ITT: give tips on how to convincingly criticize movies you haven't

just emulate armond white and don't forget to criticize everything as 'insincere/inauthentic'

>>84201568
If you do this I will always be able to tell you're lying. Do not try it. I will be watching you.

>take film element
>add -ing
>say it sucked

DUH ENDING SUKT
DUH AKTING SUKT
DUH DIRECTING SUKT
DUH WRITING SUKT

If you're really feeling frisky you can say

DUH CINEMATOGEPI SUKT

>>84201612
>'insincere/inauthentic'

Yeah that's always a good one. It's great when they ask what that means, what is truly authentic cinema, because you can just shake your head and lament the state of movie going audiences who have to be spoon fed these questions. It makes you look informed but also very soft-hearted, and just vague enough so they won't catch on.

DONT. CRITICIZE. SOMETHIN. YOU. DONT. KNOW. Seriously. Dont do It.

>>84201656
No, I will catch on because I will interrogate you on very specific aspects of the movie and you will not be able to come up with a reply. DON'T. FUCK. WITH. ME.

File: 1481814223441.png (31KB, 372x300px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 372x300px

>>84201703
>I will interrogate you on very specific aspects of the movie and you will not be able to come up with a reply

I can just call you an autist for focusing on specifics and not looking at the film as an overall artistic experience. And then you'll just go in another rage when I refuse to answer your "autistic" questions, making a fool out of yourself, and making me out to be the cool headed victor who just wants an intelligent discussion on film.

Reminder to never post your actual opinion. Don't EVER go into detail about what you believe because you might be convinced otherwise. Always, and I mean ALWAYS either post outright falsehoods that you don't believe or edit your opinion to give yourself an easy escape. If someone calls you out on your shit just remember you can close the thread.

Also, if someone is disliking something that you like and you haven't a rebuttal just passive aggressively sidestep their post. EX:

>Faggot:"I didn't like this scene because his rant in the dinner felt more like the writer making a statement rather than an organic plot point"
>You: "Well everyone needs to eat lunch anon. It's okay if he was a little grumpy!"

Never actually address their point. Always sidestep. I hope you learned something.

>>84201811
You sad little man

>>84201612
>>84201656
these responses are derivative, underdeveloped, and honestly come off as inauthentic

>>84201568
Don't remember where I heard it, but it was a famous film critic or philosopher or someone along those lines. A good rule of thumb to criticizing art properly is to say "It insisted upon itself."

Protip: If you like something that you know is bad just call it some variant of comfy/kino. Strongest use is comfykino but you still win whether or not you use one or both.

File: Angry dog.jpg (28KB, 250x180px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 250x180px

>>84202084
OK then, big guy. What would be a sincere/authentic reply?

>>84201612
>muh armond contrarian!!
cry more plebboi

>>84201568
kill yourself faggot

The trick is to pick on technical film-making stuff. Like "The framing was incredibly inconsistent and the over use of cut-away shots detracted from what could have been an enjoyable motion picture, had the director not butchered the original screenplay." the retards won't argue with you because they fear being outed as the plebs they are.