The Cinephile Club

Thread for those who've been watching cinema seriously for 5+ years and have advanced past capeshit, mainstream movies and the same old flicks.

Don't be offended, this is not meant to be pretentious, its just some of us have moved past IMDb-core, indie flicks and the latest hyped blockbuster and have more developed tastes. Do not troll or derail the thread with off-topic discussion.

What good films have you been enjoying lately?

Other urls found in this thread:

thefilmstage.com/news/martin-scorsese-says-silence-will-be-ready-for-release-this-year/
imdb.com/title/tt4975722/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

funny that you use the pic of a generic oscarbait flick to your patrician thread, or am i wrong and that's not Bridge of spies?

I don't know.
Just finished the new Independence day and now I am asking myself if someone pulled a prank on me or people honestly liking this movie like no other.
I have more questions in my head than answers.
Why did I wasted my time on this?
Why are people to write horrible dialog?
Why someone feels ok to put this dialog on screen and waste someone elses time?
How do these people sleep at night?

If you have nothing to contribute to the CC then get out. Go watch your blockbuster trash

>Go watch your blockbuster trash
as opposed to oscarbait trash, wow so much difference. If you actually wanted a serious thread you should've made a non-hollywood requirement

I have advanced past advanced. What next?

Please define oscarbait.

You are ready.

google.com
either that or watch more films and see for yourself

Sommaren med Monika (1953, Bergman)
牯嶺街少年殺人事件 (1991, 楊)
চারুলতা (1964, রায়)
Ordet (1955, Dreyer)
Les Moissons du Ciell (1978, Malick)
Oктябpь «Дecять днeй, кoтopыe пoтpяcли миp (1927, Эйзeнштeйн)
红高粱 (1987, 张艺谋)
Fear and Desire (1953, Kubrick)
Зepкaлo (1975, Tapкóвcкий)
Un Chien Andalou (1928, Luis Buñuel)
浪華悲歌 (1936, 溝口)
Le Révélateur (2002, Philippe Garrel)

I'm asking for your personal definition.

For if you can't put something in your own words, you don't understand it yourself.

Psueodo patrician who hasn't seen any of these

>your personal definition
It's the same as everybody else's, just read wikipedia's page on it, i'd post here but it's too long

>posting unironically in this thread
Kill yourselves you autistic fags

Pleb detected.

>Kill yourselves you autistic fags
so is this statement ironic or are you gonna kill yourself too?

Film isn't art, it's just mindless entertainment for small minded people who need pictures to stimulate their brain. Film has nothing important to say, it's a worthless medium.

So what you're saying is, you can't put it in your own words or define how it relates to the OP.

I believe we're done here.

I was looking for pre-Satantango Tarr movies on Amazon and I didn't see any. I really want to get into Tarr but I refuse to torrent.

In the theaters I recently saw Hell or High Water, Sully, Hunt for the Wilderpeople, and Magnificent Seven.

Sully was fine, but I don't even understand why it was a movie.
>Hanks lands the plane in the Hudson River
>Saftey inspectors seem to think he could have landed it at the airport
>In the final scene, it's shown that didn't account for the time it would take for a human to react in the simulation.
>Hanks says to do this, they agree, and it's the simulation shows he couldn't have landed at the airport.

Wilderpeople and Hell or High Water were fantastic, however. Wilderpeople had tons of style and humor and thrills, and both films had superbly written characters. Being that High Water was more of a straight drama, the characters had more depth and layers, thanks to both the writing and the acting. Ben Foster and Jeff Bridges gave the finest performances this year, aside from Meryl Streep. I actually thought Chris Pine was much better in The Finest Hours, and even Star Trek. Still, he was fine.

Sam Neill and Julian had fantastic chemistry, it's always a treat to see Sam on screen.

No doubt the money was to good to pass up, but I wish Waititi continued doing his own stuff instead of stooping to capeshit. At least Jeff Goldblum will be in the next Thor. Another Jurassic Park cast member that should be starring in more movies.

>Kurosawa, , Kubrick, Lynch, Villenueve, Welles the list goes on!

The hallmarks of the tasteless and the uninitiated. It's okay if you're just getting into the medium, but there are some (even here, on a so called ''film'' board) that actually believe they are cultured or have a snippet of taste because they like these directors, when in actuality they are nothing more than embarrassing cringeworthy copy/paste babbies with no opinion on the medium they claim to love whatsoever.

For a cinephile like myself, it is truly disgusting to watch, and the main reason I, and many others, steer far away from this pit of despair and depravity.

