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

So you don't think I truly believe the things I'm saying, then?
Do you think I'm just saying these things to be argumentative?

Just because you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that something like laughter can be just as valuable or powerful as inspiration doesn't mean that deep down I must really agree with you.

I don't.

__________________

I'm quite sure I don't know. From your last post I assumed you did agree, but were simply refusing to extrapolate that view enough to issue any opinion on other people's taste in movies.

But I don't think that way about laughter; laughter is your example. I think that way about mere entertainment, which includes all sorts of less noble things. There are lots of forms of "entertainment" which consist of little more than goring stupid teenagers to death in horror films, or throwing big, flashy special effects on screen. Are these things as valuable or powerful as inspiration? For the point to hold, it has to hold for even the lowest forms of entertainment, and not just lofiter things like laughter.

Though even that, I would think, has an element of taste to it. Do you agree that people can have good or bad "senses of humor", or does taste not really exist there, either?

I think you have to determine yourself if a movie is good or not, if you start watching movies because they're more intellectuel but you don't really like them, it's just waste of time...

__________________

Yes, I do think that the thrill and adrenaline rush that some people get out of watching horror or special effects driven movies are just as valuable as inspiration. It's all part of escapism, which I've already said is just as valuable as anything else in film. I also think that the effort that goes into the design and creation of such things can have just as much artistic merit as anything you'd consider great.

No. I think that the only bad sense of humor is to have none at all. Now there are a lot of comedies out there that I don't find the least bit funny, but that doesn't mean that I think people who do like them have bad taste, they just have different taste.

My advice, Antony, would be to look at the film a little more closely perhaps and try a lot of different ones. If you want to learn about how to judge a film, try reading some reviews. That's putting my 2 cents in. Hope it works out for you.

__________________

You seem to have a very childish relationship to movies, and I mean that in the best way possible.
I remember when I was a kid - when something was funny I laughed, when something was scary I got scared, and the last thing on my mind was cast, box office, reviews/ratings, acting chemistry etc etc. Every movie was kinda the same and my favorite movie was likely the one I'd watched the most (The Lion King). As I got older and "wiser" I found myself getting increasingly more critical and now (the know-it-all wise-ass I've become) I can hardly contain my discontent when I'm at the movies and the flick is crap (and only barely does so because I hate it when other people laugh sarcastically).
My point is, I don't really see why you'd wanna give that up. If you're easily entertained by every movie, I think it's great. If you are able to be open and go with your immediate feelings (like most children are) then every movie is good, and I don't see anything bad in that. However, if you're unable to differentiate between Gladiator and a Sandler flick then it turns into a problem, which Yoda basically covered.

__________________
The Freedom Roads

Can, yes. Absolutely. But do they? Not that often. I'm not denying that these things can be good, I'm denying that they always are (or even usually are).

This is still using some of the loftier examples, though. I ask these questions, but the replies always involve much nicer-sounding examples. Some action films don't thrill, they just hold your attention/entertain. Some horror films are just about watching people cut off their own limbs, or getting ripped apart; it causes an adrenaline rush because it's messed up. You'd get a rush fighting in a war or witnessing a murder, too; that doesn't give it value. It's a primal reaction, not a thoughtful one. Is there no more value in something which appeals to mankind's better nature, rather than our baser instincts?

Which is the same thing as saying that there's no such thing as good or bad taste at all. This would apply to everything, wouldn't it? Bach is no better than Britney Spears because some tweens prefer the latter. That's not bad taste, even though many of them will come to change their minds if and when they explore classical music? Watching Faces of Death is just as objectively good as watching Citizen Kane because some messed up kid gets a perverse thrill out of it at a particular point in his life?

Even if somebody can't bring themselves to think badly of another's taste, this still leaves the issue of how each individual's taste is formed, which I referenced earlier. There seems to be a pretty strong connection between taste and actual exposure to different types of movies, as well as to basic maturity. If grown-ups almost invariably like certain types of films better than teenagers, then clearly maturity plays a role. Isn't it better to be mature than immature, in general? If so, wouldn't that imply that the tastes of a mature person have some kind of objective advantage over the tastes of an immature person?

Saying there's no such thing as bad taste has far-reaching implications; it extends to all art forms, and even issues of open-mindedness and maturity. It can't be isolated from the person who holds it. They're not formed in a vacuum; can't opinions be based on ignorance? If so, and if ignorance is bad, can't those opinions be bad as a result?

A loftier example than what? You said "goring stupid teenagers to death in horror films or throwing big, flashy special effects on screen" and then likened them to "the lowest forms of entertainment." So I answered that by stating how something like that relates to what I've already said. Sure, not all action flicks thrill you (or me, for that matter) but that doesn't mean they aren't thrilling for someone else.

