Page 1 of Critics vs Joe Public, what makes a good movie?

How do most of us define a good movie? Do we look at the technical side of the movie making process to deride or praise. Or whether an actor is utilising skills honed in Shakespearean productions. I have watched somewhere in the region of 300 movies on dvd in the last year. The list is diverse, from silent German, to fantastical French, from Japanese anime to Hollywood`s finest. Yes, some have been clunkers (mainly from Hollywood) but most have entertained and enthralled me. A lot of these have been criminally ignored in favour of the latest Matrix/Terminator sequel. Some have captured our hearts, for example, Amelie and Spirited Away. Not once have I felt obliged to enter critic speak to explain my feelings about a film, whether to praise or condemn. So why do we rely so heavily on the reviews of others. If something in a film`s description hits a chord, go for it. Don`t just pick up the latest blockbuster, try something out of the ordinary. Does anyone else try to ignore critical reviews before viewing a film, or read the blurb and think, I`ll try that? Or are we all victims of hype. Views, please.

Just loves to be entertained!

I`m finding lots of foreign films I`m buying at the minute aren`t as good as I expect them to be, like The Twins Effect. Sometimes I just don`t `get` foreign films either, particularly asian films. Spirited Away is something I didn`t really like even though it got critical acclaim; I thought it was mostly quite bizarre, and for a childrens film possibly overlong.

I`m finding that a lot of the time that critics are too harsh on the more commercial films, like Hollywood blockbusters, and then are too generous on indie foreign films. And at the minute, I`m tending to ignore critics anway, and personally rate the films on their enjoyment factor alone. Just because a film is deemed to be a classic doens`t always necessarily mean that everyone will like it. Most of the time I`ll read reviews after I`ve seen the film, just so that I don`t have any prejudgement over what it will be like.

Ben, thanks. A film, like a painting, or a computer game, or a book, is all down to personal taste. I do not state that all foreign films are superior, nor all blockbusters valueless. I despair of people going into their high street store, buying the latest big name release and ignoring something that may give them much more pleasure. But unless the minor releases reach a certain plateau of sales, similar films may find limited, ie r1 or r3 release only. I am not a highbrow bigot, I just want to maintain a varied supply of movie titles and genres!
:D
Just loves to be entertained!

I`m not sure anyone, critic or no, could claim to judge film on a purely technical level and claim to get anywhere (what, after all, would be the point?) and I`ve never been completely convinced that, broadly speaking, a critic`s idea of a good movie is all that different from a regular filmgoers: for every Adam Sandler smash, there`s a `Mystic River` or a `Lord of the Rings` that wins broad critical acclaim and audience appreciation. If there is a difference, it`s probably monetary, critics get paid (or not :) to see all kinds of films and, unlike audiences, have to figure out something to say about it. Audience members look to get their 6 quids worth of entertainment, innovation, enlightenment, what have you, and the result is that the experience of watching the film is skewed differently.

I think a lot of the derogatory things people say about critics are true (and there are more, that people don`t seem to notice), and it says a lot about critics that people generally aren`t interested in what they say. I don`t think, as many claim, that they should be or are, completely ignored, but their views tend to be absorbed in an indifferent way rather than being provocative and inspiring. Anyway, I`m not giving up hope, anyone who`s read Jorge Luis Borges or Baudrillard knows that the best critics can enrich the experience of a film rather than just add to the white noise.

--Mike

Have to agree. I hate when someone will ignore a film just because it`s a blockbuster or even "mainstream". It p***es me off. I like film, I watch anything. I find that most of the rewatchable films are the Hollywood films (just look at my DVD collection :p ). A lot of the time it seems foreign films are applauded for being foreign. True, if they make it to this country for a theatrical release then it must have been successful, but that doesn`t make it good. I agree with Ben, I didn`t particularly like Spirited Away, but everyone else says they loved it. Japanese cinema is interesting, as is Korean and Hong Kong, but that`s because they seem to aim more at pure entertainment rather than try at the pretentious praise level (that most critics seem to love).

I know what you mean!
It`s the same with music!

Many people are quick to judge large budget films before seeing them. They can be very good!

Empire Strikes Back
Lord of the Rings


Not all Blockbusters are some idiot with a machine gun against the world!


I must admit I do like indie films though i have noticed in recent years some Studios are aiming for a cult audiance. Which can backfire I loved all kevin smiths filmes other than "jay and Silent Bob strike back"

There are thousands of indie filme made every year and we only really hear of the few that are good.
However we hear of every bad blockbuster!

I reckon it`s down to the viewer!

Some of us like "Donnie Darko"

Some like "Rambo 3"

I predict that most of the readers of this board are in the first camp!
But the vast majortiy of the consumers are in the latter!

But times are changing now the big boys want to please everyone and if you watch
Saving Private Ryan
or Pirates of the Carribian you`ll see what i`m getting at they manage to please everyone even the hardcore "film buff" types

This is what I needed to hear. People are not swayed by hype, nor the "cool" factor of reeling off names of obscure Icelandic Film Noir. I wanted to know that I am not the only one that can sit down to enjoy popcorn with The Core, sheer thrills with Return of the King and quiet contemplation with Three Colours trilogy. Each and every film has merits and deserves an audience and should not rely on being thrust down peoples throats by hype machines. Thanks folks!

Just loves to be entertained!

The only thing that I find is the limited time I have to watch films at the mo. I therefore tend to rely on the likes of Empire to try and narrow down what I may enjoy. Having said that, when I look at my collection I tend to go more for style over substance (e.g. typical Blockbuster) so if EMPIRE etc. rate a blockbuster badly (e.g. Van Helsing) chances are I will still see it.

I do like a variety of different films and that is why I tend to visit DVD Reviewer a lot in order to get more realistic recommendations of films. You often get to hear about films on here which EMPIRE would never cover.

I`m too old for this sh*t!

This item was edited on Friday, 7th May 2004, 11:24

The problem with a lot of mainstream Hollywood films is that they often play things fairly safe and as such can become a bit predictable - they know the type of audience they are looking for and a lot of market research goes into the scripts they finance and the style of films they make. Not to say that they don`t come up with some original and entertaining films because they do but often we only get re-makes of older movies or sequels to box office hits. Lower budget/foreign/indie films tend to take more risks and when they work can be much more innovative and exciting - the other side of the coin is that they try to be too different and end up as dull and tedious.

Andy

It`s all about entertainment, we watch films for escapism, whether its Sci-fi, fantasy, action, adventure.

Sure there not to be taken seriously, but I could sit down, and re-watch an Arnie film any day, than some film made by arty farty twat.

floyd
___________________________________