What makes a good movie? No really, what is it?

[Aldurin]

So I've been watching a lot of movies that came out within the past decade with and finding the quality to be more jagged than a heart monitor. Recent disappointments include Lockout (pretty meh) Skyfall (I can't unsee the haphazard patchwork in the story) and just a myriad of other rocks and turds that attempt to bury the gems.

Then I watched The Hunt for Red October again, since it was on TV at the right moment, and I was astounded by how much I was pulled into such a mundane plot and narrative. I can feel the tension of the submarine chases/battles, I'm excited by the outrageous attempt to board a submarine via helicopter during a storm, and the characters pull me in and make me want to keep watching (Sam Neill's character talking about his ambitions of visiting different states in an RV is more characterization than many movies nowadays will risk doing). The special effects aren't excessive, flashy and trying to seize my attention by the balls, it just comes together so well.

The cherry on top is how this is based on Tom Clancy's book, which I also found the same sort of feeling from reading. That flabbergasts me since when people try to make movies out of books, it's easier to go with stuff that isn't rich with detail and depth (Stephen King gets so many books into movies yet many far better writers like Dean Koontz do so few because strong writing is hard to translate to a different media).

So what does make a good movie? We have so much technology to help every aspect (special effects, easy access to materials on helping write, etc.) and yet so many directors merely use those to dress up poor results instead of creating an amazing movie and then adding technology where it will enhance the experience (THfRO could have gone without the renderings of the submarine battles, but it's thrown in to add that visualization and to make the tension more profound).

What makes it good?

[Seil]

Orson Wells, apparently.

[Kim]

A [MOVIE] is some combination of the following indivisable elements:
- gun
- bad guy
- explosion
- plot twist?

If you see something that looks like a movie but isn't, you should notify the Police.

.

[Amake]

Anyone can make a good movie, but for a great movie you need:
A story that unfolds over at least several decades. (A longer timescale lets people feel older and wiser at the conclusion.)
Some representation of drudgery. (As Stephen King observed, no one knows why, but everyone loves a story involving menial labor.)
A quantum of historical accuracy. (No matter how fictional a story, just the tiniest element of something that did or could really happen makes a world of difference.
No obvious special effects. (This actually just means the special effects have to be very good.)
At least one memorable song on the soundtrack. (Why settle for aspiring to the condition of music when you can just pay some royalties and have it right in the movie?)
And if at all possible, Morgan Freeman.

[Bells]

People do amazing things when they are forced to do more with less... if they really want to succeed that is.

Nowadays the amount of releases and productions and "waiting list" of movies is a LOT larger and more complex. That right there means that right now we have statistically more turds on the landscape...

I mean, there were a LOT of bad movies back in the day, but now we just have more access and are more exposed and they are made with much more marketing behind them... so it might bring the perception that the overall quality is lower, when in fact it's just that the supply is greater and we have more access to it than ever. So we pick up the turds more easily cause people don't just talk about the awesome movies anymore. They also make a lot of noise about the bad ones...

[phil_]

Pretty colors, big eyes, a theme song, and monsters. The monsters can be alien robot magicians, but don't have to be.

[Cloud Strife]

It also helps to find the right actors for the right roles. If you don't find the right people for the roles you're trying to fill, then you won't find a good movie. Granted, there are some exceptions. Army of Darkness would be a horrible movie, but Bruce Campbell made it so bad, it was good. At least, in my opinion. There are many other things that can make a good movie. For example, if it's a high budget movie but there's bad special effects, that can ruin the movie for you if it's otherwise good.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Dolph Lundgren.

[RobinStarwing]

What makes a good movie is going to vary from person to person as well as genre to genre. Me; and my mother even more so, are huge movie buffs. So maybe I and her can answer that question. I will start first and then she will add in for be aware there will be editing to follow. I will give a hand to Hunt For Red October as well.

I think I will enter into this some of my favorites. Starting with the Sci-fi/Action genre...The Fifth Element.

