Bear with me, I’m not a terribly regular poster in Cafe Society. And I’m an environmental technician, not a film buff or professional in real life, so I’ve got little to no expertise in this area, except as a paying customer. This has had me curious for many years now, and not just on the Dope.
I’ve seen so many threads on this on various boards. The OP will post about how a movie is so horrible, so MSTK3-worthy, and when they say why, IF they say why, (frequently it’s just “it sucked” and when you ask how, they’ll “elaborate” by saying “oh so many ways”), the “why this movie was bad” description is really more why the movie was unrealistic or was scientifically unsound.
I didn’t want to hijack the “… Armageddon…” thread, so I thought I’d start a new one. Why were Armageddon, the 3 Star Wars Prequels, and others so bad?
Is it just the silliness of some of the scientific impossibilities? What makes a movie like that (primarily sci-fi ones) “bad” to you folks?
Bloodrayne - TERRIBLE TERRIBLE acting. You could see in the background of the fight scenes some of actors faking hitting each other w/ swords. And if I recall there were several people who died via the “Sword thru the FREAKING Arm” method. And there was literally about 10mins of transition scenes of them riding horses to get from one place to another. Just ugh…
Those qualities are what make me “dislike” a movie- terrible acting to the point of “why are you even bothering?” sorta crap.
To me, the movies you listed are no where as close to being that terrible, but people tend to mock them because it’s amusing to do so really.
But i’m willing to allow suspension of disbelief when I go see a movie. But I really dislike having to suffer through shoddy acting/graphics/etc when a movie tries to sell itself as a film released into theaters vs. say a group of people who put it on the internet.
Lots of things can make a movie bad. Will Farell movies are always bad, because Will Farell can never convince us he is someone else. That’s important for anyone trying to suspend their disbelief in a movie. Edward Norton is a counter example. In keeping the faith, you see the troubled priest trying to reconcile his crush with his vows, not Edward Norton. In American History X you see the violent racist seeking redemption, not Ed Norton. You can entirely forget who the actor is while he’s in a role, and just see the character.
Movies that wink at their audience are awful, too. The Simpsons Movie was great fun, but a terrible movie. Homer reminded us at the very beginning that we’re all stupid for going to the theater to watch what we could get for free on TV, which jarringly reminded us that we’re all, in fact, sitting in a theater. A good movie can turn the theater experience into something vague and peripheral that we only interact with unconsciously while our conscious minds are engrossed in the story. For how cheesy it was, Star Wars did just that. Nobody came to remind us that we were sitting in a theater buying their product. There was just a big fucking SPACESHIP shooting the crap out of another one, and we were suddenly very intensely concerned with just what the fuck was going on around here?!
That’s the difference between good movies and plain old theater entertainment. Something can be really entertaining, but not capture the entirety of our conscious mind like a really good movie can.
If you see Lenny trying to solve the mystery of his wife’s murder, while being burdened by severe mental illness, you’re seeing a good movie. If you see Bruce Willis nailing a helicopter with a truck he managed to jump out of just as he drove it on the ramp, and you think “holy shit, this Die Hard is even crazier than the others!” then you’re watching a bad movie that just happens to be wildly entertaining and fun.
What makes a bad movie is going to vary from person to person. Some people are so enamoured with an actor or a director that they’ll gush over anything said actor or director spits out, while others so hate an actor or director that they’ll instantly pan anything they might do, no matter how good it might be. Cinematic tastes often change so what’s considered a great movie today, could quickly be regulated to the mocking heap of history, while a film which was once shunned might suddenly be a forgotten classic.
I, for one, can’t stand a film which is so obsessed with how good it’s computer effects look that they can’t be bothered to focus on things like acting or dialog. Nor can I stand a film that sets up a premise about how things work in the fictional universe, and then proceeds to violate them repeatedly. Another thing that just chaps my ass is when a film screws up something relatively simple, and there’s not really a good reason plotwise for this to happen. It’s some times understandable why a film needs to bend the rules of reality (having a car jump over an open drawbridge, land on all four tires and then drive off like nothing happened for example), but other times (and quite often in Hollywood movies) they simply have something happen for no reason at all, other than it “looks cool.” Now, doing something that “looks cool” can work, if you don’t hinge the plot around it, but quite often they do hinge the plot around it.
