Hey Yea Forums what movie did u anons watched that was the equivalent feeling as reading a novel?

so you think tarkovsky don't do it right? do you dislike all of his work, or just this in particular?

>2001 is my favourite film
lmao

just this one, it didn't do it for me.
what? what's yours?

War and Peace (1966), The Best of Youth, Satantango, Out 1, The Travelling Players, Ludwig, Berlin Alexanderplatz, Fanny and Alexander, The Human Condition, A Brighter Summer Day

>2001 is my favourite film

Attached: 1511842165630.jpg (231x226, 9K)

what's yours?

good pick but every internet summary has massive pointless spoilers so don't read about it just watch it
literally the bottom of Bergman's barrel

Jesus christ user, get some personal taste. This is like a greatest hits of exceedigly long, overhyped films

Lives of others

>literally the bottom of Bergman's barrel
Terrible take.

Pan's Labyrinth

name some long novel type films then

All film is garbage and plebeian. Filmfags don't get it. What The Avengers is to the "greatest films of all time" is basically what film is to the rest of art. The greatest film doesn't compare to even a mediocre novel. It's art for children and brainlets.

La Haine, Irreversible, Son of Saul, Jeanne Dielman, The Ascent, Cries and Whispers

>what? what's yours?
Out of Kubrick's, Eyes Wide Shut is clearly his best, and Barry Lyndon and the training scenes of Full Metal Jacket are surely better than 2001. Spartacus and Dr. Strangelove are on par with 2001. Holding up 2001 as the height of film is very college.

I'm not sure if I could narrow down a favorite film but lately I've been heavily watching Bergman, Tarkovsky, and Kurosawa. Older, pulpier favorites'd be Lynch, Cronenberg, Deren. Kubrick is okay but I would class him with Tarantino, or Aronofsky, or Wes Anderson as having panache and popular appeal but not poesis.

Attached: IMG_20190612_115949_267.jpg (1280x720, 264K)

>La Haine
And you're calling him a pleb? Kys

STOP MAKING FILM THREADS ON MY Yea Forums BOARD U FUCKING PLEB KYS

Are u retarded or something, I didn't say that a movie would feel the same as a novel but the "equivalent feeling" of reading a novel
When u read something you are totally immersed in it and there are movies that can have this same immersive feeling either by the richness of the story of the detailed world in it, also movies can carry many philosophical views...

picking a "favorite film" is a plebs game; picking 2001 as your favorite film is winning that pleb game. at least say Paths of Glory or Barry Lyndon.
I'm a fan of Polish surrealism, Has and Zulawski, but if you want a real master director check out Kieslowski

Attached: 20170129-Dekalog-preshow.jpg (432x533, 51K)

>Spartacus and Dr. Strangelove are on par with 2001
I don't think so. 2001 is one of his best films, some critic even consider it his best one.
>Kubrick is okay but I would class him with Tarantino
So you're anti-Kubrick, then? No further questions.
What?

This is a highly subjective and arbitrary distinction. If I read a great novel on the bus I am not completely immersed. If I watch a bad movie on a big screen in a darkened theatre I am.

Movies can carry philosophical ideas. This does not make them books.

>Just because I don't like it then it's shit
Are u like 12 of something?

Attached: images.png (201x250, 5K)

Tragedy of Man

i like some films, I'm just saying film is shit compared to other forms of art, esp literature and music

Never called him a pleb, just that he has textbook “i like long movie” taste

My taste changes from time to time. I've rewatched 2001 recently and I consider it my favorite. There's literally nothing wrong with liking this film.
>check out Kieslowski
You're talking talking to me as if I were a retard. I've watched Decalogue, Colours trilogy and Veronique. Kieslowski is not some obscure director. Red is one of the most emotional films I've watched. Truly a great picture. Should've won the Palm D'Or instead of Pulp Fiction.

