What constitutes a "bad movie?"

[Ultimatehero]

I'll give a answer that some may not 'get':

A movie without heart.

That's talking more the hollywood studio system than indie films. But, some studio systems you can just tell they did it for the paycheck. Or the writer just wrote what they thought the audiences or studios would like rather than the story they wanted to tell. You have to be true to yourself, feel a real pull towards that story, and hopefully have the rest feel the same way. When everyone is passionate about it and it's coming from a real place - then you've at least got something that will resonate and strike a chord.

It's as Michael Shannon once said when asked how he can tell a good script and these were the ones I considered while working at a big time studio as well -- when it feels like the writer is standing naked in front of me and saying "here I am, judge me as you will." Not only are his characters undergoing a journey, but you can tell that the writer is as well and that's the most fascinating because when it's coming from a very human place chances are the audience will have similarly felt those things in their lives as well. Those were the good screenplays. And that's what I always do with my work as well - the more honest you are whether it be actor or writer or director - the more engaging it will be. Don't be afraid to be naked. The less honest you are with the work and just trying to make a quick buck, the more people will likely catch on.

Studio term: 'Considered' means "send up past the interns and to the executives" (as opposed to 'pass' which meant that it wasn't good). You get about 1 consider script per every 20-30 passes script, if you're lucky as a reader. So to me, those were the ones I passed along. The ones that felt... genuine.

 

[CapedCrusader14]

People have said every reason what makes a bad movie (script, acting, direction, etc), so I won't sound like a broken record, but a sort of out-of-the-box answer would be a movie that fails in it's genre. For example, a horror film that isn't scary to the general audience; a comedy that the general audience doesn't find funny; an action film that the general audience feels heavily lacks action.

Oh definitely that as well. Execution is key IMO when it comes to film.

 

[Mandalore464]

Edit : Deleted

 

[Zanham]

I'll give a answer that some may not 'get':

A movie without heart.[/i]

I understand it perfectly.

You can tell when someone(s) put their heart into something and when others just go through the process. It's a copy cat world we live in though, so, whatever.

 

[KangConquers]

Plot holes are #1 to me. That's why there was a certain recent trilogy ender that I could never consider a truly great movie. If something is a mess in terms of plot and logic, and falls back on cheap plot devices, I can never consider it a great movie.

 

[metaphysician]

Something that hasn't been touched yet much: consistency. A bad movie is, very often, an inconsistent movie.

A character can be written with depth and personality. They can be written as a 2D archetype. Either can work, depending on how important characterization is to the movie. However, in either case, if the character suddenly does something that the audience does not believe is in-character? You have a problem.

The same thing applies to other aspects of the movie. If a movie has a generally campy, light-hearted tone, and then suddenly and unjustifiably turns dark and horrific, you've got a problem. If a movie establishes rules for its scenario, then breaks those rules in the climax? You've got a problem.

 

[Warhammer]

Plot holes are #1 to me. That's why there was a certain recent trilogy ender that I could never consider a truly great movie. If something is a mess in terms of plot and logic, and falls back on cheap plot devices, I can never consider it a great movie.

If you mentioned that film by name, I'd tell you to get ready for a war.

 

[charl_huntress]

lol...that sounds about right.

 

[Golgo-13]

Pacing.

 

[KangConquers]

If you mentioned that film by name, I'd tell you to get ready for a war.

Why would anyone rush to the defense of Madagascar 3?

No longer referring to my previous post, but staying on that point, the most important element of what makes a good movie (and thus, the absence of creates a bad movie) is a strong script. I've seen movies with very average actors, or inconsistent directors, that were very strong based on a strong script.

If a film is poorly plotted, poorly paced, and poorly constructed on paper, all a great score, a great actor, or great director will do is polish up a turd.

 

[Mandalore464]

Edit : Deleted

 

[Thundarr]

Everyone else has pretty much listed everything that constitutes a bad movie. Poor acting, writing, directing, cinematography, special effects, etc are all definite factors. As are films that fail to accomplish their goals (comedies that aren't funny, horrors that aren't scary, etc) are also good examples of what makes bad movies.

