What makes a movie "good" or "bad"?

[Johnny Wiseau]

Also, let's stop making excuses for people when there are none.

 

This reeks off "I'm sorry for not calling the police when I saw your brother being robbed at gunpoint." at the funeral home. 

 

Have you seen the video of a dying homeless man in NYC where at least a dozen people walked past without doing anything? One even took a photo with his phone before walking on. I hate judgmental people, but fuck that, I have every right to judge you for taking a photo of someone dying and leaving him to die. What excuse have you got for that? "No time" "More important" Nothing is more important than the human life. Extremes in arguments make my point. Enough of the mollycoddling of ignorance.

 

A simple, "It was great!" or its equivalent would suffice if they were as inarticulate as you make them out to be, no need for the over-exaggerated nonsense.

so what did the banana say to the cucumber in the end of your very relevant story? 

Edited August 19, 2014 by Johnny Wiseau

[Jessie]

They're good, yes, for what they are. Enjoyable. I would not put them on a list of the greatest movies ever made.My whole point is that I believe a distinction can be reached between "this movie is good/bad" and "I like/don't like WATCHING this movie." Heck, even good/bad isn't just one thing.This is why I would never be able to put together a numerical, ranked list of "the best movies I've seen" OR "my favorite movies I've seen."

 

But films aren't just about stories, they are 50% visual as well so when people say something like 'Transformers is a bad film', sure the story may be pretty poor, but the mise-en scene in its destructive sequences and the way it gets us to relate to its characters are so well done that technically its makes it a 'good' film for me. Why should poorly/averagely executed movies with a good story get more praise than a brilliantly executed movie with a poor story?? Take Avatar and Hurt Locker, Avatar was masterfully executed, had amazing cinematography, was well directed and edited however receives hate for having a predictable/familiar story. Hurt Locker shows what life is like as a bomb disposal expert however its style of 'film making' is in no way as superb as it is with Avatar, yet so many critics and online poster will call Hurt Locker the 'better movie' mainly due to the fact its relevant today. Since when did Mise-en-scene become less and less important over time?

 

Why should a film like The Kings Speech be considered a better movie than a film like GOTG simply because it had a more character driven story and was historically relevant when the other films excelled in so many different ways of filmmaking?? And why should the director get so much praise for that film when it was clearly the actors that made The Kings Speech as good as it was, but no, Cooper gets his Best Direction Oscar over the likes of Fincher who made a 2 hour movie about Facebook one of the most gripping movies of the year and had his visual style all over. When I watched The Kings Speech, I didn't think 'Wow this is a really well made film' however I did with TSN. When films have more serious messages to explore, people automatically assume that makes it the better movie, and I don't think that should be the case.

Edited August 19, 2014 by jessie

[The Panda]

But films aren't just about stories, they are 50% visual as well so when people say something like 'Transformers is a bad film', sure the story may be pretty poor, but the mise-en scene in its destructive sequences and the way it gets us to relate to its characters are so well done that technically its makes it a 'good' film for me. Why should poorly/averagely executed movies with a good story get more praise than a brilliantly executed movie with a poor story?? Take Avatar and Hurt Locker, Avatar was masterfully executed, had amazing cinematography, was well directed and edited however receives hate for having a predictable/familiar story. Hurt Locker shows what life is like as a bomb disposal expert however its style of 'film making' is in no way as superb as it is with Avatar, yet so many critics and online poster will call Hurt Locker the 'better movie' mainly due to the fact its relevant today. Since when did Mise-en-scene become less and less important over time?Why should a film like The Kings Speech be considered a better movie than a film like GOTG simply because it had a more character driven story and was historically relevant when the other films excelled in so many different ways of filmmaking?? And why should the director get so much praise for that film when it was clearly the actors that made The Kings Speech as good as it was, but no, Cooper gets his Best Direction Oscar over the likes of Fincher who made a 2 hour movie about Facebook one of the most gripping movies of the year and had his visual style all over. When I watched The Kings Speech, I didn't think 'Wow this is a really well made film' however I did with TSN. When films have more serious messages to explore, people automatically assume that makes it the better movie, and I don't think that should be the case.

