How do I tell whether a movie is good or not?

I've been having difficulties with this for most of my life. When I watch a movie, I am too easily entertained; even the most garbage of movies will entertain me. I want to approach movies with a better taste, but I don't know how to improve it. Any suggestions?

Let me get this straight... you want us to tell you how to determine if you like a movie or not?

__________________

Why do you feel the need to be a movie snob?

If a movie entertains you, it's done its job.
Why does any movie need to do more than that to be considered "good"?

__________________

He didn't say he wanted to be a snob, he said he wants to have better taste. A fine line, maybe, but clearly such a thing as good taste exists, even if the people who talk about it can be snobby at times.

Because it can do more than that. Movies can inspire, inform, and move you. Movies that merely entertain are fine, but the fact that they're capable of more changes which of them are good, and which are just pleasant distractions.

Anyway, to address the original question: I don't think there's any trick to it. I think it involves sitting down and watching the classics, thinking about what they're saying and how they say it. Read reviews of classic films, read about how they were made, read essays about them which explain the symbolism. I'm consistently struck by how great films contain tiny details which I'd never noticed that reinforce what's happening on-screen.

Early on, it may feel a little like work (sometimes, for me, it still does), but eventually, it's worth it. I think that's how one acquires taste (though I'm not saying I necessarily have it in spades or anything) with any art form: expose yourself to as much of it as possible, and spend time thinking and reading about it. The rest, I think, is organic.

what's your favorite movie?

I disagree.

If a movie that is intended to be a comedy makes you laugh a lot, then it is a good movie.

If a movie that is intended to be a horror movie scares you a lot, then it is a good movie.

If a movie that is supposed to be touching moves you, then it is a good movie.

Just because a movie doesn't encompass all or even most of the things that movies can encompass, doesn't mean it isn't good. You have to look at and judge each movie within the context of its genre(s) and within the context of what appeals to your own individual taste. Movies are meant to be enjoyed. And that really is the definition of entertainment. A movie does not have to be funny or have lots of cool special effects to be entertaining. It simply has to contain elements that the viewer enjoys whether it's a cute little cartoon movie, a heavy drama, a light comedy, or an inspirational piece.

Just because something is entertaining doesn't necessarily make it good, but then again good is an entirely subjective concept, and so is bad. I like what some guy from some time a ways back said about it, that as the sun is to sight, good is to the truth - it illuminates.

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

But of course, he didn't specify a specific genre; he simply said he wanted to form better taste in films. This is an overarching statement not specific to any genre, so it's reasonable to assume he's looking for more in general. Maybe he doesn't want "good" -- maybe he wants great. He seems to have already decided this, so what's the idea here? To talk him out of wanting to see movies that do more?

Besides, a movie can strive for something bad, or tasteless (think Hostel or Saw IV). Or it can strive for something extremely pedestrian, and not aspire to anything exceptional. Movies like this come out all the time, and I don't think they become "good" simply because they've set their own bar low enough to clear, or because some people watching them have very low expectations of what they'd like the movie to be. There are higher and lower forms of every art, even if they can't always be defined.

Even if I agreed with everything you're saying (though obviously I don't), why would any of this be reason to put down his original request like that?

If you check your watch at any time while watching it, then it's probably bad.

__________________


...uh the post is up there...

easy

if a movie contains Steven seagal, Paulie shore orJean-Claude van damme, than its safe to say its bad.

Avoid/don't watch.

What exactly is your point? Some people enjoy and are entertained by what you'd consider "bad," "tasteless," or "extremely pedestrian" and I don't see anything wrong with that. And if that's what those people enjoy, then for those people Hostel and Saw IV are good movies.

And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with wanting to branch out, but the original question implied, to me anyway, that it's somehow a lesser experience to simply enjoy a movie than it is to be moved or inspired or informed. And I disagree with that. I think the escapism or simple diversion movies can provide is just as important and just as worthy of praise as their ability to inspire or inform. And I don't think that it means a person has bad taste if he/she prefers escapist type movies.

As to the original question - I don't think you can force a change in taste, that just comes with time if it comes at all. If you would like to branch out to those movies that are generally considered "great," my suggestion is to start with those that are of a genre that you already like or that deal with a subject matter that interests you. Maybe you'll like them, maybe you won't.

My point is that we can go on all day about how art is technically subjective, but deep down we all know there's a difference between Casablanca and Glitter, and the fact that there are probably swaths of 14-year-old-girls who like the latter doesn't mean that all films are created equal.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but opinions can be more or less informed. If you've only read two books, one of them being your "favorite" says more about your reading habits than it does about the quality of that book. Similarly, if you don't expose yourself to lots of great movies, the movies you do like will probably reflect that. You can't possibly know what you're missing -- what kind of films you really love -- if you don't venture out at some point and see them. Otherwise, you only know what you love out of the narrower pool of what you've already seen.

