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

Agreed. Most movies I consider good have flaws. I also agree that storytelling can get in the way. Overemphasizing directing and acting to the detriment of good writing and decent storytelling is not the way to go either though. There usually needs to be some balance. Generally at least. Well IMO that is. There will always be exceptions that may still work off course. Obviously this is also very much a matter of taste. Anyway, move along.

I usually always look for the same thing…

Does it succeed in what it sets out to do?

In other words, does it succeed on its own merits whatever those might be. Because a movie can be so many things. And while I love an engaging story, sometimes a movie can be more visual or conceptual where it’s something else that completes the experience for me.

Therefore it’s always hard to find one example of what makes a movie great. Because if you love all or many parts of cinema merely mentioning story, acting or music just won’t cut it.

That’s why I feel like the above mentioned covers it the best for me. It’s a movie that succeeds on its own premises or at least the direction it is taking. That’s very important to me.

But of course, a general level of quality is usually also needed. Rarely will a film be any good if the acting, visuals or music is absolutely horrible. But some elements can outweigh others…

Basically yes, although the sentence would hold truer if you used "story" instead of "script" because a script can describe much more than just the barebones story. Conversely, some filmmakers work without a script or with a short 2-page script.

__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.

Lighting, visual composition, sound.
Pace, tempo. That thing that draws and maintains your interest and engagement.
Charm, intelligence, imagination.
Originality, surprise.
Hitting emotional spots is a big bonus.
Not undermined by poor acting.

Good acting, good story line, some eye candy and a catchy soundtrack!
@RichieRich what do you think? 🤔

Yup. I should've included that in my lost post back on the other page. I watch ALOT of cheesy b 50s-60s drive-in type movies, think Attack of the Giant Leeches...so of course I can't compare that to more serious cinema but only to what the film maker was trying to do. It's a good film in it's own b-scifi creature genre.

What is "right" though? what is "wrong" in your opinion?

__________________
HEI guys.

This cannot be stated in one absolutist sentence (or two, or twenty). Each film is assessed individually.

Here are my five keys, GOTES and it get's more important the further down the GOTES line we go.

1. Genre - Is the comedy funny? Did the horror work? Was the thriller/thrilling?

2. Originality - Do I care about the ideas and characters that I'm seeing or do I feel like I'm seeing the same thing that I've seen before.

3. Tempo - Does the film have proper pacing is this a 3 hour film that I'm looking at my watch every 20 minutes or is this a 90 minute that I feel has ended before the film should have started.

4. Execution - Can I see what I'm supposed to see, does the film have an appropriate score, are their bad performances, does the CGI or central FX take me out of the experience of watching the film.

5. The Script - Does the story work, am I taken out of the story because of something stupid.

It's like porn. I don't know how to define it but I know it when I see it.

Interesting approach... but I'm not sure if all worth-watching cinema could fall into one or two "genres" (like how do you classify Bergman and Cassavetes like that?)... and with the Originality filter, I imagine you won't like a whole lotta movies lol.

Still doesn't explain why you enjoy midget ballerinas smearing their bodies in chocolate.

@Yoda @Death Proof @honeykid @gbgoodies @Sedai @Stirchley @Holden Pike @matt72582 @SpelingError @iluv2viddyfilms
@Thief @Gideon58

Any input?

It's hard to describe, but generally speaking, a film that accomplishes what it set out to do.

__________________

I've never seen anyone tag like that before on a regular discussion thread. Probably best not to make that a habit, people will see the thread on their own and respond if they choose.

"Well you know, as ever it's script dependent"

Oh hell, I dunno. Good script, good acting, good casting, good direction...

__________________
A hundred percent death proof.

Tomato Necromancy - now with Vitamin R!
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=65140

Roger.

I agree with some/much of this.

You only have visuals in as a potential negative though, whereas for me it's an important primary positive weighing factor.

Also, your use of the word tempo isn't how I use it. For me tempo doesn't really have anything to do with the length of the film, but whether the pace of it works for whatever duration it happens to be.

It's a feeling, despite writing being important, as well as the acting. I can't think of a movie I love where I didn't like any of the characters... I know it's a great movie when I don't want it to end, and when it does, I just sit for a while and reflect on it and then try to share it with everyone I can so they can enjoy it, too.

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition