Lost In Translation

...

Sofia Coppola is a q.t. and the greatest director of her generation.

I loved it.

This film destroy Coppola by giving her an inflated ego. Bill Murray saved the film. If Murray is not in it, we would have gotten far, far too much boring with the jewess. Coppola lack creative talents and could not imagine anything outside of her own boring life. Her female characters are self-insert without any real personalities. Bill Murray had some. It is a film about boredom, when the jewess had slightly too much boring scene, the movie switched focus to Bill and vice versa. This saved the film from Coppola's later flaws.

There are a sense of progression, despite how slow it is. The sexual tension are there, subtle and strong. The comedy are slight-of-life and I found the translation scene a true art (praise the actors, not the director). There is suspense of what the relationship is going, as any good movie should have. The characters felt complicated as any humans.

Coppola's stupidity are not enough to ruin Bill Murray acting ability and her cinematographer.

Which is why she will be remembered. Her movies are a perfect embodiment of Wiemar America.

I seriously doubt that the future audience will looked at her as anything more than a pretentious artfag. Boyhood was considered THE DEFINITIVE MASTERPIECE when it came out. Now I barely heard any mention of it anywhere.

Life are full of interesting moments, events and emotions. Presenting the boredom of lives as art will only able to fool people for a short time.

You're a fucking pleb, its Coppolas worst film and the only one of hers without substance.

...

The end was the only good part you plebeian hipster scum.

I'll let you know that I'm a core member of the prestigious /r/kino subreddit, a long-time subscriber of Camera Obscura and someone who's up close and personal with Claude Lanzmann, among other things. You're not half the kinnoisseur I am, kiddo.

Boyhood was knee-capped by RLM. That one skit where they scream "BOYHOOD" at each other caused opinion to turn and it became a joke.

I doubt RLM would do something like that nowadays.

That was the best thing they ever did.

That's what happens to every movie made by pretentious artfags.
The Coppola siblings and Wes Anderson are a bunch of rich hipsters larping as inheritors of the Nouvelle Vague.

Me too. Their review of Boyhood make me give them a ton of respect that time when almost every critics sucked its cock.
Boyhood is just a terrible movie vastly overrated by the critics and the millennial because of nostalgia. The movie is like a photo album, it gave them a soft warm, fuzzy feelings. They can relate to it, most of them (critic) being white middle-class men. Millienials (my age group) love it, because they are suckers for nostalgia when dealing with the issues for growing up in this world, and the film provide events that the you can remember from your lives.
However, if you not from that demographic, or you can remember that life are full of interesting moments, when you watched the film, you may realized the entire film are almost completely artificial. It was unrealistic, faked, pretentious, and annoying.
This is why Boyhood was forgotten. Nostalgia was in vogue a couple of years ago, now it is about fearing for the future. Add to the fact that RLM already opened their eyes to their artificiality.

It did not happened to every movie. The problem is that those artfags kept making things in a rich, westerner left-wing philosophy. You see the first 10 mins, you can guess the rest. I am from Asia. The art films are better not because of the director is better but because the philosophy/approach is more diverse. Some prefer traditions, some prefer individual, some pathos, some link tradition with modernity, some are full-flung modernity, some are for communism, some are for capitalism, some are for religious dogma, some are for the religion freedom, and so on and so forth. Different ideas made for different viewing experience. However, western art films and films from Asian-American/European are almost always rich, left-wing ideas.

>Lying in bed with (((ScarJo)))
Oy vey!

They might, specially if it's one of their pet peeves (Lucas, pseudo-artsy flicks, Paul Blart, any Adam Sandler movie…)
But don't expect them to shit on (((Disney))) properties like Marvel capeshit or main Star Wars movies starring charismatic as hell Mouth of Sauron.

haha what

She's done a couple maybe you should watch films and not scarjo flicks

she looks exactly like the love of my life

You guys still like them, right?

Have you never heard of a race called kikes before or are you pretended to be stupid?

Not as much. They used to be the film critics without much pretensions. Their analyses of bad films were the best in the mainstream. But now, they set the bar so low, that any films that isn't complete shit, they will recommend it. Bad reviews are the most entertaining. Since TFA, they rarely do that anymore. You kinda guess every hitb, now. They watched an average movie, said some inoffensive stuff, said it is not too good, said it is not too bad, then have some bad jokes.