Why did this offend everyone so much? It's not any more

>>85608983
A lot of people probably felt it was all style no substance. Even then, aesthetics are just as important as anything else in film. It didn't deserve to get shit on.

>It's not any more self indulgent and pretentious than a Lars von trier or a Damien chazelle
Exactly. If anything, its better. But The Goose is not Lars von Shit, and his name doesn't carry the same amounts of pretentious arthouse browny points. So now suddenly flashy nonsense has to be judged on its own merits - and what would you know? It's shit.

>>85609152
>So now suddenly flashy nonsense
It's not flashy nonsense. Don't take it out on the film that you took so little from it. Not all storytelling is conveyed through dialouge.

>>85608983
it felt very derivative and lacking to me. i like refn a lot too. id

UNIRONICALLY A MASTERPICE

ONE OF BEST FILM OF 2010s Decade

>>85608983
I don't watch religious films because I'm not interested in religious propaganda.

Pretending Ryan Gossling can act offends me.

File: Wanna Fight?.jpg (769KB, 4824x3196px) Image search: [Google]

769KB, 4824x3196px

Critics and audiences sum total knowledge of Nicolas Our Guy Jang Refn started and ended with Drive. They were confounded when it had a slower, less traditional narrative structure like most of his films, and even more so that the Goose was not a real human bean and a real hero. It's among his best films, a triumph of visual acumen.

>>85609329
Why are critics so unable to process visual storytelling? I've seen it happen quite a few times now. It's like they want the story forced down their ears.

>>85609315
truly euphoric

>>85608983
idk, I loved it. It's in my top 10 of all time.

>>85609057
>A lot of people probably felt it was all style no substance
>fury road
>la la land
>it follows
>the witch
>kingsman
>moonlight
>birdman
>boyhood
>hotel budapest
why is it ok when they do it? why are neon lights a too stylistic pretentious choice but a whole movie in 1 take is not? or only using natural light making the film look like shit? or imitating a comic book, or calling back to classics? I really dont understand

Plebs were expecting Drive 2 and instead got a moody visually driven film, there's not a lot of dialogue and I think that turned a lot of people off.

>>85609396
They don't write for cineastes, but the normal joes of middle america who want to scarf down some popcorn and nachos while flick they're viewing provides them with loud noise and tells them when to laugh.

how is LVT 'pretentious' but Refn isnt?

>>85609448
none of those films are style over substance in the way Only God Forgives is, though.

>>85609396
Visual storytelling is harder to balance because more intelligent people will get what the scene is conveying quicker than slower people. Then, since the scene no longer has any purpose, the intelligent person is left with nothing to do but wait for the scene to end, but then the same thing happens in the next scene.

It's the difference between reading a book and having a book read to you by someone who keeps pausing for effect every few words.

>>85609581
>more intelligent people
You mean autists dude. A film is not a puzzle to be figured out, but an experience to witness.

>>85608983
I feel like that movie was marketed to the wrong people. They tried to sell it to plebs but they obviously did not like it. It is actually crazy how low it is rated as it is one of the best movies of 21st century so far.

>>85609396
They're commercial critics writing for the mainstream audience.

>>85609650
>>85609504
>they're not conforming retards they're just conforming TO the retards
stop

>muh style over substance

style IS substance.

plebs don't like Only God Forgives because:
>too slow
>no talking
>not edited like a montage
>visual storytelling requires actual attentiveness, most people only watch movies passively so they don't understand what's happening
>too weird
>it's not Drive 2: Look He Survived The Stab Wound!

>>85609691
That almost made sense. You're doing great.

>>85609691
Looks like you're the retard

Only faggots watch ryan gossling movies

It was a bit too watered down on the symbolism part, lacked subtlelty but fantastic performences and visuals though Ryan's performance almost reminded me Alain Delon's uncanny and errie performance from Le Samourai.