Which is pretty much my point. When it comes to forms of art, there is no such thing as good or bad taste, there is only different. And for the record, I'm not a tween and I'd rather listen to Britney Spears than Bach (and I don't like Britney Spears). If you think that means I have bad taste, so be it.

No, it is not as objectively good. You are comparing apples and oranges here. Just because something is put on film doesn't make it a movie. Faces Of Death isn't a movie. It's a collection of videos of real people and animals really dying. I've seen Faces Of Death and I find it sickening that people enjoy watching that sort of thing. There's a big difference between getting a thrill out of fantasy violence and death and getting a thrill out of real violence and death. So if you were to compare watching Citizen Kane to watching an actual horror movie, for instance Hostel, then I'd say they are just as objectively good.

Hostel is fantasy - violent, perverted, twisted fantasy, but still fantasy. And if people get an adrenaline rush out of it, I'm not going to judge them for it. Just like I wouldn't judge someone for liking any other type of fantasy, like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, even though - to put it lightly - I personally do not enjoy those movies.

And just because something is put on film doesn't make it art. Watching the real thing is digusting, but cheering over a near-perfect recreation makes for a pretty thin distinction in a humanitarian sense. I don't disagree that there's a difference, but getting enjoyment out of fake disgusting things still says something about the person watching it. What if someone watched Faces of Death not knowing it was real? By this logic, they'd be blameless, wouldn't they? And if so, that means that the reasons people hold opinions do, in fact, matter.

That ties into what I think is the most important point left. I asked this in my last post, but it fell by the wayside: what about how opinions are formed? I'm sure we can agree that immaturity and ignorance are bad, and these two things have a major effect on what each of us considers to be good or bad at various points in our lives. So why doesn't that say anything about the opinions themselves? Isn't an opinion born out of ignorance or immaturity worth less than one that follows education and careful thought?

"Bad taste" need not mean that one thing is always and objectively better than another. It could merely be the name we give opinions formed out of ignorance. Which, let's face it, is how this usually happens. Most people who love Leprechaun 4: Lost in Space don't love it instead of On the Waterfront, but love it having never even seen On the Waterfront.

I'll try phrasing it another way: is it possible for someone to like something bad? What if a film is mysogynistic, or sympathetic to bigotry? Is there anything a film can do or depict that would cause you to think less of someone for liking it?

I don't know. I think Jaws is better (and I mean aesthetically as well as almost any other way including pure entertainment) than Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Persona, Army of Shadows, Bicycle Thief, The Godfather, etc., so maybe I should disqualify myself from the discussion. I enjoy movies of all kinds and often find myself struggling to rationalize why I seem to rate American mass entertainments often higher than foreign-language films meant to envelop the viewer more in a world of art and deep thought/meaning rather than telling a story. That's the thing about ratings though; the only thing worse than rating a movie or some other form of artistic expression is not rating it. The ratings will obviously reflect more about the viewer than the film, but at some point, if someone cares about what the rater says and draws some correlation between his written opinions and his actual rating, then that rating may well be of use to a reader. Otherwise, my ratings and opinions have no more legitimacy than those of the youngster who gives every film 5/5, or even that art house film lover who tends to rate non-English-language films far higher than English-language ones. No matter how "objective" you attempt to be, you will always exhibit and represent your upbringing, national origin, age, sex, politics, religion, etc., somehow in your overall opinions on film and your expectations of certain types of films.

I think the discussion so far has been interesting, but I'll admit that I'd rather watch an entertaining flick than one which I believe is boring and/or pretentious. However, there are many levels of what I call an "entertaining" flick and they cannot all fall into the five-star category, just as all art house critic's darlings are certainly not worth five stars. One thing I will say about many so-called mainstream entertainments is that you can like them up front pretty easily while some of the more-thoughtful films may seem like something too difficult to grasp the first time through, and many people just don't have the time or patience to rewatch films that didn't immediately get their attention in the first place. It just all adds up to why watching films is fun but also much more than fun, and everyone is going to approach it from different perspectives. As far as taste goes, I think it exists but it's certainly a personal thing which is why it means more to me if I draw a conclusion about what a certain scene or visual motif means rather than having the filmmaker or a historian tell me what something means. I realize that this does open oneself up to being completely wrong about a film's true meaning, but unless it actually changes the facts of the plot, then that's OK with me. I admit that I don't like it when people claim that there are aliens in A.I. or that the kids and the housekeeper faked certain things in The Innocents, so I'm not talking about "meanings" which are just plain wrong. However, if I watch a Bergman or Resnais film repeatedly and decide that I have a possible meaning or two about something, then yes, I cherish that as a personal relationship with that film, whether it reflects taste or bad drugs.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

It is certainly possible to refine your palate. Expose yourself to classic films. Read about movies in journals like Film Comment not Premiere. You needn't avoid Premiere, but be conscious that it is just an organ to promote new films not a valuable resource for discerning the value of a film. Read movie criticism rather than movie reviewers. Subscribe to threads that discuss the classic films. Visit your local art film theater if you have one. Choose classic films in genres that you already enjoy. One needn't be a film snob to learn to enjoy or at least parse out what is "good" from what is "bad."

