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

[AniNate]

 

Many arguments about quality end up really discussing consensus and overriding public opinion.  The issue we're having here is that people are taking this consensus and trying to call it objectivity.

 

Yeah, I do get annoyed when people use Rotten Tomatoes to justify their own opinion. I do rely on it a lot to determine my own viewing choices, but once you've actually seen it you have to formulate your own observations.

[The Futurist]

I like what I like.End of.And yes Bad Boys 2 is better than the Godfather, better cinematography, better action, better dark humour and most of all, rats fucking, you don t have that in the bloated, pretentious, pseudo operatic/shakesperean crime drama called the godfather.Don t think you can measure art objectively, we all respond differently to different things and themes.Same for music, painting, etcMillions of people adore celine dion music, yet should these people have a pseudo phylosophical debate inside themselves and come to the cliche conclusion that celine dion music is shit next to mozart, beetoven and chopin ? I think´not.As for citizen Kane, never saw it and i don t care, But i do care about Mockingjay and Age of Ultron, does that make me a vulgar person on a cultural level ? I think not and again I don t care.Thinking you can objectively classify art is a vain endeavour and the road to being pedantic and condescending.

Edited August 17, 2014 by The Futurist

[Ozymandias]

I can't objectively define a bad movie, but I know it when I see it.  Michael Bay and Shamalamadingdong flicks are the easiest examples.

[Water Bottle]

Well films like Armageddon and ID4 may not be considered as 'good' movies but they are sure as a hell more remembered now than the last 10 best picture winners (with the exception of ROTK) so I have to strongly disagree with that)

Armageddon is in the Criterion Collection and I don't think its a bad movie at all. Criterion Collection beats Best Picture win in my book (especially since the Academy actually has a middling record at picking Best Picture). ;)I disagree that ID4 is more remembered than say The Kings Speech or Slumdog Millionaire or The Departed. In fact, I think of all the Indiana Jones movies, people tend to forget the fourth or they remember it, they remember it as a disappointing entry.

[kowhite]

I disagree that ID4 is more remembered than say The Kings Speech or Slumdog Millionaire or The Departed.

 

I would imagine ID4 is more remembered simply due to the fact that a lot more people saw that movie than the latter three.

[dashrendar44]

I like what I like.End of.And yes Bad Boys 2 is better than the Godfather, better cinematography, better action, better dark humour and most of all, rats fucking, you don t have that in the bloated, pretentious, pseudo operatic/shakesperean crime drama called the godfather.Don t think you can measure art objectively, we all respond differently to different things and themes.Same for music, painting, etcMillions of people adore celine dion music, yet should these people have a pseudo phylosophical debate inside themselves and come to the cliche conclusion that celine dion music is shit next to mozart, beetoven and chopin ? I think´not.As for citizen Kane, never saw it and i don t care, But i do care about Mockingjay and Age of Ultron, does that make me a vulgar person on a cultural level ? I think not and again I don t care.Thinking you can objectively classify art is a vain endeavour and the road to being pedantic and condescending.