A movie being obnoxious, boring, and cringe worthy does not make it offensive
>>85609201
>it's good because it reveals thing in a cryptic and symbolic manor
No anon, just cause you looked at some analyses online and read that little Asian man is supposed to be God on reddit doesn't mean the movie is good nor does it make you smart

>>85609448
Because birdman actually tells a good story and has a great script and excellent moments where characters are totally shat upon, this movie just has a lot of staring and slow motion and moody lighting to let you know it's "epic" and "dramatic" and "saying something"

>>85610209

>>85609704
It's funny how everyone who likes this movie can only say that other people didn't get it and didn't watch it properly.
Can't think of a better litmus test for pretentious dickheads with delusions of superiority and intelligence.

>>85609794
Sounds right up your alley then.

>>85609499
>>85609704
There actually is a sequel to Drive out there in novel form, I wonder if Refn is ever going to adapt it.

>>85609448
Which one of those movies is a whole movie in one take?

>>85610396

He said in interviews he was interested in it and in others that he isn't anymore. Point is the Drive had almost nothing to do with the book it's based on and it would be the same for the sequel

>>85610575
Birdman. It's not actually one take though, they've just hidden the cuts.

>>85610642
I read the first few pages or so of Drive and it seemed to be the exact same as that scene in the motel room. In what way does it have nothing to do with the book?

File: 1488304711022.jpg (399KB, 1600x1381px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 1600x1381px

>>85608983
This nonsense is so inorganic to any sense of globetrotter restlessness or anything explicitly or metaphorically to do with British or American colonialism that it just feels derivative. That Kubrickian scene in Drive of dead-eyed strippers watching an assault gets extended here in a more elaborate whorehouse sequence where catatonic hookers bear mute witness to instances of police corruption. Refn’s tableau of organdy-gowned call-girls listening to pop while watching violence in a bouquet-bedecked whorehouse is the ultimate David Lynch parody.

Gosling and Refn have art ambitions–a strange sense of fun. But how can film culture progress with fantasies like this? There’s no shock or outrage left. Refn relies upon a level of menace (unerotic, non-provocative) that precludes caring about or responding to violence, vulnerability, mortality. This is cinema for unsophisticated viewers who don’t already know Bunuel’s eye-slashing, Altman’s Coke bottle assault or Shakespeare/Julie Taymor’s Titus. Children of Kubrick, Friedkin, Lynch and Tarantino, they remain infantile about movies.

>>85608983
Because it attracted plebs who wanted Driver 2: Electric Boogaloo.

It was definitely a flawed movie, but it attracted much more hate than it deserved.

>>85610733

Only read the second one but apparently Drive the book was more about the characters and their back stories which don't feature at all in the movie

>>85608983
I really liked it. I watched it without subtitles too.

>make a martial arts movie
>one fight scene
>it's completely one sided
that's what the fuck he did

>>85610948
I'm curious, what did you think Chang was saying to the British guy when he kept stabbing him?

>>85610994
It's not a martial arts movie though

>>85609614
And if the experience isn't impressive, then it's just boredom. Or worse, paying to be bored.

>>85610994
>it's completely one sided

Damn I think I even remember this meme from when OGF was released

>>85610997
I haven't seen it in a while. I'll write up what I thought was happening and post it to find out how close I was, later.

hahaha dude the cop is actually literally god lmao

>>85610796
what's the name of the movie on the right?

>>85611131
Lots of similarities to God. Stands around passively and then beats the shit out of you when you try to throw a punch at him.

I don't know why everyone has to justify liking this movie as if it was really deep. I just liked the pretty colors, slow pace and moody atmosphere. The lack of dialogue just makes it more comfy.

>>85611179
Santa Sangre

>>85611536
Even Refn doesn't seem to think of his movies as very deep in his interviews. He just seems to be all about the visuals. I remember him going on about the necrophilia scene in Neon Demon and it sounded to me like he just had an erotic impulse and wanted to see how far he could get the girl to go.

>>85610796
to be honest, Refn is a huge fan of Jodorowsky

>>85608983
people have shit taste

>>85611662
Really shows how much of a professional actress Jena Malone is

also that scene gave me a boner

the response only god forgives got is the reason gosling went back to doing normie shit oscar bait. it was ruined by both sides
>capeshitters hated it because gosling said 10 lines in the entire movie and none of them were quips
>self-proclaimed movie connoisseurs created some crackpot sub-storyline
if you take the movie at face value, it's as good as drive and pines.