>Just because I don't like you, you have a scraggly beard, poor eyesight, and exaggerated facial expressions

BASEDYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Maybe if you're watch blockbusters only. Film is on par with literature from these days.

no it isn't fucking retard lmao i've seen enough art films to know how fucking dead film is, it was maybe good when it was silent and colorless, now it's just annoying trash fit for children, even the most artsy film is the equivalent of a shit novel

Anyone bothered with someone claiming 2001 as their favorite film is just insecure. It’s like genuinely loving The Velvet Underground or something these days where everyone else has to like something more obscure and less impressive

well then you baffle me friend. 2001 is like babbys first art film. both of Tarkovsky's sci fi films are better, and those aren't even the best Tarkovsky films

>movies can carry many philosophical views
HAHAHAHAH philosophy is gay and so is film kys

Don't let the new trash movie trend of superheroes blind u there are a lot of good movies out there with deep plots and histories

>Philosophy is gay
Why are you on Yea Forums then?

>implying all Yea Forums is philosophy
cringe and lowIQpilled

unironically Villeneuve is still on point, Eggers is making good shit, and the Coen Brothers made probably their best film ever less than 10 years ago (A Serious Man). It's not that people aren't making good shit, it's that it doesn't tend to do well critically or financially (Villeneuve is changing this with his sci fi trilogy, and if he pulls off Dune he will be able to do literally whatever the fuck he wants which would be the best timeline)

youtube.com/watch?v=c7nyIlwh9KI

you have to go back

>film about brown people
yeah no thanks retard

>wanting a movie that feels like a book
just go read a book dumbass

Well, I don't think of art as some video game with a progressive set of levels or difficulties. So, a film or a filmmaker being obscure doesn't automatically make it better or superior in my view. I tend to appreciate films based on my experience with them, not about about the social perception or whatever.

>I'm a racist and a philistine
wow what a surprise

It's about the Lebanese civil war and the brown people are literally terrorists in the movie

>says the word "philistine"
>calls someone racist
oh the irony, ur brain has been colonized by ancient jewish racism against canaanites (brown people) and here you are calling me racist when i don't wanna watch a film about the descedents of the philistines lmaooooo

>the meaning of words doesn't change over time
>why yes, I'm a retard, how could you tell?

This board has contracted AIDS

Why would I want a film in an inferior medium for what films do? Completely different mediums.

Watch Youth by Paolo Sorrentino.

Kubrick is trash

The first one that shot through my mind while reading the OP is "The Passenger", but I'm not really sure since it's a different kind of feel. I adore the 70's vibe of the movie and the theme.

Kubrick is the GOAT.

He is just an edgelord and should have been nothing more than a DoP. He can't direct actors or portray character for shit.

>he doesn't rate Paths of Glory

>edgelord
reddit buzzword
>should have been nothing more than a DoP. He can't direct actors or portray character for shit.
His films are not about character studies, but he does character portrayal well. In any case he shines on many levels beyond cinematography. His use of music for instance, remains unsurpassed. And many of his actors thought of him as a very visual filmmaker before working with him abut were surprised about his actorial direction when working with him. He was the whole package, a solid unity of a filmmaker. There isn't a more perfect filmography.

the book is pulp trash

mega yikes @ the pedestrian taste itt
Try finding art on your own, instead of clinging to the imdb top 250

I haven't seen enough to argue because I don't like his films. The only one I like is strangelove and even that needs a lot more punching up.

>punching up
go back to pleddit, same for

>dude obscure films are always better xD
I too remember being 16.

Attached: descarga (3).jpg (190x266, 9K)

Attached: Jacobsladderposter.jpg (220x325, 11K)

Punching up means making more jokes and better ones. Every comedy needs to be punched up once the narrative structure is solid.

>NGO-tier exploitation of a viewer's empathy
There's nothing artistic in this scene, just the cheapest possible manipulation of emotions. I can't speak for the rest of the movie, as I haven't seen it, but this scene doesn't present a good image for cinema.

