Film versus Movies: Is there a difference?


So to me, there is a distinct difference between a film and a movie. For instance: the movie Joe Versus the Volcano (starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan) tells an entertaining tale about a man who learns how to live and love, right before jumping into a volcano. I believe it is one of the most under-rated movies of all time. That being said, Joe Versus the Volcano is just that, a movie. Why? Because it is pure entertainment, good for munching on popcorn and it gives you a smile. The direction is simple and straight-forward, the dialog is well-written and somewhat memorable, the actors are well cast, and the premise is ridiculous but enjoyable. But of course, this is just my opinion. Others may not, and do not, feel this way about Joe Versus the Volcano–they may feel that it is a bizarre and stupid movie, and not entertaining at all. This is because, in the end, movies can be judged on taste and opinion. Due to the fact that they have no intrinsic artistic value, they are judged simply by their ability to entertain.

Alternatively, film is another matter. An obvious example of a true film would be Citizen Kane (starring and directed by Orson Wells). The direction is unique and revolutionary, the plot is intriguing, the writing superb (with the story hinging on that one memorable line, “Rosebud…”), with dynamic performances tying it all together. It is often rated as the #1 film of all time by renowned critics, all because of these reasons, and more. However, many dislike the film. They find it boring, strange, and unbearable to watch. But when examined for its artistic qualities, as opposed to just entertainment value, its place in film history cannot be denied as one of the best films ever made.

So this is the difference between a film and a movie, as I see it.

Please note: this was originally written for my previous blog: The Write Reviews (http://thewritereviews.wordpress.com/), which was a collaborative blog.

No comments:

Post a Comment