The argument would then become, “is it a movie?” It was a made-for-TV special, after all.
That’s me. I sort of agree with Peter Griffin. His objection was that the movie “insists upon itself”. Of course a movie can’t do that, but as that scene from Family Guy demonstrates (Peter’s family insists he should like it merely because it’s the Godfather), other people can insist upon it. Normally that wouldn’t make me not like a movie. I can sit through 1 1/2 or even 2 hours of something I don’t like. The Godfather, however, is almost 3 hours, features many scenes that IMHO are boring, and has main characters that I just don’t find likable. If it speaks the language of subtlety, then count me in as someone for whom subtlety goes right over my head.
ETA: A lot of the movies on this list are good, solid entertainment that a large majority of people who have seen them like. Movies that people will gladly say, “yeah, I like Empire Strikes Back, Groundhog Day, Back to the Future, whatever, but if you don’t like it, I get that”. With The Godfather, however, I have been told by others that I should like it just because it’s The Godfather and because everyone else does.
Interesting. I not only didn’t like the movie, I can’t figure out why people think it’s so good. In my opinion at least it is not well acted at all. Obviously mileage varies but I have no desire to see it again for any reason.
That’s The Godfather btw.
I strongly disagree with the criticism of Jurassic Park (I’m defending the original movie, not the whole franchise, and not the book) and in fact I came in here to nominate it as a stellar example of a near-perfect movie just from the standpoint of pure entertainment. It’s just fun to watch, with adventure interspersed with bits of humour, all supported by great cinematography. It’s everything a movie should be.
My problem with some of the suggestions is that I personally am not fond of fantasies. Thus I’ve never been a fan of the Star Wars movies or the Tolkien movies. The Wizard of Oz is kinda in a class by itself, though. This may seem ironic since some might argue that Jurassic Park is something of a fantasy, but the story line makes an effort at an at least superficially plausible explanation for how the dinosaurs were cloned. That experts tell us that such cloning is almost certainly impossible is just party-pooping scientific nitpickery! 
Put me down for a “nay” vote. The narrative just felt too random and scattered and tension-less for me to get into the story. (Three guys go into business together, and…they’re immediately successful and everyone loves them (except that one guy)?)
A woman roughly my age once told me she hates Casablanca. Too melodramatic, she said. I was floored.
Someone else once told me they hate The Wizard of Oz.
Yeah, if that counts as a “film,” we open the door to things like Looney Tunes cartoons.
“Mixed bag,” by definition, means I can’t give it either a thumbs up or down. I have no desire to see it again, if you need a tipping-point judgment.
I’ll refrain from saying that. It was a low-brow, effects driven mass-market blockbuster, but it succeeded very well in doing that, so I suppose it should count as “good” for what it was. But not something I would consider myself even a casual fan of. To me, it ranks only as “a movie I saw”. Take that as you will. I don’t hate it, but I’ve never had any desire to see it again.
North By Northwest.
Surprised Forrest Gump hasn’t been mentioned.
I wouldn’t say Jurassic Park was in any way “low-brow”. It’s a movie that sets out to be immensely entertaining and succeeds in that wonderfully. It’s not a movie designed to attract Oscar nominations the way some films obviously and sometimes rather painfully try to do, but instead to just be entertaining. It nevertheless did garner 44 wins and 27 nominations in various different venues, and won 3 Oscars, for best sound, best sound effects, and best visual effects.
Is that the one with the teddy bear planet? Because I hated that one.
It combines extremely bad paleontology with extremely bad genetics. Maybe not “low-brow”, but it is extremely soft science fiction.
It would get instantly shut down.
No, that was return of the Jedi. Empire did have Yoda though.
Nix. Can never understand the acclaim this gets.
Not my fave an d not a big Tom Hanks fan, but gotta say an enjoyable flick.
I’ll remember this when I start the thread: Which movies do you consider to be a mixed bag?
From my perspective, you are desiring more specificity than I think we could apply to this thread. Personally, I’m not sure what would make me feel, “That was a good movie, but I didn’t like it.” But nominate or nix on whatever criteria you wish.
“All agree” is of course an impossible standard, but “almost all agree” seems achievable. I’m a little surprised Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein haven’t been suggested.
And isn’t Philadelphia Story considered good by almost everyone? It would never make my list of “best movies ever,” but I can certainly agree it’s a good film, and that’s all we’re looking for, right?
Right. I think for many people “good movie” equals “I liked it.” I suspect few people are able to recognize a movie they don’t like is good.
A nuance, here: I think that Citizen Kane is unquestionably a great film, but it’s not a good film. It had too much influence on the medium and on its time to not be great. But it doesn’t hold up in modern times.