If I am to define good art, I must first define art before good. Life’s too short.
But you’re the one asking us to define movies we don’t like as good, but you won’t tell us what you mean by that term.
Read my post. I said it is nearly (maybe always) impossible to do that.
Right, meaning it is somewhat possible, but for me to agree that I movie I don’t like is good, I’m going to need a definition of good.
My nomination is the movie Happiness, not everyone will like it, but I think we can agree it’s good. It has great acting and funny dialogue.
“Good” is a subjective, emotional term. “Well-crafted for its purpose and its audience” might be a better choice. For instance, judging by his popularity in Black culture Tyler Perry’s Madea movies are apparently considered “good” there. But I would consider it cruel punishment to be forced to sit through one. You could never convince me that one of them is a good movie, but I have to agree to the objective fact that Tyler Perry is capable of crafting a movie that atteacts 1.3 billion in ticket sales, so he must have done a good job of tapping into what an audience wants Which makes them “good” using Roger Ebert’s metrics.
Quoting Ebert
…that the star rating system is relative, not absolute. When you ask a friend if “Hellboy” is any good, you’re not asking if it’s any good compared to “Mystic River,” you’re asking if it’s any good compared to “The Punisher.” And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if “Superman” (1978) is four, then “Hellboy” is three and “The Punisher” is two. In the same way, if “American Beauty” gets four stars, then “Leland” clocks in at about two.
Or more extensively in this article
(ETA more closely reading my own cite, that Madea 13 billion is minutes streamed, not dollars made.)
Although Hanks has played somewhat against type a few times (e.g. The Road to Perdition,) you are right about this. But two things:
-
While a wide range of dramatic ability is generally a mark of a talented actor, range is not the be-all and end-all of what makes a good actor. Someone who knows the limits of his abilities and remains within them, or who chooses “likeable” roles (for whatever reason), isn’t necessarily a bad actor, even if you personally happen to think that of Hanks. And Hanks does have the chops to effectively play both serious drama and comedy, which is not true of all actors.
-
One could argue that there are many well-regarded actors who “always play the exact same character”; Spencer Tracy and Gene Hackman come to mind. Neither of them seemed to have the ability to disappear into a role like, for instance Gary Oldman or Sam Rockwell. But they are both considered very good actors by most people.
I just wanted to say I loved Hackman in The Birdcage. For most of it, he was pretty much playing to type. In drag, though? That was unexpected!
I see your point, and I’d quibble about Hackman (see the Conversation) but the type Hanks plays is just boring. He’s the generic white boomer stand in for his audience and as a result he’s in the kind of inane movies I really dislike.
Is It’s A Wonderful Life in the running at all? I watch it every year at Christmas and have found it to be a good, tight movie. Every scene is well written and well acted. Great story.
Every discussion I’ve seen of it has been basically “I finally got around to watching this and it’s great!”
Or are we discounting b&w movies at this point?
As for that, when it comes to playing “different characters”, Jimmy Stewart makes Tom Hanks look like Gary Oldman. And yet, I dare you to claim that Stewart wasn’t a great actor.
I have done so on this board and posted a link to John Oliver making the same claim. You all lost your minds.
Right around 3:15
Along those lines, might Romancing the Stone also be a contender?
Ultimately, the goal of acting is to evoke an emotional response from your audience. Not an intellectual response - an emotional one. Steward was better at evoking emotions than almost anyone. Olivier… meh. He mostly left me cold.
And this is why we’re never going to find a movie that everyone agrees is good.
I was also told that Stewart was a war hero and John Oliver wasn’t, which is odd.
Whether or not I understand what “objectively” means, I do understand numbers. 2001: A Space Odyssey has a 90% score on RT representing the consensus of 165 critics. The movie was nominated for 4 Academy awards, including for “best writing, story, and screenplay”. Arthur C Clarke was a prolific and marvellously imaginative sci-fi writer, and Stanley Kubrick has been described as one of the greatest and most influential filmmakers in the history of cinema. So much for Pauline Kael’s opinion. I hold her in about as much regard as that other New Yorker critic, Richard Brody.
And Young Frankenstein.
Well, Hackman wasn’t really playing “a character” in Young Frankenstein. He was funny, but he was himself.
For character work from GH I’d agree with @madmonk28 about The Conversation, and add 1973’s Scarecrow. Very nice acting that does create a persona quite different from his usual.
(Neither of those movies would qualify for the thread, though. In common with a lot of 1970s “indy” movies, they are too quirky and not obvious enough to please the masses.)
Scarecrow, the Royal Tennenbaums, and the French Connection. Like a lot of actors, he became a bit one note as he got older, but he made some great movies that were better for him having been in them, especially in his early career but the less said about his Polish accent in A Bridge Too Far, the better.
Instead of one movie, let me nominate a whole category: the movies of those filmmaking geniuses, the Coen brothers. I think maybe half a dozen of their movies might qualify here, out of the many that they’ve made. Here is their filmography.
@madmonk28 —I agree on all that.
@wolfpup —I would like to see a Coen Brothers movie get the title (a movie that 'we all agree is good’). I suspect they’re not, well, simple enough. Fargo probably comes closest, but even that would be vetoed by some on the basis of ‘I couldn’t get into it’ or such. (Not that anyone on THIS board would say that, of course.)