you saying that this film is good is wrong because it doesn't have a good enough plot to be good. even if this film didn't rely on it's plot it wouldn't be good because it's artisticness is not what gives it it's slow pace and times where nothing happens.
AS A GENERAL RULE, a movie should have a "good" plot. But such rules are
not iron-clad. We don't always have to judge every movie based on the same rigid, fixed set of criteria, like a quality-control test on a factory assembly line: "Okay, let's check them off, one by one: 1) sensible plot, 2) good characterization..." etc. (Except for people who want to imprison their minds between iron walls to give themselves the illusion of certainty.... Oh.)
As for "nothing happening"-- it depends on how one defines that. Many movies have shots or scenes in which nothing in particular is "happening" in a plot sense BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER because the imagery is so beautiful, or intriguing, or just interesting. What's the point in denying yourself enjoyment by thinking, "Gee, I wish I could enjoy this movie, but I'm
not allowed to, because the plot is lacking, the characters aren't developed enough, so
the rules say I can't like it"? Why lock yourself in a box like that? BE FREEE-E-E-E!
No, you
can't "prove" a film is bad. Whether a film is "good", "bad" or "in-between" is NEVER A FACT. It is ALWAYS AN OPINION. There is no scientific test to confirm it, no CSI, no DNA, no EKG.
NO.
reply
share
lukejbarnett2002
8 years ago
yeah it's true that not all movies have to have good plots but this movie relies on it's plot and doesn't deliver on it. and this film isn't interesting at all for the majority of it's running time. often times nothing is happening and nothing artistic is happening either. so it's dull and boring. and the other thing is the parts when nothing is happening is not only non engaging and not interesting because nothing is happening but these parts are bad also because they are not artistic either. it's not like this whole film is one giant artistic film where it constantly has artistic things going on at every moment. it's not a good film. and yes I can prove that a movie is a bad movie.
reply
share
franzkabuki
8 years ago
I'm sure that on some unconscious level you must certainly realize that your whole "critique" of Blow-Up, as presented on this thread, is completely idiotic and that you have absolutely no idea of what you're babbling about... right? Because the only thing abundantly evident from your rantings is the fact that you haven't been able to meaningfully engage with the film and its themes on any level whatsoever and therefore couldn't possibly offer any reasonable or valid criticism of it.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
reply
share
lukejbarnett2002
8 years ago
I'm sure that on some unconscious level you must certainly realize that your whole "critique" of my critique and well explained analysis and criticism of Blow up, not blow-up by the way, as presented on this thread(where else???), is completely idiotic and that you have absolutely n o idea of what you're babbling about...right? right. see, so you have not anymore credibility or any better of an argument than I do. so shut up. I'm not the only one who finds it impossible to like or enjoy this movie. this is one of the most boring, uninvolving and pointless movies that of course back in the '60s were unfairly given a pass and a glowing recommendation and praise from everyone just because well, "it's art." so because of that it's given this "oh, it's great and artistic and so the movie literally could get away with anything and be the worst movie ever made and still be a great, "misunderstood important, artistic film." but the fact is is this is the worst example of the artistic movie getting a pass for it's aimless meandering, not getting anywhere in terms of it's plot, and not artistic enough to make all of it's boring nothing happening scenes work or be ok.
fuc# you
reply
share