>>3802
then what the hell is an art film if those aren't. all lovingly crafted by talented artists filled with things to ponder and reflect upon
and to op since friend inconnu has bumped this, i'm pretty much on board with you. i have a higher tolerance for older films that are just for entertainment though, up through the 60s at least they tend to not be complete shit, at least the ones i have seen. as in, they have good cinematography, acting isn't awful, maybe even has genuine thematic content and an interesting, suspenseful plot. like last night i watched this 1961 film The Hustler, and it had all those things, though it was just a 'for fun' film i guess. it seems that after star wars and jaws they realized they could get away with throwing up the stupidest shit and still rake in the cash, maybe even get more money than from the slightly more thoughtful, much slower films of before.
i can't stand watching pretty much any of the modern hollywood fare, it's all so blatantly retarded (not to mention mind control, but that's another story) and the way they frame things and cgi and idk, everything is just unpalatable to me. i can stand sitting through some like nolan and fincher because they don't look like complete shit (though I don't really like them otherwise), but everything else I've seen from the modern big time mainstream since i picked up a real interest in film has just struck me as completely awful on all levels, but the visuals are the most offensive to me
can anyone else get behind me on how these modern hollywood shitfests are straight up visually nauseating? just the constant cutting, shaking, shitty framing, those digitized filtered colors, the obvious cgi, every shot super busy. it's ridiculous
