General Discussion : What makes a film good or bad?

[Baby Fish]

Other than the basic elements such as entertainment value and storyline what, in your opinion, makes a good movie?
Does a film have to have a message or a point? Does it have to be well filmed? How important is the acting/casting to you? etc.
Also, have there ever been any exceptions, like sentimental value or just saying "Yeah it was a really terribly movie but fuck it, I actually loved it!"?
I'm guessing someone's asked something similar before, but I'm just curious to know what you guys think...

[nauru]

For me the thing that most frequently wrecks a film is the writing. Even if the acting, sets, costumes, camera movements and editing are great, it is all worthless if the story is non-sensical or goes nowhere. The story needs to make sense, it needs to move at a reasonable pace, the characters need to react to things in a way that is believable, and they need lines that suit the situation and don't make me cringe.

Cinematography, camera angles, etc can be mediocre but if you have a great story this can in many cases carry a film. In my opinion.

Needless to say there are exceptions to this, and occasionally you can find a strong film with a weak and/or ultra-slow plot. But this is very rare in my opinion.

[ShogunRua]

A million and one things can make a film good or bad.

A film can have a boring, brain-dead concept but the execution of the concept is wonderful, and thus, it's a good movie. Even the story itself can be shit, but if there are enough strong elements in other areas, (funny scenes, great cinemaphotography, quality acting and directing, a neat soundtrack, etc.) it can still be decent. (A movie I watched just last night, "Edward Scissorhands", fits that description to a tee)

Really, the question is just too general.

[abcdefgh]

Entertainment, in its widest meaning. That is, the involvement you have on the film and what it offers.

[CMonster]

I would say that what makes a film good or bad can't be narrowed down to any specific element. One thing I think really makes a difference is a good score/soundtrack, but I could probably name 10 films I really like that have shit scores and 10 with good scores that I hate. In the end it really comes down to how every element works with the others to make something work (or lack there of with the so-bad-its-good type of film). This way a film may be lackluster any any one (or a few) area(s), but if it fits with the rest of the film its not really a problem.

[SirStuckey]

Good: Edgar Wright directs it

Bad: Andy Tennant directs it

[Svengali]

I think ShogunRua summed it up pretty well.

I don't think a film needs to have a message or a direct point to make although you do not want to be left with the feeling that this film ultimately was pointless.

Cinematography, photography and all that can only elevate the film to higher grounds I think, if a film succeeds in areas such as script and general plot I don't mind if the cinematography is only decent - it can't be bad though, that would only worsen it.

Acting and casting is fairly important, I'd rank it on about the same level of importance as the cinematography - it can really elevate the film. Although, I also think it's easier to find bad actors or make a misstep in the casting than it is to fail with the cinematography.

For sentimental value, sure I'd say there's a couple of films I hold maybe a bit closer to my heart than they should be.

But one thing about the cinematographic and photographic beauty of a film intrigues me - this has been on my mind for some time; Why is it that a director like Tarkovsky puts so much effort to the imagerial beauty of his films? Of course there is no reason not to and it can only elevate his philosophic films to another level but sometimes you think he almost relies a bit too much on the the photography rather than the substance, no?

[TheDenizen]

Also, have there ever been any exceptions, like sentimental value or just saying "Yeah it was a really terribly movie but fuck it, I actually loved it!"?

This is the type of film I generally thrive on.

I can appreciate high quality "good" films with stellar writing/acting/cinematography/etc, and often rate them very highly....but I absolutely LOVE shlocky cinematic junk that fails in spectacularly comic ways. Cheap creature features and micro budget exploitation pictures often fall into this category....they're usually technically inept but earnest and fun in a way that films rarely aspire to these days.

The real trick is in figuring out when something is "so bad it's good", or just SO BAD it hurts. There's usually a fine distinction between the two, not easily discerned by the novice (though it's often in direct correlation to the amount of boobs on display in the movie).

But as for what makes a movie "good" or "bad".....like Shogun said, the reasons are Legion. Too many to list without a narrowing of focus.

[Gregzilla]

]

Entertainment, in its widest meaning. That is, the involvement you have on the film and what it offers.

That nails it for me.

Just as my bottomfeeding brethen above, I can appreciate the lack of quality in the crap (when it works) just as much as the quality of the masterpiece (when it works). When it doesn't work the crap hurts and the masterpiece is crap.

[Anomaly1]

Howard Hawks described a good film as "Three great scenes, no bad ones." Applying that to one of his films I watched last night, it had a few great moments, and no bad ones, yet only managed to reach averageness - in part because it was uneven.

Obviously it's going to be a lot more complex than such a simple statement, although I see what he was getting at. In fact, wondering about what makes a film 'average' and unremarkable, despite any talent behind it, might be a more interesting route to go down - why doesn't something work?