Red Turtle

I did. It was pretty but the "story" was dumb.

>>157779405
I get the impression it's supposed to be like a simple fable type of story rather than something literal and involved?

Think I might go see it at the cinema today.

>>157779467
I think you're right, but maybe because I'm just a pleb I couldn't really appreciate the "no dialogue" thing. Great animation so it's worth going to see anyway.

It's a Cinema Anime (if we can call it Anime), it's good by default.

>>157779518
Maybe. I'm into all the artsy independent animation shit to begin and those often have little or not dialogue. Liked the directors previous work too.

This short https://vimeo.com/140280083 won him and oscar and made Ghibli seek him out to work with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOJMPcxhdok

>>157779646
Probably quite easily argued that it's not but fuck it. /co/ is shit. I've tried posting about independent animators like Frederic Back and Yuri Norstein and more "artistic" western animation there before and nobody gives a fuck.

>>157779779
Kermode is seen, he likes anything Anime.

>>157779819
I don't think that's true but anime movies that get a cinema release in the UK are likely to be decent at the least.

>>157779806
Yeah you'd have more luck here if thread is not deleted or even on /tv/.

>>157779344
Top-tier animation, great visuals, but the story just feels empty. I've got no problems with the lack of dialogue, but the characters just felt hollow.

Also, not anime.

>>157779853
I find it unbelievable that we are getting both of Yuasas new films released in cinemas in the UK.

>>157779942
In this corner of the world is screening soon too.

File: 1494821825261.jpg (12KB, 450x253px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 450x253px

>>157779942
>mfw Kermode reviews them

>>157779977
The new SHAFT film and Hirune Hime are said to be getting screenings too. I swear just a few years back if it wasn't Ghibli or a rerelease of Akira or GITS there was no chance.

>>157779344
It was pretty good.
Mostly a very beautiful experience, that's probably not for everyone.

>>157779344
>Was it any good?
It got an Oscar nomination, by default it's better than that shit by Shinkai.

>>157780239
Come on anon. Everybody knows oscars for animation are bullshit.

>>157779344
waste of time

>>157779344

I kept watching thinking there would be something else, but no, there was nothing there except for... wha- whatever that was

>>157779806
Yeah, even easily shitpostable stuff like the Calarts grad films don't get any attention there. Shame because there were some cool ones.

https://vimeo.com/214367875

>>157779779
Based on that review I can understand a lot of /a/ not getting in. Anime fans generally aren't known for their well rounded appreciation of art.

seems it's not even gonna be showing here which is a bit weird for a ghibli film
distributers better not drop the ball with kono sekai

>>157780824
>muh art
Anime is art too son. This movie just happen to have bland and uninteresting characters.

>>157781241
I didn't say anime wasn't. I said anime fans don't tend to have a well rounded appreciation of art. Most people I come across probably wouldn't have a clue about entry level literature like Dostoyevsky or Kafka or entry level films by directors like Tarkovsky or Bergman. So a silent animation film communicating its point in an abstract fashion through a story that's supposed to function like a fable probably isn't going to be appealing to people used to some of the most clumsy exposition in any form of media.

>>157781241
Not him but I really agree with the reviewer. And yes anime is art and the movie is both a Cinema and Anime art. Too bad you didn't like it, looks like this art wasn't for you.

>>157779344
I saw it in theatres and didn't enjoy it.

It still should have one Best Animated Film at the Oscars though.

>>157781151
It's not really a Ghibli film, although it does use their talent

>>157781618
I think pushing the Ghibli angle in marketing is probably a mistake to some extent. People aren't going to expect what they actually get. But then I guess the marketers don't really care as long as you've bought a ticket.

>>157779344
I really want to but my multiplex isn't showing it

>>157781681
"Independent" cinema like this needs to use whatever it can, unfortunately.

File: KeMLBo.gif (722KB, 360x270px) Image search: [Google]

722KB, 360x270px

>regular cartoon on my anime board

>>157781805
/a/ustists crosspost on /tv/ literally all the time, how about you taste some of your own medicine

>>157781756
Yeah that's what I thought really. What else are they going to use to grab people's attention? "This summer coming to a cinema near you a silent cartoon film not for children about a big red fucking turtle and a man".

