The BBC’s 100 Greatest 21st Century Films

[chaseter]

Spring Breakers and Moulin Rouge? lol

 

[dude stannis]

Yeah, I LOLed too whan I saw they where that low.

 

[Kyle]

You need some of Papa Reeks famous punch. Take the edge off.

No thanks, I want some Aqua Velva. For real. I need another one. Best drink out there. Been drinking it since that film came out, props to whoever recommended that drink via that film wouldn't have found it otherwise. Fruit punch that gets you drunk hyper fast.



You can find the recipe online.

 

[weezerspider]

Malick does symphonies in visual form. Not pop songs.

The Tree of Life, The Thin Red Line, The New World are not meant to entertain, but to arouse feelings, thoughts, memories...

The only thoughts Spring Breakers inspire are the obvious realization of the vapidity of modern culture and the disbelief of the ridiculousness of James Franco's gangsta performance.

I enjoyed the film for the entertaining pop bubble that it was, but any comparison to Malick both in terms of depth, expression and visuals is unfortunate and coincidental at best.

You're making my point. As I said "It's cinema at its finest, conveying mood and emotion through visuals and music" and "Malick has been doing this for awhile, but never with such entertaining results". Comparing Malick's to a symphony and Spring Breakers to a pop song is a comparison I'm very happy with. Unlike most modern drivel, Spring Breakers is structured to convey mood as I said, but in a more "pop" and "mainstream" way than Malick's work, hence the Pop Music vs Symphony comparison. Few other films could even have such musical comparisons.

Also, you should get your head out of your ass with this whole "Malick's films are not meant to entertain" baloney. An aspect of all art is to entertain. The Thin Red Line is very entertaining, not in the same way Raiders of The Lost Ark is entertaining, but none of the less entertaining. There's nothing wrong with calling a work of art entertaining and saying such drivel as "his films are not meant to be entertaining" gives those who claim people like the works of Malick, Kubrick, Cronenberg, PTA, Fellini, Godard etc and other "difficult directors" simply to feel "smart" ammo. I watch 8 1/2 because it entertains me. I can list all the artistic reasons why it entertains me, but it still entertains me. I like to be challenged. That's entertaining to me. Entertainment is completely subjective, but if you like a film, it's entertaining to you. If you "like" a film, but you aren't entertained by it, you're a pompous ******* who gives cinephiles a bad name.

 

[Kargo Warrior]

You're making my point. As I said "It's cinema at its finest, conveying mood and emotion through visuals and music" and "Malick has been doing this for awhile, but never with such entertaining results". Comparing Malick's to a symphony and Spring Breakers to a pop song is a comparison I'm very happy with. Unlike most modern drivel, Spring Breakers is structured to convey mood as I said, but in a more "pop" and "mainstream" way than Malick's work, hence the Pop Music vs Symphony comparison. Few other films could even have such musical comparisons.

Also, you should get your head out of your ass with this whole "Malick's films are not meant to entertain" baloney. An aspect of all art is to entertain. The Thin Red Line is very entertaining, not in the same way Raiders of The Lost Ark is entertaining, but none of the less entertaining. There's nothing wrong with calling a work of art entertaining and saying such drivel as "his films are not meant to be entertaining" gives those who claim people like the works of Malick, Kubrick, Cronenberg, PTA, Fellini, Godard etc and other "difficult directors" simply to feel "smart" ammo. I watch 8 1/2 because it entertains me. I can list all the artistic reasons why it entertains me, but it still entertains me. I like to be challenged. That's entertaining to me. Entertainment is completely subjective, but if you like a film, it's entertaining to you. If you "like" a film, but you aren't entertained by it, you're a pompous ******* who gives cinephiles a bad name.

With that level of maturity, your self-awareness must be completely non-existent to call someone a ''pompous *******'' while writing that drivel.

 

[flickchick85]

You're making my point. As I said "It's cinema at its finest, conveying mood and emotion through visuals and music" and "Malick has been doing this for awhile, but never with such entertaining results". Comparing Malick's to a symphony and Spring Breakers to a pop song is a comparison I'm very happy with. Unlike most modern drivel, Spring Breakers is structured to convey mood as I said, but in a more "pop" and "mainstream" way than Malick's work, hence the Pop Music vs Symphony comparison. Few other films could even have such musical comparisons.

Also, you should get your head out of your ass with this whole "Malick's films are not meant to entertain" baloney. An aspect of all art is to entertain. The Thin Red Line is very entertaining, not in the same way Raiders of The Lost Ark is entertaining, but none of the less entertaining. There's nothing wrong with calling a work of art entertaining and saying such drivel as "his films are not meant to be entertaining" gives those who claim people like the works of Malick, Kubrick, Cronenberg, PTA, Fellini, Godard etc and other "difficult directors" simply to feel "smart" ammo. I watch 8 1/2 because it entertains me. I can list all the artistic reasons why it entertains me, but it still entertains me. I like to be challenged. That's entertaining to me. Entertainment is completely subjective, but if you like a film, it's entertaining to you. If you "like" a film, but you aren't entertained by it, you're a pompous ******* who gives cinephiles a bad name.

With that level of maturity, your self-awareness must be completely non-existent to call someone a ''pompous *******'' while writing that drivel.

Neither of these posts lend themselves to a civil debate. Dial it back a few notches, please.