I was kinda surprised by some peoples' choices of examples of bad movies though. Pirates Of The Caribbean and The Lord Of The Rings are bad movies? I beg to differ. All the factors in what makes a good movie are all there (good writing, good acting, good directing, good special effects, good fight choreography, etc). The movies succeeded in telling the types of stories and producing the emotions in their audiences that they set out to do. They both cover all the bases for exactly what makes a good movie.

If they're not exactly your cup of tea, that's something completely different. There are plenty of movies out there that I wouldn't enjoy just because I don't particularly care for that style of film. That doesn't make them bad movies. For example, I love the movie Braveheart. My sister, on the other hand, can't stand it. It's a brilliantly made movie, but it's just not her cup of tea.

 

[Gianakin_]

I was kinda surprised by some peoples' choices of examples of bad movies though. Pirates Of The Caribbean and The Lord Of The Rings are bad movies? I beg to differ. All the factors in what makes a good movie are all there (good writing, good acting, good directing, good special effects, good fight choreography, etc). The movies succeeded in telling the types of stories and producing the emotions in their audiences that they set out to do. They both cover all the bases for exactly what makes a good movie.

That is all a matter of opinion, though. You think there's good writing, good acting etc. in there, others may not.

 

[Thundarr]

That is all a matter of opinion, though. You think there's good writing, good acting etc. in there, others may not.

True. But some people confuse what they like with what is good. If they like a movie it must be good, and if they didn't it must be bad. Few of us can recognize that just because we're enjoying a film doesn't necessarily mean it's well made, and vice versa.

My roommate has friends over every Sunday for "Bad Movie Night". We sit and watch movies like Red Sonja and The Ninja Strikes Back, and we have a lot of fun watching them. But they are very, very BAD movies. On the other hand, I can't even sit through an entire showing of Citizen Kane or Casablanca. I can tell that they're both really well made movies, but they just bore the hell out of me.

 

[Gianakin_]

Then that goes against your own point of a good movie succeeding in what it's setting out to do. If Casablanca bores you it failed to connect you with the characters, their emotional journey, etc.

 

[Naked Shia]

I have only one rule to decide if a movie is bad or not. If a movie bores me, it's a bad movie. I don't care if the acting is good, the story is great or whatever. But I don't want to be bored. That's why The Seventh Curse or the cat (both directed by Lam Nai choi) are among my favorite movies, regardless of their qualities.

For instance, Long Arm Of The Law is considered as a masterpiece. but I think it's a boring movie. So, to me, it's a bad movie. On the other hand, Men From The gutter, which has the same story, is not as well made, but it's never boring, so it's a good movie to me.

 

[Kane52630]

My only criteria for a legitimate bad movie is pretty simple...if the movie doesn't get a reaction out of you (good or bad), it fails as a movie.

Films with bad acting, story, ect can still be entertaining and rewatchable.



edit: pretty much what Leo said.

 

[Kane52630]

This is quite literally like asking what constitutes a "bad painting," only with about 3 times the subjective elements, such as "bad music."

A bad scientific theory, ok. This is art.

I agree.

 

[Thundarr]

Then that goes against your own point of a good movie succeeding in what it's setting out to do. If Casablanca bores you it failed to connect you with the characters, their emotional journey, etc.

Not necessarily. From what little I've seen of those movies, I can tell that they were doing a very good job of telling their stories. Unfortunately for me, their stories put me to sleep better than a glass of warm milk and a couple of Nytol. So I know they're good movies, they just don't happen to be my cup of tea. As such, I find them dull and boring, and I fall asleep within 30 minutes. The story itself is well told, it's just not the type of story that keeps my attention.

In another example, Six Degrees Of Seperation was a really dood drama, but a really lousy comedy. Now I don't know if I just didn't "get" the humour, or if the video store mistakingly labled it a comedy simply because it starred Will Smith, but I watched the entire film and didn't laugh once. The story was interesting, and the movie was well acted and directed, with excellent cinematography, but it wasn't the comedy that it claimed to be.

 

[Victarion]

I consider a movie to be bad if its script is something you could easily find on FanFictiondotnet.

