What are Your Standards When Watching a Film?

What I look for in a film is whether or not the film succeeds in what it sets out to do. That's number one. The rest comes afterwards...

Movies that are most reliant on story are "Infernal Affairs"/ "The Departed".


Movies that are least reliant on story are "Mulholland Drive", "My Neighbor Totoro", "Mad Max: Fury Road", "It Follows", "Whiplash", "Sicario".

Good acting, a good story, and likable characters.

Yeah, I think the two (how and why) are very much interlinked. Often when you ask why a director has chosen something, its justified because it produces something, maybe an emotional reaction, maybe it's obvious and it works, maybe it doesn't. Or maybe you ask why a scene has worked so well, then you look deeper in to how it was constructed.

I think with cinema we should always be asking questions, we might appreciate something but not understand it, or understand but not appreciate, and I think it's important to learn, to rewatch, to read etc.

I think an important thing with watching films that I look for now is that the film is significant in general, can making it be justified in general - that it attempts to use this medium to show its story in a meaningful way. It's created for a reason. There are a lot of "nothing" films I think, where nothing really happens, they are pointless and not films created by people who love to make films or care to much about how they can use the medium and film language in a way that makes it unique and powerful. Directors should be looking at ways to tell the story to what they have available to them.

And when people say "I need films to be entertaining", I think sometimes they act as if these "pretentious art house film watchers" watch films that are not entertaining yet still love them. Where as I don't think that's the case. I think for a film to be entertaining,it has to be successful at doing other things, being entertaining is not an element but something that happens as a result of the way the film has been constructed. I think if you attempt to engage, then in a lot of cases it's not fast-paced action films that are entertaining, and when people give films like Werckmeister Harmonies or Uncle Boonme five stars they really mean it, they were entertained for the whole film, not just impressed. Entertainment is subjective, and these films are fascinating and can be entertaining despite not much apparently happening on the surface.

__________________

I think dialogue and strong characters are the quickest way to my heart. However as soon as I think I know what I respond to I watch a movie that flips that on its head.

Sometimes I think we under estimate our mindset going into a movie as well. I don't just mean who is in it or directed it either. Also, what kind of mood we are in, what we have heard about it beforehand. Almost impossible to have a pure experience.

__________________
Letterboxd

The quickest way to my heart is meanings and ideas.

Less more like? Those are all far from being non-narrative

__________________
Mubi

What would be your examples?


Anyways, the movies I mentioned were good because of execution rather than little narrative they had.

Wavelength by Michael Snow for one (all of his stuff really). All of those movies have a good deal of narrative

My top standard is a perfect balance between style and substance. Other things I expect when watching a film is good dialogue, character development (but only when it's necessary for the film) mise-en-scene, intricate framing, lack of pretentious atmosphere, camerawork, editing, and whether or not it stands the test of time.

You forgot a hammer to the skull.

First i like to start out by erasing any prejudiced notions that may be out there concerning expectations, actors, directors, the genre, etc. A movie isn't just good bc a certain person made it, although you see that all the time with fanboy mentality and this new person's movie is out so- rush to give it a 10 or a 1! No biasedness, that's my #1 'standard' or approach or whatever

That way i have an open mind, and the film has a chance to be itself and win me over. Which can happen in any number of ways. I don't like to break it down all that much while watching, although sometimes i take notes. But most likely, if i forget to take notes that means it's a great movie. Screw the notes. Mainly experience. And entertainment. Yea

This is pretty easy for me to answer: how much of a personality a film has.

I like what Moviemeditation said about measuring a movie against what it set out to accomplish. I know what I don't like so I could say that if a movie has a lot of continuity errors, or no character development, or appeals to to the lowest common denominator in terms of audience, I won't like it. If it takes risk to achieve creativity, or takes the time to develop its characters and story line It is more likely that I will like it.

I want to escape and be stimulated on some level of audiovisual intellectualism however base. I also want the piece to at least attempt to exceed genre expectations in some way. If the premise is good I'm forgivable, if the script is good I'm very forgivable. Mostly I want originality and themes that interest me, but often original approaches to familiar material are very satisfying too; especially when the makers are willing to take uncompromising risks. When I like stuff I look for more of it but after a while that gets me in a rut. The best films to me are the ones that serve up something old but daringly fresh. Has everything already been done?

[EDIT] Oh yeah, and I like filmmakers who spare a thought for audience entertainment in the face the aforementioned progressiveness.

__________________
100 Favourites From The Future: REWIRED

I can respect people for enjoying a movie, I just don't appreciate praise or criticism that can't be explained.

"It's a great movie!"
"Why?"
"I don't know, it's just good."

I hate that.

Personally I put a lot of weight on plot consistency, morally relatable characters, engaging editing, and strong music/atmosphere.

Also if the movie has a theme or message I can get behind.


The exception to all of this is comedy. A mediocre movie can be excused if it can make you laugh.

How do you feel about the opposite? If someone says that they hate a movie, but they can't explain why?

Same. I find it's usually a sign of bias if they can't explain why they think a movie is bad.

Some movies are just popular to hate on, other times the person just has something against one or two of the actors.

When people criticize Avatar: The Last Airbender, they almost universally begin with the "all white cast in an asian-themed movie". That bugs the crap out of me because it seems to be the most popular way to slam the movie even though it has far bigger issues relating to it's plot and execution.

The other popular scapegoat is "it's not as good as the show".

It's a live-action adaption. The point is to realize the same concept in a different format and medium, so the review, to be objective, should be divided two-fold: How it works as an adaption AND how it works as a standalone piece of fiction.

I've seen movie adaptions of some of my favorite books and shows and even if I prefer the original, I can still articulate what the movie does or doesn't do well regardless of what I might have wanted it to be.

There's also the implicit hate of sequels, like Ghostbusters 3.

It might turn out to be a fine movie, but some people are already calling it ****.