I watched Hail Caesar! yesterday. It's not a bad movie, but quite bland for the Coens.

Not long ago I watched a Serious Man, and liked it very much. The jewishness is not only justified, but somewhat explored. And the conflicts the protagonist must deal with felt real.

I genuinely liked bridge of spies, but would not sit again through it. I like all the cross imagery and how for the first half of the film Hanks always has a light behind him.

>I refuse to torrent
Why?

>Do not troll or derail the thread with off-topic discussion.
Would it help?

TIPS FEDORA

Welcome to Cred Forums.

Telling people to not do something just encourages it.

get some taste bro

1. Пиcьмa мёpтвoгo чeлoвeкa (1986, Lopushansky)
2. Un condamné à mort s'est échappé (1956, Bresson)
3. Guns of The Trees (1961, Mekas)
4. Berlin Alexanderplatz (1980, Fassbinder)
5. Ostře sledované vlaky (1966, Menzel)

Bridge of Spies was legitimately well crafted though.

>Cinephile Club
>Posts Bridge of Spies

This had to be bait

Man, I thought that b8 was too elaborate to fall for

That list is entry level as shit even if it's a list of fantastic films. They're all accessible and popular. If you're the kind of person who thinks that poster is snooty you shouldn't be on Cred Forums

>It's not a bad movie, but quite bland for the Coens.
I thought it was one of their better films. Maybe you should listen to Autolochus' end speech again.

>released just in advance of Oscar season, late in the calendar year
>Lavishly produced epic length period dramas, often set against tragic historical events such as The Holocaust, are frequently seen this way and often contend for the technical Oscars such as cinematography, makeup and hairstyling, costume design or production design
>The cast may well include actors with previous awards or nominations, a trait that may also be shared by the director or writer.
The theme, tone, cast, directors and writers and context all scream oscar bait, do you really not see this?

>Kurosawa, , Kubrick, Lynch, Villenueve, Welles, Inarritu, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Ozu, Godard, Herzog, Eisenstein, Scorsese, Mann, Linklater, Hitchcock, Coppola, Leone, Bunuel, Lean, Fellini, Antonioni, Melville, Cameron, Truffaut, Renoir, Dreyer, Bresson, Tarr, Haneke, Korine, Kiarostami, Refn, Noe the list goes on!

The hallmarks of the tasteless and the uninitiated. It's okay if you're just getting into the medium, but there are some (even here, on a so called ''film'' board) that actually believe they are cultured or have a snippet of taste because they like these directors, when in actuality they are nothing more than embarrassing cringeworthy copy/paste babbies with no opinion on the medium they claim to love whatsoever.

For a cinephile like myself, it is truly disgusting to watch, and the main reason I, and many others, steer far away from this pit of despair and depravity.

I vividly remember it, but it means nothing for the character. The hypocrisy of The Future was, for me, the best aspect of the movie.
>We'd rather give money to another "the man" rather than share it within our own group.

>but it means nothing for the character.
That's because it explains the overarching theme of the movie.

First Gooseman in Place Beyond the Pines, now the island in this.

Derek Cianfrance will never follow up a first act.

>I really want to get into Tarr but I refuse to torrent.
are you stoopid or something?

So none of the directors you quote hold any cinematographical value for you?

I am honestly curious and in no way sarcastic, what do you consider quality cinema?

every film of Spielberg is well-crafted.Good or not it depends on actors

The Pest

And that's why I find it bland, because the audience need to be adressed semi-directly.
>"Hey, in case you don't get it, Jesus was a communist"

Cave paintings.

Problem Child 2

He's trolling user

...

>studied under Brakhage
>makes emo dramas

Snεῖdεя

I think you need to watch it again, user.

Zack "Kino" Snyder.

Jesus Christ film has been my life for 10 years and this has never worked.
Just go to the sfcz or something.

Wow OP, you watch Spielberg? That's some pretty advanced level kino right there, can I suck your cock so I can know about real cinema also?

When was the last time someone mentioned Ordet on here?

Am I ready to ascend to patricianhood?

...

Nah. There's some good films there though.

Yeah, like Deadpool. Get it?

lmao

>Film Guides
no

Maybe if you kill yourself now you'll go to heaven where you can wish yourself to become patrician.

Nah. I think this is only a matter of opinion, not facts.

Movies = new religion
Now go watch it again

>people taking this thread seriously

I mean the 5 years part alone makes it obvious it's a troll.

