How do you define the difference between movies that are artistic, and movies that are pretentious?

If I liked them, they’re artistic; if I didn’t, they’re pretentious!

Oscars vs Golden Palm/Bear/Lion, roughly.

In my case, an artistic film is a successful attempt to innovate and improved on from its great predecessors.

In writing, editing, cinematography, shot compositions, production design, art direction, costumes, sound, music….all of these aspects combining on screen to show the audience something that comes across as a novel cinematic experience.

Certain films which pay homage to a great predecessor but falls short or films that claim to be original yet feels derivative and mediocre can be looked at as pretentious.

About Nightcrawler, I can recall that the main character was hard driven in a smarmy sort of way. I think I remember I didn’t like watching this character but he was ably portrayed by Gylenhall? As a piece of film per se I thought the filmmakers knew what film they wanted to do and they did well technically in achieving it.

Shape of Water. What a disappointment. It was painfully underwhelming. A dud. And yet it won Best Pic at the Oscars. It was an artistic attempt by a truly talented filmmaker Del Toro but it takes more than great lighting, special effects, music etc. to create a masterpiece.

Which of the 2 is which Loli? In your case the pretentious film is whichever of the 2 you don’t like. The work of art is the one you recommend to the rest of us. Your “standards” however…

Artistic is a film that makes me think in a different way. The new joker was deep and intense.

Pretentious to me is a film trying to be art and failing terribly. There are far too many of the latter to list.

I think a movie goes from artistic to pretentious when its conceits stand out too greatly. In other words, when what a movie is “trying to do” is so obvious and heavy-handed it veers into pretentious territory.