I do agree with this, a movie being a drama or a comedy doesn't make it better. A movie choosing a satirical/fast paced tone and beat over a slow moving quiet drama doesn't make it worse. A movie with the goal of entertaining in mind doesn't make it worse than one attempting to inform or engage.For example, I think Monty Python and the Holy Grail is one of the best comedies of all time (one of my favorite movies period) and it has no point to it at all. A movie can be well made and good without having political themes or an important point. There is just as much art in entertainment and comedy as there is in dramas, I think the academy misses that a lot. I will admit though, a drama that captivates somebody's emotions is much more likely to remain loved by that person than a comedy even if the comedy is the better made movie.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Also, let's stop making excuses for people when there are none.

 

This reeks off "I'm sorry for not calling the police when I saw your brother being robbed at gunpoint." at the funeral home. 

 

Have you seen the video of a dying homeless man in NYC where at least a dozen people walked past without doing anything? One even took a photo with his phone before walking on. I hate judgmental people, but fuck that, I have every right to judge you for taking a photo of someone dying and leaving him to die. What excuse have you got for that? "No time" "More important" Nothing is more important than the human life. Extremes in arguments make my point. Enough of the mollycoddling of ignorance.

 

A simple, "It was great!" or its equivalent would suffice if they were as inarticulate as you make them out to be, no need for the over-exaggerated nonsense.

I was completely with you till this post. Now, I'm just lost.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

To add on to what Panda said:A film that aims to be entertaining is not inherently worse than a film that aims to be deep and meaningful. Similarly, a film that aims to be deep and meaningful is not inherently worse than a film that aims to be fun and entertaining. And the two categories are not necessarily separate. I recently watched The Office (US) and found it entertaining, funny, and profound. The fact is that cinema is a representation and commentary on the being human. And being human involves humor, fun, entertainment, happiness, sadness, shallowness, depth, and a whole list of other things. Any artist who is attempting to capture some of those things in his work should be admired for his ambition. It isn't easy to capture any of those emotions, and when an artist does, it is an accomplishment worth celebrating.And this is exactly why it's important to try to approach all films in an objective manner. There are some people who approach all comedies/blockbusters with disgust for being "low-brow," and they end up hating all of them. There are others who love the fun and entertaining movies, but then they approach all films trying to be deep and meaningful as though they are "pretentious," and end up hating them. In both cases, the audience member has cut him or herself off from a part of the cinema that is extremely valuable, and in turn, a part of being human that is extremely valuable.  The key is to approach both with respect for what part of the human spirit they are trying to engage, and then evaluating whether or not they did a good job, that way you engage all types of cinema and all representations of the human spirit.

[filmlover]

Also, let's stop making excuses for people when there are none.

 

This reeks off "I'm sorry for not calling the police when I saw your brother being robbed at gunpoint." at the funeral home. 

 

Have you seen the video of a dying homeless man in NYC where at least a dozen people walked past without doing anything? One even took a photo with his phone before walking on. I hate judgmental people, but fuck that, I have every right to judge you for taking a photo of someone dying and leaving him to die. What excuse have you got for that? "No time" "More important" Nothing is more important than the human life. Extremes in arguments make my point. Enough of the mollycoddling of ignorance.

 

A simple, "It was great!" or its equivalent would suffice if they were as inarticulate as you make them out to be, no need for the over-exaggerated nonsense.

[RobinHood26]

Yeah definitely not even going to post in this thread.

[kaijukurt]

Just because I like caramel and not chocolate doesn't make chocolate a worse flavor, or a bad flavor at all.Subjectivity and personal preference, while valuable, is not the be all and end all when it comes to these kinds of things.

[Jessie]

I do agree with this, a movie being a drama or a comedy doesn't make it better. A movie choosing a satirical/fast paced tone and beat over a slow moving quiet drama doesn't make it worse. A movie with the goal of entertaining in mind doesn't make it worse than one attempting to inform or engage.For example, I think Monty Python and the Holy Grail is one of the best comedies of all time (one of my favorite movies period) and it has no point to it at all.A movie can be well made and good without having political themes or an important point. There is just as much art in entertainment and comedy as there is in dramas, I think the academy misses that a lot. I will admit though, a drama that captivates somebody's emotions is much more likely to remain loved by that person than a comedy even if the comedy is the better made movie.

