Premier Rock Forum

Hey I was just thinking about this yesterday!

Death in Venice is a film.

Spiderman 2 is a movie.


Unfortunately though, pretentious CRAP.

mattw wrote:Question for the Brits: Why must all of your imported films involve older people taking their 'kit' off, Jane Austen adaptations, or silly rom-coms made by the team that brought you Four Weddings and a Funeral? I know there are good British films out there, damn it, I know there are.

Mike Leigh.

I mean, among others.

But Mike Leigh.

Maybe you were just kidding around, though.

I only watch "fillums".

tmidgett wrote:

mattw wrote:Question for the Brits: Why must all of your imported films involve older people taking their 'kit' off, Jane Austen adaptations, or silly rom-coms made by the team that brought you Four Weddings and a Funeral? I know there are good British films out there, damn it, I know there are.

Mike Leigh.

I mean, among others.

But Mike Leigh.

Maybe you were just kidding around, though.

I was sort of half kidding, half serious. Mike Leigh is a great filmmaker. Secrets & Lies? All or Nothing? Really good.

It seems that there is a 'new wave' of British cinema, however, that involves the aforementioned types of films. Or knockoff gangster films. Maybe they're just not sending the good ones our way.

I (and everyone I know) say film, never movie. And I say the cinema or the pictures.

I also like to use the American term "flick" from time to time. Especially if I'm belittling someone's taste.

And, being an Irish family, my sister and I often say fillum too.

I refer to motion pictures in both ways but it usually depends on the context of the reference and not the actual film I'm referencing. For instance I might say, "I'm going to the movie theater tonight." but I wouldn't say, "I'm going to the film theater." When refering to a single motion picture I switch between "film" and "movie" without discresion, whether it's King Kong or The Seventh Seal. And although I agree that the term "film" is becoming somewhat inaccurate due to the rise and integration of digital cinema and cgi, I think a motion picture should be allowed to be a "film" even if it was shot digitally and I think the term will be grandfathered in so to speak. Also, I often use the term "cinema" over "the movies" when refering to the art as a whole, but I do treat them as synonymous

I'd like to note that I've never taken a film class though so my opinions are potentially ignorant.

Movie, film, cinema, theatre, the pictures. Who cares? It's all the same stuff. Some is good, some is bad. Using different words to try and make snobby distinctions is annoying. I go to the pictures and i go to the cinema. I don't recall ever having said the theatre in reference to the films i go to watch. Yeah, I tend to say film most of the time, no matter what i am referring to. Maybe like someone pointed out earlier - because i am british? Occasionally i will use the word movie, but only for a change, and never with forethought or to make any distinction of how 'arty' the motion picture i saw/am going to see was. People that do make a distinction are usually crap. Looks like most of us are in agreement which is nice.

As for the british film industry, i am not involved in this industry so i can do nothing about our nation's poor input to the world of cinema. Check out DEAD MAN'S SHOES though. It's been mentioned on here before somewhere. Bloodly brilliant stuff.



ps - Snakes on a Plane is obviously a film rather than a movie. Sometimes you just have to make that distincton i suppose. Proof that a motion picture really can be high art. (hey i know i'm contradicting myself here but this is SNAKES ON A PLANE! SNAKES ON A PLANE i say!!!)

i don't understand the erudite (and i use that term loosely) folks who are so upper crust they actually make a distinction between the two.

i've been known to use film, movie, flick, and cinema as synonyms.

"i'm going to catch a film/movie/flick" or "i'm going to the movies/theater/cinema"

what gives, ye highbrow douches?