>>157781848
Every board is for /a/.

>>157779942
>https://www.timeout.com/london/film/the-night-is-short-walk-on-girl
RUH OH

>>157781911
>muh male gaze is creepy
>muh normalisation of objectification of women
Opinion discarded.

File: 1494061430617.png (84KB, 300x325px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 300x325px

>>157781911
>male gaze
>problematic
I'll wait for a real review.

>>157782001
>>157782052
if anime is ever going to gain any sort of theatrical foothold in the West these are the kind of examinations it's going to have to withstand

>>157782052
It's kind of pathetically transparent to be honest. The rest of the review sounds like a positive review and then the whole film is suddenly shit because it doesn't portray and push a fairytale political agenda.

>>157782089
>examination
>withstand
You make it seem like you think it's legitimate in anyway. Films are bad if they portray things you disagree with and points of view that aren't your own? Fuck that. These people try to silence artists and conversations while pretending to be open and inclusive.

>>157782260
I don't think anyone is advocating for the silencing of artists here.

>>157782260
the critique might be a cheap shot or it might be justifiable, I'll have to see the film, it screens here in September. this is only one review, mind you, and may not come to define the critical discourse surrounding the film.

>>157782403
A piece of art being bad because it portrays a philosophy you disagree with is never legitimate criticism.

>>157782517
film criticism has always been very political. been this way since the 1960's.

>>157782530
I'm quite aware of that. Critical analysis of a film from a feminist perspective in an academic fashion though is completely separate from claiming a film is bad because it doesn't conform with your political and ideological leanings. The former is legitimate and the latter is not.

>>157782681
Critical analysis of a film from a feminist perspective would find the placement of females as objects instead of subjects problematic like that review did, though.

>>157782714
I never said it wouldn't stating a piece of art is problematic from a feminist perspective though is not the same as calling it bad.

>>157782517
First, portraying a philosophy is one thing. Schindler's list portrays nazism, but you don't find people condemning it for that.

Now if a movie is built on such a philosophy, or tries to sell it, then that's a rather different thing. A movie which paints the nazis as the good guys, and the holocaust as justified, would start catching flak for that.

Now is it reasonable to object to such in a movie? Certainly. The message of a work is part of that work, it isn't something separate, and as such addressing this underlying philosophy ir a valid part of criticism, and something that you can allow to colour your overall impression of the movie. Hell, with critique being mostly subjective anyway, you're pretty much free to let anything about the movie affect how you ultimately feel about it, a good critic will simply try and disclose what it is that makes him feel this or that way. After all, it wouldn't be entirely fair to condemn every part of a movie because of one part, even a piece of outright nazi propaganda can have brilliant photography, while a vertical phone video may have a message you find important and compelling.

Don't trash the review just because you don't agree with the philosophy of the reviewer. Instead see what the reviewer thought and why, and then use that to form a decent guess at how you'd like the work.

>>157782953
I don't think I'm really disagreeing with you all that much to be honest. I just don't think a review like this that comes to the conclusion a film is bad solely because it doesn't portray a philosophy they agree with or make clear it isn't endorsing that philosophy doesn't really hold much water as legitimate criticism. I wouldn't care what political perspective it was coming from.

The idea of thinking a piece of art is bad because of that just doesn't sit well with me at all. It's one step away from advocacy of censorship of any ideas that differ from your own.

>>>/co/

This isn't an anime.

File: miyazaki_intai.jpg (210KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1280x720px

A hit with the critics, a flop with the audience.
3DCG, so it's shit be default.

Well, it looks like even if Miyazaki finally retires, it won't help Ghibli.

>>157779344
Characters could've used some more facial expressions.

>>157782818
His main issue seemed to be with the lack of characterization and the female protagonist being an object instead of a subject rolled into that. I may disagree with it but it's clearly a real observation of the material in the film that he found lacking, ultimately.