Is he right?

Is 2001 the first style over substance movie?

Attached: Screenshot_20220519-104532_rif is fun.jpg (1079x1919, 695.58K)

What moron wrote that

Some critic who posts on r/truefilm.

>pauline kael
Into the trash it goes

She was cancer to cinema. Nothing she ever wrote was interesting.

The really annoying part of this post is that there's no actual content to the criticism.
>The movie is bad because... it's well liked
>The movie is bad because... marketing bad
>>The movie is bad because... people only saw it once
>The movie is bad because... "God did it" (how the fuck did you read this into the movie)
Absolute brainlet take

Kael was jewish feminist contrarianism personified
Every woman, faggot and troon "film critic" on YouTube today doing a 40min analysis of the harmful way Disney portrayed minorites or whatever can be traced back to her

TL;DR
This critic is a plotfag mad Kubrick didn't develop the characters enough. Literally filtered. Film is a visual medium. Why is this so hard for people to understand? They want all movies to be plays.

I'd like to see this guys top 10 list. I'd bet $50 at least 4/10 are mcdonalds arthouse a24 movies

honestly he is completely right, people just refuse to accept it because they like the movie and feel that it shouldnt be criticized

I don't think every film should necessarily be character-focused. This faggot is retarded as is Pauline Kael.

He's wrong about everything.

barry lyndon

TLDR.

Attached: Didn't Read LOL.gif (421x384, 2.32M)

...

insufferable pseud

The thing with plotfag is that they also bitch about "the quantity of substance" in a film. Apparently if you've read spinoza, Sartre, etc...then 2001 wouldn't seem deep. I mean, yeah no shit retard, A filmmaker couldn't fit enough philosophy to match actual philosophical texts of famous philosophers in a 2 to 3 hour film. An actual lecture of that runtime couldn't cover all that shit.

a lot of words to say absolutely nothing

post his account

>r/TrueFilm

Attached: Screenshot_20220519_082843.jpg (1080x1761, 463.17K)

>this much cope over being filtered

And "the ultimate trip" tagline was for the 1970 rerelease of the film to appeal to drugged out hippies. The original release marketing was as a giant mainstream film.

>please troons, talk to me

/u/th3cr1t1c

Same energy

Attached: IMG_20220519_033653.jpg (1080x1728, 393.29K)

>hes wrong because uhhhhhh.... HE JUST IS OKAY

They write like someone gives a shit about it.

Attached: 1648174374896.png (437x489, 180.36K)

>Is 2001 the first style over substance movie?

No substance?

Attached: Hal 9 thousand.jpg (1079x800, 753.37K)

thanks, everything this guy says makes me mad

No mouth?

Says he's met Ebert and worked for some site that Christie Lemire worked in.

Plotfags don't even understand the medium of cinema. It's an audiovisual medium and doesn't always need to mimic theater. Making a film with beautiful photography and asking the audience to contemplate based on the sensations they're exposed to is just as valid writing a movie that has a complex and intricate plot with lots of dialogue.