All shit

Not an argument.

It comes down to the director, and his direction. Same thing with the Revenant and it's cinematography, the film is devoid of anything really to say it's just there for him to sniff his own farts. Chivo's camera work is pretentious because the director is pretentious.

I watch movies to enjoy what they have to offer, not to ponder what the director was thinking. It's down to entertainment and sense of fulfillment.
Whether he was pretentious is irrelevant if the product was good.

UGLY WHORE

Like I said, it's a shit movie because the film is directed like oscarbait pretentious shit. If you can't see that then WEW.

Already explained why that point was irrelevant.

It isn't irrelevant, it's literally the only relevant thing arguably. The director makes what you see, this isn't about what he thinks, it's about what he does.

It's irrelevant because the end product is what it is regardless of the intentions it was created with. It's like buying water and complaining that the guy who sold you the bottle cared about money.

I'm not talking about the intentions that it was created with, the director probably doesn't even realize he created a dishonest piece of shit

You also mentioned the cinematography but didn't really say why it was bad. Regarding its "lack of message", I'm content with what the plot presented.

Listen if I have to spell it out for you then you're a retard. The cinematography is so much attempting "realness" and perfect one take that it in itself makes me self aware of the filmmaking and brings me out of the film. Not even touching on the soundtrack which adds to this or dialogue.

cont. Aka it looks staged and not natural the complete opposite of the intention.

I'm fine with you not liking it for that reason but it's absurd to say it's bad because you had that reaction to it. It's simply different from what other movies usually do and the same could be said for any sort of fancy cinematography, really, even if it doesn't attempt to make it look like one take. Should all movies have the same style of camerawork because anything different would take you out of the movie? Should movies not use practical special effects because they make you wonder about how they did it and thus take you out of the movie?
No, that's retarded. In that same vein, the camerawork attempting "something different is not valid criticism. Valid criticism would be talking about how it was implemented or what could be improved about it.

No you don't understand it's not something different since he did the same thing for two films in a row, hes a faggot director and he directs like a faggot. Only reason Birdman is watchable is Keaton who was robbed and the Mexican got his awards.

It's ad nauseam

That trap wouldn't work: the cardboard box is tilted too much to the right