What do you look for in movies?

Self explanatory-- what sorts of things make a movie great for you? Sheer entertainment value? Artistic merit? Characterization? Humanity? Depth? Tits? Oh, I said apart from tits.

For me it's lots of things: the storytelling perfection of films like The Empire Strikes Back, the appeal to the masculine fantasy element of my ego like the best Bond movies, sweeping scenescapes and beautiful music, strong intellectual or emotional investment, a unity of a variety of factors. I don't think there's any one thing that I look for more than all others, as my favorites list is sort of all over the place. If I had to pick one factor that consistently irritates me about western cinema in general, however, it's that it often operates too much on the intellectual and sensational level-- there's not as much attention to the heart and spirit. Don't get me wrong-- many of my favorite filmmakers utterly excel on a purely intellectual level, I am here thinking of Leone, Polanski, Kubrick, the Coens and others. The American is another film I loved which I'd lump in this category. What is missing is balance. A complaint I have about our society in general is that it's too intellectual-- we're stuck in our own heads and know relatively little about the intelligence and workings of the heart.. Cinema provides an exceptionally interesting index of this phenomenon. Now, I'm not a cinephile or an expert on film, so I'm sure there's lots I'm missing out on. I guess that's why I started this thread-- to get an idea from some of the experts what they feel makes a movie great.

Originality would be high on the list for me. Too many of today's films follow the 'hero's journey' repopularised by Christopher Vogler, and I've already seen that film a thousand times.

ambler wrote:

Originality would be high on the list for me. Too many of today's films follow the 'hero's journey' repopularised by Christopher Vogler, and I've already seen that film a thousand times.

What was your take on Inception?

Salomé wrote:

ambler wrote:

Originality would be high on the list for me. Too many of today's films follow the 'hero's journey' repopularised by Christopher Vogler, and I've already seen that film a thousand times.

What was your take on Inception?

Haven't seen it. It takes a lot to get me to watch any film made after 2000.

ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

ambler wrote:

Originality would be high on the list for me. Too many of today's films follow the 'hero's journey' repopularised by Christopher Vogler, and I've already seen that film a thousand times.

What was your take on Inception?

Haven't seen it. It takes a lot to get me to watch any film made after 2000.

I still haven't figured out totally how I felt about it. It's not as internally consistent as some of the fanboys claim and it could have done with a better lead. But there was a lot of interesting stuff there, some of which I suspect many of its viewers missed.

Salomé wrote:

ambler wrote:

Originality would be high on the list for me. Too many of today's films follow the 'hero's journey' repopularised by Christopher Vogler, and I've already seen that film a thousand times.

What was your take on Inception?

I'll offer mine, though it wasn't asked for

Inception gets a lot of points from me for its first act, but ultimately fails due to its commitment to the action genre. I loved the philosophical dialogue-- as someone who studied Philosophy of Mind in uni I appreciated the depth of understanding the movie had of the terrain of the mind/body problem, specifically relating to consciousness. Now, ultimately I didn't agree with the movies' position, namely that it is in fact possible to skirt around someone's self consciousness via external means if we only just dig deep enough, but I won't fault it for that. What pissed me off about the movie was that after it very effectively laid the groundwork of a very interesting philosophical problem, it turned into an action movie, the fundamental theorem of all of which is that any problem can be solved by just having everyone shoot at one another. Inception gets you all excited intellectually and then (paradoxically!) asks you to put your brain on hold while everyone whips 'em out and tries to kill one another. Another flaw is that the movie doesn't seem to fully understand the ramifications of the position it wants to take, however....ah fuck it. It's an action movie.

I think you missed some layers if you came out of it feeling it was purely an action movie.

Nolan plays tricks on what is and isn't reality all through the movie, but also beyond what it obvious. In several cases, he subtly breaks the fourth wall. Whatever he might claim in interviews, it was no coincidence that a woman who once played Piaff was cast as Mal.

And in my opinion, the paper windmill is also a totem. I'll let you figure out whose. ;)

One thing that I like personally is atmosphere. A real sense of setting.

I like a film that engages me emotionally and has characters I can relate to.I tend to enjoy thought-provoking and powerful films. After that it comes down to good acting, directing, writing etc. Blade Runner ticks all those boxes for me and that's why it is my favourite film.

I like escapism. I like scale and the sense of wonder. Something that can take me in and make me riveted by the story, the characters and the environment. If I can feel like I'm there or that I'll be affected by the outcome in some way, the film works for me.