Well, it certainly didn't imply that to me. To me, it implied that he thinks he's missing out on something. And if he only watches movies that merely entertain him, then I think he's right. Maybe he'll end up watching merely entertaining movies, but he wants to see what else they can do, and I think that's great.

Putting that aside, though: you don't think being inspired is a generally "higher" feeling than merely being entertained? Learning something new isn't a more valuable experience than being distracted for 90 minutes? This seems pretty self-evident to me. Escapism has its role, and I enjoy it sometimes, but surely movies that make you think are better than movies that don't, in general.

It would depend on how you define taste, I think. If you don't think taste really exists at all, then I suppose you wouldn't think it meant that. But it seems to me that, to take this stance, one would have to also believe that the emotions movies can generate are all more or less equal, as well. To admit that one is higher than another is to acknowledge an objective standard, and the existence of some form of taste.

Inspiration, learning, insight, depictions of love, courage, and suffering...does anybody really believe that these things are no more important than entertainment? It's not more valuable to inspire someone than to get them to simply keep looking at the screen?

I get exaclty what you mean, im very easily entertained and like a lot of films that would probably be on most people's guilty pleasures if on a list at all.

Its difficult, but, theres no way of anyone else being able to tell you what standard is better than your own. Everyone has different tastes and you just have to go with it and use your gut of what you consider to be liked by the general consensus and what you think is one that not many would like, but you secretly love.

__________________
"Why pay a dollar for a bookmark? Why not use the dollar for a bookmark?"
Steven Spielberg

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree, Yoda. To you and me, Casablanca is a far superior movie than Glitter, but to those 14 year old girls, it isn't. Just because you disagree with their views on it, that doesn't make them wrong. They simply have a differing opinion. Also keep in mind that at 14, most people aren't mature enough to grasp the themes in Casablanca anyway.

And that's the beauty of movies. There's some for everybody. There's a movie for every interest, every age, every mindset, every lifestyle. And for every purpose. There are those that move us. Those that make us laugh. Those that thrill us. Those that inspire us. And those that distract us. And yes, I think each is equally valuable in the grand scheme of things. That does not, however, mean that I love all of them.

In any case, all of this is based on the assumption that the OP has only really watched movies that merely entertain, which isn't what he actually said. He said he wants to approach movies with a better taste. We don't actually know what he has seen and what he has not (except, I think it's safe to assume that he's seen LOTR).

The OP was a spammer and most likely won't even be back. Still a very good discussion though you two.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

Precisely! They don't grasp it, which is probably why they don't prefer it. That's part of taste, too, isn't it? It's not a coincidence that adults will almost invariably prefer Casablanca to Glitter, just as it's not a coincidence that people who watch more movies invariably prefer it, too. This means that their reasons are not matters of opinion, but matters of awareness and exposure. Even an honestly-held opinion can be born out of simple ignorance, or an unwillingness to try new things. Are such opinions are valuable as any other? I don't think that they are.

If we move the analogy over to something else, like food, I think it becomes clearer. Someone could love peaches, and eat them all day, and like them fine. But we'd all tell them that they're missing out by not trying other things. It's especially tricky because they'd never know what they were missing out without taking that leap, so their contentment doesn't really factor into it.

Variety, as they say, is the spice of life, but I think it's also the foundation of taste, if you'll forgive the pun.

I guess this is where we inevitably diverge, but somehow I still doubt that we disagree. I agree that all these movies have their place, and that there's something for everyone. The jump, for me, is the assertion that they're all equal, and that all the emotions they can generate have equal value. I can't imagine we genuinely disagree on whether or not inspiration is a better thing than entertainment (does any person really believe that?), but I won't belabor the point any longer.

True. It's a reasonable assumption, I think, but it is an assumption.

What makes you say that??? he has only made 2 post and they are:

AND

You should not call someone a spammer untill they try to sell you Viagra

__________________
"Do not cite the Deep Magic to me Witch. I was there when it was written"

They had a link in their signature, for DVDs. He could care less. He just wants everyone to buy his movies. So did the other few that I banned. Same DVD store. Different user-name.

__________________

I stand corrected, my apology's.

teaches me to come to the defense of a newly registered user

Not a problem. You would have known, but the funny signature picture Caity left for his link, is gone. I'm not sure what happened there.

This did lead to a good conversation, though.

Carry on . . .