What made this movie good for me is the same thing that Cloud Strife cited with sometimes a movie is so bad it's good. The Fifth Element didn't set out to make a good movie, it set out to make a fun movie. The number of shout-outs and scenes done just for kicks. My two favorites are when Bruce's character went into negotiate with the alien soldiers and watching Milla unload asskicking on said aliens. This was in my view a love letter to the Sci-fi community. A fun Space Opera.

Next up would be Westerns and surprisingly, I go with The Magnificent Seven on this one. Good story. Great characters. Also done at a time with far less and you see lots of these on my listings here. I also greatly enjoy McClintock for the same reasons on top of the funny.

Third up would be a few War Movies. Saving Private Ryan, Kelly's Heroes, and The Dirty Dozen all get my vote here. These are all gems and should be watched. It would be kind of hard to explain them all but I will try. The first and third do tend towards realism with the first based on real events while the third is more of an action movie of the genre. The middle is a good and still relevant comedic war movie and I LOVE the Tank Commander, that is one awesome dude.

Romance and Chick Flicks is not really my genre but while I am not much into the former; for the latter here I go with Fried Green Tomatoes. I love the take on everything and it was the first time I found out about how to make this lovely food. I also greatly enjoyed how they got rid of the drunk wife-beating bastard's body.

Fantasy genre is a toss up here between Dragonheart and The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Both are well cast and good stories. I loved Draco and much of the music of LOTR is stuff I would listen too and enjoy. I would hand off as well to the first two Underworld movies for mainly action flicks.

Pure Action flicks...I'd hand it to the Die Hard movies. The enjoyment for me is the main character and what he says to people. Also...he gets put through hell and develops as a character, coming off as real. Meanwhile characters that should get offed DO!

I think this is where I will hand things to too my mother after she reads the thread.

mom says:

First I do not like comparing apples to oranges, so I prefer to compare movies in the same genre. Once in a while a movie is such an obvious stand-out that it does surpass genre and goes on my list of Absolute Favorites. The Absolute Favorites must then stand the Test of Time.

I judge a movie by how I feel at the end. Do I feel enjoyment? or a sense of satisfaction? Has the movie made me think? etc. When I watch it again after some time has passed do I still sense the same or even more appreciation? What about subsequent viewings? Are there movies I watch every time I get the chance?

Sometimes I want a complex movie, other times I would prefer a simple movie. Either way it needs to keep my attention even if it may have a few minor flaws. "The Avengers" is an excellent movie for its genre, but it did have a few flaws. "A Knight's Tale" (2001) with Heath Ledger is one of my favorites that has, so far, stood the test of time. Personally, it deserves 4 stars not 2.

I do have a bad habit of comparing books and movies, which I don't think is really fair. I do NOT like it when they bring out "the book" or "a book based on" after the movie. Sometimes I see the movie first, sometimes I read the book. For the most part, movies haven't compared well to the book. "Dune" was a travesty. "Eat, Pray, Love" was okay. "The Seeker: The Dark is Rising" was panned by the critics and the readers of the book. I happened upon it by lack of anything else to watch and had never heard of the book series. Even though it's a kid's movie and the protagonist is a boy, I found it good enough to watch a second time and share with my son. The arcane aspects of the movie were particularly well done. If the fans of the books panned it, I don't think I'd like the books.

Now let's discuss movies based on a true story. My first question is just exactly how loosely based is it? Have only the names been changed to protect the innocent? or Are only the names the same to make the movie better than the true story? "Apollo 13" was so true to life that you must look very hard at a clip of the movie and a clip of the documentary to figure out which is which.

What makes a good movie? Was it worth your time? Was it worth your money? Would you watch it again? Would you tell others to see it? Right now I'm wondering if "Snow White and the Huntsman" is as good as all the hype or will it be a sad disappointment after all the hype. After all the trailers were on TV for "The Help" over and over again and they were putting the book out again, I don't really care how good the book or the movie are I will never read the book nor see the movie because I'm sick of hearing about it. Just another way a good movie can be ruined for someone.


----------
Well, that is the opinions of me and my mother.

[Grandmaster_Skweeb]

What makes a good movie? Rutger Hauer does. He has seen things you people wouldn't believe.