Contradicting much? "YEAH, BB2 IS BETTER THAN GODFATHER BECAUSE I LIKE IT MORE AND JUST BECAUSE I SAID SO. DEAL WITH IT! BUT WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT AND RESPOND DIFFERENTLY TO DIFFERENT THINGS BECAUSE SUBJECTIVITY! So everything I've just said got no weight since they can't be really compared on a fair basis but I just did!"Sorry, no disrespect to Amir Mokri but Gordon Willis iconized Marlon Brando and Al Pacino forever thanks to his cinematography and left his print on major seventies movies with his aesthetics and craft at display influencing guys like Darius Khondji. Excuse him for not lighting rats fucking in missionary position like a champ. Because that's the power of cinema as an art, creating powerful visions and iconizing (as religious paintings before), Godfather left on moviegoer's pop culture more iconization than Bad Boys 2 will ever do thanks to its cinematography.We live in an era when everyone love to talk out of their asses with no standards, no curiosity, no references, no sense of art history, being proud of being ignorant and gloat about being the real world audience's Joe Schmoe that just like his popcorn movies to be 2 hours of entertaining white noise because being cultured and expressing informed argumentation is "uncool" and "pedantic", like destroying a so-called well reviewed masterpiece to glorify lowbrow entertainment makes you a badass...It's the apex of glorified fast food and ready-made opinions like a tweet. "It's Awesome/It sucks!" and nothing behind to develop beyond a blurb following a triggered emotional response like it's not opened for debate "Deal with it!". That immediacy with shallow justifications (if any) at the center of it all that brushes aside any kind of reflection and thought process about what it takes to produce the art one is consuming like a burger."It was so good *Burp*/It was so bad" as a be-all and end-all of movie criticism but it's all subjective right? So nothing is good and nothing is bad so nothing is left to discussion and argumentation. I'm here to discuss and argument about movies.That relativism is a cancer. Everyone think their shitty non-argumented opinions are equal to an informed and well thought-out one because "everything in art is just subjective". No, it's not.Hunger Games sucks and Battle Royale is better. That's my opinion and if you don't agree I don't care. Edited August 17, 2014 by dashrendar44

[TServo2049]

Well said again, Dash.I enjoy watching The Avengers more than I enjoy watching Apocalypse Now. But I would never say that The Avengers is a superior work of cinema to Apocalypse Now.And I laughed harder watching This Is the End than I have at any Woody Allen film ever (his brand of humor does nothing for me), but I would never say that TITE is a superior work of cinema to anything Allen did in the 70s.

Edited August 17, 2014 by TServo2049

[Water Bottle]

I would imagine ID4 is more remembered simply due to the fact that a lot more people saw that movie than the latter three.

 

Well, yes this is technically true but I was going based of people who saw both.

 

I mean all I really remember from ID4 is the nuclear fridge scene and aliens. I remember a lot more from Slumdog Millionaire: I remember the Jeapordy game and how it framed the plot, I remember the whole romance, that it ended with a Bollywood dance scene, and the torture at the beginning.  I don't remember EVERYTHING but whilst I can't tell you the plot of ID4 (like what artifact was Indy even looking for?), I still know what Slumdog Millionaire was about.

 

But obviously if you only saw one movie then it wins by default.

[darkelf]

Um, ID4 is Independence Day as far as I know.

[baumer]

Correction, you like Transformers more than Citizen Kane and Rambo more than Casablanca but Citizen Kane and Casablanca are the better movies.Neither Citizen Kane or Casablanca would be in my top 25 of purely favorite movies but I'd who let admit they're better than most if not all the movies in my top 25.

 

No they are not.  Rambo is a better made film and so is Transformers.  So the correction is yours.  

[Water Bottle]

No they are not.  Rambo is a better made film and so is Transformers.  So the correction is yours.  

 

With what authority do you say this?

 

'Cause Casablanca and Citizen Kane are far superior films to Rambo and Transformers.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Contradicting much? "YEAH, BB2 IS BETTER THAN GODFATHER BECAUSE I LIKE IT MORE AND JUST BECAUSE I SAID SO. DEAL WITH IT! BUT WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT AND RESPOND DIFFERENTLY TO DIFFERENT THINGS BECAUSE SUBJECTIVITY! So everything I've just said got no weight since they can't be really compared on a fair basis but I just did!"Sorry, no disrespect to Amir Mokri but Gordon Willis iconized Marlon Brando and Al Pacino forever thanks to his cinematography and left his print on major seventies movies with his aesthetics and craft at display influencing guys like Darius Khondji. Excuse him for not lighting rats fucking in missionary position like a champ. Because that's the power of cinema as an art, creating powerful visions and iconizing (as religious paintings before), Godfather left on moviegoer's pop culture more iconization than Bad Boys 2 will ever do thanks to its cinematography.We live in an era when everyone love to talk out of their asses with no standards, no curiosity, no references, no sense of art history, being proud of being ignorant and gloat about being the real world audience's Joe Schmoe that just like his popcorn movies to be 2 hours of entertaining white noise because being cultured and expressing informed argumentation is "uncool" and "pedantic", like destroying a so-called well reviewed masterpiece to glorify lowbrow entertainment makes you a badass...It's the apex of glorified fast food and ready-made opinions like a tweet. "It's Awesome/It sucks!" and nothing behind to develop beyond a blurb following a triggered emotional response like it's not opened for debate "Deal with it!". That immediacy with shallow justifications (if any) at the center of it all that brushes aside any kind of reflection and thought process about what it takes to produce the art one is consuming like a burger."It was so good *Burp*/It was so bad" as a be-all and end-all of movie criticism but it's all subjective right? So nothing is good and nothing is bad so nothing is left to discussion and argumentation. I'm here to discuss and argument about movies.That relativism is a cancer. Everyone think their shitty non-argumented opinions are equal to an informed and well thought-out one because "everything in art is just subjective". No, it's not.Hunger Games sucks and Battle Royale is better. That's my opinion and if you don't agree I don't care.

