Archived threads in /tv/ - Television & Film - 2653. page

File: star-wars-jango-fett-premium-format-feature-300149-2.jpg (141KB, 990x600px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 990x600px

Jango is one of the most underrated characters in movie history.

>Overshadowed by his faggot 'son' Boba
>Would be great core character for an anthology movie
>Has actual decent lines
>Cool gadgets and shieeeet

Fuck Boba. We need Jango: A Star Wars Story.

File: IMG_6800.jpg (113KB, 960x639px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 960x639px

So how's the skatepark coming along?

File: ZJUefHa.png (153KB, 627x358px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 627x358px

What does this facial expression indicate?

File: 1508_promo_stills_12001692731.jpg (685KB, 3733x2100px) Image search: [Google]

685KB, 3733x2100px

Are we going to get a episode just about the white walkers cause this painting them as the big bad evil is stupid as fuck

File: critic.jpg (9KB, 300x279px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x279px

>The lackadaisical pulchritude of the opening scene belies its openly raconteurish pop-culture judgement. Clearly despised by liberal critics and the shrill cultural commentariat, it holds a mirror to the youth of today and what is shown is hard to take. An avuncular side character in the shape of the aging Patrick Stewart playing a gleefully nihilistic faecal blob hammers home the generational judgement. References to Fellini's Amarcord (1973) and I Vitelloni (1953) leave no ambiguity in the film's staggeringly traditionalist Christian theme.

OH MY GOD, ARMOND HAS DONE IT AGAIN! Is he, dare I say it, our negro (what did I mean by this?)?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449923/edgy-black-man-yells-at-liberals

File: 85942378593.png (1MB, 1360x768px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1360x768px

Anon, there isn't much time, they don't want me talking to you.

It's not real, your life, it's all for you. Please anon, get out here and come find me.

File: lavventura-movie-poster-1960-1020428776.jpg (59KB, 520x743px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 520x743px

L'Avventura was my first Antonioni. There were many things I liked about it, mainly its openness and lack of form, and, of course, the way it looked. However, I felt there was a lack of clarity when it came to the characters and their actions/motivations. I came to realize afterwards that Sandro never had an interest in love in the first place, and only realized that himself at the very end. But what about Claudia? I don't understand why, despite all her hesitations and guilt, she still fell for Sandro. It seemed like one moment she was adamantly against them being together and the next she was, as she said, blissfully happy. I understand the film as an analysis of isolation and lacking morality, but even though the ending had some emotional payoff, my inability to understand Claudia made much of the film feel like it lacked a point (or at least a well made one) and made it feel emotionally dry and, as a result, dragging and boring at times.

What are your interpretations of the film?

And if I felt this way about L'Avventura, which Antonioni should I watch next? La Notte makes sense if I want to continue the ""trilogy"" but I fear I may have the same nonplussed reaction to these films. Should I try Red Dessert? Or perhaps The Passenger?

File: Slider-CC-Queensway-2.jpg (60KB, 554x334px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 554x334px

Do you go to the theaters alone? Is it strange? I've never been to one before but wanted to go see Dunkirk because apparently it needs to be seen in 70mm imax.

File: 428726BD00000578-4715774-image-a-104_1500581923279.jpg (87KB, 634x831px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 634x831px

Hey it's Nikki Bonsky from the movie Hairspray here,

Just wanted to say that Ariel Winter is a whore.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4718438/Nikki-Blonsky-tells-Ariel-Winter-cover-up.html

File: movie_colossal-2016.jpg (106KB, 886x499px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 886x499px

I liked this movie

I was expecting it to be some kind of le quirky indie scifi comedy garbage but it was actually pretty intense, Sudeikis crushed it

File: CG64Ra5UcAA13O_[1].jpg (22KB, 600x251px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 600x251px

just marathoned valerian. did i like it?

File: Alpha_%28film%29.jpg (25KB, 259x384px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 259x384px

Will this be movie of the year

File: p11928964_b_v8_aa.jpg (190KB, 960x1440px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 960x1440px

Admit it.

You love it.

File: it-follows.jpg (283KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1500x1125px

What the fuck did i just watch?

This movie's plot is a metaphor for catching an std and how it's morally acceptable to spread it to another person because you don't derserve the burden of being sexually responsible with it. Someone was ruthless enough to infect you so you can be just as ruthless and don't have to sexually limit yourself for the sake of others. Don't follow the example of the infected people that act responsibly (the one's that died in the movie) because then you are the last part of the causality chain, the loser of the game that is 'transmitting std's'.

How do filmmakers get away with questionable morals like that?