires and be free of her.

Its not about desire vs "safe" because part of him also actually loves her.

>and it [enemy] wasn't for you.
This is Brie larson tier argument. The point of this thread is for me to accuse people of being pretentious faggots that falsely enjoyed a movie because it had a "The Da Vinci Code" effect of being "smart". That's part 1, part 2 is we engage in conversation and I see if anyone has any points that change my mind. It's called discussion duh.

Even if any of this is true trying to convince people on Yea Forums that you slay pussy because you ride bikes is extremely pathetic. And even if you are a pussy god banging girls and being in a committed relationship arent the same thing.

This movie is about relationships

>falsely enjoyed a movie
Yeah I watched it about 6 times everytime just pretending to like it lmao
pathetic cope

>This movie is about relationships
I disagree. Relationships is the window that is given to us to see the core issue of desire vs. (domestication/safety/etc.) [someone has commented on my comparison of desire vs safety so i'm holding off on that until i'm done talking to them]

>This is Brie larson tier argument
How dare you?
>The point of this thread is for me to accuse people of being pretentious faggots that falsely enjoyed a movie because it had a "The Da Vinci Code" effect of being "smart"
So you're fighting a boogeyman you created yourself? How do you even know people "falsely enjoyed" the movie? Are you a mind reader?
>It's called discussion duh.
Cringe.

My coworker is 77 years old and grew up in russia. He cant stop talking about "the good old days" in russia and how much better it was than america. My other russian friend in his 70's tells me the truth about how they had to smuggle blue jeans and buy them out the back of cars. People like you are dumb. You dont know what's good or bad.

If he didnt love his girl and was only in it as the "safe/responsible" option i would agree with you but since part of hin does actually love her its more about the balance of love/commitment and desire not desire and safety

>dude art is objectively good or bad lmao
how much of a mental midget are you

> People like you are dumb. You dont know what's good or bad.

Attached: 54eaa2ca898f91f34044716dfe46b9c6.jpg (1440x1194, 230K)

I held back my "desire vs safety" argument from another post so i could read your post more carefully but now i'm starting to regret it. Doesnt the key represent the departure from "safety" or are you pushing towards using a nother word like "normalcy"? because i was thinking of describing it as "domestication vs desire"

Thank you for finding an appropriate meme. This is EXACTLY how i view myself over people that actually enjoyed this movie AND thought it was a smart movie.

>So you're fighting a boogeyman you created yourself? How do you even know people "falsely enjoyed" the movie? Are you a mind reader?
I'll elaborate more on this because a lot of you havent got enough life experience yet. When I say "falsely enjoyed" i mean that you were given set ups, but no pay off. The TV series LOST is like this I hear. I didnt watch it because i have strong gaydar, but i heard there was just a whole lot of mystery-box set ups, and the series ended with zero payoff. This is "false enjoyment" it's a trick that you may enjoy superficially, but falls apart when you stop to think about it.

Your balls havent dropped yet so i understand your confusion. See it's like this. When you get a lethal injection it makes you feel good because it sedates you, but the other stuff kills you.

>You dont like the thing.
>You like the way the thing makes you feel.

This is a distinction without a difference to brainlets.

>When I say "falsely enjoyed" i mean that you were given set ups, but no pay off.
Okay, I have to admit there's truth in this thing you're saying. Most of Villeneuve's movies feel like blueprints or set ups for better movies. Sicario certainly felt like that to me. I don't know what think of that one. I understad what you're saying now.

Nailed it.

>Most of Villeneuve's movies feel like blueprints or set ups for better movies.
This is an excellent way to phrase it and actually heightens my appreciation for Enemy. It really does feel like a blueprint to a much deeper core premise. The "caught in a web" premise felt waaay to topical for me, but maybe i'll watch a 3rd time and see if maybe there are threads of a larger vision.

>I love you user
WRONG YOU ONLY LOVE ME CURRENTLY
What a fag lel calm down

Spiders represent commitment and he has a hard time committing to a chick. When he looks at her in the final scene, she is scared af because she knows hes about to "crush his commitment again".

Thank you!

Attached: what a day.webm (1700x1600, 3M)

This movie couldn't been good if Lynch had directed it. So much potential on the hands on an autist frog. Wasted chance.

Looks interesting. Anyone have a link?

>It really does feel like a blueprint to a much deeper core premise
Except there isn't anything in the core, the movie's all surface. The novel it's based on has some depth but none of that's present in the movie.

These threads can get a little derailed sometimes so i'll provide a recap for any new anons to the thread, and a sexy lady picture to direct you here!

>"Getting it" is not up for debate. Only retards didnt understand the core plot of women catching jake in their webs of domestic life (and similar 'traps')
>Is this a movie to make brainlets feel smart?
>Were the red herrings between "reality jake" and "desires jake" so heavy that it invalidates the protections of an "unreliable narrator?"
>is the story irrelevant or not important, are we ignoring visual storytelling ques?
>other shit?

Attached: perf4.jpg (620x827, 38K)

rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4808441
Just make sure to select the original eng audio stream when you play it

Are you 12?

no but you're indistinguishable from one. You can tell because all of your posts can be accurately answered with "not an argument".

maybe some depth from the book was gleaned into the movie through the director or someone else that read the book. I'm only saying this out of optimism. In reality i feel the "hints" to a deeper meaning came across as unnecessary red herrings in the film.

>yes
>Idk and I don't care, the only thing that matters is if you liked it. I did.
> ~
Good movie.

poof

Attached: graham_chapman_portrait.png (210x285, 48K)