What makes a movie "good"?

[L0ngsh0t]

Just read several books about writing and making movies and you'll get the answer.

But honestly, try to find the answer asking yourself, not others [/quote

please tell me you are kidding, I think you are, the last sentence gives me hope you where kidding, but please

 

[L0ngsh0t]

It doesn't work that way.

Those films are good films whether some people like it or not. They are universally liked, for several reasons. The direction, acting and other factors are inherently good, and some guy not liking those movies doesn't change that.

I didn't care for Blade Runner, but I understand that its a good film.

I cannot fathom why Citizen Kane is considered a great movie

there is a difference between good, and a being innovative, or artistic, or influential

just because a movie is well made does not mean it is good, it means it is well made...

The Godfather I think is a good movie, and a lot of people think it is a good movie, but when is the last time anyone has ever watched them? In all honesty I think the majority of people watch it once-cause everyone says they are the best movies ever-so they can say they've seen it, and then they never watch it again. And I would be a movie like Bad Boys gets watched at a rate of like 5-1 what Godfather gets watched at...so which is the better movie, the one everyone watches alot or the one that most people only watch once, and never watch it again

good is only personal preference, it is a feeling not a fact, you can't say this movie has good, you can only say it is good

 

[Prognosticator]

High Definition makes a movie good.

 

[Erzengel]

I cannot fathom why Citizen Kane is considered a great movie

there is a difference between good, and a being innovative, or artistic, or influential

just because a movie is well made does not mean it is good, it means it is well made...

The Godfather I think is a good movie, and a lot of people think it is a good movie, but when is the last time anyone has ever watched them? In all honesty I think the majority of people watch it once-cause everyone says they are the best movies ever-so they can say they've seen it, and then they never watch it again. And I would be a movie like Bad Boys gets watched at a rate of like 5-1 what Godfather gets watched at...so which is the better movie, the one everyone watches alot or the one that most people only watch once, and never watch it again

good is only personal preference, it is a feeling not a fact, you can't say this movie has good, you can only say it is good

I think there's a difference between quality and entertaining.

Godfather are quality movies. And honestly, I've watched them more than once. And for something you think people only watch "once", those movies are pretty much integrated in popular culture.

Movies like Transformers are entertaining. And sometimes people want to be able to leave their brains at the door.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

I think there's a difference between quality and entertaining.

Godfather are quality movies. And honestly, I've watched them more than once. And for something you think people only watch "once", those movies are pretty much integrated in popular culture.

Movies like Transformers are entertaining. And sometimes people want to be able to leave their brains at the door.

I hate to break it too you but movies are ment to be entertaining, if it isn't entertaining it fails to meet its most basic criteria

whats the difference though?

Transformers vs Godfather, why is Godfather better? What would you rather watch? I would rather watch Transformers cause I think it is far better, quality of movie cumulates in the fact that the movie is a solid watch to, I could just put transformers in at any time, with Godfather you have to dedicate a night, and then it becomes less entertainment, and more so film homework so "film snobs" will think I am on top of my game.

A book can be well written and feature some of the most boring literature ever assembled, the same can be said for a movie, I'm not saying the godfathers are bad, I think they are pretty cool in context, but I think movies like Transformers and what not are far superior

even with all that said, all "good" is, is personal preference, nothing more nothing less, you can say the directing was good, but again it is your opinion that the directing is good

 

[Warhammer]

^Agreed.

It doesn't work that way.

Those films are good films whether some people like it or not. They are universally liked, for several reasons. The direction, acting and other factors are inherently good, and some guy not liking those movies doesn't change that.

I didn't care for Blade Runner, but I understand that its a good film.

Flawed logic.

"Good" is an opinion and nothing more.
You can't speak for every human on the face of the planet, therefore, you can't consider The Godfather or Raging Bull universally "good" films by everybody. I think they are some of the finest films ever made, but I can't speak for everyone else.

 

[Erzengel]

I hate to break it too you but movies are ment to be entertaining, if it isn't entertaining it fails to meet its most basic criteria

whats the difference though?

Transformers vs Godfather, why is Godfather better? What would you rather watch? I would rather watch Transformers cause I think it is far better, quality of movie cumulates in the fact that the movie is a solid watch to, I could just put transformers in at any time, with Godfather you have to dedicate a night, and then it becomes less entertainment, and more so film homework so "film snobs" will think I am on top of my game.

A book can be well written and feature some of the most boring literature ever assembled, the same can be said for a movie, I'm not saying the godfathers are bad, I think they are pretty cool in context, but I think movies like Transformers and what not are far superior

even with all that said, all "good" is, is personal preference, nothing more nothing less, you can say the directing was good, but again it is your opinion that the directing is good

You're right all movies are meant to be entertaining, however, movies like Tranformers, aren't meant to be King Lear storywise. And by the way I liked Transformers but I wouldn't put it near the same catagory as a masterpiece as Godfather. And not because I'm a "film snob" or I want to seem intelligent. It's very easy to appreciate the quality of a Godfather which is why it's usually in the top 10 of most American Film lists.

