Which films do you believe are "too artsy, too intellectual" for your tastes? In the movie American Psycho, Patrick Bateman describes the band Genesis' pre-1980 work as being exactly that for his preferences, preferring the more pop-centered leadership of Phil Collins over Genesis during the 1980s, instead of their progressive rock 1970s output under Peter Gabriel. I believe there are more than plenty of compelling films to watch, whether heavily artistically inclined, or heavily pop-culture and blockbuster-oriented, yet I generally prefer a balanced approach. I'm into things as mainstream-popular as the James Bond films, Star Wars, and Star Trek, but also obscure films said to be artsy, such as Jean-Pierre Melville films of the 1960s and early '70s (Le Samouraï, Le Cercle Rouge, Le Doulos). I did not like the film Persona by Ingmar Bergman, though, as it was simultaneously too strange and too convoluted for me to find of interest. I did enjoy Federico Fellini's 8 1/2, however.

None

None, by definition. Only the pretense of such is what bothers me.

What do you think are examples of some films purporting to be artistic (whether or not described variously by the director and staff as enlightening, philosophical, intellectual, etc)?

Well, in terms of filmmakers, I might nominate Nicolas Winding Refn as a recent perpetrator, though to varying degrees.

Amadeus

Watched Troll 2 today, it was beyond me. So that I guess, and maybe My Little Pony.

Dumb and Dumberer.

How can a thing be "too intellectual" to appreciate? Doesn't compute at all. Things can be pseudo-intellectual, though, and therefore failures. They can also be pretentious, meaning at the expense of the story.

I think the OP means, films that are too avant garde for someone. Too different, too incomprehensible as a result.

Yes, that's another great way to describe them. A lot of people feel like that about arthouse, experimental, or even "Oscar-bait" (presumably meant to win an Oscar, much of which seem pretentious) films.

My problem with Oscar-bait is it's usually very flawed in the intellectual sense, meaning it fails on logic or story, but checks the right boxes with the emotion conveyed. The Immitation Game and Mystic River, for example, are some of the least intellectual films to ever win awards.

"Too artsy, too intellectual" is the way Patrick Bateman, a fictional serial killer obsessed with 1980s pop music, put it. I just thought to include that whole quote, rather than stopping at artsy. I think artsiness is obviously a sentiment that seems to be felt by a lot of people, although whether or not a film strikes one as too intellectual, that may actually be what a great number of people think about certain types, usually older and foreign movies. I think the French New Wave period of cinema, as well as the Swedish Ingmar Bergman films, get this reputation very often.

But when I hear Bateman say that, I hear him saying "I'm not that bright and I'm looking for a reason to make that sound more acceptable to my peers."

There's nothing wrong with liking both David Lynch and James Cameron, because they're both pretty good at their jobs. I find it's when people only like one or the other that they're putting on airs.

Sure, I see nothing wrong with liking both Lynch and Cameron as directors, and their films. I don't find myself conflicted in that way, although I imagine that many people have a particular brand of elitism (whether oriented towards particularly arthouse or popular films). When Bateman said that, I think he was trying to do exactly what he stated earlier in the film, "Because I want to fit in." It seems he wants to express that he is into whatever may be popular and of the moment, as long as it conforms to his ideas of what an upper class or upper-middle class businessman might be into. He's into being the epitome of the yuppie subculture, publicly, despite a self-loathing as evidenced by the "Die yuppie scum" writing on the bathroom wall.

Well, I had read it as elitism vs anti-elitism, so if that's not what you mean I suppose I'm still unclear.

There are other senses in which bands can change musical output. Perhaps this is more like Metallica pre- and -post Black Album? One is genre, the other is mainstream, genre-less, and therefore less edgy.

That's not what it means to be pretentious.

Wouldn't intellectual be the opposite of artsy ?

I don't like Primer for example because I find it too intellectual, and utterly devoid of artistry.

brokeback mountain

dont get it. you know, why people think its good. its pretentious crap.
did i cry at the end? nope. these fools ruin their families lives with their little gay affair. dumb. quite dumb.
they should have just accepted it and ran off together.

this movie shows exactly how NOT to have integrity. not inspirational, just dull and overrated.

stuff by straub/huliet i feel i thoroughly do not understand, i felt a similar thing with my first syberberg film recently. also feel this way a little with de oliveira.

Abstractionism/Structuralism or whatever it is called.

Patrick Bateman was a psychopathic philistine.

Yeah, he was supposed to represent an elitist with very mainstream tastes in music for the time, although I really enjoy Huey Lewis and the News, Phil Collins, and Genesis. I'm not into Whitney Houston, though. From what I've listened to, I've found most of '80s pop music to be fun, at least, as I tend to think for '40s, '50s, '60s, and '70s music.

Too "artsy": The Tree of Life
Too intellectual: maybe Shane Carruth's movies, Primer and Upsteam Color

Mulholland Drive

Sorry, 3 viewings spaced apart, I've yet to anything more than respect it for what it is. Does little for me.

Thirteen Conversations About One Thing.

I just don't have a high enough IQ to enjoy Dude Where's My Car?

You have to work your way up to it. In the meantime, might I suggest Crash?

Barry Lyndon

I'm sure many will disagree but Tarkovsky's films. The visuals and ideas are always great but the long philosophical discussions test my patience.