I actually love all of the directors I noted.
He's neither trash nor great.
I almost did just to fuck with him but it's also the only of his very old ones I've seen and I wanted to be honest.

>lately I've been heavily watching Bergman, Tarkovsky, and Kurosawa
Lmao and you call Kubrick entry level

Attached: 936.jpg (625x626, 33K)

Do you think they're obscure? Fucking lol

>filmfags are even bigger pseuds than litfags
big surprise, really

>the depiction of war is the cheapest manipulation of emotions possible
yeah that faggot Homer ruined everything with that pulp trash the Illiad

Yeah they kind of are

They're regarded as the best ever by tryhards and snobs. Kurosawa in particular is a total meme.

Kubrick is not great? Is this a joke? You wish you've made his filmography, you envious cunt.

'Tarkovsky, Kurosawa, the list goes on' is the film equivalent of 'Davis, Coltrane, the list goes on'

aleksei german's films

I never called Kubrick entry level, I called 2001 college, which it is. And although I classed Kubrick with Tarantino, Aronofsky, and Wes Anderson, I love all of those directors, as I've said. And I never said that Bergman, Tarkovsky, or Kurosawa are particularly deep, only that I've been watching them lately. It seems that you have reading comprehension problems; must be all those movies!
What don't you like about Kurosawa? I enjoy him more than the other two, presently.
Kubrick is overly apotheosized. If Kubrick is great, then Tarantino is too (and there's nothing wrong with that).
I don't listen to music, so I don't follow your analogy. Who?

Attached: 1542251175013.jpg (1080x796, 153K)

But in my case the list does go on for a while actually

kurosawa is a meme but he's also amazing

Tarantino doesn't have the same depth, emotional potency and craftsmanship as Kubrick. You're only grouping them together because they're Americans and well-known. If Kubrick were European you'd be putting him up there with the greats. I'm not sure you've watched Kubrick's entire filmography to say they're on the same level. To be honest it seems like bait to me.

>I don't listen to music, so I don't follow your analogy. Who?
Two irrelevant niggers.

Lost in Translation

>Tarantino doesn't have the same depth, emotional potency and craftsmanship as Kubrick.
What are you talking about? Take Hateful Eight, the height of his historical pieces: that movie is perfectly choreographed not just down to scene by scene and action by action but character by character and feeling by feeling. If you don't feel that Hateful Eight is AT LEAST on par with the early scenes of Full Metal Jacket I'll have a hard time believing that you aren't being disingenuous. And besides, Kubrick wasn't even American, he was a British transplant; how would I possibly lump him together with Tarantino solely on the grounds of "Americanness"?
Oh, so they play sports?

>Hey Yea Forums what movie did u anons watched that was the equivalent feeling as reading a novel?

I don't believe a movie can be equivalent of a novel and vice versa.
Tarkovsky was great because he created things which could only exist in cinema. He totally realised the potential of film. That is why he is a genius

The Hateful Eight is good as an entertaining piece but it has the depth of a genre comic book. An adolescent's violent wet-dream. Well-crafted and suspenseful but it fails as a historical piece. It triumphs as a quasi-play. It's a good movie, but it's at least three or four steps below a Kubrick picture. Scorsese said it himself: "One Kubrick picture equals ten from somebody else." And Kubrick was American, make no mistake about it. Listen to his interviews or behind-the-scenes docs, he sounds like an American. He remained an American all his life, he just happened to live in England.

>literally the bottom of Bergman’s barrel
What? That’s a very strange opinion...

They’re totally different mediums you absolute fucking retards. Film does things lit can’t, lit does things film can’t. End yourselves, holy shit.

2001 is very good. Stop being a faggot who requires obscurity to make himself feel good about liking something. You are such a stupid faggot. This board is full of people like you. Leave and go annoy everyone in your university class.