 

[Changeling]

Two words.

Green. Lantern.

 

[Kane52630]

Green Lantern has some entertainment value.

 

[Gianakin_]

Not necessarily. From what little I've seen of those movies, I can tell that they were doing a very good job of telling their stories. Unfortunately for me, their stories put me to sleep better than a glass of warm milk and a couple of Nytol. So I know they're good movies, they just don't happen to be my cup of tea. As such, I find them dull and boring, and I fall asleep within 30 minutes. The story itself is well told, it's just not the type of story that keeps my attention.

In another example, Six Degrees Of Seperation was a really dood drama, but a really lousy comedy. Now I don't know if I just didn't "get" the humour, or if the video store mistakingly labled it a comedy simply because it starred Will Smith, but I watched the entire film and didn't laugh once. The story was interesting, and the movie was well acted and directed, with excellent cinematography, but it wasn't the comedy that it claimed to be.

And that is exactly the reason why the question this thread poses, while interesting, is ultimately pointless. Like Leo and Kane said, if the movie doesn't do it for you, it's bad. What you're doing is trying to be simultaneously objective AND subjective about art. Which is impossible, contradictory and, like I said, pointless.

What you're also trying to do is justify some movies' shortcomings (to you) because they were technically well made and/or because they're held in high regard by many people and/or lists. But you don't have to. If a movie's story puts you to sleep faster than warm milk etc, then how did they do a good job at telling the story? Surely you're not implying you're condemning entire types of stories or entire genres?

Let me give you an example: I thought I didn't like movies that featured sports in general. Which would make me agree with what you said. Until I watched Any Given Sunday. Now, every sports movie before or after AGS that I watched I found crap, but I realized it's not because of the fact they had sports in them, it's because they're just bad flicks to me. Why? Because they failed to use the means the genre provided them to captivate me in any single way.

Now, to be fair, sports aren't my cup of tea in real life. I never got the enthusiasm for soccer, basketball or any kind of sports. To this very day and till the day I leave this world I won't know how baseball works. Obviously it'll hinder my enthusiasm for a movie that features sports and I get that this, too, is very close to the point you're trying to make. Still, I saw the trailer for Trouble With The Curve and it seemed interesting to me because I saw elements in it that may get my attention and appeal to me, using baseball as A BASIS to make a point/develop a theme.

 

[charl_huntress]

^^Very insightful post. I also agree that what constitutes a bad movie is subjective. That means it's dependent on the users likes and dislikes. Again, I harken back to Superman Returns. I recently re-watched that movie on FX and it's not a bad movie as movies go, but for me I do not like it and my reasons are completey subjective. Plus, I admit they are subjective.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I'd say it's more detailed than that. As a screenplay 'reader' it wasn't really my job to say consider or pass based upon whether I personally liked it or not. But if others might like it. Good characters, character arcs, strong conflict, and a wide audience for it. Some scripts I liked I couldn't write 'consider' for because while I liked it, I could also see how more people wouldn't. The question to help is - would you stake YOUR money on this? That helped me a lot. Although, again, this might be something I honed in on that's hard to understand. Unsure. Just when at these top companies I ran across scripts I would like to see made but didn't suggest them because I saw it more as a personal like than something that would catch on for many.

That's why I particularly looked at heart too because that can stand out. A genuinity is hard to fake. And when you have that and an audience in sight- then you have something.

Basically while subjective, there is an objective side to it as well. Although this may be harder to judge. Also subjective, depends o the number of films someone sees. I rent around 30 films from the library per three weeks and go to the theaters at least twice a week with some miscellaneous films tossed in as well. I can look at smaller titles and say 'that was bad.' While those who don't would look at more well known title and consider it 'bad' because they haven't seen the bottom of the barrel.

As said there's subjective, which I consider based on likes and how many films one has seen for comparison, and objective which is more mathematics and sociology lol.

ADDING: I should note this isn't an exact science either. Some scripts I've read of scripts picked up weren't that good of reads (Fright Night comes to mind) but made for entertaining films. So that way of thinking is faulty as well, but it's a barometer I've established to help with maintaining a strong work reputations.