You've got that right, +Lady Vengeance. Malone is *so freaking good* in this film. And I say that not just because as a heterosexual male myself, she "goes there" in this film and I liked that, but I mean her acting chops in the film are out-of-this-world. She'll *never* be recognized for the AA's next year, but my *gosh*, she should. Elle Fanning is terrific too.
It doesn't seem like they understood the symbolism of the film and that the whole first two thirds of the film were ***spoilers*** essentially a witches coven going through a ritual to turn Elle into the "neon demon" for their literal consumption of her beauty. Viewed in this light everything we see has a purpose and there's nothing showy about the direction.
***** wow no need to be a douche, first of all you don' know me, and don't know what kind of movies i see and like. Second i asked that question because Melancholia and Antichrist were directed by the same director, you moron.
Check out The Boxer's Omen (1983) if you want a WTF movie. It's nutty and humorous, but like no other film you will ever see. Also, Tetsuo: The Iron Man (1989) is solid as well.
I'm in love... She's beautiful, funny, has great taste in music & complicated. I realized I fall in love with movies that call for a re-watch & analysis because it's like a 1000 piece puzzle! I've got to see her again... And thanks for the movie recommendations, adding them to Watch List
I'm not a huge fan of Refn's work, but I'm really fucking happy that he and his films exist. Not sure that makes any sense, but the world lacks enough surrealism in film.
id say most of the movie is far less surreal than black swan but still has its own sense of strangeness. it felt like refn was inspired in part by david lynch in this film. if you like refn's other work then I think you would enjoy neon demon
Though Ben can be funny at times, to dislike films because they feel "directed" is not an opinion I care about as that shows a lack of appreciation for cinema as well as its original status as an art form which Hollywood loves to steer clear from.
not really, he's pretty clear about it just being his opinion...and as a viewer it's nice to get that information from a critic in case you also don't like movies that are directed in a way that takes you out of the story to show you beautiful shots....some people love those movies, some people hate them, and that's fine.
As I stated before, his opinion is not one I personally take seriously in consideration as far as whether or not I plan on seeing a movie or not, since he seems to only view films as just entertainment or at the very least, outweigh the importance of screenplay much more so than the direction or the use of mise-en-scene to tell the story. He represents the more casual viewer I guess which I am not. Certainly, there are movies whose style/ aesthetic or overall direction that alienate me, but there are many films outside the mainstream that challenge the viewer and to not try to meet that challenge more often than not is not an opinion I care about. Also, just because a film has beautiful shots doesn't mean that they are just there for beauty sake. They can be evocative of a mood or allows the viewer to read a deeper meaning. I don't have interest in watching films that seem regurgitated out of the studio factory assembly line.
Right. The only opinion you like hearing is the one that matches your own. A lot of people hated this movie. So I’m glad that not all of them are fawning over this piece of cinematic trash.
Also, Christy was right, the scene in the restaurant happens directly after the trance sequence... Thus it isn't inconsistent, it's actually pretty consistent with the theory that she goes into the blue box*/Pyramid trance and emerges as a different entity- the 'Neon Demon' of the film's title *See 'Mulholland Drive'
Gray Moe No, games are like television, text-based, but unlike television, you it is interactive. You should probably learn what terms mean, for there is more to a visual medium than pretty images. A video game cannot be told by images alone, it relies too much on player input and dialogue with bland angles.
Gray Moe I have played them, but video games are a different form of art, it is a player-medium and tells it primarily through gameplay. Bioshock works as a deconstruction of linear shooters because of its gameplay. There are visual components in games, but that is not how they chose to deliver the story. The only time a game does come close to visual storytelling is in cinematics, which makes sense given the name. In the gameplay the visuals set a mood and a tone. The camera is in the hands of the player more so than the director and the camera is the single most important part of a visually told story. You are neglecting the player is controlling the character and as such controlling the pacing and where the camera is placed, and that is why it is not visual. The actual gameplay is part of the story as well. All games have player input, that is why they are called games, a game cannot play itself. The same applies to television like, GoT (or the MCU movies), for it is not visually told, but primarily textually told, with only a few elements of visual story-telling here and there. You are the one ignorant on what a visual medium is, you cannot use terms improperly and should actually learn what visual storytelling is in criticism and academia. Are there exceptions, sure, Dragon's Lair and Space Ace come to mind, but even that relies more on text (meaning the screenplay).