...

t. embryo

nice cinebro image :D :D :D

The sad thing is that you fall into the above-average zone of the level of discourse spectrum to be expected from Cred Forums.

denks :O

Man, you sure sound like a beta nu male cuck.

Who's going to the premiere of Dunkirk? Will Nolan surpass Spielberg?

>Three buzz-terms in one sentence.
If that is the vocabulary with which you come to reflect to reality outside your head, I have bad news for you
you need to interact without the aid of screens

like two days ago on a general
check the archive faggot

Nolan is making more entertaining films than Spielberg now but he'll never reach the heights Spielberg did from the 70s to the 90s, he tries to cram the full package into every movie while adhering to purist sensibilities, and it just doesn't work.

Anyone who calls themselves a "Cinephile" is a faggot.

FACT!

Kill yourself

Copypastas don't count.

but Spielberg's produced some of his best movies post-2000 including his absolute best movie, his masterpiece.

I just watched "Into the Void" last night OP.

Can I join your little club?

I have a popcorn maker too we can use.

I laugh at plebeians like you. A true enlightened patrician like myself only spends his time watching the best kinography at 0.5x to appreciate every frame. Just the other day I was watching the first scenes of "Der schwarze Ritter erhebt sich" and felt truly euphoric. You plebs would never understand though.

> this is the kind of thread /film/ fags think will happen
For the first two weeks, maybe. Then your entire board is shit posting because everything to be said has already been discussed. You will have the Isobel occasional circle jerk over Oscar bait in November and December, metric shit tons of shit posting, and a few rejects trying to push a failed film chub thread.

Gasper Noe is a gigantic hack. Belongs with other laughably overrated fakes like Inarritu.

patrician master race here, i feel you OP

So this is the disguise of the Letterboxd general? Lovely

Thoughts on this?

/Lit/ would like a word with you

No, you can't. Just because something is vulgar and carnal doesn't mean it's high art. The only reason to watch "Enter the Void" is to say you've done it, it is absolutely not worth watching again and is an entirely meaningless shallow unpleasant experience.

Simply the best. You tasteless wouldn't understand.

I like 2000s Spielberg as well but Nolan was improving then and SS has been on a decline since '05.

>I watch subtitled films so I am better than you.

which poster are you?

Not to bite the b8 but yeah, if you only watch films in your language than yes you are a lesser fan of film than someone who reaches out to even the most mainstream foreign films

And I'm saying that because there's nothing cool or great about liking obscure films; the Canon is excellent enough to enjoy and share with others who also enjoy the medium. The only thing worse than pretension are people like you who are afraid to embrace genuine intellectual and artistic sensitivities out of the fear of appearing pretentious

What movie is that?

kek

All true, obviously. It would have a better effect though, if weren't directed to a bait post of a bait thread of a tragic board. But at least you are on the right track yourself.

Look at this . The same /lbg/ kids and their pathetic bumps

AI

kek

No, I don't. I grew out of the concept about a decade ago.

Might wanna consider growing back into it.

Bad movies are bad movies, no matter when they're released.

For instance, most academy award nominated movies are released near the end of the year because they're not expected to make money, therefore the losses are in Q4, while being offset by the holiday bumps, and Q1 just sees their revenue.

Its all an accounting game.

Bridge of spies was great though.

almond pls

how is any of that bad?
You make Oscarbait sound like high quality productions without saying anything about the quality of the finished product.

You're insecure about your intelligence and that's fine, but dont make it our problem. Stop lashing out.

We've achieved the perfect Reddit thread. Congratulations people.

Do you want to discuss films then? These are my top 10:

Կոմիտաս (Ասկարյան, 1988)
ボクサ(寺山修司, 1977)
Al primo soffio di vento (Piavoli, 2002)
వాల్మీకి (దుంగన్, 1945)
Игpoк (Бaтaлoв, 1972)
Galini (Markopoulos, 1958)
香雪海 (費, 1934)
O Desafio (Saraceni, 1966)
ምርት ሦስት ሺህ ዓመት (ገሪማ, 1976)
Ko puca otvorice mu se (Babac, 1965)

True, and oscarbait films are bad.

You're just childish, and with a meme 'opinion'.

I have watched 82 movies that was release in 2016.

movies that i rated 9/10 or 10/10... just 1.. The Handmaiden....

what a sad year. or me.

Being ignorant doesn't make you intelligent. Oscarbait films are real and are recognized as the trash they are by anyone with a functioning brain, AKA not you.