>>85611775
pines is honestly refns weakest film

>>85611775
The fuck are you on about? Gosling has never stopped doing indie stuff.

>>85608983
style over substance, like all of refn's films.

>>85611775
But Ryan Gosling made that movie afterwards called Lost River which was an artsy fartsy movie with visuals similar to Refn's

It was also booed at Cannes which was probably the reason why Gosling retired from art films

>>85611536
It's actually funny how far people went to create their own interpretation. As if a story about a western drug dealer and his brother in mob controlled territory, paired with the amazing visuals, wasn't good enough or something.

>>85611866
>Neon Demon
>normal people

>>85611817
>pines
>refn

>>85611866
>Neon Demon
>normal people

People walked out from my theater.

They didn't like it because the only other Refn film they saw was Drive, while this was more like Valhalla Rising.

File: Only.God.Forgives.2013.BDRip_01:05:23.836.jpg (43KB, 1024x552px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 1024x552px

Why would you challenge God to a fistfight?

>>85612015
Admirable but mistaken.

Refn did not make this film for anyone else but himself. The whole theme of the movie was reflecting his own personal issues.

>>85611536
This

I'm too dumb to analyse a movie, I almost got into it when I was studying to get into film school but since I didn't accomplished that I just stopped

I like these visual films just for the visuals, same way I like Tarkovsky's Stalker or Bela Tarr's Werckmeister Harmonies

Film is a visual medium, the whole point of it is visuals and storytelling but visuals are the main component of what makes a film a film, otherwise go ahead and read a book

>>85611866

all 3 of those are kino

>>85612027
His mistake was not pulling out a handgun midfight and winning. God was susceptible to projectiles, as evidenced by the restaurant shootout where he dives for cover, and would have fallen there and then.

>>85609640

How fucking stupid are you?

DUDE ART LMAO the movie

>>85612483
Watch more movies.

>>85608983
I watched this at the cinema years ago with two friends who both really disliked it. The one thought it was boring and commented on its snail like pacing. The other felt disturbed by the subject matter (the parts with the implied incest). I don't think this is pretentious at all, and I really like it myself, but I understand that it's not a film for everyone. Lars Von Trier isn't easy to get into either and I don't think i've ever heard anyone praise (or worship) his work who wasn't already a big film fan. Damien Chazelle's films are different altogether and more "mainstream" so naturally they are praised by a lot of people. What did Refn do? Well when you make a film like this it is bound to be polarizing. That's a good thing. If you don't take chances for your artistic and creative vision you'll just end up making films like Whiplash and La La Land, which are exciting, successful and praised, yes, but don't offer much else in the way of substance.

>>85608983
People don't like it when God is played by a non-white actor, because they are triggered cucks.
Also the movie is 2deep4u, and a lot of people only saw it thinking it will be Drive 2.

Its jangs magnum opus.

The deeps rich visuals, the powerful symbolism, the supberb acting by the thai actor

Critics are fucking plebs and nobody really understood the movie. It was one of the best films of the past 5 years.

>>85611877
Cannes is cancerous

>>85612702

>Lars Von Trier

Oh, boy. Refn would love to get confused with Trier.

>>85613244
They are both danish, and they don't make your standard fare films, but rather films that differ in their style and approach to the typical blockbusters and "mainstream" films of American cinema. No idea how each filmmaker feels about the other, though.

>>85611866
exactly

>>85609704
>style IS substance.

Hi Zack. I hope you know your daughter died because you make shit films

>>85609704
Style is not substance. When people refer to style they are referring to the element of style in which the film, and the film's substance, is expressed or presented. Without substance you are left with "style" that presents nothing, hence "style over substance". Even films like the *qatsi trilogy and baraka, while appearing "substanceless" to the uninitiated are actually quite profound in what their dramatic imagery is conveying.

You can argue that Only God Forgives does have substance (which ironically is what you're doing in the latter part of your post), but style itself is not substance.

>>85608983
Redpill a guy on who hasn't seen Only God Forgives.

