How do you define a bad movie?

[AndyC]

I don't remember if we've discussed this before, but I'm sure we've touched on it in other discussions.

Obviously, many of us do not define badness according to budget, or special effects, or even competent acting and direction. Some of the cheapest movies can be extremely good, and even some of the most shabbily put together crapfests can be highly entertaining and fun. Question is, what makes a movie bad in a negative sense?

I'd have to say there are three or four things that can wreck a movie for me.

It's dull - I don't like slow, meandering movies that take forever to get anywhere. These can be artistic, well-acted movies like Shine, or crappy ones like Manos. Not that I need action, but I like the story to keep moving along.

It's disappointing - Movies that don't live up to their potential, or to the expectations their often-misleading advertising creates. A lot of summer blockbusters fall into this category.

It gets it all wrong - Spend a fortune on a Godzilla movie, but completely throw out everything that defines the character, and everything the fans love. Make a movie of The Hulk and fill it with drama instread of mindless destruction. What were they thinking?

It's preachy - nothing worse than a social or political agenda that constantly gets in the way of the story. For example, Runaway Jury would have been a great movie if it hadn't kept beating me over the head with its anti-gun message.

Of course, the latter two can lend a so-bad-it's-good quality to the movie, but dull and disappointing are completely unredeemable.

How about you? What makes a movie really bad for you?

[raj]

Dullness is the greatest sin a movie can make.  We (or at least I) watch movies to be entertained.  Preachiness can sometimes be ok, in small doses.  But preachiness + dullness = pretensiousness.

Poor acting.  I don't mean people who can't act, rather I mean actors who have absolutely no enthusiasm for their role.  I'd rather watch Criswell narrate Plan 9, because he actually seems to care about what he's saying, than say Ewan McGregor in Attack of the Clones, who sounds like he's just reading the cue cards.

Bad directing.  Not having a sense of where you want the movie to go.  Making a muddled mess of the movie.

[The Burgomaster]

I get aggravated when movies are "overdone."  I mean, when odd camera angles or convoluted camera movements are used for no apparent reason; or when the dialogue is way overblown, flowery, over-dramatic, etc.; or when the director slams you over the head with symbolism, imagery, etc.  I'm a big believer in "less is more" when I watch movies.  I think it's great when I watch a movie four or five times before I notice a subtle bit of symbolism or a clever camera movement or a really well-written piece of dialogue.  I can't tolerate it when these types of things are forced down my throat.

[ulthar]

I hate movies that try to be clever...where the director seems to think he is so smart he is using a film to portray some 'great message.'  My fav. whipping post movie, 'Mission to Mars' is a good example.  Oh man, a good example of so many things I hate in a movie.

Somehow, it is an 'attitude' that makes a movie bad (in the bad sense) to me, so it's hard to define.  I can forgive bad effects, bad acting, atrocious dialog, etc, if the movie is still fun.  But how to decide it is fun and not tedious?  Gut feeling, is all I can say.

I too don't like preachiness in a movie.  I think I am less bothered by poor fx than most people, having grown up watching older b&w flicks with few fx anyway.  But when a movie tries to make me 'think' or convince me of The Latest Cause(tm), I find that wearisome.  Or simply, a movie that just takes itself too seriously (the directors/producers, et al, think that they are changing the world with an hour and a half or so of MOVIE).

(It was not a movie, but sorta illustrates my point:  I saw Steve Miller in concert a few years ago...good show until old Steve spend 10-15 minutes before the encore ramblin' on about some environmental issue or other....brought the whole audience down, and killed an otherwise good show).

[Mr. Hockstatter]

It's all in the characters.  They've got to be unique, likable (or at least sympathetic), and believable.  I think it was W.C. Fields who said "He has all the virtues I dispise and none of the vices I admire".  That's one problem with so many characters, they're generic do-gooders that could be interchanged with any other generic do-gooder in any other film, and they don't bear any resemblance at all to actual human beings.  They're one dimensional and banal.  

Or else they're obnoxious.  Hollywood seems to have a real love affair with the obnoxious character, be it the loud, clueless moron or the self-worshipping, condescending  "with it" person.  We're supposed to think they're oh-so-clever or something.  They aren't.

And of course preachiness.  If Hollywood thinks I'm going to pay money to sit through some witless, lobotomized "social commentary" they can pucker up and plant a big smooch on my backside.

[smengie]

Well, the things that have been bothering me of late are:

1.no story - this sort of goes hand in hand with the whole dullness thing. Good, characterisations aren't enough. Something needs to HAPPEN. And if alot is going on but the whole thing seems to have no weight, to not be of consequence, then its just as bad or worse than having no story at all. The film needs to be about a compelling series of events (comedies are somewhat exempt from this).

2.overuse of CGI - In this, the post Shrek era, nothing can turn me off faster than bad application of CGI. The thing that kills me is now it seems like movies are using CGI in places where its not even neccesary! CGI Frankenstein, Wolfman, etc...why?!?!?

3.Cliches - The old bugaboo. Can anyone explain to me where it is written that "Thou shalt have characters in fantasy films talk stiffly and haughtily as if they have a rigid staff of +1 faux nobility shoved up their rectums."?

4.Tooooooo muuuuuchhhhhhhh slllllloooooooowwwwww mmmmooottttiioooonnn

[AndyC]

Lots of characterization and not enough story made me think immediately of Gosford Park. What a piece of crap that was, and yet many considered it a great movie.

Funny how we generally have to defend our movie choices, yet we all seem to have a better grip than most on what really matters. We can recognize both a diamond in the rough and a naked emperor with equal skill.