A.I. is considered Spielberg's masterpiece by many, especially by good critics who actually know what they're talking about

have you seen the following:

Personal Shopper
Moonlight
Kate Plays Christine
The Other Side
Manchester-by-the-Sea
Ornithologist
Certain Women
Love Witch
Aquarius

Got Hulu. Who can recommend me some good Criterion flicks

Have you seen Elle or Nocturama?

I rather liked Hell or High Water but I think I'd give it a 8.5/10

:^)

that is an absurdly inflated rating for that movie

that movie is completely decent, featuring good performances, but mostly feels like Coens-lite. It's alright but it feels pretty slight and the ending sequences begin getting rather silly.

It's worth about a 6 at best

Get your head out of your ass.

>Coens lite
Haven't seen this one but Mackenzie has a lot more developed sense of staging than the Coens.
He doesn't have their sense of humor though, but delivering genre films unironically is kinda his thing.
Maybe you say it for the rural town feel?

...

The small town feel is certainly an aspect but it also attempts to pull off the Coens' signature blend of off-kilter humour, especially a humour elicited from bit characters who illustrate the amusing idiosyncrasies of the locals in small towns.

It's completely competently made and it has its moments but it's entirely unremarkable and communicates zero interesting ideas. As I said before, completely decent but it's hardly near being a great movie.

Thoughts on his films? Snowpiercer is utter trash, his worst one.

Memories of Murder is a masterpiece

The Host is great

I still haven't seen Mother

Hail Caesar is my only 9/10 released this year
I have high hopes for 3 or 4 films upcoming however

which

there is a bunch of good stuff still to come

Almost no current director has a better sense if staging than the Coens, holy shit. Maybe Fincher but that's probably it.

I liked Mother better than Memories, but then again I was never crazy about that supposed masterpiece. Mother is one of my favorite films of the century on the other hand.

Is Panther Panchali actually good?

I will definitely have to get on Mother in that case then.

I really love Memories of Murder a lot. It and Zodiac are two of my faves of the century.

Yes, very

Holy fuck yes. It's a bravura work of stunning beauty. Italian neorealism, Indian style, and just as emotionally devastating.

>Memories of Murder is a masterpiece
Yes, yes, but what about Zodiac? Has anyone, Cred Forums or other, come to a consensus on which film does it better?
>I still haven't seen Mother
You should, it's the epitome of maternal instinct - inherently underrepresented in film, as art is wholly male-dominated until recently and thus such bounds are repressed at best or even nonexistent in most film. Although it catches you off guard, as you're forced to sympathize with the poor retard in the film, too the point of blinding yourself to the truth, just like his mother does.

Nice redditstyle post. Then again, that's /lbg/ for you

They're literally the same film. I prefer Zodiac because it has greater cultural resonance for me, but if I was born in S. Korea I'd probably like Memories more.

Memories also has more humor and more dropkicks, if that's your thing.

Reminder, if a "film" has above a 7/10 rating on IMDB/RT/MC, then it's probably an entry level pleb flick.

I prefer Zodiac but I love both of them. I think Zodiac's ideas are more fully formed and they're expressed more interestingly.

I will definitely get around to Mother soon. I think I have a copy.

I don't quite buy that. The two movies are very similar of course but I think Zodiac's ideas about the obsessive search for some kind of coherent meaning in the world are more present, and interesting, than in Memories. Anyway, they're both major films.

>They're literally the same film
What can possibly be said against this kind of stupidity?

they're E X A C T L Y the same film.

Really liked when ol Jake dropkicked that guy.

Are Letterboxd threads being banned?
Are the irc/discord people making these threads planned from there as an alternative?

considering all those behind the scenes rumors I'm sure RDJ wanted to dropkick Fincher once or twice.

>They're literally the same film
No, Fincher reeks of Hollywood, unlike Joon-ho. Even if they were identical in plot, they'd be different from one another. The basis of their comparison falls to their common element of mystery and themes.
>dropkicks
Slapstick? It's completely out of place if you ask me, and one of the weakest elements of the film. But I have to respect that it might be a cultural thing.

I hate this kind of mentality man.

>reeks of Hollywood

What does that even mean?

Hollywood has produced some of the greatest movies ever made.

I hate the snobs who think that having good taste means hating Hollywood movies or movies that happen to be entertaining while being serious art. It's such a sad, close-minded perspective that is actually reflective of someone with bad taste rather than the opposite.

