A rip-off

"Go see it like the other sheep"

You act like this is some sort of mainstream film that the average stupid sheep would pay money to go see. Let me tell you that it isn't and only pretty hardcore movie buffs will even here of this movie and go see it, and I will be watching this... despite your opinion.

Kaufman, Lynch and Carax are not surrealists. Don't use terms you don't understand. Maybe you should just go with "weird" - or, in your case, maybe "stoopid".

Why bother putting so much effort into such negativity? Make some cookies for a friend, or read a book, or for God's sake see that you are a donor on your driver's license.

Dude, you need to watch more films, then you'll know what can be called a film. Try Godard, Ruiz, Robbe-Grillet, that'll give you an idea what a film can be. Until then, don't make any affirmation when your movie education still needs to be made.

I honestly don't know what you are basing your judment on?
I have seen Gaspar Noe's "enter the void" and even though it was not the most entertaining of films, it had something special. It's the feeling you get when you watch the film, this dissociative out of body experience.
And you may prefer people like Lynch, but for me, it's not all about the story's progression or the details in which "generic" cinema builds its stories on. For me, the most important thing while watching a film is the use of pacing, it does wanders to the overall vibe of a film.

Now to come back to Holy Motors, even though i have to admit much of it left an odd taste in my mouth, while watching it I was absorbed. It all fealt like a lucid dream, where you feel what is going on even though not much emotion is being portrayed.
Something mr Lynch has never been able to do for me appart from MAYBE in "blue velvet".(but it's been years since iv seen it..)
and to comment on how you call these movie goers sheep...I see much more sheep-like behaviour in the Lynch forums and discussions.. So many people figuring out the meanings of his films, making him out to be some sort of genius etc... when i sit through a lynch movie not only do i feel nothing but i get totally bored..I believe Lynch adds a lot of pointless weirdness to his films just because he knows the fans will find meaning in it (and just to be clear, you can find meaning in ANYTHING, that does not mean it is O.K. to be weird for the sake of it) most his films are visually un-appealing to me especially "inland empire". Not only did i find that boring, the cinematography was repulsive.

So in my mind you saying "enter the void"(as i do not know the other Noe films) and carax's "holy motors" is their self help therapy, makes no sense. Especially when you then go on to glorify someone like Lynch... Just makes no sense...

Gosh, you are an angry man.

Wow what an angry chap. Although this thread and particularly RS-61 has intrigued me and I will be watching this later this evening! You're welcome to come join me if you want!!

Then I'll post what I think.

Now, this is amusing because you also insulted others by calling them "grazing animals"(your original post), then "morons".
I have not seen the film(as I have not seen any of Carax's films, for that matter, not yet) so I can't say whether it is good or bad, but neither can I trust your opinions because , amusingly, you criticize the film for not having the very things other critics/moviegoers claimed Lynch's or Kaufmann's films did not have.
And in your (hypothetical) reply to them you probably would use the same kinds of arguments/remarks/insults(more or less "so-called") other people in thread used in their reply to your post. And this makes your so-called criticism plain pointless and ridiculous.

This ridiculousness is also exacerbated by the fact that you defended a movie like INLAND EMPIRE(a movie which I liked, as I like most of David Lynch's work) which "gathered" the same complaints from other moviegoers/critics(yes, I am aware I am repeating myself) and I doubt all of them are "mindless baboons". In some of the cases it just happens that a viewer does not resonate with a particular film. And if that particular film is also "disturbing" then that particular viewer may call that film "a piece of repulsive trash". And because he did not resonate with the whole material we did not find "somewhere a shred of emotion". It is neither his fault, nor the filmmaker's. And if this particular spectator would happen to know a thing or two about cinema he would be tempted to assume the film's director(and the film's admirers for that matter) do not know those things and so forth.

However, these posts are funny, are not - by any means to be taken seriously - but it is fun to watch how one post like your is enough to make people start firebombing.

And yes, the idea of "defending" a film -especially in a very "passionate" manner - is childish and pointless. It is not like the film starts screaming and shouting with every negative feedback, neither does one of those feed-backs push the film closer to a deep-black abyss from which it will never return. Indeed good feed-backs usually make a film more popular and bad feed-backs tend to have the opposite effect(just stating the obvious), but this does not say much about he film nor it inconvenes it.

[deleted]

I don't know why people are wasting RS-61's time answering this blog, He could be watching WWE,
Poor boy, Holy Motors made your head hurt, Bad movie,

Art {film} is for people to reflect the own life experience,
{not just laughing at a man hit in the nut's with a Baseball bat}

RS-61 will be Punished, For being RS-61, {you should have watched all the film,}

[deleted]

Let me just reply straight to you since everybody seems to be over analyzing this masterpiece and you are the focal point of this thread. This is not a character study first and foremost, the way everybody else is seeing it. This is a comment on film as a whole in todays day and age. The actors don't even call it acting anymore, they have appointments. It's a business first and foremost. Each appointment was a commentary on it's specific genre. Movies aren't about the magic of it all anymore. It's about the business. It's only about making money. The mainstream doesn't make things out of passion anymore. It's just masturbatory CGI drivel, like what we saw in the second appointment. At one point, Oscar's boss talks to him about his "business" (cinema) and how it's "in the eye of the beholder." Oscar then replies, "What if there is no beholder?" And that's what solidified my love for the film. It's about us. THE MOVIEGOERS! If there is nobody there anymore to see films made for the purpose of art, then what are we left with? Movies that push an agenda that has nothing to do with the artistry of film at all. It's upsetting to me that you find the film to be awful since it's basically a love letter to cinema. What are you doing on a movie website?