I look for the truth.

Sharky wrote:

I look for the truth.

She's her sister and her daughter. ;)

If I were to pick one thing, it's the same thing I look for in fiction books: Character development. Unless the film (or book) is some kind of political satire or outlandish comedy (and possibly even if it IS) I have to get into the characters to enjoy it. I don't even have to like the characters. I just have to be intrigued by them. I have to want to know more about them and what happens to them. I may even want to relate to them. I think it's the fundamental element of good story telling, really.

Quote :

Don't get me wrong-- many of my favorite filmmakers utterly excel on a purely intellectual level, I am here thinking of Leone, Polanski, Kubrick, the Coens and others.

I don't get it.
What I'm looking for in a movie is ... anything, really. Atmosphere and distinctiveness help, but I don't give a shit about characters or plot, they are secondary unless there's nothing else there.

Out of all of those, Kubrick had the strongest tendency to be 'purely intellectual', or have a highly misanthropic view of humanity. But I think his heart (especially in his earlier works) is highly underestimated. I find BARRY LYNDON and PATHS OF GLORIA moving, but in a different way to say, Ford or Spielberg.

Leone, Polanski, and the Coens certainly are more emotionally engaged film-makers, with respectively ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, CHINATOWN, and THE BIG LEBOWSKI being their most affecting works.

However in a negative light, my least affecting director would be Alan bleeding Parker.

Here's an article I wrote for my blog. While the examples may seem fairly simple to you hardened film buffs, keep in mind that a lot of my followers on Tumblr were people with limited film vocabularies. It may not be the most articulate piece, but I think it gets my point across.

Quote :

Anatomy of a Great Film, Part I: Visual Storytelling

We all have our own ideas about what makes a great film. Naturally, it is all going to depend on your viewing style. For example, some enjoy going to the theater so they can relax, or shut off their mind, while being visually stimulated; the ultimate escape, as one could say. Others may enjoy visual stimulation, but also require some amount of critical thinking or analysis. These types do not necessarily watch a film to escape, but instead, watch a film to further study the human condition. Another group of people may mix and match to form their custom viewing style. Since this is my blog and I can only "speak" for myself, I will give my fellow bloggers an idea of what makes a great film, in my opinion.

Visually Storytelling is key.
Film is a visual medium. Period. I do not go to a film hoping to have a story unfold by means of dialogue or words. If I wanted this, then I would pick up a book or listen to a radio drama. I'm not totally condemning the use of dialogue or voice overs; however, they should not be the driving-force of the film. As Hitchcock once said, "If it’s a good movie, the sound could go off and the audience would still have a perfectly clear idea of what was going on." This is, after all, the very essense of the art form. Filmmaking is the ability to tell stories in visual terms.

Now, say what you will about Brian De Palma, but I do not think anyone can deny that he is a master of visual storytelling. A fine example to prove this can be found here. In this scene, De Palma tells the story through elaborate camera work. Words are not spoken. Only the sound of the audience clapping can be heard, behind Pino Donaggio's score, which adds to the suspense of the sequence. The camera travels along the rope, to the bucket of blood. The facial expressions on Sue's face and her body language indicates that something horrible is about to happen. Sue eventually finds the cause of the problem, but, unfortunately, Miss Colins becomes suspicious of her presence at the prom. After all, Carrie's date is Sue's boyfriend (as we learn earlier), and in the scene, Carrie shares a kiss with him. When Sue discovers that Chris is behind the rotten plan, she is carried off by Miss Colins. Then, the bucket falls...

Another example of De Palma's elaborate camera work is his trademark arc shot, which is best used in "Carrie" and "Obsession". It is not merely a camera moving in circles to make for a stand-out effect; instead, the camera work symbolizes what is happening to the characters. In "Carrie", the 360 degree rotation occurs during Carrie's (Sissy Spacek) first dance. This demoralized, sheltered, and abused girl is kissed for the very first time (by the most popular boy in the school, keep in mind) and is experiencing the time of her life. Hanging from the ceiling at the prom are stars and glitter decorations, also. As the camera begins spinning, the audience, along with the main character, are put into a nearly out-of-this-world experience. Carrie's world is literally spinning out of control. It's dreamlike. It's gorgeous. Both Carrie and the audience get to feel the emotion and excitement that comes with this moment. This is certainly one of my favorite scenes from any film that I have ever watched. "Obsession" does the same thing, just in a different context. Michael Courtland confronts Sandra at the airport, which ends in a fantastic embrace. As the two characters come together, De Palma's camera rotates the camera around them. Once again, both the audience and the characters are experiencing the same event and have no control over what has occurred (I won't reveal any spoilers. You really need to see this film for yourself.) The characters' lives (like Carrie's) are spinning out of control. This scene in "Obsession", by the way, is accompanied by a luxurious score from Bernard Herrmann. It sends chills up my spine whenever I watch it.

