MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Are you a film buff?

Are you a film buff?


Take my quiz to find out:

1. Have you seen more than 1,000 films?
2. Have you seen films from more than 20 different countries?
3. Have you seen multiple feature films from every decade going back to the 1910s?
4. Have you seen multiple musicals, westerns, and film noirs?
5. Have you seen at least half of the Oscar's best picture winners?
6. Have you seen at least 100 of the imdb top 250?
7. Have you seen at least two films directed by Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, and Ingmar Bergman?

If you answer yes to all seven questions, you are a true film buff. If you disagree with my quiz, suggest one of your own.

reply

I failed your quiz quite badly.
I will now delete my account purely for dramatic purposes!!!

reply

Instead of deleting your account, your punishment is to watch a German film from the 1920s.

reply

I’ve seen Nosferatu (and quite liked it!) so I think I’ll stick around😎

reply

Hooray!

reply

Eh, I’m the gnat in the ear, the housefly in the kitchen, the cicada in the garden tree…I’ll ALWAYS be around to bug everyone😄

reply

And we are glad to have you buzzing around!

reply


1. Of course
2. Of course
3. Of course
4. Of course
5. Um... not sure without looking at what they are. But probably.
6. Um... also not sure. But probably.
7. Of course.

I'm not going to submit my own quiz, but I am going to suggest one can qualify as a film buff without meeting all your criteria.

For one thing, I think a person can specialise and still regard themselves as a film buff. After all, none of us can see everything. There's just too damn much of it. So people inevitably prioritise different things.

Almost exclusively watch horror films? Or exploitation trash? But watch a lot of those movies and know everything there is to know? You're a film buff.

Have a much deeper knowledge than most people walking the street (even a street in Tokyo) of the Japanese new wave? Or maybe classic era 1940s Hollywood is your thing and you've seen all the also-ran movies too? Or Hong-Kong action films of the 1970s-80s? You're a film buff.

To me a film buff (or cinephile if we prefer) is someone who:

1) prioritises films over other forms of entertainment
2) knows a lot -- even if it's niche / specialised knowledge and...
3) strays off the beaten path of the very mainstream stuff consumed by more casual film fans.

And that's about it.

reply

Hear, hear! I'll watch pretty much anything that I think I might like, but have an affinity for "genre films," esp. horror, gritty action, chanbara ("samurai films"), wuxia/kung-fu (old to new), etc. But I'm happy to chat about Jodorowsky to Lynch to Lean to Capra...

reply

1. Have you seen more than 1,000 films?
YES

2. Have you seen films from more than 20 different countries?
YES

3. Have you seen multiple feature films from every decade going back to the 1910s?
Yes, I’ve seen even earlier ‘films’ from the 1800s, although those were more like moving picture shows and didn’t really have stories the way we understand them today.

https://youtu.be/OPmKaz3Quzo?si=ogpftKQOUtHI27o1
https://youtu.be/g8SMIiQZUcs?si=ATZjH53u2bmKSiUZ

4. Have you seen multiple musicals, westerns, and film noirs?
Yes, especially Westerns and film noirs.

5. Have you seen at least half of the Oscar's best picture winners?
Not sure about this one, honestly. I don’t really care too much about awards shows.

6. Have you seen at least 100 of the imdb top 250?
I’ve seen 83 off of the list that’s up today.

7. Have you seen at least two films directed by Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, and Ingmar Bergman?
Hitchcock and Kubrick, yes. I’ve never seen a Bergman film.

So, it's not a solid yes to all, but I'm not a film buff anyway. I prefer 'cineaste' because it sounds so much more self-important and pretentious 😜.

reply

You have to check out some Bergman films. I've seen 19 of his films. He made some great ones.

reply

I'll check some out. I'm kind of surprised I haven't seen any of his films, considering how many he made.

reply

I prefer 'cineaste' because it sounds so much more self-important and pretentious


I have decided to be known as l'empereur irréprochable du cinéma. Just so you know.

reply

😂😂 That's awesome lol

reply

1. Yes. I've seen 1979 movies.

2. EDIT: Yes I have! USA, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, Italy, Germany, Austria, France, Netherlands, Spain, Russia, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Mexico, South Africa, Japan, South Korea.

3. No. I haven't seen anything from the 1910s. The 1920s and onwards yes, I've seen 6 movies from the 1920s. 21 from the 1930s. 53 from the 1940s. 66 from the 1950s. 106 from the 1960s. 224 from the 1970s. 364 from the 1980s. 267 from the 1990s. 388 from the 2000s. 325 from the 2010s. 159 from the 2020s.