I would say calm down, dude, but I agree too much.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

This. Your opinion means zilch and rendered totally meaningless if you're unable to back it up. That's the basis of argumentating. So saying "Superman IV is better than The Third Man" is an absolute void of an opinion if that's all that is to your argument. It's you that got to prove your opinion is valid because nobody but you asked for that opinion. You're entitled to it but don't expect people to take you seriously if there's nothing else behind it.

 

It's the first thing you learn about in philosophy class back in high school, opinion is the level zero of argumentation. It's a pre-conceived statement that argumentation and discourse will prove it right or wrong after examining facts.

This.It's not even the first thing you learn in philosophy, it's like the first thing you learn in high school essay writing.When you state something, you must support it with facts, examples, and analysis.And it's not really even about "this is what we learned in high school, and you guys are not following it." It's more about the fact that through arguments, you learn so much more about a topic. The teacher who thought me the most about anything was my film studies teacher in high school who argued with me whenever I gave an opinion without any info. I remember arguing with him about how films are entertainment, and it's ridiculous to look deeply into them. And then he started breaking down why I was wrong. He showed me how films were constructed, how artistic techniques were used to create emotions, and how meaning was developed in a film. By the end of that argument, I finally understood what people meant when they said "film is an art form." It completely changed how I approach films, and has helped me better appreciate a whole group of films that I never did back then. But without having an argument, I would never have learned this great lesson.That's the issue with people who say "Transformers is better than Citizen Kane, END OF DISCUSSION." Because it's not the end, it's just the beginning. And if you argue (not argue as in fight, but as in discuss why you feel that way), you'll learn so much. You might learn why Citizen Kane is so loved. And even if you can't learn that, you'll learn how editing and cinematography matter.**Assuming the person you are arguing with is smart, informed, and polite. 

[baumer]

With what authority do you say this?

 

'Cause Casablanca and Citizen Kane are far superior films to Rambo and Transformers.

 

I don't need an authority on it.  They are just empirically better films.  

 

I will leave now....now getting caught up in this thread. 

Edited August 18, 2014 by baumer

[tommycruise]

So if I had an opinion would I be right or wrong?

[Water Bottle]

I don't need an authority on it.  They are just empirically better films.  

 

I will leave now....now getting caught up in this thread. 

 

If you're expressing a subjective opinion then you're right, you don't need any authority.

 

But if you're going to make an OBJECTIVE comment then you actually do need authority. You need to show evidence, you need to actually argue the points, and you need to be able to defend it. That you're coming in and saying "XXX is a better film" but failing to justify that opinion renders your objective statements as having no merit-and therefore should be discarded.

 

What gives me an authority to say those two films are better?

 

Casablanca has won an Academy Award for Best Picture, people who have never even seen the film quote multiple lines from it all the time, the theme song has become iconic. Critics and academics continually put the film on their top 100 films list. Roger Ebert himself considers it a beloved film due to it's strong characters and wide appeal.  The National Film Registry has preserved the film, Time listed it one of the best films of the last 80 years, and WGA (industry professionals) voted it the best film ever. Having seen the film, I could actually argue why it's become such a well-received film: ignoring the basic style of the film, the character archetypes are utilized well by the film and the plot, while basic, was well-done. Based on a completely objective reading of Casablanca, and it's reaction, I can say it's a pretty exceptional film.