I am sure many of us who do enjoy and value classic, art or foreign films also like movies for their escapist quality.

__________________
Louise Vale first woman to play Jane Eyre in the flickers.

I don't think it's a thin distinction at all and I don't think it really says much about the person watching it either. The only thing that really speaks to a person's character is that person's actions, not what they find enjoyable in a movie. I'm no fan of horror movies, but I do enjoy watching violence in movies. I get a thrill out of watching characters die and from some of the inventive ways that moviemakers come up with to off them. I've even watched a rape porn or two. Does this mean that I'm a violent or immoral person? I don't think so.

And, for the record, if someone watched Faces Of Death and enjoyed it without knowing that it was real, that person would be blameless. However, that person would also have to be something of an idiot and would be blameless for that reason as well.

Well I certainly consider that how someone forms an opinion can be good or bad, but even the definition of what is good or bad is debatable. So is the definition of ignorance. Especially if you take into consideration the two different lines of thought and definitions of morality held by people who reason based on religious faith and those that reason based more on observation and scientific data. Except in cases where someone forms an opinion of a film without ever having seen it, there is no decisive way to determine what exactly is an ignorant point of view and what isn't. Just like anything else, it's all subjective. Whereas I might consider one person's opinion to be based on ignorance, that other person might say the same of me, and who is to say which of us is right?

I dunno how many times someone's said; "I like this film even though I can see why some people would hate it". And they're often talking about movies that aren't that great. There's that child in all of us (which is why we enjoy Kevin Smith).

So if a movie is entertaining only because it's awful, like awful dialogue, casting, cinematography etc. does that make it good? When something is so bad without intending to be and it turns out being funny, does that mean it's good because it made you laugh? I'd hope not... it's still bad despite making you laugh.

And we can all agree that there is a difference between good acting and bad acting right? Or since those are opinions there is no good or bad there's just different? Can we acknowledge that Humphrey Bogart is a better actor than Steven Seagal? Acting is considered an artform and since you feel that there is no good or bad art because somebody somewhere likes it you'd agree that Paris Hilton is on par with Meryl Streep?

I see where you're coming from Vicky because it's so hard to judge art but we must know that the Sistine Chapel is better art than a dot on canvas . . . right? I don't feel snobbish for thinking that that's better.

and speaking of Bad Taste...



that's not aimed at you or anything i just really like that movie haha (but i still know The Godfather is better)

You know I get really sick of the elitists that attribute good taste in movies with having a liking or appreciation for "the classics," foreign films and arthouse films - as if the only great movies ever made came out fifty some years ago, were put out by another country or came from some low-budget, no-name studio. Quite frankly, those that I've seen for the most part bore the hell out of me, and if I do enjoy them it's usually for the camp and spectacle they contain rather than for any true artistic merit.

As for critical reviews, I don't generally read them, unless it is just to get some idea of what a movie is about before I watch it. I've learned from experience to watch movies because they contain something that interests me, rather than because other people liked them.

Well you certainly don't have to like to watch the classics but i do think that appreciation is important since the classics paved the way for and a lot of the time inspired the modern/recent movies that you love so much

I didn't really think bubbles was inferring that the only good movies are made in an art house but there were a few good points there. Namely, the exposing yourself to classic films angle. In my experience the people that try the hardest to convince themselves and other's around them that the classics weren't that great really could open up their minds and enjoy them if they just took the time to watch about 500 of them. At least 500 I'd say.

As far as Art house cinema goes... I guess I'm a little fuzzy on the concept. A good movie is a good movie. I don't usually spend much time worrying about where it came from until after I decide I really like it.

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

Find me 500 "classic" movies that contain something that interests me and I'll watch them. I'm not going to "expose" myself to any movie, classic or otherwise, simply because somebody says I should.

Well, obviously you will have to determine for yourself what "interests" you. There have been many thousands of movies made from the "Silver screen" era. And obviously they are not all winners. But I bet if you were to give it some thought you could find a genre and dive into it and see a lot of great films.

Judging by your top 10 I would hazard a guess that you may enjoy the comedy of Frank Capra. Maybe you've already seen a film or two by him? Ever seen It's A wonderful Life? He's made quite few movies of that ilk that are highly enjoyable.

Do you have a response to the good acting bad acting thing? I don't intend that meanly but i'd just like to hear what you think