The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Film, T.V, music. All so called 'art forms' but how can we class films such as CHARLIE'S ANGLES as art? This film is obviously one of the lamest films ever made (granted, some may not agree).
Are films like CHARLIE'S ANGLES made for the public who are not prepared to watch a more serious and well written film, or is it because there are only a few truely talented film makers oput there?
I must admit, it is sometimes nice to sit down and watch a mindless film. As sometimes it is nice to be able to watch a film, be entertained, and forget the film when it's finished. Films such as KISS OF THE DRAGON and MEAN MACHINE are just entertainment. Where as VANILLA SKY and BLACK HAWK DOWN, although they made not be serious art forms, they are films which require more than just a want for violance and sex.
You can't sit down to watch a Brian De Palma film or a Martin Scorsesee film without having to take in to account the ammount or artistic integrity it takes to make films of such magnitude. Take TAXI DRIVER and SNAKE EYES. These films can be watched as entertianment, but if you actually 'watch' the film you will see the subliminal messages and the way the film is cleverly put together to create certain feelings.
I am not talking about art house films here, i am talking about mainstream cinema. Luckily, every once and a while, a truely great film pops at the cinemas. These types of films usually involve characteristics of low brow and high brow films, sex, violance, subliminal, mind messing, and generaly well made.
Some film makers seem good at making films purely for entertainment, where as others (the better ones) create true works of art. Because film is a form of art, and i think we should appreciate that, the director is the artist and celluloid is his/her canvas.
What do you all think? Is film art or entertainment?
Are films like CHARLIE'S ANGLES made for the public who are not prepared to watch a more serious and well written film, or is it because there are only a few truely talented film makers oput there?
I must admit, it is sometimes nice to sit down and watch a mindless film. As sometimes it is nice to be able to watch a film, be entertained, and forget the film when it's finished. Films such as KISS OF THE DRAGON and MEAN MACHINE are just entertainment. Where as VANILLA SKY and BLACK HAWK DOWN, although they made not be serious art forms, they are films which require more than just a want for violance and sex.
You can't sit down to watch a Brian De Palma film or a Martin Scorsesee film without having to take in to account the ammount or artistic integrity it takes to make films of such magnitude. Take TAXI DRIVER and SNAKE EYES. These films can be watched as entertianment, but if you actually 'watch' the film you will see the subliminal messages and the way the film is cleverly put together to create certain feelings.
I am not talking about art house films here, i am talking about mainstream cinema. Luckily, every once and a while, a truely great film pops at the cinemas. These types of films usually involve characteristics of low brow and high brow films, sex, violance, subliminal, mind messing, and generaly well made.
Some film makers seem good at making films purely for entertainment, where as others (the better ones) create true works of art. Because film is a form of art, and i think we should appreciate that, the director is the artist and celluloid is his/her canvas.
What do you all think? Is film art or entertainment?
Page:
Yup.
Gimps rule.
You gimp
Gimps rule.
You gimp
I think you'll find thats fairly representative of the majority of SR users here.
Chicks dancing in pants is always gonna be entertainment in my book.
And pornography will always be art.
And pornography will always be art.
Charlies Angels was good.
Because Cameron Diaz danced in her pants, Drew Barrymore was naked twice and they all wore wetsuits.
You gimp
Because Cameron Diaz danced in her pants, Drew Barrymore was naked twice and they all wore wetsuits.
You gimp
If a film plays in an empty cinema and no-one is there to see it, is it really a film?
You gimp.
You gimp.
meka, what you are saying makes perfect sense. Thats what i am trying to say. Films like CHARLIE'S ANGELS is seen as poo from some people's point of views (such as mine) because they expected to see an entertianing film. But entertaining it was not, cleverly presented it was. Does this mean that films can only be seen as art or only entertainment? can they not be seen as both?
Page: