What makes a "Good" film, in your opinion?

Just curious to know your definition of a quality movie... extend your explaination to "great" ones as well as what you consider "mediocre" and "bad", in contrast... if you're in the mood

__________________
HEI guys.

For me, a good film is well acted with believable performances and an interesting or engaging story. A great film would have really impressive performances or a story that is really exceptional. Mediocre is a passable or just alright film with acting that is either inconsistent or just average and perhaps a story that is only somewhat interesting or has some flaws in it. Bad is usually poorly acted with writing that doesn't make sense or a story that is really dull or boring.

It feels right and looks right.

__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.

An engaging story.

Characters you either sympathise with or want to know more about.

Interesting situations

Otherworldly adventure

Great music

It just feels wrong and looks worse.

Movie masochist found

It's the answer to two consecutive questions, to me:

Does it reach what it wants to be?

Is what it wants to be worth to me?

I will try almost any film but of it looks low budget and is American, I usually turn it off within 20 to 30 minutes. It must grasp my attention in that time. For some reason, it never happens with non-English films.

This is actually something that has been annoying me for a while. Typically the focus seems to be on the directing and acting performances, and while that's off course an important aspect, if the writing is mediocre or the story is not engaging the movie will most likely be a failure for me no matter how good the acting is.

It's kind of like how in jazz it's important that every instrument sounds and sits just right, yet if there's no catchy, engaging or otherwise musically somewhat meaningful element to it all, it quickly turns into fancy elevator music.

A film that doesn't bore me.
I can be interested in a long, slow film without much happening, as long as the film has a focus and intent. I love Ozu's films, so I'm not talking about needing action or fast pacing in fact I don't even care for fast paced, action films.

A film that doesn't insult my intelligence. Films can take artistic licenses, show events happening in a condensed time frame or just present itself in unconventional ways...that's all fine. But a film that plays to the lowest common denominator, isn't for me. Probably why I don't watch a lot of modern Hollywood comedies.

A film with an appropriate music score, as in light score when needed, or even no score. A film that overpowers and tries to impress with it's score is an instant fail for me. I'm thinking Nolan and his film Oppenheimer. If you have to constantly blast the audience with an overly long score then you don't have confidence in your film making abilities.

World building done right. Maybe the film 'world' is of a lonely person in a small town, or maybe the 'world' is of some past events. It doesn't matter as long as the world building creates the world in a palatable way that makes me feel like I'm there.

Exceptional acting and well written dialogue. Those two go hand and hand. I've shut off films when the characters act or speak in a totally fake way that reeks of a writer's 'pen'.

An interesting story or setting is a plus but I could be engaged by a story that doesn't have much to say but says it exceptionally well.

Agreed! I don't know how many times I've argued that the director isn't the only person that matters in film making. A poorly written script can't be fixed with great acting and directing.

This is so true. It seems very fashionable to dismiss the writing/story.

You're not into Free Jazz?

I think there's a problem when the story gets in the way of filmmaking, atmosphere, cinematography & other elements. If it doesn't, then the poorly-written script is not a problem.

A film gives what it promises by its name, poster, source material, or the general subject on which it's based is a good movie for me. So it is not a very high point for me. But if it gives more than that by doing some surprises,twists or some emotional manipulations to audience, it is much more than that and I'd define it like "different" or "very good" maybe.

No I'm not. I find it annoyingly pretentious. I have the deepest respect for musicians or other artists that dare to attempt to create something groundbreakingly new that doesn't necessarily fit previously existing genres etc. Free jazzers however I find to be dreamers so caught up in their own ego and dream of "transcending our understanding of what's possible" or whatever that they end up sounding like the musical equivalent of those elephant scribblings that end up on billionaires walls for various questionable reasons.

The best subgenre of Jazz, easily. But I'm not surprised you dislike it, given your ideas on story in films, and so on.

As long as the script doesn't get in the way of film making, atmosphere, cinematography & other elements then it being poorly written is not a problem? This is possibly the most distilled version I've ever read of the exact approach I was talking about and being opposed to. Guess it's fair to say we disagree on this one

Yeah I see a pattern too. Everything is relative though. Some would consider Medeski, Martin and Wood free jazz. I don't. And I think they're absolutely awesome.

Basically every movie has a criteria that often gets judged by including storytelling, direction, acting, etc. Now a "good" movie can still be flawed, but only when the strengths outweigh the flaws can a movie be good IMO. But it doesn't matter to me which of these skills are the good or bad ones. A movie can even have bad acting if it has great delivery, best example I've seen being The Neverending Story.