what makes a movie good?

pbowenroe

I think I have a fair idea of whether a movie is good or not after having watched it, but I can't really give reasons for why I liked it or disliked it.

For example, The Godfather. It is one of the best reviewed movies of all time and I watched it the other day and thought it was brilliant, but I don't know what I liked about it. Could someone tell me what is good about the Godfather? Or what makes any movie good?

Basically I want to start learning about why some movies are good and some are bad and not just whether I like them or not.

thanks

flanree

pbowenroe wrote: »

Basically I want to start learning about why some movies are good and some are bad and not just whether I like them or not.

Surely the last part of this sentence is far more important than the first part. Are you saying you would rewatch something you didn't like just because it's considered 'good'? Do you feel you have to justify liking a film considered 'bad'?

Sanity_Saviour

There's a fine line between liking a film and considering it "good". Very often the highest grossing film at the box office is complete tripe while Oscar Nominated films can be entirely ignored. Example A:The Hurt Locker

Hank_Jones

For me, the main elements that make up a good film are acting performances, camerawork and story.

You find a film that has continued quality in all these elements and you find a good film.

If it's an action film and incorporates CGI, that's a completely different story though.
As they don't look real at times and I just can't be positive about that.

NIMAN

For me a good, straight film must have:

a story, good characters, great acting. Quite simple. Forget big stars, huge salaries, special effects etc.
Example: great film - Glengarry Glen Ross, **** film - Armageddon.


Most films do not meet these 3 things these days. Many are just marketed well and disappoint when you watch them.

For a comedy film, it should make you laugh. Again many 'comedies' do not fulfill this criteria these days.

pbowenroe

flanree wrote: »

Surely the last part of this sentence is far more important than the first part. Are you saying you would rewatch something you didn't like just because it's considered 'good'? Do you feel you have to justify liking a film considered 'bad'?

Yes you are right. That came across differently than I had intended. What I meant was I know if I like something but would like to know why. But I did say that in the last sentence.... O.K, everyone ignore that first sentence:D

bnt

I suppose it would be different if you were studying film. It wouldn't be enough to like a film: you'd be expected to gain an understanding of why other people like certain films too, and so on.

The Godfather films, to me, were really all about the character of Michael Corleone, and the tension he generates draws the viewer in. From the very start, we can see that his family had certain expectations for him, but he was already confounding those expectations, and they didn't quite know how to handle him. He wasn't going to run the family - that was Sonny's role as the eldest son - and the plan was for him to go to college and eventually become a lawyer. Even that future was ambiguous: would he go straight, or would he become a Family lawyer, even Consigliere? At one point there is even talk of a future in politics, if I recall correctly.

As it happened, he dropped out of college to join the Marines, and came back after the War with a non-Italian girlfriend and strange American ideas. So, straight away, there's this tension between Michael (the 2nd generation all-American), and his family and all they stand for. (This tension is also underscored in the very first scene, with the undertaker complaining how the "American way" has let him down, and how he has to come to the Godfather for justice.)

So when Michael does get involved - of his own volition - the viewer is left wondering just where it's all going to lead. He's such a complex character in a complex environment that we want to see how it's all going to work out. That's what made it good, in my opinion.

pbowenroe

bnt wrote: »

I suppose it would be different if you were studying film. It wouldn't be enough to like a film: you'd be expected to gain an understanding of why other people like certain films too, and so on.

The Godfather films, to me, were really all about the character of Michael Corleone, and the tension he generates draws the viewer in. From the very start, we can see that his family had certain expectations for him, but he was already confounding those expectations, and they didn't quite know how to handle him. He wasn't going to run the family - that was Sonny's role as the eldest son - and the plan was for him to go to college and eventually become a lawyer. Even that future was ambiguous: would he go straight, or would he become a Family lawyer, even Consigliere? At one point there is even talk of a future in politics, if I recall correctly.

As it happened, he dropped out of college to join the Marines, and came back after the War with a non-Italian girlfriend and strange American ideas. So, straight away, there's this tension between Michael (the 2nd generation all-American), and his family and all they stand for. (This tension is also underscored in the very first scene, with the undertaker complaining how the "American way" has let him down, and how he has to come to the Godfather for justice.)

So when Michael does get involved - of his own volition - the viewer is left wondering just where it's all going to lead. He's such a complex character in a complex environment that we want to see how it's all going to work out. That's what made it good, in my opinion.

Good post, thanks. As for the bolded, that is my aim. I probably should have done film studies then:p

Frank Black

For me, some of the (more obvious) elements that make a movie good/great are.

Good acting – it goes without saying that for a movie to be good you need to be drawn into the world of the story – the single biggest factor that will draw you in, is the believability of an actor’s performance.

Good story – sounds a bit obvious but movies are just another version of what our ancestors used to do 1000’s of years ago – they’re basically a guy sitting around a campfire telling everyone else a story. In this case the ‘guy’ is a ‘director/writer’ and we sit in a cinema auditorium as opposed to a campfire, but the principle is exactly the same.

No stupid plot holes – Related to point 2, it’s a personal bug-bear of mine, but I hate plot holes in a movie, as far as possible a movie needs to be true to its own internal logic. It can be set in a futuristic or alien world to our own, but it should still ‘make sense’. I hate when people try to explain it away by saying ‘it’s only a movie’ – no, it’s lazy writing.