Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Way to be specific. :roll:
Like this isn't the 128973671263 movie thread on this board! There is a list of movies I like on this page (I get 100 replies per page), and I'm sure that somewhere around here I posted criteria for a "good movie".
Way to be lazy.
I judge films the same way I judge any other creative work; does what is presented to the artist? However, unlike most art, film is a multi-sensory collaboration of up to hundreds of artists, and therefore can completely fail based on just a single aspect of what is presented. In fact some of the worst movies I have seen nail so many aspects of good film, and fail in only one or two ways, but the failure removes one's attention from the story, and therefore creates greater disappointment for what was a wasted effort.
Below are the criteria I have noticed which affect how I judge a film, in order of importance.
1. 2. 3. 4. and 5. Good writing; especially dialogue (if any). The writing must be superb just like I judge a book. If it's not flawless, the movies is an instant bomb. It must be compelling, original, though provoking, and emotionally entangling. Nothing removes me from a state of suspension of disbelief faster than poor writing. Sadly this is an area that seems to be more neglected than any other, and is why most every single movie is a complete waste of time. There is most definitely a shortage of quality writers in Hollywood despite ever increasing numbers of college graduates who major in writing, and more saddening, an ever increasing number of viewers who can't tell the difference (made obvious by what garbage ends up on best seller lists). Flannery O'Conner was once asked if today's modern educational environment (in the 1950s) stifles creative writers. Her response was, "It doesn't stifle nearly enough of them!" I am in total agreement with that sentiment. In fact I am positive it is worse now than it was back in her time.
6 (tie). Camerawork has to be stunning, like how I judge a photograph or a painting. This is the simplest thing to get right, yet so many movies fail on cinematography. Eye interest, balance, movement, color, focus, etc. are just as important in film as they are in photography. Happily this is an area which is getting better with improving technology and a vast number of schools and students studying the successes and failures of the past, and learning from them.
6 (tie). Editing. Editing is what makes the visual part of a movie make sense. I remember from film class a short film we watched on the subject of editing. Basically, five professional editors were given the same 2 minutes of footage and were told to make a film scene out of it. The results were 5 vastly different scenes. It is most definitely an art form; pasting together raw footage to provide an audience with some semblance of a visual story. Editing controls the flow of visual information into the mind's eye, and thereby creates much of the story we perceive as we watch a film.
7. Sound. Of sound there are two types, diegetic, and non-diegetic. The former is the sounds within the film itself; the sounds the actors would hear, such as a radio in the getaway car, the sound of gunfire, or those footsteps following behind the actor. Non-diegetic sound is sound outside of the film such as a musical score, which only the audience is aware of. Again there is a true art form in both of these areas; picking the right music to match or contrast the visuals, and creating (foleying) believable sound effects are best left to pros, because miscues in this area can ruin an otherwise great film.
8. Direction. This is much too heralded by the industry in my opinion, but never the less it is somewhat important where good films are concerned. Though there is definitely a trend in good direction being attached to a short list of names, I do think it is more because of singular control that directors make names for themselves. I think if you watch a few dozen films, you will find that the best ones are the ones where a single person exercised thorough control over all of the most important aspects of a film; in other words they cared for the project as if they were the only ones responsible for its success or failure. This is decidedly difficult in today's film world where literally hundreds of people are collaborating to create a film, where producers like to take control of things based on their power (money) and blight directors with "test audience" scores, which is just another term for lowest common denominator, and other egotistical power plays. Most of the time though a director is nothing more than a glorified secretary, making sure everyone makes their schedules and deadlines.
9. Mise en scene. This literally means what is in the scene or what you see as an audience. Though this category includes aspects of some of the other categories I have laid out here, such as acting, cinematography, and editing, what I mean here is the stuff that can not be attributed to those areas. Sets, costumes, lighting, locations all have to be believable, and should add to the overall sense of immersion in the work. A small miscue here can cost a film dearly. Think of what The Road Warrior would be like if all the wastelanders wore suits and ties; it would break the suspension of disbelief, but because they wear this sort of ramshackle armor, made from old hockey equipment and whatever else you can imagine people in such a setting would scavenge, the entire theme of the film comes to life. Happily this is another area that Hollywood has practically perfected, but they still do give out awards for costumes and sets, so someone other than me thinks it's pretty important.
10. Acting. Face it, most actors simply play themselves reading lines from the script (not necessarily a bad thing). There is an art form to acting, and there are certainly good and not so good actors, but generally the acting, if sufficient is low on the list of things that make a movie good. However great acting can propel a movie from "good" to "terrific", and therefore deserves some mention, though I'm sure not as much as many people think. I think my point is made though because I have yet to see a film that was otherwise marginal be carried by a single acting performance, or even the entire cast!
Wonder why Saving Private Ryan ends up on my worst films of all time list? It's mostly due to great disappointment. SPR has amazing cinematography, amazing sound (perhaps the most accurate and visceral swallow you whole sound in any film ever), quality editing, PERFECT sets and costumes, and some spectacular performances, and even some good dialogue, but I'll be damned if I could sit through a 3 hour movie in which the plot is so improbable, the scenario so false and utterly unimaginative, that it won't shove me right out of the dreamscape I am supposed to be in. What a horrible and unengaging story! Doubly so because of the ham-handed let's tug on their heartstrings approach Spielberg took with the morality play. I can't stand to have my patriotism used against me in such a shameful way. I sat through 3/4 of that movie in pure contempt. This illustrates exactly why writing is so above and beyond any other category on my list.