What makes something a good movie?

Anyone have a preference on what makes a good movie? Ive always tried to rank what makes a movie a good movie. I change from time to time but overall (using a criteria ranking of the most dominant features of a film) here is what will draw me to a movie:

In ranking order from most important to less important:

1. Writing (without it, you got nothing)
2. Acting (without it, you got unwatchable)
3. Cinematograpy (with it, you got "oh sh#t, that was awsome")
4. Music (with it, you get the right excitement, sadness, humor, etc.)
5. Art Direction/Set Decoration (with it, you get realism and detail)

Anyone rank it different? What grabs your interest while watching a film?

So most movies direct themselves?

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

Ive always seen the director as someone who will use various art forms ( such as what Ive listed ) to create a film. Some put more emphasis on certain aspects of a film than others.

The real director (at least if he has final cut) is responsible for every single image seen in the finished film. Now that doesn't mean that he does everybody else's job for them, but if in his close working relationship with all the other personalities in the filmmaking process he decides that something isn't correct, the director is the person who decides to redo it. The director has to have an artistic eye, be able to compose for the camera and the big screen, has to be the actors' confessor and best friend, has to have the film basically visualized in his head before he even shoots it. Then, just in case nothing else works, he has to be able to work with the editor to put all the footage together in the best possible way to tell HIS/HER story. Sure, the script is damn important, as are the actors, but the actual teller of the story is the director, and if a film fails, it's usually the fault of the director, either for filming a crappy script in the first place or not getting out of it what was available.

Directors aren't important. It's just an incredible coincidence many great movies were directed by some guy named Alfred Hitchcock.

You're missing the point. No one is saying the director is not important. Notice what is listed are actions, not people. Think of the director as a given who, yes, brings these things together but a film is a artistic collaboration. Of these actions which do you value more. Whether initiating a certain aspect of a film or putting on the finishing touches, which do like best? Saying "I like the directing the most" is vague.

What he said.

__________________
"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."

I think I see what you're trying to say, Blue Lou, a director is like a team leader who pulls all the parts together, and his creative input is not as pronounced in the finished product. But directing is very much an action. Nothing in the finished product of a film is more noticeable or important than the director's contributions. They don't just bring the thing together. They storyboard what the writer has written. They tell their cinematographers the effect they're looking for in the lighting, they work very closely with the editor to maximize the effect of shot transitions, they coach their actors on what emotions or motivations their characters have (even directors who are less involved in the acting nuances like Robert Altman would still need to tell their actors where to stand and how to move around the set.) They, more than anyone else involved in a production, are responsible for bringing the words on paper to life.

For example, a script may call for a series of flashback scenes or a sequence of events from the past of the same incident told several ways. It may include something like: this is what the first character remembers; this is what the second character remembers; this is what the third character remembers; and this is what actually happened. Then the director needs to decide how to tell this story in an interesting visual way. So for Rashomon, Akira Kurosawa might say, okay to distinguish between the flashbacks, I want to use slightly different lenses to give each vignette a different look. I want to film through shadows in the trees to represent the sketchiness of memory, or whatever. I want the acting to be stylized slightly differently in each part to represent how the different narrators perceive the other characters. I want to film the opening and closing shots of the vignettes exactly the same way to let the viewer know it's multiple interpretations of the same incident. (I don't remember exactly what Kurosawa did in that movie, because I haven't seen it in over two years. These are techniques I just made up, similar to how a director might).

But my point is that a director is literally the most involved person in any project. That's why the greatest directors have the most distinct quality about their movies that make them uniformly good. For example, Spielberg, Hitchcock, Scorsese, etc... have all made bad movies, but for the most part, the quality of storytelling in their movies is superb. The talent and skill they bring to each project often transcends the material itself.

Basically, if everyone else involved in a film's production performed their 'actions' to perfection, there would still be no movie, because nobody actively turned the script into a story told visually.

__________________
"I want a film I watch to express either the joy of making cinema or the anguish of making cinema" -Francois Truffaut

I agree with a lot what you said Cries. But im not at all saying that the director's input is not pronounced in the finished product. Look at it this way. As a viewer of film, what has to be there for you? In other words, what will keep you watching when there may be some things that are missing? Are you likely to keep watching because an actor is really good? Are you interested because of the great shot design and cinematography? Or, are you likely to cut it off half way through because the story in not doing it for you?

This is meant to be a viewer question. What keeps you watching? Not a "who does what" question.

Isn't that part of the director's job?

__________________

To me the main quality of a good film is the same as good theatre. It stays with you.