I respect opinions of film, but it seems to me that these two critics are unable (or worse yet, unwilling) to approach the director's intended impact on the audience and approach to filmmaking. This film was not made solely for entertainment. Film is not simply an entertainment medium. Film works is a communicative medium, whether that be a communication of emotion, feeling, narrative, or ideas. It pains me to see a film's true intent falling on deaf ears, when these deaf ears' ideas so heavily effect an audience. See The Neon Demon. Make your own decision.
Christy is way more on point, I think a lot of the symbolism is lost on Ben. As Christy mentioned she obviously changed when she reached the end of the runway and the restaurant scene takes place right after the runway scene, clearly showing that she is no longer the same person. That's why she had a sudden change in attitude....or not so sudden if you payed attention 😒
Like all great movies of this type, you have to watch the movie a few times to pick up on everything. The first hour does add to the plot, but you have to be observant to detail and background. Like how they ask her if she's sex or food. Or how you never see any of them eat "normal" food....you never see anyone eat at all. Even though you see them in restaurants. The blue and red triangles that she walks through represent her decent into total narcissism. It's not just all about style....the style truly has meaning.
no mention of jena malone's incredible performance?? and throughout the press Nic and Elle both said they thought of Jesse as dangerous from the beginning. She was a manipulator. Thats why theres that quote "my mother called me dangerous".
Yeah, I'm not sure which part they think was supposed to be funny. Are they suggesting the whole part about eating her was supposed to be funny in how proposterous it is?
I really liked this movie, it was beautiful yet sinister with a story that starts so clichéd but becomes so bizarre and weird that you can't help but be transfixed to the screen.
Ben comes across as a film reviewer who hasn't seen many films outside of the Cineplex. Neon Demon is only going to become more popular over the years.
That's an experimental film. Sit back, enjoy the visuals, don't expect coherent hollywood storytelling, be passive for once, be like a sponge, don't be irritated 'cause you can't outsmart the movie like you always try to do. Is it "showy"? Fuck yes, it is. So what? Are you annoyed by boldness and talent? Do you only feed on mediocrity 'cause it makes you feel better than everyone else? Then this movie is not for you. Hell, I'm not saying I'm the movie genius, I struggled too along the running time. I just think movies like this are refreshing and that is a good thing to be challenged every once in a while, kudos to Refn for doing the wacky shit he wants to do and trying to set the bar higher.
So you're telling film critics, people who make their living critically thinking about and discussing films, to be passive? No piece of art is ever above criticism, but if you think that this one is, then why click on a video where you would watch people critique it? A smart movie is one where you can talk about it and find new things about it. There's no reason to be passive. The nature of experimental films is that it is hit or miss. Experiments are generally a trial and error process, and what some might see as new, and fresh, and avant garde others may view as a terrible movie. It's all a matter of opinion. Everyone has different tastes and that's okay.
Brie X I'm sorry, I'm not an english speaker so maybe I didn't make my point clearly. I'm referring to my fellow average movie goers (and to myself to some extent), not to critics. I'm not talking about suspension of criticism and judgment, of course movies are pieces of art and should stir controversy and debate. I'm talking about the way of the fruition. People tend to experience a movie in a very active, aggressive and demanding way, with expectations and needs to be met 'or else', and then judge it accordingly. Did it have a linear, three act storytelling? Was it cathartic? Did the ending explain everything? Was I able to understand it? Was I able to outsmart it and yell the plot twist in the theater twenty minutes beforehand so everybody could see how intelligent I am? If those expectations are not met then the movie sucks by default. It's good sometimes to sit back and be challenged by a movie that's so stylish, obscure, weird, self-referential and to love it for what it is, not to hate it because it violated the sacred Hollywood formula or the 5 Ws rule. I'm talking about Stendhal syndrome type passivity, being overwhelmed, humbled, thinking "maybe I didn't get it, maybe I'm dumb but hell, what a ride it was". It's just my feelings about all the harsh criticism about Refn lately. His movies are a mouthful, sure are hard to process and digest, but at least he has courage and I think he deserves more respect in the grand scheme of things. Oh, and many 'critics' who do this for a living are not up to the task, and they're supposed to transcend the 'matter of opinion' and have a superior insight about cinema history and language, but that's entirely another story...
Okay, I understand now that you say that English isn't your first language. I agree that people should be open-minded when it comes to art and accept that things don't have to fit in a boring and small box to be a "good movie." But I also know that with experimental art, there can be a pressure to pretend that you liked something to seem smart and cultured. Like the story of the Emperor's New Clothes when nobody wanted to let the guy know that he was naked because they figured that everyone else saw clothes on him. So I think that even when something is experimental, there should be room for people to say that they didn't like it and have that be respected as a perfectly valid opinion. And movie reviewers are not movie Gods who have the power to determine what is a Good Movie or a Bad Movie. Their opinions are still opinions and while I think that they should make an effort to be objective and open minded, biases still remain there. They're human.
Being a fan of Refn and actually being in the minority who liked Only God Forgives I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. Half way through it all I did was sit back an just enjoy the visuals. Suspension of disbelief is a key here.
Didn't like this film. I disagree with the reviewers in that I much preferred the first 2/3rds and liked the theme of loneliness and how acquiring status often makes others jealous. The last several minutes grossed me out and made me never want to watch this again. I really expected more of the director of "Drive."
Nic Refn is a innovative and talented film maker as evidenced by Drive and Bronson. However, his latest, Neon Demon, is self-indulgent and narcissistic. An artist can delude himself, anyone can. Film, fashion, and the beauty industry can be superficial, indulgent, yet seductive - so is this movie. Do we need Refn to explain this? Not if you consider your time important. Like an alcohol and drug-fueled conversation at a party in the Hollywood Hills overlooking the glittering vista of Los Angeles, the one dominating the conversation insists that the mind-numbing trivia in his brain is really an all-encompassing grand vision. Some are seduced, more by his fame and confidence, and their lack of perspective.
He's also said he has a violence fetish and loves putting violence on screen. I love that he's so open and honest about it in interviews, he's just like "Yeah I have a violence fetish, so I just put a bunch of violence on screen that I want to see because I'm a pornographer."
lack of people, focus on the models. They live in their own little world. Also the ending says it all... "I dont like leaving a movie think, did that happen? Was that real?" Some movie critic you are huh? You didn't like Inception either? Or 12 monkeys? Or Shutter Island? Or Memento?
Play this game: Skip to a random point of the video and I bet it lands on Ben talking. Try it several times and it will most likely be Ben talking. He dominates every single video. He sucks
It's weird that the director said that 'There's a 16 year old girl in every man" and that he wanted to use that side of himself when in other statements he made it clear that the sexual situations he was displaying were his own sexual fantasies...
I dunno, I've gone from, "Ugh, the _'Black Swan'_ of modeling & fashion," to "... Yeah, it looks alright / I'll probably see it." The trailers eventually made me think this was something to see.
I guess t's not his cup of tea. He's kinda like one of those movie goers that are just there to watch a movie, nothing wrong with that though, but this is a psychological thriller and has heavy symbolization and metaphors. It didn't seem "horror" because it is a psychological horror film. And for me, I find it interesting that for being in a big city, only a few people were involved. And maybe since Refn was low on budget and he was probably saving on money.
I feel like the awkward absence of people in LA here is a weird homage to the genre: Daughters of Darkness, Radley Metzger, etc. It was somewhat misplaced, I believe, despite being very erudite.
Ben's feelings mirror my own. It's a movie one thinks they wouldn't like, but you find yourself talking about it hours/days later. It's a gorgeous film, but the first act and a half are so meandering. The silliness of the 3rd act is what saved this movie from being mere pretentious crap.
it was weird it epitomizes the exploitation of the fashion industry were the girls are so desperate to be beautiful and stay relevant that their obsession becomes like vampirism. they try to compete at such extremes that the naïve and the innocent can be metaphorically consumed by those who want to be immortally young and beautiful. when innocence encounters evil innocence is lost.
I'm sorry, i started watching this movie without knowing what kind of movies was. BUT when the demon dance scene happened i had to google it to see if this was a horror movie because i felt scared.
this movie was just a manipulation of music, make up and editing, it was a good idea but it didn't performed well. you cant call a movie art just because it has nudity and some fucked up ideas.
Terry Silvester don't get me wrong it had its moments but damn it sure was batshit nuts after a while. And it was blocked weird. Its like OGF was the Kid A to Neon Demon as Amnesiac (very similar to the former yet somehow a better film) but then again to each there own.
I'm not, I loved Only God Forgives. Sorry you don't get it. And I don't just mean "oh you don't understand" I mean you don't get the feelings it was giving out. It was great. Didn't like The Neon Demon, though, nowhere near as good as Only God Forgives.
+C00Lefaab I think one of the reasons people think drive is better than refns other movies is that he didn't write drive. and it definitely shows. not necessarily in a negative way, but there's definitely a difference in writing. Personally I don't think Refn is a great writer. he comes up with interesting metaphors and concepts, but his writing can be a bit so-so. however I think his directing makes up for it a lot. and Larry Smith's cinematography too.
It was not universally panned. It got both boos and jeers as well as cheers and applause in the first critic's screening before getting a positive reception//standing o. in the main screening.