>want to actually talk about some films that aren't normally talked about on Cred Forums anymore
>get endless trolling about where arthouse ends and cinema begins, pasta of film titles in their original languages that was old years ago, the occasional 3x3 (you know which one) visits
I miss old hipster Cred Forums.

>ywn be this much of a brainwashed numale

I was linking them thematically, obviously. Fincher's gloomy-noir mise-en-scene is a more immersive affect, but Joon-Ho's compositional clarity should not be understated.

Nerdwriter did a pretty good overview of that film;s cinematography if I remember correctly.

also
>can't handle the dropkick bantz

are you somehow suggesting that The Witch isn't part of a conversation concerning the historical persecution of women?

because you'd be wrong:

>Yeah—to sound like a tool director type—“I was trying to present without judgment.” I was trying to figure out what “the witch” meant in the early modern period and depict “the evil witch” in a way that she would have been understood in the time. But without any agendas, feminism rises to the top.

>In the early modern period, from the contemporary perspective, looking back, it’s clear that the evil witch is—it embodies men’s fears and ambivalences and fantasies about women and female power. In in that period, in this extremely male dominated society, the evil witch is also women’s fears and ambivalences about themselves and their power.

>all the old pretentious tripfags will never return

Please, tell me you're not him. To have this kind of creature around and so close- possibly being a regular presence on /lbg/- would be pretty disgusting.

so you're just going to totally ignore the comments of the actual director and just spout Cred Forums nonsense all day.

fine, whatever. it's your life.

> But without any agendas, feminism rises to the top.

> without any agendas
> feminism rises

Hm, nah.

it's because you can't un-politicise something that is, at its root, about puritanical sexism. keep up.

Are you the creature or not?

When people say 'potentiality' instead of 'potential', I chuckle a bit. He needs his throat cutting open like a sack of grain.

I don't even have a letterboxd. go look for your beloved strawman elsewhere

What? 'Sexism' is an ideological construct. Fear of witches was about literal fear of literal soul-danger from literal witches. People make period movies with no willingness to understand the alien beliefs of the past, and waste their time and ours as viewers, chasing their preconceptions in a circle.

>the evil witch embodies men’s fears and ambivalences and fantasies about women and female power.

No, it doesn't

>In in that period, in this extremely male dominated society, the evil witch is also women’s fears and ambivalences about themselves and their power.

No, it isn't. That was easy.

I love when people back-project their agenda onto past eras in order to fit it into their ideological narratives.

You're then simply not that one creature. But surely is another one that decides to be here to put a stench on the place.
And what beloved strawman would be that, darling?

>What does that even mean?
It means Fincher is tied down to the studios funding his films, providing his necessary talent, and so on; he relinquishes a degree of creative control for Hollywood perks, unlike many directors who fight against anti-auteur influence in their works.

Fear is confronting something you don't understand, which is what men (and women) would do when faced with unnatural women or women suspected of being unnatural.

The root of the witch hunts was a perception that women were a channel for the supernatural, which as we all know was utter nonsense.

Since documents like the Malleus Maleficarum fed this idea that women were to blame, it became an issue of female persecution. That's why witchcraft is historically tied with feminist theory.

that you simply can't debate the points and would rather patronisingly try to blame the author you're so obsessed with.

well tough shit, he's not here to call you out on your delusional campaign of idiocy. But I am.

>No, it doesn't
This is your idea of a counterpoint? lol. no wonder you don't understand basic ideas. Your brain isn't big enough to process them.

I don't know it was utter nonsense. Have you proven that there's no such thing as the supernatural and there were in fact no witches of any gender operating at that time who were in touch with negative forces?

After all, you faggots, who touch up kids and pass on the deadly HIV virus, you believe Trump's a male witch, don't you? And you think Clinton's a white witch who'll save you from getting iced by the unconscionable number of sandniggers in this country. Isn't that a belief in the irrational?

>well tough shit, he's not here to call you out on your delusional campaign of idiocy. But I am.
Come on, this gotta be satire

>Have you proven that there's no such thing as the supernatural
ugh, I don't have time for this absolute shit tier autism.

South Korean cinema is the dangleberries from a literal dog's anus, though, its artistic integrity and merit is nil.

>it's 'a sjw is loose from the looneybins' mini-episode
In a bait thread that is a disgrace in itself, fantastically there's the space to get worse

Bye!

*tips*

keep being mad I called you out on your Cred Forums bullshit with a direct quote from the director who made the damn thing you're arguing about.

what are your thoughts on these collective kinos

>if you disagree with me you're Cred Forums!

