Why does anyone take him seriously?

ok can i get some info on the dog fucker shit

basically two facts:
- he's a degenerate autistic furry (I'm being double redundant here for the sake of clarity since you asked)
- defended beastiality

his fanbased is comprised of zoomers who are even dumber and more ignorant than him

Only dogfuckers take him seriously.
If you irl find a person who likes his content, bash his fucking skull in. Zoophiles do not deserve to live. Just like faggots overall.

He is gay, a furry and publicly defended bestiality multiple times. Go figure out the rest.

he said if you aren't a vegan you don't have much of a leg to stand on to say fucking animals is wrong, and he's got a point. animals get raped all the time in the milk industry, and also being killed is worse than being fucked, but we defend eating meat but don't condone fucking animals. however because the internet loves to blow things out of proportion they said he's a dog fucker as if you can't play devil's advocate anymore

He said in one of his Q/As that he would be open to try anything that isn't scat at least once.

expect eating is essential for living and health, plus it shows superiority in the food chain.
Fucking an animal is embarassing for a human being and doesn't show anything expect retardation.

Adam,
Most human beings have what is known as “instinct”. This funny little thing allows us to understand that certain things are good and bad. Now it doesn’t qualify everything, and not every instinct is good, but it benefits us in terms of survival. This is a part of a broader category known as epigenetics.

Most people know on an instinctual level that eating rotten food is bad. Now you can say there are actual scientific reasons why eating rotten food is bad, but even a child who doesn’t understand will know not to eat a rotting piece of food because it smells bad.

So when our instincts tell us that fucking dogs and cats is bad, your rhetoric means little to us because we know deep down that you must be missing a part of the human instinct that informs your behavior. Disease, danger, damage to your sexual organs, we all understand these risks on an innate level. If you don’t then you are clearly missing something inside of you.

I’m sorry you were raped by your stepdad or whatever. Or your mom rented out your boyhole to the local pedophile ring. But don’t take it out on us. Thanks.

He's got a point if you reek of ass sweat and stale cheese and are so removed from common decency that your sterile sense of rationality can't recognize filth

Based

>expect eating is essential for living and health
yes eating is but eating specifically meat isn't actually necessary and these days a lot of the meat people are eating is probably dangerous to their health
>plus it shows superiority in the food chain
irrelevant. we don't need to show cows or chickens how "powerful" we are, they aren't going to take us out if we show them any weakness
as for your second point, would you rather be killed or fucked? if you say killed, then fair enough I guess, but if you say fucked, then you understand where I'm coming from. yes you think it's gross, and I do to, but it ends up looking hypocritical if you think it's ok to kill but not ok to fuck.

This guy cant even pronounce the name of ennio morricone

And I'm giving this thread a SIX out of TEN. Though it's probably closer to a five than a six.

good post

Which wouldn’t be that bad except he goes out of his way to pronounce directors name properly

Guys like synedoche new york is like an all time amazing best movie of forever it is so fucking deep like guys, get this, time moves in a linear fashion and we are eventually going to die. WOAAAAAAAHHHH this is so fucking deep, here is my 8 part series analysing everything in this movie because it is such a work of art holy shit charlie kaufman please just fuck my dog in its asshole

Didn’t Kaufman say his video was way off base?

No idea. He doesn't watch movies prior to 1970 either. He is a fraud and not a true cinephile.

You sure seem to know a lot about this guy you hate. I hate a lot of youtubers so I just don’t continue to watch them.

There aren't really any quality film channels on youtube, so despite not really liking him that much I still watch some of his videos if it's about something that I'm interested in (same with Ralph the moviemaker)

NOOOOOO MY IDOL HAS REJECTED ME GUYS IM GONNA KILL MYSELF LIKE DUSTIN SEYMOUR HOFFMAN

Watched him occasionally then realized his retardation. Now anytime someone points out his stupidity I watch that video for the laughs.

fuck off Adam

I only remember one part of his "analysis" where he spent a good chunk of the review attributing some deep meaning to the way fucking letters fade out in the opening credits of the movie. IIRC somebody then pointed out it was nothing more than just some technical thing in the editing process, because of course it fucking was. That was embarrasing to watch.