 

Sight & Sound has consistently voted Citizen Kane to be the best movie of all time. Roger Ebert claimed that while Casablance might be more loved, just about everybody agrees Kane is the superior film. The cinematography was so great that it continues to influence movies to this day. The score is also pretty well done and while the narrative is a bit bloated, it's structure was considered innovative. It's been included in the National Film Registry. It also has 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. Both critics and academics agree it's one of the best, if not the best, movie of all time. Having seen it, it's not my favorite movie and it's certainly tiring to experience it but it's an amazing production nonetheless. 

 

First Blood (I'm assuming this is the Rambo film you're talking about) isn't a bad film: it's an action classic after all. Still the critical reception remains mixed for it and while it's studied in academic circles-it's not revered. It might be the best movie of 1982 (it certainly made the lists) but to call it superior to Casablanca and Citizen Kane? You're seriously going to have to argue WHY that is. Currently, at best it's just another well-made action movie. I'm sure it's influenced movie-makers in it's genre but outside it? Please.

 

I like Transformers but it was slightly overrated when it first came out and was already suffering the problems that the sequels would only exacerbate. As an action family film, it's a fun production but it's not really a great movie nor is it even close to the best movie 2007 had to offer. I would rather watch this movie right now than Citizen Kane but I'd be foolish to consider Transformers the superior film.

 

You say it's "empirically" better? Then back it up because right now, you're just a movie fanboy (not that this is an insult: I'm a fanboy myself) who has given us no reason to take seriously.  Oh, and you liking Transformers but not Citizen Kane is not considered empirical evidence. That's subjective.

[dashrendar44]

This.It's not even the first thing you learn in philosophy, it's like the first thing you learn in high school essay writing.When you state something, you must support it with facts, examples, and analysis.And it's not really even about "this is what we learned in high school, and you guys are not following it."

In philosophy class, you actually learn and comprehend why and how opinions are level zero of the thought process and not the be-all and end-all alongside the history of philosophers behind it that led and came to that conclusion eons ago. Then you can elaborate and build on that basis. So you can really grasp why you were asked to provide a thoughtful argumentation to any statement you make in your high school essays.

[Ezen Baklattan]

This is an interesting question, and it's definitely one that deserves a good discussion. I'm not exactly going to answer this question in this post (provided their actually is one), but I think we need to step back and think about how we view movies, and each others' opinions of their movies. 

 

It's also fairly difficult to discuss, because it enters a Pandora's Box situation that creates an immense fog around the answers that we seek. The same could be said for most philosophical matters, really. The biggest problem is that, a lot of the time, it boils down to personal taste. We have to realize that not everyone is going into the same film in an equal way, not even that they should! If everyone had the same opinion in film, then where would the fun in film discussion be? I know I'm speaking in fairly obvious and trite statements, but I don't feel like enough people realize this. 

 

What people define as a good movie can completely vary: Whether they achieve their designed goals, whether they have a good story, or whether they're simply fun to watch. It's perfectly fine no matter which route you take, and quite frankly, I have more respect for critics who are able to channel what they want out of a film in different ways. Make no mistake, that this doesn't mean I like any critic who loves most films on account of modifying expectations, but it's an important skill in learning how to examine any form of art.

 

Speaking of critics, oh boy, this warrants a special bit of discussion. I think the reason that a lot of us put a lot of stocks in what critics have to say is because not very many people nowadays have as much expertise and experience in the art of watching films, and in a few cases, we believe that they're not only worth listening to, but can clue us into whether we like a movie ourselves.The same logic applies to any film lover, and yes, that includes all of you. You're all here because you love movies and know a lot about them, no? 

 

I don't think we should just treat critics like mystic idols at all, though, but I think they're worth listening to in some regards, in terms of more than just opinions. A lot of good critics go beyond just listing their opinions and running through the motions of film criticism, but they reveal what they themselves like to see in films. So no, not all critics are just mindless, harsh prudes, but a lot of them just have a special way of viewing movies, one a bit different from mass audiences. Considering how many movies they watch and how much experience they have, I'm not really surprised that people do put some stock in their opinions. 