 

Funny things is, Comedies are actually known in film education to be harder scripts to create than any other genre so technically speaking, a brilliant comedy is better than a brilliant drama

 

That's why great reviewed comedies are far more rare.

Edited August 26, 2014 by jessie

[Phil in the Blank]

I think to many people the idea of 'well I enjoyed X movie better, but Y is the better movie' to be a ridiculous idea. For many, movies are simply about enjoyment and therefore that statement makes no sense what so ever. If you enjoyed movie X better than Y then X MUST be the better movie for you. It's also why some will call someone pretentious if they say something like 'You are wrong when you say Citizen Kane is one of the worst movies of all time'. If it' all about enjoyment then your opinion is just as valid as theirs. It would be like getting upset that someone considers an apple to taste better than a grape. Each persons individual tastes are different and who are you to say that one food is tastier than the other?

 

But, you can compare food in other ways. It's quite possible to call one food 'better' than another for example if you compare their nutritional value. You can break down the elements of an apple and a grape and say that this food is better than that food in providing nutrients in this particular area. And while breaking down a movie is certainly less of an exact science then breaking down nutritional readings, I still feel it can absolutely be done. You can look at the camera work and point out why this particular shot works well at setting the mood or communicating a particular idea. You can analyse the script and reel of reasons why this particular character has great depth or is written in a shallow manner. You can look at the acting involved and explain why this particular actor grabbed you or why he failed to draw you in. And so on and so on. And while there is a degree of subjectivity involved, that doesn't mean that all opinions are equal. Those who study the art of cinema are going to be more apt at describing why this particular film either works or it doesn't work. And those who have not studied as much are going to be less able to do so.

 

So ultimately it really depends on what you are looking at as to what determines if a movie is good or bad. If you simply looking at films as a means of entertainment then its a completely subjective experience and saying Citizen Kane is shit is just as valid an opinion as saying its amazing. However if films are not all about entertainment to you and you are willing to look at a movie and break it down, then saying Citizen Kane is a shit movie...well I'm really not sure how you could justify that opinion.

[Punishment]

 

So ultimately it really depends on what you are looking at as to what determines if a movie is good or bad. If you simply looking at films as a means of entertainment then its a completely subjective experience...

 

Guilty as charged.  Excellent post!

[grey ghost]

There are no objectively good or bad movies.But there is such a thing as movies that are critical successes and critical failures.It just so happens that overall people, especially film nerds agree with critics which are great movies and which movies are trash.There are exceptions but critical consensus is the closest we'll get to objectively separating good and bad movies.Which is not to say that critical consensus can over-praise and under-praise certain movies but it does statistically determine which movies pass inspection from the majority of critically minded film lovers.

[grey ghost]

People are allowed to enjoy poorly made films but at the end of the day a poorly made film is still poorly made.If a movie has a sloppy script, bad editing, poor choreography/acting then it's poorly made.Even if you find the lack of skill involved charming, they're still a lack of skill involved.So there are four categories:1) skillfully made movies that are widely praised 2) skillfully made movies that are not widely praised3) poorly made movies that are widely praised4) poorly made movies that are not widely praisedSome people enjoy option 4 most often. But that doesn't change the fact that those films are poorly made without wide praise.

[Lordmandeep]

No

 

Like I can like the Avengers for being wildly entertaining but I will admit TDKR has a better story . 

[The Panda]

NoLike I can like the Avengers for being wildly entertaining but I will admit TDKR has a better story .

But how well did TDKR execute its story when you compare it to how well The Avengers executed its plot line? There is more to looking at a simple plot than, "this has the better story."Example, people have made awful productions of Shakespeare and amazing productions of melodramas. Obviously the company that performed Shakespeare had the better story, but they executed it poorly so the production was worse than the standard melodrama.