__________________
Under-the-radar Movie Awesomeness.
http://earlsmoviepicks.blogspot.com/

I don't look at every movie the same way. It's not possible for me to say what keeps me watching a movie is always going to be the same one thing. In older movies, I'd say the script and the acting (in general) and nowadays, I'd probably lean more to the fact hat I can recognize a guiding hand behind the finished film which has something original and creative to share with the audience. In other words, I tend to think that scripts and acting aren't as good or as important as they used to be. This is all a big generalization though because every movie is different and I try not to have preconceived notions about it.

I'd say acting has to be a big part of it, and of course, a good script. But good actors can overcome bad scripts; good scripts cannot overcome bad actors.

Directing is important, whether you want a directing style that is 'invisible' or a stylish auteur style of directing. Without a director, you'd have a jumbly mess.

But there's all different types of movies, and different movies excel at different things.

__________________
You cannot have it both ways. A dancer who relies upon the doubtful comforts of human love can never be a great dancer. Never. (The Red Shoes, 1948)

OK, Blue, I think I'm getting you. For me, it is always the direction. If a movie doesn't have a sure hand behind it, I usually will not enjoy it. I honestly don't care about story for the most part, if the way it's handled is enjoyable. For example, I'm not too fond of the story of Inglourious Basterds. I'm not emotionally attached to any of the characters, and I don't care too much who will live or die by the time the movie ends. But I love that movie anyway because of Tarantino's directing style.

But for the sake of going with the whole besides-the-director approach, I'd say acting is the most visible thing. When it's bad, it's bad, and it can't be ignored. Most movie-watchers, myself included, are not professionals, so we don't always know when the photography is sub-par, or if the editing is sloppy or if the sound is perfect. But we're all humans, so we know when an emotion given by an actor is not genuine. With poor performances from actors, I'm almost immediately taken out of the world of the movie and I just start to think about how much they suck.

I have to agree with Mark F here. The director is what makes all those other things listed in the 1st post flow together to make tghe piece work. Without a director you would have all these seperate entities that may work brilliantly on there own , but do not come together and in the end make a pretty unfinished product. The Director in my opinion is like the come together man. He brings it all together.

I say something is a good movie when I enjoy watching it.

That's my criteria. If I feel like I just wasted a chunk of my life, I consider it bad.

But that's my opinion. Someone else may love it. Like mark said, he doesn't look at every movie the same way. With me, I'm sure expectations play a big part in how I judge the movie. It's probably biased or unfair, but that's how it usually happens.

Well, ok. Now we're getting somewhere. This wasnt meant to be an argument about who knows what. Just a simple question about what you like about various aspects of film.

It looks like someone changed my thread title. Thats not one I would have chosen. "What makes something a good movie"? What does that mean? But, no big deal.

Is this site about discussing film or is it for the snide and cynical to try to undermine every discussion that is attemted. In the case of the later, good luck getting new people to join. The set up Yoda has here is a good one. Its nice to have a place where people who enjoy film can get together and respectfully discuss film. But if members want to continue a kind of "king of the hill" mentality, then you will have more bickering and arguments than an actual discussion. Dont get me wrong though, nothing wrong with playfully poking fun, but blatent negativity has no place in a discussion.

Its just for freakin' fun people (Dr. Evil voice).

Like someone recently told me on here we are here to have discussions about topics on films. We may disagree on some view points, but it is still considered a discussion and not an argument. When all is said and done we all go back on our merry little way and choose the next topic to discuss. Please do not judge the forum based on this thread. This site has tons to offer.

For the most part, I think people on this particular thread have been pretty respectful. You said something about movies that most people would disagree with outright, and the response was pretty appropriate. There were some playful jabs, but nothing was said that directly criticizes your opinions. I think what you're perceiving as people trying to show off their film knowledge is really just members trying to teach you something about movies, just not always in the most polite way.

That being said, I agree that in my short time on this forum there have been a few people who have made inconsiderate remarks without adding much to the discussion. I've seen on a couple other threads some members attacking people for their posts, then others join in until the OP is completely ostracized. I try to just stay out of that and respond to the original post. Once I even read a person make fun of someone for poor grammar--English may not even be that poster's first language, so that just seems inappropriate. And I'm not sure your response deserved negative rep, when you were pretty much only being as sarcastic as everyone else was. The only thing in my opinion that should get negative repping is directly insulting a poster, as opposed to insulting his post.

Anyway, I can say that if you're sensitive about sarcastic remarks and light teasing then you will not enjoy your time on these forums.

No. Not sensitive to sarcastic remarks or teasing. Just would rather not read a thread full of posts that read like two children arguing. Ive seen a few on here. See, sarcasm. Besides, CW, your comments were completely appropriate. You seem like someone who would add something useful to anything you post.