 

I think it boils down to personal opinions, but in most cases, personal opinions can really travel in packs at times. When we see AFI make their top 100 movies, people listen to them, because they are the opinions of highly influential filmmakers and film historians. Chances are that they know what they're not just shitting out some half-assed opinion. There's a reason a lot of people love movies like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and so on. You may end up agreeing more with the general masses than more critical film reviewers, (I feel like this really doesn't happen as much as people seem to believe. The Transformers series is the only huge film saga to be skewered by critics.) but in the end, even critical lists are just a lot of people, albeit fairly influential ones, voicing their opinions as well.

 

In the end, film is a subjective field, but it's fair to see why some people put stock in certain opinions above others, especially those who discussed why or why not a film worked for them.

 

A few other notes, some new ideas, others clarifications to what I wrote above, just jumbled in my head:

[*]The reason I've become weary of giving films a tangible score/rank is that it not only seems reductive of the experience, but it also creates a baseline for film criticism that jumps over the true meat of conversation.  I'm not meaning to shame anyone who does this, especially since I did this fairly recently, but I don't appreciate when people just give a concrete grade to a film and think that constitutes a reasonable film discussion. (Thankfully, a lot of you don't do that.) [*]I'd talk more about authority, but Dash has already done a good job with that, it seems. [*]It annoys me when people don't like a movie, they shit on all of its aspects, even if some are good. The scores for The Last Airbender and Mars Needs Moms are big ones in my eyes. I feel like this is a bigger problem with people who are less willing to dive into deeper film discussion, though. [*]In this piece, I want to point out that no opinion is ever worthless, and no one should be pressured to change their opinion. Baumer can certainly think that Transformers is better than Citizen Kane, and discussion on that shouldn't be on trying to get Baumer to change his mind, but rather to see where he is coming from. A reversal of opinion may be a natural part of this process sometimes, but it should never be a necessary one. Film discussion is about understanding the perspectives of others, not just being proven right. Isn't the power of art itself seeing through new eyes? [*]Having said that, you may disagree strongly with Baumer's line of reasoning, but do not let one example devalue a whole critic's view. The example of finding another time any critic who drops a rotten on a 100% film is scrutinized for any other time they went against the grain is very childish. If you see that Baumer just has a way of viewing movies you don't share, then that's fine. You may take more value in other opinions as much as some value Baumer's opinion.

TL;DR: Everyone, us, audiences, critics. and more, has a special way of viewing movies. We can choose to take more value in the way certain people view movies, especially if they see eye to eye frequently. It's more rewarding, however, to engage with those who see film in different ways. 

[Jessie]

Armageddon is in the Criterion Collection and I don't think its a bad movie at all. Criterion Collection beats Best Picture win in my book (especially since the Academy actually has a middling record at picking Best Picture). I disagree that ID4 is more remembered than say The Kings Speech or Slumdog Millionaire or The Departed. In fact, I think of all the Indiana Jones movies, people tend to forget the fourth or they remember it, they remember it as a disappointing entry.

 

 

You cant be serious. ID4 is one of those films that if you ask a random person on the street whether they've seen it, chances are they have and love it. Its certainly more remembered than the 3 you mentioned.

Edited August 18, 2014 by jessie

[Jessie]

Well said again, Dash.I enjoy watching The Avengers more than I enjoy watching Apocalypse Now. But I would never say that The Avengers is a superior work of cinema to Apocalypse Now.And I laughed harder watching This Is the End than I have at any Woody Allen film ever (his brand of humor does nothing for me), but I would never say that TITE is a superior work of cinema to anything Allen did in the 70s.

 

well that's just pretentious as fuck. Still, if we are going to talk about work of art, the attack on Chicago in TF3 is a superior work of art, try finding a destructive action scene as well filmed as that (2012 aside). That tops Woody fucking Allen movies for me

Edited August 18, 2014 by jessie