4. Yes. 43 musicals, 39 film-noirs and 31 westerns.

5. No. I've only seen 27 best picture winners.

6. Yes. I've seen 135 of the IMDb top 250.

7. Yes. I've seen 21 Hitchcock movies, 10 Kubrick movies and 3 Bergman movies.

reply


I'm very impressed that you have all those personal stats at hand. Did you not see any films until the invention of Letterboxd or have you been keeping track all your life?

reply

I use IMDb. I've been using it for 12 years now and I think I've done a good job of making sure I've rated almost all the movies I saw before I started using it (there are a small handful of movies I saw when I was younger on television that I forget the names off and thus haven't rated).

It helps that I'm 29 years old. So I've been keeping track since I was 17. I didn't watch a whole lot of movies as a kid, I only really got the 'cinephile bug' when I was 14 or so.

I know some of the guys on here are several decades older than I am so of course it's much harder for them to have kept on top of things like I have.

reply

Oh, I knew you could track what you were watching on IMDb, but I never did so I wasn't aware it gave a similar data breakdown to Letterboxd Pro. Makes perfect sense.

reply

https://www.imdb.com/search/title [oh, and then hit the "expand all" dropdown]

I tried Letterboxd when it was the hot new thing, but there was no way to import my IMDb ratings, so hard pass.

reply


You can now. If you go to your Your Ratings page, there's an export button, which will download your ratings as a .csv file, which can then be imported to Letterboxd... and indeed vice versa. But if you're happy enough with IMDb and have been using it for twenty years, I'm not sure what Letterboxd has to offer you... other than, imho, a nicer interface.

reply

I figured they'd get around to it, thanks!

Oh, and I know IMDb sucks, and I'm still salty about the forums, but that advanced search is pretty handy...

reply

Member since 2000; it's how I keep track, and apparently like yourself, love the Advanced search. And I *still* from time to time get 20-30 minutes in to a film and suddenly realize, "Wait, I've seen this!" Just before I started religiously rating...

reply

1. Yes. 4732 according to my IMDb votes.

2. At least 32. Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, England, Scotland, Ireland, Brazil, Spain, Italy, Indonesia, Greece, Estonia, Poland, Germany, Japan, Argentina, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Russia, Romania, Czech Rep., Netherlands, India, South Africa, China, South Korea, Mexico, Iran, Hungary.

3. Yes. At least 10 from every decade.

4. Yes.

5. Yes. I'm maybe 12 away.

6. Yes. About 20 away.

7. Yes. At least 5 from each.

reply

1. No.
2. Yes, I think so.
3. I think yes.
4. I would not say "multiple".
5. No.
6. Nol
7. I am not sure.

reply

Nothing about actually going to the theater to see them?

reply

I don't think you need to go to a theater to be a film buff, although I do go to the theater regularly. Some people can be film buffs but don't go to the theater due to health issues, financial reasons, inconvenience, not wanting to be around people, etc.

reply

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. No idea, don't care for that list -- but I strongly suspect I have
7. Yes

And I agree with capuchin's 2) and 3). I know people who watch more movies than I, but they only watch mainstream, popcorn films -- and by watch, I mean half-watch, letting it all wash over them without soaking up much. Movies are just light entertainment for them, and not really an art form to be savored.

reply

Movies are just light entertainment for them, and not really an art form to be savored.


That's the key thing, isn't it? After all, cinephile means 'lover of cinema'. It's just about wanting to engage with it as an artform, isn't it?

I tend to think of film buffs as people who watch a lot of films. But that's probably not necessary either. Not everyone has the time. And people are allowed to have other hobbies. It's just about engaging and wanting to know about stuff and taking it more seriously (and loving it more) than the average viewer... which does, I think, involve going beyond the mainstream in one way or another. But no more than that.

reply

Yeah, I suppose -- but there's an art to the mainstream films as well, and it's working on them even if they don't understand the mechanics in an explicit way. To me a cinephile is more like a Scorsese, someone who knows all the films, and who finds something in a shot or a performance in an otherwise unremarkable movie. I'm too picky and impatient to wade through everything to find those things. From anecdotal evidence, I think I'm on the low end around here when it comes to volume, but what I do know of what I've seen, I know in a granular way.

reply

but there's an art to the mainstream films


For sure. But to me, cinephilia / film buff-i-ness (?) suggests an exploratory or inquisitive nature. I'm not saying people have to seek out the super-obscure to qualify, but if you're just watching the latest, most heavily-marketed movies, you're a casual film fan as far as I'm concerned.

But there are definitely levels and different types too. I think my main point is that you don't have to be familiar with Tarkovsky or the Sight & Sound list to be a film buff. I like horror films. But there are dedicated horror fans who've seen way more horror films than I ever will, but probably haven't seen any John Ford films or don't recognise the name Douglas Sirk or Jean-Luc Godard or whoever it might be. They're still film buffs, because they could talk the hind leg off the proverbial donkey about the subject.

but what I do know of what I've seen, I know in a granular way.


That's fair too. Depth of knowledge over breadth of knowledge. That counts.

reply