@D-magic said:

Seriously, this so called "movie" maybe looks like a movie, but it is not.

What, do tell, is a "movie" in your world?

It's a simple fantasy without plot,

Oh, there was certainly a plot. Sorry you missed it. But insofar as "simple fantasy" is concerned, there are plenty of such that are still considered movies. The word covers a lot of different tastes.

it's just pretty pictures.

You might be trying to suggest that "pretty pictures" cannot be the basis for a "movie", but I can think of several movies that are just that, good to look at but not much plot/story, and they were still considered "movies".

I never watched first Top Gun, I guess it's no different than this BS.

You watched this 2nd installment without first seeing the first installment? Do you regularly start books on the middle page, and expect to still be able to follow it? Or skip the first half of a semester, and then show up for class expecting to keep up?

because this movie wort nothing else.

One might suggest it is actually your opinion, then, that is not worth much. We are all free to form opinions, but with freedom comes responsibility, and it's our responsibility to inform those opinions a little better than just shooting from the emotional hip.

Thanks for your detailed replay of a fanboy. It seems that I hurt your feelings by criticizing your favorite movie, so I am sorry it wasn't even more hurtful. You try too hard to convince me that my view is just my own opinion, so? I know it is my opinion, that's why I expressed it. I know that someone has a different opinion too, so? This is a place to express your opinions about a movie, you are the one that was offended by mine.

And there is absolutely no need to watch the first movie for this, I am sure it is exactly the same BS formula. At least someone dies in the first movie, as oppose to this one. There is sort of a plot, but not really. Same way 30 seconds ads have sort of a plot. In any case, it's such a silly movie and your arguments are also silly, so whatever. Enjoy.

@D-magic said:

Thanks for your detailed replay of a fanboy.

Ah, but I'm not.

It seems that I hurt your feelings

Ah, but you didn't.

by criticizing your favorite movie,

Ah, but it's not.

so I am sorry it wasn't even more hurtful.

That's more a reflection of you.

You try too hard to convince me that my view is just my own opinion, so?

No, that's not what I was doing. Nice try with strawman fallacy, though.

I know it is my opinion, that's why I expressed it. I know that someone has a different opinion too, so? This is a place to express your opinions about a movie, you are the one that was offended by mine.

Nope, not offended. I challenged you to explain the basis for your assertions, and you're deflecting rather than speaking directly to the challenge. Which is about what was expected.

And there is absolutely no need to watch the first movie for this, I am sure it is exactly the same BS formula. At least someone dies in the first movie, as oppose to this one. There is sort of a plot, but not really. Same way 30 seconds ads have sort of a plot. In any case, it's such a silly movie and your arguments are also silly, so whatever. Enjoy.

I tried to engage you constructively. You're either incapable, or just unwilling; either way, carry on with your silliness, I'll leave you to it.

You opened a discussion on this board, now with 21 posts only from you, in which you update how much money this movie made, with constant updates and comparisons to other movies. Either you are Tom Cruise by himself, or you are a seriously anal fanboy.

You didn't engage me constructively, your point is just "of yeah, that's just your opinion". Everything else is just saying I am wrong. So you didn't really tried to do anything, certainly not challenging me to explain my opinion. I don't think I can explain to you anything, you are wired differently and I think you have a problem understanding abstract ideas. In any case, your way of responding on each sentence is very annoying, on a spectrum even. So I will leave you to it as well.

@D-magic said:

You opened a discussion on this board, now with 21 posts only from you, in which you update how much money this movie made, with constant updates and comparisons to other movies. Either you are Tom Cruise by himself, or you are a seriously anal fanboy.

Neither, I explained what I was doing. I can't help your low level of reading comprehension.

You didn't engage me constructively, your point is just "of yeah, that's just your opinion". Everything else is just saying I am wrong. So you didn't really tried to do anything, certainly not challenging me to explain my opinion. I don't think I can explain to you anything, you are wired differently and I think you have a problem understanding abstract ideas. In any case, your way of responding on each sentence is very annoying, on a spectrum even.

