Art films - Most Boring

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Antlers

@Antlers

Sparkler

Posted: 13 years ago

#51

Desi's dont make art films. There is a subject they try to cover and they usually fail. Last film I thought was amazing was Udaan, a coming of age tale, which was both artistic and real.

Quote

J tiger Barbie

@wat_up

Achiever

+ 7

Action Alliance

Posted: 13 years ago

#52

Yes art or semi art movies ovies bore me as well. Great topic. I saw this Oscar award winning movie and was like Omgeee.

Edited by wat_up - 13 years ago

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

J tiger Barbie

@wat_up

Achiever

+ 7

Action Alliance

Posted: 13 years ago

#53

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
I think these films are made for a small minority of audience who are into alternative cinema, the ones who go to art galleries and spend thousands on paintings that look like crap, in the name of "art" 😆

Agree.

Umrao Jaan , the new one a bore.raincost was on tv changed the channel,15 min into it.

But on the other side their is a zubeida which was decent . chamekelli also well acted though movie bored me personally. These all were on tv lol.

Well can someone tell wht is an art movie than as some saying no such thing?

Or can label it alternative cinema?

The movies I liked

Zubeida

Maachis

Omkara

Preitys movie on husband abuse

Aishs movie on same subject quite compelling

A Wednesday

Udaan

Not like

Umrao jaan new one

Jodha Akbar

Earth

Raincoat

Edited by wat_up - 13 years ago

Quote

263437

Hibernated

Posted: 13 years ago

#54

I liked A Wednesday, Omkara, Zubeida, Earth, Hazaron Khwaishein Aisi, Fire, 15 Park Avenue, Black and Dor.

Quote

Lord_Voldemort

@Lord_Voldemort

Rocker

+ 9

Posted: 13 years ago

#55

Art films are good films which are boring! Or they are at least promoted as serious cinema when the movie is awful.

I would say Omkara, No Smoking, 1947 Earth, Manorama: Six Feet Under, Kaminey, That Girl in Yellow Boots are serious crap! But I wouldn't call them good films in the first place.

Did someone say Udaan? I loved that movie. There was no time for me to get bored because that was so real.

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#56

It just depends. Some I like, some I hate. What exactly is art cinema? I think the lines do get blurred these days!

Quote

Angel-likeDevil

@Angel-likeDevil

Trailblazer

+ 3

Posted: 13 years ago

#57

I havent watched any Art films, somehow, ART movies in bollywood never attracted me(I know only Guzarish and Black - is it the movie where Rani plays a blind girl? yeah that movie) .

Anyways, I wanna know what an "art movie" is. Please, someone define it for me...someone above says JODHA AKBAR is an art movie...I'm confused and curious.

Quote

ash.attitude

@ash.attitude

Dazzler

Posted: 13 years ago

#58

I'm not sure how bollywood defines "art" movies. As per my definition, I enjoyed Dhobi Ghat. Mr. Babber was charming in that movie.

Quote

344471

Suspended

Posted: 13 years ago

#59

Originally posted by: .SB.
I don't think art films are made with the intention of entertaining everyone and are only for a particular audience.Just like the name,its made to show the artistic aspect of the movie instead of the entertaining aspect.Many filmmakers like Satyajit Ray and Mrinal Sen who are known for making art films are applauded for the artistic cinematic devices like using scenes in negatives like Ray's films or using jerky camera movements like Mrinal Sen to show a running sequence.These aspects aren't used in normal films because the makers in commercial cinema merely doesn't care for such detailing...they need just pretty faces and colorful,larger than life storylines...whereas art films are more about the detailing and aesthetic features of a film which are watched by people passionate for films than people who come to watch movies in theatres during weekend...the viewers of art films are filmmakers who want to adapt such cinematic devices for their own films as well and have an eye for detailing,like the cast,the way they appear onscreen,how much original do they look etc,which the average common viewer have no time to watch.They want entertainment in return for the money they paid and that's why maybe people find such movies boring.

However ,according to me,there's art in almost every film and I don't distinguish much between commercial and art films.During the film Ready,when it was time for interval,instead of the common Intermission displayed on screen,the words displayed were...pee break...tea break...for me that part of the film was art too...infact any movie that has a segment which is innovative and creative is artistic for me...irrespective of whether the film is called art or commercial.

Some of the films I liked,which are called 'art films' as per the norms:

Mr and Mrs Iyer
Udaan
Gulaal
Hazaron Khwaishein Aisi
And many other art films in a different language.

Yeah, I understand what you are trying to say. But recently the so-called indie-films have started to gain mass popularity too. Should 'Kahaani' be regarded as an art flick for its low budget, even though it has gained everything that even the most commercial film does not? Is Guzaarish an art flick, despite the fact that has been made with an astronomical budget, got promoted like hell and is 'mainstream' in every which way? Really, where do we draw the line? I also don't think art movies are necessarily inherently good in quality, while commercial flicks are just dumbed down cliches. I think good and bad movies can be found in all kinds of fields...