Hahahaha oh yeah I remember that. He is legit like a high school English teacher looking for meaning in a story where there is none.

Attached: BF2634D3-A5DA-4925-8542-C29D70F170C1.jpg (499x469, 74K)

Perro

>eating meat isn't necessary
based boomerscience retard

>expect eating is essential for living and health
Not meat

>NO THIS CHINESE GUY DID A _RACIST_ CHINAMAN VOICE, I'M SO OFFENDED ON BEHALF OF CHINESE PEOPLE
Fuck i hate americans.

?

Adam and pals.

I'm getting so sick of americans and their desire to get offended by every single portrayal of a minority that isn't glowing. It's the most banal shit to hear lefties upset because someone used the horrifically racist stereotype that a chinese restaurant as a place where chinese people eat at.

Pay attention and you'll notice how these reviewer types instantly call whatever they don't like racist. If the film is good though then it's a "fantastic critique and parody of real racism" like rlm talking about Indiana Jones and eating monkey brains or anybody talking about portrayals of Italians in mafia movies. If the film is bad and has a woman or minority in it the criticism instantly becomes "this is sexist. This is racist". It's so banal and boring once you notice it.

no he said it was good but he said he wouldn't say if Adum was right or not because Kaufman doesn't answer questions about his movies (the exact same thing adum criticises lynch for). Somehow to Adum, Kaufman is epic and based and Lynch is cringe and pretentious.

D O G

F U C K E R

I’ll bite where is this meme from?

From the fact that he fucks dogs in the ass.

I know he was a camwhore but I doubt that give me the sauce

They're Canadians

North Americans

Everyday the same fucking topic with the same FUCKING PICTURE

He has a point. Arguing that you can eat but not fuck them is essentially saying that Rape is worse than death.

the issue isn't what's morally worse, it's what kind of degenerate wants to fuck a dog in the first place

At least the description changes. The worst one is: deconstructs your favourite kino masterfully.

The only people who take him seriously are people who don't think for themselves, they just listen to what YouTube man tells them to think. These threads are pretty redundant, but it's still fun to see how Adam gets butthurt by them. Adam, if your reading this, watch Birth of a Nation and Intolerance, then reconsider what you said about Citizen Kane. Kane is a great film, but it's not innovative in the way you think it is

There are many films before Citizen Kane that prove him completely wrong.

That's true, but most of what he said about Kane is actually true for either Birth of a Nation or Intolerance

A, the author is dead. 2, if a writer goes on to actually describe something, then 9 times out of 10 it's for a reason. It could for a symbolic reason like color representing an emotion (although that's more of a thing in the visual arts, like film and painting), or it could be for a formal reason as in it adds to the story in some way.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZLjtofl6Uc8

He was defending dog fucking which means he probably did stick his dick there.

>Tfw actual zoophile reading this
Atleast I haven't acted upon it yet

Attached: apue.jpg (653x523, 124K)

fpbp

Hasn't he never seen a movie older than The Lion King?

His favourite is Holy Mountain

I give it a 7-8 max.

He's seen some older movies, but he has the opinion that they're all inferior to newer ones because of their limited technology

I remember when I was watching Zootopia back then and didn't even know furries exist. Then for some reason I decided to watch the review of this dogfucker and it ruined everything. Can't even look at Lion King the same way anymore.

One of the dumbest opinions I've ever heard about anything in my life. This is the type of motherfucker who couldn't watch a play because he's forced to imagine that the sets are real. He's so literal-minded, you can tell that he doesn't read fiction

>back then and didn't even know furries exist
Are you underaged?

I didn't know much about western culture at the time

Blade Runner 2049 is fucking kino though

>praising BlacKkKlansman
No

Stopped watching when he thought the scenes from Godzilla (2014) where everybody's on a beach, surrounded by tiki torches, wearing floral clothes and have flower necklaces was supposed to be Japan and started complaining about it for 5 minutes.

Mate they were all over the fucking internet at one point and still are, fuck off

>look guys im filming pretty pictures heeheheh
>w-what do you mean that doesn't make the film good?
2049 was fucking trash

He didn't invent the citizen kane one. I used to hear that one before the internet existed. I wouldn't be surprised if he's parroting the other ones too.

This can’t be true

>I used to hear that one before the internet existed.
Yes, when information on the subject was less easily accessable it was somewhat acceptable. Were talking about a guy who can look it up in like 5 fucking seconds

>film looks good
wow, what an excellent criticism

>A, the author is dead.
why?

2049 would still be pretty good without the pretty pictures

>the text fades in and out during the opening credits!!!
>based on the type of font, this is to signify the passage of time!!!
This guy is an autistic idiot.

Attached: MV5BMjA0MjIyOTI3MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODM5NTY5MQ@@._V1_.jpg (972x1431, 338K)

Don't get me wrong I knew it was wrong when I heard it back then. I just think he sounds like someone who can't form his own opinions, let alone do the level of research you suggested.

It's literally style over substance, it has pretty shots but they dont mean or communicate anything. They just look nice for the sake of looking nice

Which makes it more retarded when he doubles down them moves the goal post

And he's making fucking videos and podcasts about it. I'll never understand how youtubers can just say shit in a huge platform without researching it first. I do some basic fact-checking even when I'm just trying to make a point here.

Not really, the writing is mediocre, barely above your average capeshit and the acting from everyone except for Gosling and the fat man with glasses was wooden and mediocre

This is a good movie, but it really appeals to the worst sort of brainlets

what would you want the images to communicate then??

I guess he did say it in an unscripted conversation but even then, he could have either kept his mouth shut or said "I think it was the first to introduce the basic plot structure we're so used to now but don't quote me on that". It would have still been stupid and uninformed, but less sp

you can even go back further to the great train robbery

Checked

impressive

He's obviously saying that the movie focuses too much on it and either neglects or sacrifices other aspect of filmmaking to show "pretty pictures", user. Not picking up implied information is a sign of autism.

The writing was standard in terms of plotting and characterization until the ending, where it subverted the "chosen one" trope. And a lot of it did have a ton of intertexual and symbolic significance, which isn't something you see in capeshit

Isn’t the point of cinematography to communicate the films themes? At least that’s the point of good cinematography.

he could also have checked those digits

I like to check Adum's imdb especially now when he's at TIFF to get a rough idea for upcoming movies but i've noticed he seems to give an extra point or 2 to festival contenders, it seems really out of place to some movies have top scores when they are of similar quality to other releases in the year

Of course he's parroting. He's never even seen Citizen Kane.

Why are trannie-jannies keeping this shit up day after day?

Attached: janniesAreAMentalIllness.jpg (868x808, 451K)

I'm not overly familiar with the themes of the film but isn't one of the main themes social isolation, yes? so wouldn't that mean you could interpret wide desolate shots with Officer K as a small figure as representing him lost a dissociated from the vast modernised world that the film takes place in. That's just one off the top of my head at least according to your definition of substantive cinematography

Attached: br2049.jpg (737x416, 14K)

Being "standard" in terms of checking all the boxes of how you should structure a story doesn't make it good writing, and literally every writer in Hollywood is capable of writing a screenplay that does that. Intertextual and symbolic significance, as you'll notice once you leave college, means nothing and doesn't improve the quality of the writing at all. All film student movies would be great if that was the case.

kill yourself

>Why does anyone take him seriously?
Who does?

Wasn’t the original user ( the one that shitted on the film). I can’t speak on the film because I haven’t seen it yet.

I agree that it wouldn't be impressive if it was simply standard, my point is that the "standard" plotting was used to achieve a non-standard end, with the hero NOT being pinocchio, and his AI gf NOT actually having a real personality. It's a reverse pinocchio story where everyone ends up seeming less real by the end than at the beginning. So it's original in that sense.
>Intertextual and symbolic significance... means nothing and doesn't improve the quality of the writing at all.
It meant something to me and a lot of other people here. So even if that sort of depth is superfluous to someone like you, that doesn't mean that other people aren't capable of enjoying it on that level.

