Skip to main content

What Makes A Good Movie - Revisited!

So, when I first posted this blog entry, my mom and I had been talking, a lot, about what makes a good movie:

Is it good acting? More on this later.
Good writing?
Interesting characters?
Nice sets?
Good lighting?
A well written score?
Great directing?
Good editing? (And pacing)

Is it the "bits and pieces" or is it the whole darn thing? (The "sum of the parts", as it were).

For me, a good movie must be 'good' on the whole, otherwise we're talking about a particularly good element. If the movie is crap but the acting is great, then the movie had good acting, but isn't a 'good movie.' And I'm certainly not saying that I can't enjoy a movie that has 'good elements' - I just won't call it a 'good movie.'
The two biggest sticking points for me are usually story and acting, although I've also found that effects and production value are pretty close to the top of the list as well.


A good story goes a really long way. But what makes a story "good"?
There's a ton of theory on what every story needs to work (and I know I've written a bit about this before). Typically, all stories "must" (and I'm throwing that in quotes because there's always an exception to every rule!) go through this arc (in order to "work"):
  1. Stasis
  2. Trigger
  3. The Quest
  4. Surprise
  5. Critical Choice
  6. Climax
  7. Reversal
  8. Resolution
So - assuming you have all that jazz covered in your story, it should be "good." 

Or so you would think.

When I worked at the video store, I plowed through tons of 'chick flicks' and the stories are total formula; Textbook examples of the traditional story arc.

But the details are just bullshit; They are contrite and contrived and inane and predictable and not at all believable. They are fairy tales (which have their place, granted!)
These stories are 'touching' and 'heart-felt' and 'sentimental' and 'life-affirming' and totally un-real; The knight in shining armor, the happy ending, true love, people who get everything they ever wanted... bullshit. Total fantasy.

Despite the fact that I expect 'un-realistic' from, horror, fantasy, and sci-fi - and despite the fact that 'chick flicks' are 'fantasy' - I just can't cut them any slack. I think it's because they are fantasy masquerading as reality and the majority of people watching them are too stupid to know the difference.

So you toss in some unique twists, a couple of compelling characters, and hey! It's a winner, right?


Even the greatest, most artfully crafted story in the world can be ruined by crappy acting or terrible direction or low production value. 

So, that brings us to the topic of acting.


Clearly, the success of a movie is heavily dependent on the acting ability of the cast. Regardless of what anyone may try to tell you, crappy acting can absolutely ruin a movie; if the audience doesn't "believe in" the characters, they can't become invested in the movie and thus lose focus and stop caring. 

I've been thinking a lot about "good acting" VS "bad acting" and how one can really tell the two apart. Here's my working theory so far:

People use "body language" as something like 55% of communication (with tone making up another 38% and 7% in actual content) so gauging the quality of an actor (or actress) is a simple as turing the sound off on whatever you're watching. If you can turn off the sound and still "get" what's happening, they're pretty good at their job.

A really, really fun way to experiment with this is by watching a foreign movie without subtitles. I'd love to tell you about my experiences in college with this game but, they involve illicit drug use and aren't fit for polite company.

Anyway. Wrap up time.
As I started with, for me, a movie needs to be good in all areas to be considered good overall. This post brought to you by: my desire to rant about something nonsensical for a few moments.



Popular posts from this blog

Rebuttal: 17 Disturbing Horror Movies You Will Never Watch Again

When I'm not watching movies, I'm reading about movies. I stumble across all kinds of articles, blog posts, book excerpts, etc. in my quest to absorb as much movie knowledge as possible. Now, I'm snotty and loud-mouthed and opinionated but I'd never begrudge another human their opinion. Seriously. You're absolutely welcome to have any opinion about any thing you want. However, I must warn you, if I think your opinion is stupid, I'm absolutely going to say so. I've recently stumbled on an article completely  brimming with so many idiotic opinions that I'm actually compelled to craft a response. Here's the gist of the original article: there are some horror movies out there that are so disturbing , you'll only ever want to watch them once. I've have taken her original list and refuted her claims without pulling her entire article over. You can read the original article here . Let's start at the beginning, with her opening statement

Escape From Tomorrow

I love creative people who are willing to take risks with their art. I appreciate the refusal to do things by the rules. I'm also terribly impatient with mediocrity. Enter  Escape From Tomorrow . Created by a team of rogue filmmakers, the movie was shot in the video mode of high-end still cameras. Actors shared scripts and shooting locations across their smartphones. Shot on location at Disney World, the parks were completely unaware this was all going on right under their mouse ears. I wanted to love Escape From Tomorrow. More than that, I wanted to be completely taken with its ingenuity and creativity and - oh yes - its originality. And there is really a simple brilliance to their covert plan; all families are roaming around the parks, taking videos and chatting on their phones. Just blend the fuck in, act like you belong, and you won't get caught. Too bad the movie can be summed up as: ambitious but Rubbish. As you can imagine (or possibly know), there was a ton of con

What Is Genre And Why Should I Care?

There are terms that always seem to come up when talking about films: director, actor, plot, theme, score, etc. These terms are all self-explanatory; no one ever asks, ‘what’s a director?’ However, there are other terms that are equally common but less clear: genre, sub-genre, auteur, oeuvre, etc. These terms are more abstract then ‘director’ or ‘actor.’ It is entirely likely that someone will ask, ‘what is genre, anyway?’ This question specifically is what I will be answering with this paper. The answer to the question ‘what is genre,’ is multi-layered: genre is a means of classification. Genre is a means of communication. Genre is a means of understanding films. Genre is a means of relating to films. To one person all movies rated “PG” are a genre – possibly one also known as “children’s movies” – while to another all movies with similar topics treated in similar ways are a genre: i.e. movies dealing with frontier life depicted in a nostalgic manner are a genre often kn