Then there’s the dialog. Some times it’s just so jarringly bad, that it snaps you out of the movie and reminds you that precious moments of your life are slipping away while you’re watching this crap.
Acting is another thing that can ruin a movie. Some times it’s a case of picking the wrong actor for the part, in other cases, it’s that the actor can’t act.
I think you nailed it in one. That’s sort of how I’ve always felt, but haven’t been able to express as well as you just did. If a movie is fun, the characters are likable etc, to me it’s a good movie, regardless of whether it’s technically “good”.
Even truly horrible movies, so bad that they’re good, can be a lot of fun to watch (MSTK3 etc).
FWIW, to me, Will Farell movies will never be good not only because he’s always Will Farell, but because Will Farell comes across as a pervy, skeevy, old man (even though he’s young), he just has this air of ooginess about him that hits me in a somewhat fingernails on a chalkboard way.
For me, I don’t get into the intrinsic qualities of each film. If I was entertained, it’s a good movie. That doesn’t mean a slapstick comedy or wildly over the top sci-fi epic that is entertaining but with cheesy or unrealistic plot points is better than a well-written drama with fantastic acting…just that my entertainment value is the overriding point.
So for me: if I was entertained: good movie…if I wasn’t: bad movie.
Oh, and I’ll agree on Will Ferrell for the most part, but I really enjoyed “Stranger Than Fiction,” so I can’t say I dislike all his films.
The “bad movie” label gets attached most often to movies that might be better labeled “I just don’t like it” or, better still, “I just don’t get it.”
For an exercise that might give you a better feel for “good movie” vs. “bad movie” with several gradations in between, try this:
Pick 10 movies you have seen.
Give them your own star-rating from 1 to 4 (using 1/2 stars where you must) or some percentage, or something on the 1-10 scale
Try to have your 10 movies be broad enough in quality that you have some 1’s and some 4’s (or similar ratings on whatever scale)
Read the reviews Roger Ebert has on those movies
Check out Rotten Tomatoes for their ratings
Compare your version to the reviewers’ versions
See if you can pick out the nuances the reviewers used for their grading
Over the years, I have learned to give movies a chance before reading reviews. Other factors help me determine what movies I’ll even watch. Tuckerfan and Mosier have identified some of the things I have internalized before even selecting a movie to watch, but I don’t like watching or reading reviews beforehand. (Sometimes that’s unavoidable if you wait until after festivals and awards shows have passed judgment on the year’s best and such).
But if you’re allowing the tastes on SDMB to influence your thinking, you’re letting extraneous factors come into play. (I would enumerate some of those, but that gets to be a pissing contest.)
The Star Wars prequels, for me, just simply failed to engage me. In comparison with the LOTR movies (a natural comp.), I can’t identify with any of the characters. Plus there were things like pacing and the perception that nobody could really act (or didn’t act in these particular films). The original SW movies were never my favorites (tho I’ve warmed up to them somewhat over the years), but even tho the characters there really didn’t have much depth either, I could at least identify with them. The 1-3 movies are just chock-full of starch-stiff cardboard cutouts.
Bad acting (adequate examples already cited in several previous posts).
Unbelievable premises (e.g. obvious bad science) that requires one to not merely suspend disbelief but hang it by the neck until it is dead, dead, dead. Movies like Armageddon and The Core spring to mind here.
2a. A related flaw is to portray characters who are supposed to be intelligent and competent as total morons (e.g. Batman and Robin).
Low production values (e.g. cheap SFX) amplify badness if already present, but does not create badness in and of itself – an otherwise engaging picture can be forgiven for budget and technical shortcomings.
Right on. These are all how I’d define a bad movie, and I’d add:
A script which insults the viewer’s intelligence due to amazing coincidences, miraculous twists of fate or revealed-just-in-the-nick-of-time knowledge.
Scenes which transparently and/or clumsily punch your emotional buttons, either to tug your heartstrings or make you hate a character.
I look for plot and dialogue and characterization (ie, acting). Do the characters stay true to their dramatic arcs? I am fine with a character stepping outside their role (note I said character, not actor), but there has to be an undergirdment of truth within that character–even the mentally ill ones have a cohesion to them. If actors are just spouting lines and having to do things to serve the plot, it’s a bad movie, IMO.
I dislike gore and most violence, so I don’t watch horror or “scary movies” at all (but I like suspenseful ones, go figure)… As for sci-fi ones, I look (again) for the humanity within the world. Sci-fi is a vehicle to explore man’s inhumanity and also his humanity. If it ain’t there, then it’s a just bang whizzer of special effects. That might have wow’ed me back in the day, but now I want value for my $9.
I’d say what makes a movie bad for me is:
bad acting
incomplete premise, poorly executed
distracting special effects (does it move the plot along? is it integral to the plot?)
happy endings tacked on just to finish the picture. Ambiguity can be powerful.
Poor editing.
I’ve never noticed poor camera work, but that’s because I’m not at all versed in proper camera work. It would be a horrible distraction, though.
I also read Ebert (sometimes to get a feel for a new film, sometimes to see if he and I agree on the film).
Sometimes it can be a technical issue that makes a movie bad: pacing; camera work; editing. Sometimes an artistic issue: music; acting; dialogue; storyline; plot holes. And sometimes it can be hard to pin down: chemistry between actors; standard first time director faults; studio interference; misleading marketing; Steven Seagal is in it.
No two bad movies have the same combination of faults, and of course people don’t always agree. Uwe Boll clearly thinks his movies are good, even though nobody else in the entire world does. It’s a slippery customer.
If you must pick a post in the thread for the summary that matters, this is it.
No single scale is available to judge all movies. Some movies try hard to be big and smashing and overloaded with effects, crashes, chases, explosions and bare skin bumping into other bare skin.
Others try to present a problem with society, personal challenges, conflicts, overcoming obstacles, daring to risk, growth, very personal stuff.
FriarTed’s “rules” ask you to determine what the movie is up to. Then to grade it on whether it got that job done well. And even if it did or didn’t do the first one, did you feel the time you invested was well spent?
There are a lot of different kinds of bad movies. The basic types are movies that are comically bad, which fail so miserably that it’s entertaining, and movies that are just boring and don’t work. Movies can be good or bad in spite of just about any of the things mentioned upthread because different movies have different ways of trying to be entertaining. I think FriarTed’s criteria pretty much cover it while leaving enough room for variety.
The thing is, bad acting, bad effects, and bad plot or storytelling can be funny and even entertaining in the right circumstances, so mere incompetence doesn’t necessarily make a film “bad.” Ed Wood’s films are watched to this day because, even though his films are awful, there’s an earnestness to them. Wood thought he was making good films, or at least passable ones, and, failing to recognize his own inadequacies, he just couldn’t make a good movie. Some folks theorize that Wood’s films are still watched and treasured because there’s something there that we fear about ourselves; perhaps we all are just deluding ourselves, and we’re really no good after all.
The very worst movies are those that aren’t merely “bad”, they’re boring. Let’s take Gerry as an example. It’s an endurance test. Basically, it’s Matt Damon and Casey Affleck hiking in the desert for two hours. Really. That’s all. So mind-numbingly boring that watching it isn’t in any way pleasant, engaging, or diverting. You’d never recommend it to your friends for any reason. That is true badness: rising above incompetence to make a statement that’s both incomprehensible and too dull to listen to.
A few other considerations:
[ul]
[li]Does the movie star Pauly Shore?[/li][li]Does the movie star require Jean Claude van Damme to act?[/li][li]Does the movie star any of the Wayans brothers?[/li][/ul]