>Subscribed for the comedic reviews of dumb movies like Cool Cat
>Unsubscribed because he thinks he's smarter than what he really is and that people actually tune in for proper film criticism.

Same

all you had to say was that he fucks dogs

Literally only furfaggots take this twat seriously.

The fact that the movie even invites this type of interpretation is already a pretty bad sign. Cinematography isn't meant to convey things not by raping your eyes with scenes that will make you hyper aware of what is going on. Movies that resort to that more than once or maybe twice have already fucked up, and Blade Runner fucks up even more by letting these scenes linger on for way too long. Taxi Driver also deals with isolation, and it's conveyed through lighting and framing as the story progresses naturally, instead of always bringing everything to a halt to shove 3 minutes of Travis walking alone poetically among the crowd or to show a long pretty sequence of New York looking menacing. These things require subtlety.

Go back to bed dog fucker.

>don't mean or communicate anything
nice goalpost shifting

>It's a reverse pinocchio story where everyone ends up seeming less real by the end than at the beginning.
Again, who cares? Every retard who has just been recently made aware of plot structure and film tropes immediately thinks of ways to subvert them, break them, play with them, etc. Far from meaning the writing is good, it's usually a sign of an amateur filmmaker/writer, who is still too aware of these norms and approaches them too clinically instead of having internalized them. Not to say this is literally the case here obviously, just saying this is hardly is enough to make it good.

>It meant something to me and a lot of other people here
Usually, it means something only after you've been trained to pick it up, and having to resort to that is a pretty bad sign.

Right place, right time.
He was able to jump on the review bangewagon at the right time. And his “le cynicism” persona and tearing apart stuff like Walking Dead and ASM separated him from other critics. He also had Doung Walker and IHE prop him up during the Cool Cat controversy.

So? I'm not that guy. And to a degree he's right, it doesn't say anything that hasn't already been said, but that by itself doesnt make the pretty shots good or bad. They are annoying tho

He also hates David Lynch

m.youtube.com/watch?v=YPUuQnwFTWM

I'm a furfag and I don't take him seriously, checkmate

Begone normalfag

Jupiter ascending isn't original

Yes, it is.

>I'm a furfag
Kill yourself immediately.

how is it? its a generic space opera mixed with the cliche of le secret royalty bloodline

It's not based on an existing work.

t. never read a book and spend my time playing video games and masturbating

Something about a man fucking a dog.
FIN

Have you actually seen Taxi Driver?

nigger I live it

Hows the Mohawk?

You're the only one who needs to kys, normalfag

>Again, who cares?
How do you bring up the opinions of others to discredit a work if it got good reviews and people seemed to enjoy it? Evidently a lot of people cared, given its mostly positive reception. And it's not that subversion is good per se, it's when it's used to make a particular thematic point that it resonates. And 2049 clearly resonated.
>it means something only after you've been trained to pick it up, and having to resort to that is a pretty bad sign.
You have to bring prior knowledge to enjoy 99% of good art. Music is the only exception to that. It's not like an illiterate peasant could read and enjoy Macbeth

Not him but
>Movie getting positive reception means it's good
TLJ got positive reseption
The Phantom Menace got positive reception
Bumblebee got positive reception
La La Land got positive reception
I could go on, the reception a movie gets doesn't make it good

I'm not saying that popular equals good, what I'm saying is that you can't claim that something is dramatically ineffective by talking about how people react to it IF people reacted to it positively. Like it wouldn't make sense to say "who cares about superhero movies? No one likes then always" given how popular and critically well-received many of them are

Alright. Sorry for wasting your time user.

By the interpretation The Matrix isn’t original. “The world I live in is fake” has before even the year prior had a film like that.

One of these is definitely not like the others, you cretin

He got some bad ideas in his head