Blah blah blah.

So I will leave you to it as well.

Eureka, we finally agree on something. Miracles never cease.

Eureka, we finally agree on something. Miracles never cease.

Dude, you replied on my post.

@D-magic said:

Eureka, we finally agree on something. Miracles never cease.

Dude, you replied on my post.

Move on. We've nothing to accomplish with this back and forth.

Yes, that's why you need to keep replying on MY post.

Hey kids, do I have to pull this car over?

@bratface said:

Hey kids, do I have to pull this car over?

He started it - LOL!

Meanwhile, this "not a movie" keeps setting movie records. If it's "not a movie", it must then be given credit for being all the more miraculous.

Seriously, one of the questions I asked the OP, which the OP dodged and avoided, is, what is a "movie" in their view?

One of the points of umbrage taken was that there was "no plot". Yet, the OP admitted to not even seeing the first movie. So, how would "plot" be assessed if the entire thread that ran through both was unknown/experienced?

Another point was that it was "just pretty pictures". Hollywood history is full of other movies that were exactly that, pretty pictures. HOW does that disqualify this from still being considered a movie? I thought that might be a view worth learning a different perspective on, so I asked.

I tried to be objective, while the OP just got rolling with name-calling and insults (moronic this, fanboy that...) even in the title of this thread, so, I suppose I should have seen how this was going to play out).

As has oft been discussed, higher criticism requires that we avoid conflating movie quality ("good/bad") vs. personal preference (like/hate). It is okay to like a bad movie. Here's a list of some of my guilty pleasures, movies I like but would never argue are "good movies" - Bad Movies I Like.

And, it is okay to hate a good movie. People will like what they like, and not like what they don't. If I were to make a list of movies everyone loves except me, I'd start with Inception.

But to dismiss a movie altogether as being a movie at all, just because one doesn't like it, is absurd. It had to be called it out. Is Inception "not a movie" just because I don't like it? Of course not. I'm just one viewer, the world is bigger than me. And, if the OP doesn't want to have their opinions tested constructively, why bother posting in a DISCUSSION forum? Go write a blog post and turn off comments, so you can do all the typing and don't have to read what anyone else thinks.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@D-magic said:

it's just pretty pictures.

You might be trying to suggest that "pretty pictures" cannot be the basis for a "movie", but I can think of several movies that are just that, good to look at but not much plot/story, and they were still considered "movies".

Pretty much slam dunks the discussion right there.

OP has the right to hate any movie, but the fact is that cinema is the art of pretty pictures.

But I'm a fan of 2001 A Space Odyssey so what do I know 😉

@rooprect said:

the fact is that cinema is the art of pretty pictures.

You have such a way with words, I love it!

Speaking of which, I've got a list called Eye Candy, which is comprised of movies I felt were visually stunning, even if I couldn't always follow the plot. I wish I could tell you what Vertigo was really about - I can't, but it's one movie I can never take my eyes off!

But I'm a fan of 2001 A Space Odyssey so what do I know 😉

Me too!

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Speaking of which, I've got a list called Eye Candy, which is comprised of movies I felt were visually stunning, even if I couldn't always follow the plot. I wish I could tell you what Vertigo was really about - I can't, but it's one movie I can never take my eyes off!

Sweet, I haven't seen most of them so I have my assignment cut out for me!

tbf I struggled for years with films that didn't have a dazzling plot. I hated 2001 the first time I saw it, but now it's my go-to.

Great point with Hitchcock, I love everything he's done, but when you get right down to it, the plots of most of his films could be written on a postcard 😅

Rope = bunch of guys sit around talking while there's a body hidden under the table.

Rear Window = guy in a wheelchair stares out the window for 90 mins lmao

@rooprect said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Speaking of which, I've got a list called Eye Candy, which is comprised of movies I felt were visually stunning, even if I couldn't always follow the plot. I wish I could tell you what Vertigo was really about - I can't, but it's one movie I can never take my eyes off!

Sweet, I haven't seen most of them so I have my assignment cut out for me!