A Brighter Summer Day
Dead Man
Love Exposure

Aronofsky is literally fucking terrible, and Anderson has more hits than misses, is formulaic, and has a shtick that runs pretty thin. He’s not terrible though.

Tarantino is an unironically bad director.

>The Hateful Eight is good as an entertaining piece but it has the depth of a genre comic book.
You should try rewatching it several times. Pay more attention.

>more misses than hits, regarding Anderson
My b. His movies are still enjoyable.

I disagree! :)

why is the only defense of 2001 strawmanning some shit about popularity? no one said anything about popularity. why can't you defend it as a work of art? and Tarkovsky isn't obscure, he is one of the most famous directors in history.

You've got to be kidding me with this shit, Tarantino and fucking ARONOFSKY on par with Kubrick? Hey man it's all subjective but lol.

Honestly only a handful of filmmakers better than the Stan Man - Lynch, Bergman, Maddin, Yang, Sono, Chaplin, Godard, maybeee Rivette, Carne.

I've watched it three times and once was at the cinema. I like it a LOT but it's simply not close to a Kubrick picture. Kubrick played in another league, another dimension, perhaps. Not sure why my generation (people in their 20s) fails to acknowledge Kubrick. Everytime I'm talking to a Kubrick detractor he happens to be young.

>Honestly only a handful of filmmakers better than the Stan Man - Lynch, Bergman, Maddin, Yang, Sono, Chaplin, Godard, maybeee Rivette, Carne.
is this a Yea Forums meme I'm unaware of?

Tarkovsky is a lot more obscure than Kubrick, and since most people on this board are college students that seems to matter a lot.
>defend 2001 as a piece of art
I enjoy watching it. I’m not spending hours on a 2001 dissertation. It’s not one of MY favourite movies, but it’s good, we can leave it at that.
>watched Mother
>still likes aronofsky
I actually can’t believe he has a single fan. His movies are embarrassing.

Lol nah dude, just my take.

Pi was good, Black Swan was pretty good, everything else...

The Wrestler was good.

It’s because he’s a very popular director and most people in that age see art as a culture commodity they use to distinguish themselves from others. Even people’s uncool uncles will like Kubrick films so, of course, Kubrick = bad.

To be fair, A ClockWork Orange is one of the most overrated movies ever, though it’s still pretty fucking good in its own way.

Full Metal Jacket is also mediocre imo. The rest of his stuff is all great.

Yes. Sofia Coppola is amazing. I loved this film and to a lesser extent The Virgin Suicides.

Pi was borderline embarrassing, though I also enjoyed it for the most part. Aronofsky is the ultimate pseudo intellectual. The film Mother retroactively destroys all credibility, and if he ever made a good film it was due to Lucas tier collaboration. He’s retarded.

The Fountain

It’s like how often do you see Hitchcock in these threads? Hitchcock movies are mostly really fun, enjoyable to watch, and important, but they’re also really popular and lack the sex appeal of a Tarkovsky or whatever the fuck else.

I love Tarkovsky too, but the slowerest most visually textured movie isn’t always the best, and even if it’s best in genre other genres are equally valid. Annie Hall is as good as any Tarkovsky movie, but totally different.

>Annie Hall
>good

Attached: 1375026249155.png (312x309, 144K)

Those are terrible films and don't feel anything like novels.

Yes, it’s an excellent movie. God you’re probably insufferable.

Pedoman has never made a good film and if you think otherwise you haven't seen many good movies

Annie Hall and Hannah and her Sisters are both amazing. I’m sorry that you’re a genuine pleb, but that’s life.

fuck these people Woody Allen is great. Midnight in Paris is Yea Forums af.

t. "Never watched a Bergman film"-let

Midnight in Paris is quite literally the Family Guy of "artsy" films because WOW HE GOT INTO THE CAB AND SAID "Mr. Joyce?" AND I KNEW WHO THAT WAS!!

I have 130 watched from 1910s and I like him.

Midnight in Paris is aggressively bad, sorry user, I’m the Allen defender too. It is sort of comfy though.
Ya because Bergman is so obscure. Chriiiist you’re embarrassing. I hope you’re not much older than 20 dude.

I don't know where you got the idea that anywhere it was said that Bergman is obscure, but you're delusional to think that Allen isn't just poorly emulating Bergman's early 70s output

That's not why people enjoy it you retard. It's the main character who makes it enjoyable.

>Midnight in Paris is aggressively bad,
It's pretty plain. I would give it enjoyable and not bad. As close as you can get to good without being good but I wouldn't say aggressively bad. Why do you think so?

I’ve seen every single Bergman film. Allen is a huge Bergman fan and their movies are not particularly similar. Allen makes comedies... the movies don’t look particularly similar.

Fucking what are you talking about? I’ll admit Hannah and her Sisters has an obvious origin in ?Fanny and Alexander, but so what?

Bergmans oeuvre obviously trashes Allens, who made more bad movies than good ones. Annie Hall stands up there with the best of them though.

I found the Owen Wilson character to be a joke and since the entire movie revolves around him it’s unbelievably one-note and one-dimensional. The Hemingway/Fitzgerald shit is also mildly embarrassing.

It’s a watchable movie, looks pretty, and I agree on the comfy. Imo it’s for girls, lol.

Congrats you watched an entire film about how knowing famous authors doesn't make you cool and came away thinking its for people who thinks it makes them cool.

Match Point, Blue Jasmine, Midnight in Paris were all good.

???

I like the way the characters interact in an almost natural way and I like the main character. I wish I could write movies like that, in terms of character interactions.

orange is one of his finest pieces. we take it for granted, but it's amazing if you really think about it. the overrated one is lolita. it shoudn't even exist.

"Boring" as a description that describes the critic more accurately than the work itself.

don't ever compare a great film maker like Kubrick with plebs such Tostino and his shit legacy:

>four rooms
complete dogshit and yes this counts no matter how bad he wants it not to

> Reservoir dogs
rip off of city on fire

>Pulp Fiction
decent, but a B- at best and only because of Roger Avary

>jackie Brown
great film. funny how he can only tell a cohesive narrative without "muh disjointed chapters" when the material isnt his.

>kill bill 1
rip off of lady snowblood

>kill bill 2
trash

>death proof
the less said about this one the better

>inglorious bastards
decent. suffers from meme chapter directing. the shtick gets old

>Django
fucking horrible

>hateful 8
his second worst movie (next to DP). what a waste of good talented actors and 70mm film on what essentially is a boring as play.

tortallini is a meme director loved by first year film students who think he actually ever made anything worth a damn

Lolita is considered one of his worst movies. It’s underrated, not overrated.

Inglorious Bastards is fucking terrible. Brad Pitt is death to movies. He’s awful. Maybe the worst actor to cast.

>Lolita is considered one of his worst movies
Yeah, I could go on and on why I hate it (the only one of his that I hate, not just dislike) but let's just say it's the least Kubrickian Kubrick film in my view.

be honest user, he gotcha bretty gud

I don't know what Tarantula was thinking when he made Death Proof. The worst of his excesses show here. Seriously, it's a shitty movie, with perhaps one good scene (when that rock and roll song plays and the chicks get killed, I don't even like the scene just the song, being honest with you). Basterds is a masterclass in stagecraft, though, as is Hateful Eight.

Honestly just read books. Film is too young if a medium to even compare, and strangely the best stuff that was created early on like Man With a Movie Camera that tried to create a language unique to cinema is not the path film has taken at all with the result that even the best films that don’t do anything uniquely cinematic are just the shadows of books

OP and all his petty quibbling about completely pointless nonsense (film) is the reason all threads mentioning film should be immediately deleted by mods, this is a literature board and this thread hasn't talked about books once. delete @ mods fucking end OP

The Book Thief but it's actually based on the book of the same name.