I guess instead of the word "entertaining" how about a more "leisurely" movie.

 

[DorkyFresh]

good is only personal preference, it is a feeling not a fact, you can't say this movie has good, you can only say it is good

as i said, personal preference only goes so far. it's personal and applies to only one. when you're talking about the masses, however, personal preference pretty much goes out the door. a movie can be "good" to one person, but the true test to how "good" a movie is comes when multiple people watch it. a movie that 1 out of 5 people like isn't as "good" as a movie that 5 out of 5 people like. yes, there's personal preference for each of those 5 people but the collective decision determines the QUALITY (goodness) of the film.

Transformers vs Godfather, why is Godfather better? What would you rather watch? I would rather watch Transformers cause I think it is far better, quality of movie cumulates in the fact that the movie is a solid watch to, I could just put transformers in at any time, with Godfather you have to dedicate a night, and then it becomes less entertainment, and more so film homework so "film snobs" will think I am on top of my game.

i'll stick to my point that the quality and effort put into the film is what determines what makes a film "good" or "better" than others. if the director (and co.) puts more time and energy into making a film that you can't find many faults in then it's a better work of art than films that are more FUN to watch but have a cluster of flaws. just like all art...the quality of the movie depends on how much of themselves the team invests in the project. naturally, a movie with more love and care will probably turn out to be a better work of art than a half-assed movie. Transformers may be more FUN to watch, but that doesn't make it a better piece of art than the Godfather. a watercolor of Alex Ross's version of the Justice League might be more appealing than Leonardo DaVinci's Last Supper to 1 particular person...but that doesn't make the Justice League painting a better work of art than the Last Supper. as i said, personal preference can only go so far...

Flawed logic.

"Good" is an opinion and nothing more.
You can't speak for every human on the face of the planet, therefore, you can't consider The Godfather or Raging Bull universally "good" films by everybody. I think they are some of the finest films ever made, but I can't speak for everyone else.

you can't say that ANY piece of art is liked by every single person on Earth but universally liked doesn't mean that EVERY SINGLE PERSON likes it. if you're going by that logic then nothing that's known to humans is truly universally liked. it basically means that the majority of the people who've seen it recognize it as a good thing.

case in point...Lord of the Rings. there are plenty of people out there that have negative thoughts and opinions towards the films but they're universally liked because the majority of the world sees those films as "good" films.

 

[Warhammer]

I still will stick to my opinion that personal preference is what makes a film "good".

I'm done, now.

 

[Erzengel]

Yeah, you can't know everyone's opinion about a certain movie but it's usually easy to get the concensus of a movie.

Spider-Man, easy to get that most people like this movie.
Catwoman, easy to get that most people didn't like this movie.

Godfather, VERY easy to see that most people like this movie.

 

[ANTOINE X]

Its a good question cause honestly there are some people who give 10/10 for no reason at all. Do these guys know what s a 10??? I think I didn t give a 10 to a movie since ''Gladiator''!!!

As for your question well I said it before and I say it again '' Tension'' is one of key ingredient to have a good movie. Hollywood is spending too much time on the action just to blow your eyes of special fx . It s like a big bag of chips with 50% of air in it. Horror movie these days are crappy too much blood and action and no tension.

 

[Erzengel]

Just go over the the Spider-Man thread where 250 out of over 1,000 people voted SM3 better than it's predecessors.

 

[Penismightier]

Characters. You can make a movie succeed with whatever story you come up with. What sets good movies apart is that they have well written characters with which the audience can not only relate to, but are also interesting. How many times has a low budget movie worked despite the low budget? Little Miss Sunshine is a great example of this. It had great characters. The flip side is Armageddon or Pearl Harbor. All the action and special effects you could wants, but the characters sucked. As someone once told me, "If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the screen".

 

[The Amazing Lee]

"Good" is an opinion, therefore, what you said is wrong.
Not everybody thinks that The Godfather or Raging Bull were good films.

What I meant by good is how a film of great excellence succeeds...is not always what the average popcorn viewer likes...but a film of the calibre that I am talking about is one that is able to exist outside of the box and is always thinking two steps ahead. Not just about the characters and situations that are presented on the screen, but the underlying messages and meanings that are perfectly placed to layer a film that many conventional Hollywood films tend to lack.

 

[GhostPoet]

wow...I come back and this thread is up to 3 pages already.

anyway, I agree that personal preference is a big factor. But I also agree that it can come down to quality...you can tell when a director puts his all into a movie or if he's doing it to meet a deadline.

the Resident Evil series isn't the deepest movie experience...but I really like it a lot. The story isn't complex and the characters are not mind-blowingly deep...but I DO like the movies for what they are...mindless action with a touch of horror.