Try starting with The Tourist. And then, for a complete change of pace, go with Cafe Society.

tbf I struggled for years with films that didn't have a dazzling plot. I hated 2001 the first time I saw it, but now it's my go-to.

Medium exploration

Movies, like any art, do different things, based on the aims of the artists behind the work. Movies are a unique medium. You know how people often read a book, see the movie, and say "the book was better"? The thing is, books are a medium that do some things better than movies, because there is inherent value in reading and visualizing. But, movies are a different medium that do other things better - movies are inherently visual. So, movie makers get to experiment, to play, with that visual aspect that makes viewing a movie an altogether unique experience. Can't fault them for that, it's natural to want to explore the range of any medium. "Painting" is not all the same; the way a stroke feels while doing watercolor is quite different than oil on canvas or acrylic, and a painter would chose different mediums to express different ideas/feelings. Heavy metal bands often will write a ballad, or a relatively "slower" song. They are still metal artists, but not every idea can be expressed by frenetic shredding.

Plot shmot?

Another thing is this idea of "plot". Sometimes, a piece of art challenges us to think, to reflect, to reimagine... but, there are times when an artists want to free their audiences from the restrictions of articulation and float freely on waves of emotion - forget about thinking, let's just...feel, for a moment. One of my favorite artists was a man named Barnett Newman. His magnum opus was a collection called "Onement" based on what he called "the zip". (Check out Onement I, and Onement VI)

Newman's idea was to challenge people not to think about the piece, but explore the feelings that were stirred by the zip. He tried to make the observer “begin in the ‘chaos’ of feeling and sensation...to evoke out of this chaos ‘a memory of the emotion of an experienced moment of total reality.’” When I think of these words, it reminds me of how I felt after watching 2001: A Space Odyssey!

If I had all the money in the world, I would pay whatever it cost to have an original Onement I in my home.

Search your feelings, Luke

Movies can do this, too. More recently than 2001, a movie called Where the Wild Things Are was based on a weird kid's book I read as a kid in the mid-late 1970s. When it was made into a movie in 2009, I couldn't wait to see how they'd bring it to life on screen. I saw it and, while many were bewildered with what to think of it, I think I "got it", because it was more about feelings of child angst and anger, trapped within a narrow, childlike view of the world. I was able to feel this from the dual perspective of having been a kid, as well as, by 2009, being the parent of two children at a time when I had started saying things my parents used to say to me when I was a kid, and understanding more what they went through dealing with us as kids.

Sometimes, thinking is overrated. Thomas wrote “The aesthetic experience enables people to move beyond limits imposed by purely rational thought and the weakness of human language. A picture, a song, a story, may create an impression in a person that would never be conveyed through logical argument. Human beings are aesthetic beings,” (A Quest for Reality and Certainty).

There are times when a movie can be completely plot-driven. That's fine. There are also times when a movie may be lighter on plot and looking to do something else. That's well within the scope of art in general, and movie making specifically.

Great point with Hitchcock, I love everything he's done, but when you get right down to it, the plots of most of his films could be written on a postcard 😅

Rope = bunch of guys sit around talking while there's a body hidden under the table.

Rear Window = guy in a wheelchair stares out the window for 90 mins lmao

See, I loved Rear Window! That the entire movie was filmed on a set, yet we felt like we were in an actual apartment complex, blows me away! I haven't seen Rope yet, but again, whether The Birds (has anyone ever explained how that even happened, or why it just stopped?), or Vertigo, or North by Northwest(while fun to look at, the plot holes in that movie make my head spin, seriously!), or Rear View...NONE of these movies are worth watching for plot, to me; they are more about visuals, Hitchcock showing us things we may never have seen before.

Notice, though, that in invoking Hitchcock, we're talking about one of the greatest "movie" makers of all time - so, again, it's got to be painfully obvious to any even remotely casual student of film that "movies" can indeed be more visual than plot-driven and still be a part of the world we call movies.

And sure, as great as Hitchcock was, not everyone loves his work. That's fine. Don't have to. But you can't just then say he did not make "movies" because he was soft on plot.