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

God, I can't wait to actually finish My Fair Lady... it might be a great movie, but Higgins is just intolerable. I've had to watch the movie in half-hour parts just to vent. I really hate that guy, and have no desire to watch this movie again after I give it my rating. If Higgins were less of a total asswipe, I might watch it again.


Prime example of a great movie with a major flaw.

It's one of my least favorite movies ever. Had no business winning all those Oscars either, the year that had Dr. Strangelove on the ballot.

__________________
HEI guys.

I had a hard time watching all 3 hours of My Fair Lady but I did that in one go. Actually I did that twice as I seen it twice. Higgins is suppose to be found insufferable by the audience. The joke is on Higgins as the film knows he's a jerk. That's why he only has one friend even his mom says he's insufferable.

Why I had a hard time watching all 3 hours was the pacing. It was like so many scenes were drawn out when they didn't need to be and the whole subplot about Elizas father wasn't needed and just slowed the film down some.

Forcing an audience through three hours of an intentionally insufferable character is a flaw on its own. Even the Joker's enjoyable as a character.

We all relate to movies differently. I also find Higgins annoying and insufferable but his character wasn't the deal breaker for me. It was the runtime and pacing and too many songs that weren't that great.

I really enjoyed the songs and the acting, but the pacing and Higgins character were the two dealbreakers.

If you're feeling brave give Rex Harrison another try in Doctor Doolittle. He's much more sympathetic but still hates humans...He loves animal though and of course can talk to them.

I admire Rex's performance, it's just the character. Same with William Hurt and Thaddeus Ross.

Yeah I know what you mean. Haven't seen the other movie you referenced.

Any appearance of Hurt in the MCU. Soon to be replaced with Harrison Ford.

I don't do MCU, but Harrison Ford wow! He's getting pretty old.

My mom took me to see the original Dr. Doolittle at the movie theater when I was little.

I have very fond memories of the movie despite hearing criticisms later: like how Rex Harrison is in all these musicals but never sings a note, or how Anthony Newley's singing was worse than Rex Harrison's talking through songs and how Newley's albums could be used to torture political prisoners!

One bit of trivia I also learned was that Anthony Newley was best friends with Sammy Davis Jr. (despite the fact that Newley was not a member of the Rat Pack). There are a couple YouTube videos of the two singing together.

I never thought I'd live to see the day when three different big-name actors would play General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross: Sam Elliot, William Hurt and Harrison Ford.

Trivia question: did the character of General Ross ever appear on The Incredible Hulk TV series?

But that's not a flaw. That's just who the character is. We're not necessarily supposed to like him, so the film is actually achieving what it set out to do.

__________________

There's such a thing as an enjoyable villain. As far as flat-out annoying or infuriating the audience, I don't think that's a risk yo should take. Even Umbridge was too much.

Drama is a genre and Cassavettes has great dramas. Bergman's a little confusing to me because he has excellent genre fair. Wild Strawberries is an incredible road movie, while Virgin Spring is a great horror film, and the Magic Flute is a great musical.



As for Originality something like this is what I consider a bad movie

I'm probably not the best person to answer this because I usually don't break down a movie into things like acting, directing, sound, cinematography, etc.

I'm more of a casual movie lover than most of the people here. If I like a movie, or if it makes me think about it and I'm still thinking about it days later, that makes it a good movie. If a comedy movie makes me laugh, or if a musical makes me sing along and smile, or if a mystery makes me think and try to solve the mystery, etc.

Emotional movies that hit me in the heart and make me cry, (both happy and sad crying), or if I get immersed in the movie to the point of feeling like I know the people on screen and I care about what happens to them.

IMO, these are the types of things that make a movie a good movie.

__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.

I've seen many good films based on the several criteria already mentioned in this thread, and it's very possible that I've enjoyed most of them.

The ones that I consider "great" have a special kind of movie magic which (of course) is totally subjective.
And perhaps more important than the experience itself is the aftertaste/afterglow, something that makes me feel that my life has become richer for it - in fact so much that I can no longer imagine a life without that particular film.
It's only these films that end up in my movie collection because it's very likely that I would want to experience the magic again.

Film is first and foremost a visual medium, and there are many different ways to do it.
Story-telling in film is not on top of my "must" list. If it's story I want then I'd rather read a good book.
Films are better in creating atmosphere, impressive images and breakout characters.
All the criteria mentioned by others will definitely contribute to the final result, but it will always be judged on a case-by-case basis.

What I wrote in 2016 on what makes a movie great:

-Interesting expression of multiple intertwined ideas and states of being

-Beautiful soundtrack played in sync with visuals and in representation and accentuation of created world's mood (example "Mulholland Drive")

-Continuity and flow of a movie as a whole. If movie seeks to be realistic, it requires removal of information as to avoid over stacking plot threads for a viewer to keep in mind cohesively. In other words- an addition of mystery elements. Mystery movies themselves are best to avoid categorical realities or dimensions in case these might disrupt dreamlike flow. Overall, jumping between realities or dimensions rarely work as a positive. For example "Thor: The Dark World" wasn't good, "Sucker Punch" was nice, but more fusion between reality and fantasy would have improved it.

-Tight plot can carry a movie on it's own (example "Infernal Affairs/ The Departed"), the more loose a plot is, the more it would benefit from creativity in make up, costume and production design, strange visuals or characters and other idiosyncrasies. The common thread of a movie is better be maintained on background level, but it would benefit if it isn't monotonous throughout a movie on overlaying level

-Editing of sound and visuals is not immediately noticeable but it plays tremendous role in how a movie is experienced (example "Mad Max: Fury Road")

-Directions that usually work in films favor are: thriller vibe over plain action, mystery elements over tangled exposure, romantic flavor in non romance movies. All these threads help to avoid monotony

-Pure action or romance movies tend to be bland if other genres aren't incorporated

-Action and violence is usually best sprinkled throughout and preceded by build up in form of exposition of reasons (example "Captain America: Civil War") or rising tension (example "Green Room")