So, I think even a movie that isn't pure quality can still be a "good" movie...sometimes just because it can be fun to watch something that doesn't require a lot of thought...I guess that could fit into "mood".

 

[CFE]

This thread is a perfect example of the fact that the answer you're seeking is in fact "Personal Preference."

But I do feel that quality of film doesn't play that big a part in deciding whether a film is well recieved or not.

In a technical sense (budget, visual effects, equipment quality) "Batman & Robin" is higher quality than say "Aliens" or even the original "BATMAN." Yet both those films are generally more appreciated than "B&R."

CFE

 

[DorkyFresh]

In a technical sense (budget, visual effects, equipment quality) "Batman & Robin" is higher quality than say "Aliens" or even the original "BATMAN." Yet both those films are generally more appreciated than "B&R."

CFE

i can't speak for others but when i talk about quality, i'm not talking about production value. B&R might've had better effects, camera, lights, etc. than Aliens but the people who worked on Aliens worked their asses off and they did everything to the literally to the best of their abilities. Aliens has more QUALITY than B&R not because the production value was better...but because the filmmakers were creating something that was genuinely artful. everything from the director, to the cast, to the story, to the special effects were the best that they could've been at the time.....which is why it surpasses the half-assed B&R by a long shot. Aliens was made because all the major players involved had a genuine love of the franchise. B&R was made because WB wanted a 2 hour toy commercial.

 

[CFE]

i can't speak for others but when i talk about quality, i'm not talking about production value. B&R might've had better effects, camera, lights, etc. than Aliens but the people who worked on Aliens worked their asses off and they did everything to the literally to the best of their abilities. Aliens has more QUALITY than B&R not because the production value was better...but because the filmmakers were creating something that was genuinely artful. everything from the director, to the cast, to the story, to the special effects were the best that they could've been at the time.....which is why it surpasses the half-assed B&R by a long shot. Aliens was made because all the major players involved had a genuine love of the franchise. B&R was made because WB wanted a 2 hour toy commercial.

Agreed, that's why I said 'technical' sense.

But yes what makes films like "Aliens," "Robocop," and Burton's original "BATMAN" great is the passion the cast and crew put into those films.

CFE

 

[L0ngsh0t]

wow...I come back and this thread is up to 3 pages already.

anyway, I agree that personal preference is a big factor. But I also agree that it can come down to quality...you can tell when a director puts his all into a movie or if he's doing it to meet a deadline.

the Resident Evil series isn't the deepest movie experience...but I really like it a lot. The story isn't complex and the characters are not mind-blowingly deep...but I DO like the movies for what they are...mindless action with a touch of horror.

So, I think even a movie that isn't pure quality can still be a "good" movie...sometimes just because it can be fun to watch something that doesn't require a lot of thought...I guess that could fit into "mood".

It's sounding like Rob Zombie has put his all into Halloween, and there has been little to none studio interference, but yet many reports are coming out that the movie is a mess-I will wait to see it, cause the trailers look stellar

do you think the guy that made Battlefeild earth didn't try hard, no he wanted that to be the red letter scientology movie

I think your statement in bold is highly inncorrect

but I agree with alot of the rest of your post

What many people are talking about isn't quality, they are all talking about the parts-directing, acting, writing, cinematography-these are the parts to the machine. But it is the machine that counts

if it is a well made car, but you can't drive it, or hate driving it what is the point of having it, if it cost just as much as a car that you love driving and runs just as well

 

[DorkyFresh]

Agreed, that's why I said 'technical' sense.

oh okay cool...then we're on the same page

 

[Apollo]

story, acting, visuals, music

 

[Cinemaman]

Just read several books about writing and making movies and you'll get the answer.

But honestly, try to find the answer asking yourself, not others [/quote

please tell me you are kidding, I think you are, the last sentence gives me hope you where kidding, but please

Calm down, buddy. Didn't it seem like I was kidding?

 

[Erzengel]

Good will always be a matter of opinion.

However, with everything, books, movies, music, there's usually a general concensus.

I mean to take L0ngsh0t's example of Bad Boys vs. Godfather? I can see why some people would rather watch Bad Boys, maybe because, you can kinda turn of your brain and just watch the pretty pictures. But I don't think you are going to find many people who say Bad Boys is a better movie than Godfather.

 

[turtlefocker]

I would rather watch Godfather than Transformers and I thoroughly enjoyed Citizen Kane..... although to be fair I am not and never was a Transformers fan. To put it into better perspective I would rather watch Aliens than The Godfather.

What makes a movie good is all a matter of taste. But I still stand by the "3 great scenes, no bad scenes" rule.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Raging Bull is an example of a near perfect piece. From acting, direction, to the life-story and the well choreographed ring fight scenes. Unlike the boring Gone With the Wind and Titanic, I could watch Raging Bull all of the time, it's a movie I never get tired of it. It's entertaining and informative.