What makes something a good movie?

I've got a simple standard: A good movie is one I like, which means it engages my interest in someway. And what engages my interest can differ from time. Basically, however, a good movie has to tell me a good story--one that is believeable or otherwise one for which I'm willing to suspend belief. That usually starts with a good script by a thinking playwright, not some schlock who turns out carbon copies of the same thing.

I don't need shock and awe: in fact, I'm more impressed when the director tosses in subtle touches without feeling a compulsion to underline them because he trusts me to spot and appreciate them. I like it when a director lets me use my imagination.

I don't need catch-lines to remember and go around reciting. Who wants to work movie lines into normal conversations? But I do appreciate a good performance in a good role--or a good performance in a difficult role. Or an unexpected good performance from someone I've never thought much of as an actor. On the other hand, I don't care for actors who sleepwalk through a franchise series of films or holds back because he doesn't like the director or someone else in the cast or thinks he's such a big star he doesn't have to try anymore.

But most of all, it's probably the script: No one can make a good movie out of a bad script. But bad actors and directors have ruined potentially good scripts, so that's definitely a factor. Basically my favorite films have good scripts by very good writers, are directed by a director who also is a successful writer, and acted by experienced actors--particularly those who gained their experience in live theater. Working live theater also adds to directors' abilities. I generally don't care so much for writers and directors and actors who got all of their training and experience on TV, especially those who jump from TV ads and music videos to the giant screen. Of course, there are exceptions, which only emphasize how bad the bulk of them are.

^
I like what you said, rufnek.

Guilty.

__________________

Its one word

Story. Easy but kind of hard to understand, now that would make a good movie in my mind.

I agree rufnek. Good scripts don't create catch-lines, they create memorable quotes. When I think of, as you say, catch-lines, I think of Bill & Ted's Execellent Adventure, etc. Clever writing will create monologue/dialogue that jumps out at you. I value that most in films.

Screenplay - a well-written, compelling story never disappoints
Acting - excellence in acting brings the story to life
Direction - brings the entire vision of the movie together
Cinematography - elevates the level and mood of the film, offering an unspoken view into the story beyond the acting
Art Direction/Set Decoration - brings a level of reality or fantasy to the story
Music - works seamlessly to join action and emotion together, drawing the movie goer into the story

A film you watch over and over, finding something new or challenging each time makes for a great film.

__________________
BigScreenBytes.com
Movie Reviews | TV Recaps

But do the actors have the last say of how that clever monologue/dialogue comes out. Let's take Bill & Ted without the way both Keenu Reeves and Alex Winter delivered that dialog it would not have come off as nearly memorable as many of of think of it now.

Good acting in a film really tends to make a film..worth watching and if a script is horrible the film sucks,all i really want in a film is a story,not just a simple one, a well explained one but not too over explained.

Absolutely....well, sometimes. Thats why I would have acting ranked 2nd. Its kind of like the chicken and the egg thing. Which came first?

Well, you have a point, although I'm not sure Bill & Ted are the best example (but that's a generational thing).

Still, there are actors with voices and delivery so good that they could read the dictionary out loud and still make it interesting (like the guest stars reciting the alphabet on Sesame Street). People like Charles Laughton, Brando in his prime, Lawrence Olivier, Alec Guiness--people of that caliber.

And there are actors I wouldn't care to listen to if their words turned to gold coins as they dropped from their mouths.

But that's sorta what I was referring to when I said I particularly like actors who had a lot of experience in live theater before they got into film, especially those who did theater back before the actors on stage were miked to the teeth, when they had to use their own lung-power to get their words up to the cheap nosebleed seats and have the enunciation to make those words still understandable.

The comments about Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure are unclear to me, but to be clear, that movie is catch-line crap (IMO). Not even sure how it didnt throw Reeves into the waste pile of forgotten actors.

But a word on the stage and screen. I believe that they are almost two different art forms. Screen acting takes much more subtlety. The smallest of details are seen quite easily. Where the stage is much more flamboyant. As you say, everything needs to be seen and heard all the way back to the cheap seats. Ive seen unexperienced screen actors that appear to have the majority of their experience on stage and end up giving a performance that is way too exaggerated on screen. Dont get me wrong, I think both are great. But I believe they do require different skill sets.

Because it's EXCELLENT!!!

in no certain order or reason, i think what really makes a good movie is acting, directing, writing, and research.

1. acting-- if an actor is playing a part of a villian or a goodie two shoes, i need to really feel like they accept the character as part of them and/or they really believe in that character.as in the case of The Joker in The Dark Knight, Ledger made me believe in the craziness and yet sanity of the complex character. like he could walk into a bank and pull off a massive heist

2. directing- his eyes are what we see quite simply said. thru his/her eyes, we see worlds we only dream of that come true, feel the sadness as a character cries out for help, and then really understand how actors need a good director to put them places they have never gone before on the screens. thru their eyes, a director can make or break a film with one camera angle

3. writing- words comes alive off the page. without them, the movies we enjoy would not make sense or even make us to return to watch again. lines spoke by actors can be remembered for years...simply said, writers can make or break a with just a click of a pen

4. research--some people will wonder why i say this. but imagine a film set in the middle ages and then a song is played from the 1920s?? without research, you wouldn't have a movie. whether its a song or even something small in detail, research moves the story with ease and clarity. as in the case with Titanic,the background music is suited for that time and makes sense its included. without research, corsets would not be worn for a period piece..instead it would be a worn out pair of Levis.

Excellent indeed.

A lot of the lines that made it onto the AFI 100 Movie Quotes list are fairly normal. It's only in the context of the film and how the actor delivered it that made them famous.

For example, this line from A Streetcar Named Desire: "Stella! Hey, Stella!" To those who haven't seen the line in context, that's not a particularly witty or moving line. But when you watch Brando deliver it in the film almost like a caveman, in that ripped t-shirt, and Stella walks slowly down the stairs and falls into his arms, it becomes iconic. Obviously if the script is atrocious, the movie is unlikely to be good, but we're talking about what makes a good movie.

So I'd say:

1. Actors- Well, there wouldn't be a movie at all without actors
2. Writing- Having a good base is vital. It's very hard to make characters from terrible
scripts. (Actors and Writing are essentially the story)
3. Directing- It's their vision. You can definitely tell if the director has done a bad job.
4. Cinematography- I don't want it to look like some whiny teenager has filmed it.
5. The Set/Costume, etc.- I don't want it to look like a bad am-dram production.

__________________
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)

Which part of movies makes you watch again and again?

__________________
Timetravelfan
www.timetravelmovie.com

Can anyone think of good movies without score? Can movies be good without score?

The Birds has no musical score although Bernard Herrmann as the sound designer tweaked many of the bird effects to make them sound more ominous. There are several films which utilize no score composed for the film and only use "background" music which is played by people in the film.

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

Jesus, "any movies without score"... There are literally tons and tons of films in post-sound era without any score. Some directions never use scores. The films of Tsai Ming-Liang for instance. Lars Von Trier stays away from music in many of his films. No Country For Old Men for a recent example.

Learn something new every day, thanks Mark!! i forgot sound... especially sound effects. where else can a person whack a cabbage and get paid for it??

I've had to point this out to others before, but yes, there is a musical score in No Country for Old Men. It may be very subtle but you can certainly hear it, at least if you watch a "good" copy of the film. The score is by the Coens' fave composer Carter Burwell who is credited on screen. Burwell also tweaked many of the sound effects a la Bernard Herrmann.