I quite like it! What makes you so hateful towards it?

He was well cast in Fight Club which used his limited range well.

>hey anons can you help me find stuff in this one visual art form (that only took about 100 years to become the bee movie and the avengers) that is like this verbal art form (that is centuries old and has produced thousands of excellent titles)

Attached: 550.png (207x243, 6K)

Once upon a time seems kino. Read a review which said its his most artsy film there is a scene where that blonde girl buys a book and walks down the street and its 5 minutes long. sounds kino t ome.

>La Haine
This

It feels like Walt Disney's Lolita, instead of Stanley Kubrick's Lolita. Completely sanitized. Fairy tale ending. Mediocre adaptation. Bland characters. Not a single memorable line. Imperceptible use of music. It absolutely ruined the life of the main actress (I'm not kidding when I tell you her life is as tragic as Lolita's). Perhaps the only time Kubrick didn't improve on the source material. Even Kubrick's wife think it's a failure.

Attached: i deliberately entered a thread full of things I don't like.jpg (1800x1578, 212K)

It's not the depiction of war itself which is the issue, it's the very crudely implemented, tear-jerking, "oh wow this is horrendous, thoughts and prayers to these victims" framing of the conflict which is the issue. It lacks all subtlety and comes across as incredibly forced. It's the same portrayal of conflict that NGOs and other such organisations use to manipulate people into giving them money, which is why I made that comparison before. It's dishonest and exploitative.

>Reservoir dogs
>rip off of city on fire
there are two scenes in City on Fire that were homaged in Reservoir Dogs, they are nothing alike as films
>muh diamond heist
fuck off, City on Fire had a fucking love story as a major plotline. Jackie Brown is disjointed that was one of the major critiques of the film, that the heist scenes/practice scenes were cut too ambiguously. do you watch movies or just meme spicy opinions you hear?

it's a scene of a terrorist cell murdering a bus full of people, did you want it to be more sympathetic to the terrorists or is that subject matter just too emotional to put on film?

not mad, im having fun mocking OP

There's nothing inherently wrong with having bleak scenes like this in a movie, but in this example it seems like it's being shown just to signal "look how bleak and violent this is, my movie is so artistic guys, give me awards now please". I could be wrong, and this scene might work well within the context of the film (which I admit I haven't seen), but my point was that violence and depravity for the sake of violence and depravity should not be taken seriously, it's just pornography at that stage. The scene came across to me as being an example of said pornography, as it felt similar to many films and adverts I've seen that share similar qualities.

if you haven't even seen the film then your opinion doesn't count

the middle east is violent as fuck, though.

link the adverts of people getting burned alive; these NGO's sound metal af

nah, the majority of the middle east is peaceful, esp the parts without americans or jews in them

It's because film requires less effort.

Tarkovsky has "sex appeal", sure, but he's also very spiritual and has a depth of feeling in his work that might not be present to the same extent in those directors' movies. It's the difference between making a movie to make a great movie, which is a worthwhile and respectable goal to have, and making a movie to reach the viewer's soul.

That being said, it's better to evaluate a piece of art on its own terms, and the directors you mention are likely all great at accomplishing what they set out to do. And of course what you say about people using directors for cultural capital, that's what happens when you make beautiful films, teenagers on the internet end up posting screenshots from them 50 years later, and they serve the same function as the calls primates use to assert their social position or attract a mate. It's really impressive how good groups of people are at desecrating art.

"The Process" by Orson Welles

On Top of the Whale(1982) by Raul Ruiz

Attached: On-Top-of-the-Whale.jpg (1600x900, 236K)

i need to watch more of this guy's films
he was prolific as hell

>t. watches tarkovsky for the plot
Universe brain

t. visually literate npc

OP made this thread since the actual board for film is absolute off-topic /pol/ infested-garbage. Yea Forums is the last place where actual film-discussion can take place.