Ah yes, the trademark death rattle of the flustered pseud. Think harder and read more before you talk about things you don't understand.

I thought you'd left, faggot. Are you ready to answer the rest of my questions?

Masterpiece. One of the best things ever made with videotape.

Other user here, but that initial post with the letterboxd cap was more to expose the numale mentality than anything to do with any specific film, so the 'debate' about the vvitch is irrelevant.

>get proved wrong with direct quotes
>"b-b-but you don't understand!"

still mad, conservacuck?

No one is going to prove/disprove the supernatural for you, dipshit.

The fact that you even thought that was a cogent argument is frankly retarded

well that "numale mentality" actually had something to do with the actual film and the valid themes it inadvertently explores.

screencapping it and going "HA HA NU MALE HA HA"? Not so much.

>Fear and Desire (1953, Kubrick)

Probably Kubrick's worst film. He hated it soo much that he tried to destroy every copy of it and considered an amateur first-attempt at making a film.

>get proved wrong

Never happened. You have an overactive imagination, and not just in relation to your ignorance about historical events.

You still need to qualify these statements:

>the evil witch embodies men’s fears and ambivalences and fantasies about women and female power. In in that period, in this extremely male dominated society, the evil witch is also women’s fears and ambivalences about themselves and their power.

with something other than your personal feelings / agenda and an overactive imagination.

You made the assertion that 'we all knew' something. Yet you seem unsure whether you know it. Can you prove the supernatural does not exist, and that accused witches were never witches and never in touch with any real negative forces? If you can't, why do you think it's right to patronise people you've never met who had less scientific equipment at their disposal for such tests than you do?

The fact that you think you have any possibility of being respected here is more retarded. You express yourself like a homosexual, and hold beliefs everyone here has thoroughly repudiated. Your scrapping here is futile, pissing into the wind.

i've been enjoying Peter Greenaway's ouevre. i've enjoyed everything he's done except for 8 1/2 Women, which seemed like a lesser work. Nightwatching and Goltzius and the Pelican Company are remarkable, as are his earlier films. i don't think Eisenstein in Guanajuato was a strong effort narratively, but it was marvelous visually. kind of sad he wants tomake a trilogy of Eisenstein films. i'd rather he work on exploring the Dutch Masters. can't wait for Walking to Paris, though.

i also tried to watch The Loss of Sexual Innocence by Figgis. i found it rather dull. also Suspension of Disbelief was quite amateurish. man, what happened to that guy? Leaving Las Vegas was tops. diminishing returns from Figgis ever since.

> somehow suggesting that The Witch isn't part of a conversation

It's not part of a conversation, it's a movie repeating vulgarized versions of hot takes from thinkers who were themselves vulgarizing assertions made in haste and with no understanding of history by basically dishonest career grievancemongers.

That's how good a movie it is, the director goes on Cred Forums to defend it in the dead of night, his t-shirt sopping wet with urine. I gotta see me the movie by the piss guy.

Damn, I really need to shave my ass.

Has that bugchaser actually fucked off now?

Hacksaw ridge, Manchester by the sea, silence, voyage of time, and arrival

I'm hoping to casually enjoy star wars and fantastic beasts

is Silence actually coming out this year?

Manchester is my most anticipated of the year. Margaret is one of my favourite movies, hopefully Lonergan has made something that can live up to it.

I wouldn't consider myself a "patrician" by any means but here are my most recently watched films

thefilmstage.com/news/martin-scorsese-says-silence-will-be-ready-for-release-this-year/

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't consider you a patrician either.

don't be mean I don't have anyone to share my less-than-mainstream movie taste with ;_;

>American Psyco
PSYCHO. How could you fucking spell that wrong you pleb?

>Oscarbait films are real
[citation needed]

>less-than-mainstream movie
Just because you watch IFC doesn't mean you have good taste

go b-movies or go home.

also, i'm sick of b-movies. give me more Cage kino

>favorite films
>sergei einstein
>lynch

kek. really?

>[citation needed]

imdb.com/title/tt4975722/

too weird for normies, not weird enough for you fuckers. being entry level is suffering.

>caring about other peoples opinions

son you are not ready for true patricianhood

>"kino"

you have to go back to R*ddit

That's a movie, not a citation.

Unless you're going to try to claim movies starring black people are always oscarbait.

Too much about his perception of society at large than the medium.
Godard is Godard.

There's only one Cagekino.

Lord of War is ok

>Using a fucking Bridge of Spies screenshot for '/advanced/'
jahahahshaha ajajajajaja