This is a 3/10

>>79945086
>This is a 3/10
t. absolute pleb

>>79945086
4-5/10 sounds about right. 3/10 is too low, the pretty pictures in the film are at least worth something.

>>79945086
Fuck off, matey

File: 1473734817926.jpg (44KB, 329x399px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 329x399px

>>79945107
It doesn't even look that good m8
>>79945092

>tfw nobody talks about the nigga film that won Best Picture Oscar because nobody saw it

>>79945086
>In bongland.

>>79945596
I've seen Moonlight and discussed it on here

>>79945596
Coonlight is absolute trash

File: ghostbusters.png (177KB, 259x384px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 259x384px

>>79945086
This is a 3/10

>inb4 white babydicks who haven't seen the movie say it's worse

la la land was great if youve ever felt the potential of a love that was not to be. i.e. this is the absolute wrong audience

>>79945596
That's very mean yet absolutely true.

>>79946333
>a film is only ever good if you've experienced it in real life
>horrors are shit because people don't experience real horror in real life
>sci-fi is all shit because people will never experience travelling into space

Why do normies act so retarded?

>>79946492
ha ha you're pretty dense. the point is if youve ever had an emotional experience that resonated with what is being depicted. its not about having the experience itself, its that youre predisposed to the emotional message of the film.

if you get startled, horror movies will resonate with that. if you dont get startled or freaked out, they fall flat.

if you have an urge to explore and see new sights, a sci fi movie might resonate with you. if you just find it weird and unrelatable, then it wont.

if you are disposed to falling in love, practicality aside, then this specific movie will stir you. if you dont, then the movie falls flat

>>79946557
No, buddy. You literally said...
>la la land was great if youve ever felt the potential of a love that was not to be.
>if youve ever felt

>>79946597
youre correct semantically, but missing the meaning of what im saying. i could have said

>la la land was great if you are predisposed to falling in love

but i dont write picturing a dense pedant as my audience.

>>79946640
Maybe I was being a little dense :)

but my point is that you cannot base a film's quality entirely on such predispositions.

A good film will resonate will all kinds of people, regardless if they've experienced such events, or similar ones, or none at all. A good film will enable people who have never experienced these things to feel them for 1 hour and 30 minutes...

>>79946640
i like romance movies and i hated LLL

>>79946716
yes, i agree you shouldnt have to experience the things being depicted to be moved. a war movie for instance could give you a glimpse at what what is really like.

but at the same time, everyone has a different emotional and intellectual composition. playing to something that isnt quite universal is fine. the movie can still be great, even if it isnt really meant for everybody.

i admit the scene in la la land at the end, when the entire potential of their life together was zipped through and then thrown away had me tearing up. i can see why it wouldnt for others though

>>79946775
whats a romance movie you did like?

>>79946820
love exposure

>>79945086
yes I rated 5/10 in my website a month before the oscars. Moonlight I rated 8/10

Just saw it and yeah I didn't see the big deal nor did I see what was so special about Emma Stones performance.

Maybe because I was expecting an all out musical like GREASE

File: 1488260801637.jpg (196KB, 698x1528px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 698x1528px

>>79945086