>>85614847
>Redpill a guy on who hasn't seen Only God Forgives.

Slow stylistic Refn/The Goose movie. Waaaaay slower than 'Drive'.

>>85608983
>HANDS=TOOLS OF MURDER/PENIS SUBSTITUTE/FREUDIAN SUBTEXT

Yeah nah those 30 minutes of the goose just staring at his arms were overkill

>>85609704
Style CAN be substance; however, Refn's style is to mask the lack of substance, i.e. lipstick on a pig.

Stop making excuses.

>>85610097
everything is cryptic if you're dumb enough, don't blame the film for your shortcomings.

>>85615460
>Yeah nah
Dropped

File: athecucks.jpg (84KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 500x667px

>>85609315

>>85608983
i had a big problem with Drive, like what was all that damn quiet time for it just seemed like some awkward middle school shit

>>85611877
>It was also booed at Cannes which was probably the reason why Gosling retired from art films
Are you retarded? What the fuck do you think Song to Song is?

>>85615900
Whatever dude i don't actually follow movies just saying what i heard here who cares

>>85614847
Gosling's brother is kill.
Mother comes over to identify body, and seeks revenge for her son's death.
Due to incestual undertones and jealously Gosling decides to do everything she asks.
She wants the man responsible for Billy's (Gosling's brother) death killed. That man ends up being a guy called Chang.
Chang fights Gosling in a boxing match who already knows who is behind his own assassination.
The mother now wants Gosling to kill Chang. It is then later revealed that Gosling was made to kill his own father, long ago, on his mother's request. Chang eventually kills the mother and "punishes" Gosling's character by cutting off his hands.

The main interpretation is that Chang is God, the judge, jury and executioner. He forgives Gosling by punishing him by removing the tools with which he murdered his father (his hands). Chang kills Gosling's mother because she was simply a manipulative bitch with no good in her. Chang is seen as a figure of righteousness throughout the film. He sets forth to do nothing but deliver justice on those who deserve it (the first of which is Billy, Gosling's brother). Even if all the characters in the film are all somewhat morally in a grey area, it is their intentions that count foremost. Chang, as God, sees this and delivers his sentences accordingly.

All memes aside, that's it in a nutshell.

>>85615900
Are you forgetting Gosling's """brilliant""" directorial debut that came out only a year after Only God Forgives?

Drive was a good career move for Refn. Got him a ton of attention. It's full of classic movie tropes like the badass silent misunderstood hero with an instantly identifiable wardrobe staple lifted straight from Le Samourai, the overdone mafia crime shit plot, the shocking violent scene that the movie revolves around. Cool catchy synth music with memorable, though ultimately run-of-the-mill, vocals. It's very Hollywood and accessible, very straightforward, much more so than any of Refn's films, yet very good-looking and stylized like they all are.
So people see the Goose and jump into this movie expecting Drive. It still has some classic cool elements, like the fistfight scene, but the hero is a loser, he loses. There's very little adrenaline to be garnered from the movie as it moves languidly between scenes.
People in over their heads just didn't get it.

>comparing Refn to Lars
apples and oranges. Refn is all about portraying ambience and mood through color, light and sound. Lars likes to tell stories about internal struggles.
Antichrist for example is maybe the best look on the despair that comes from deep depression. The castration part felt really out of place though, that's the only thing you can compare to Refn's crude stuff.

>>85616085
Lost River is actual kino though, much better than OGF at least

>>85616085
Lost River was really good for his first movie

>>85608983
It's hella fuckin gay dude.

>>85616354
Both are indulgent to the point of being unwatchable though.

>>85616478
well if you won't let yourself be told a story you will never get to feel it like the director intends it

>>85616424
>>85616387
It was derivative. He completely failed at expressing whatever it was he was trying to say with that film. As such it will always be remembered as a poor attempt at emulating style rather than one of true artistic significance. You see this all the time: Actor wants to direct, incoming vanity project. I'm not saying Gosling doesn't have him to direct a significant film, but Lost River was not it.

>>85616039
Thanks.
Sounds interesting.
Maybe I'll watch it.

>>85615990
Don't you "whatever dude" me kid.