This 360 degree camera rotation is derived from the master of suspense, no doubt. If you have watched "Vertigo", you may recognize the same type of camera work during the "scene d'amour" in the hotel. For Kim Novak's character, it marked a 360 degree change. The circle was completed, and Judy had been transformed into Madeleine (in Scottie's eyes, at least). This 360 degree transformation also applied to James Stewart's character, Scottie Ferguson, who becomes madly obsessed with the dead woman that he once loved*. Through out the film, the audience also witnesses Ferguson's detective work first-hand, through a series of eyeline match cuts. In the California Palace of the Legion of Honor, Madeline Elster stares at a painting of Carlotta Valdes. Through a set of match cuts, we see Ferguson add up the similarities between the woman in the painting and Mrs. Elster, and therefore, we begin to understand that she is obviously obsessed with the character in the portrait.

Stanley Kubrick also uses stunning camera work and symbolism to emphasize a series of complex themes in "2001: A Space Odyssey". As a matter of fact, dialogue is not used in more than half of the film (88 minutes of the total 160 minutes). We *watch* the human race evolve from apes to conquerers of space in a graphic match cut, where the ape's simple, newfound tool is thrown into the air and, over millions of years (depicted brilliantly by only this one transition), becomes a much more sophisticated and complex tool (a space craft).

The use of visual storytelling really separates the auteurs from the amateurs. It is an art form that takes precision and planning. Overall, I believe it is the most important aspect to look for in a film. Not only does it support the notion of film being a visual medium, but it also makes a film more interesting. Imagine sitting in a theater, staring at a sequence of unimaginative, standard shots of the same characters as they speak to one another. Or, imagine sitting through a film in which the entire story is explained to you and detailed through the voices/words of the characters. Where's the fun in that?

*Again, I left out some key details, as not to spoil the film for anyone who hasn't seen it.

I pretty much agree. I do like a film that relies more on dialogue if it's a good story and has good acting. Kazan was more of an actor's director in my eyes than he was a groundbreaking technician, but his greatest films are really great. He could create a reality, which is also something that I think a great filmmaker should be able to do.

I certainly think there is a short list these days of filmmakers who really seem to care about the techniques of visual storytelling. Don't these people go to film schools? Haven't they heard of this?

Techniques of visual storytelling ... Hmn..

Many filmmakers today (if you want to call them that) seem to think you can't achieve anything pictorially, that it all has to come out of (over)cutting. So in a sense, this is the ADD thing that probably started off in a good way right after I was born with Peter Hunt on the Young films, but which got progressively less cinematic and more like a substitute for kinetic activity (see Spottiswoode or the 'action' in BOURNE ID.)

I'm not advocating all flicks be shot and cut like they were being done in India in 1950, but there is power in restraint, and power in putting the camera in the right spot and letting the scene develop for the eye. I'd almost be tempted to take select still frames from QOS and let them stay onscreen for awhile and just play the soundtrack over that to get a better overall experience.

Entertainment.

Teacher.

Chacterdriven chacters. Without i never liked FRWL, OHMSS, Goldeneye, Twine and Harry Potter.

Back to the old days with QOS and suprised enough also part of The Dark Knight. Whyle i think TDK is moost part a very boring movie, it remember me to Batman 1989. QOS remember me to the 60's and 80's Bond. TMND whas the last Bond movie Entertainment style. Twine, DAD and CR focus more on Drama and in specialy DAD and CR take them self to serious. Drama not a big problem because it be part of the chacter driven, but QOS is realy fresh and give some hope to return to more fun or a mix.

I whant see more people outside of the USA and Uk (> Wild Europe) Box office movies, but also like to see America (country) is yused in 1 of the upcoming Bond movies (without any 24 thing), same count for Africa (Egypt). Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, The Living Daylights and Damonds Are Forever. A big agree with the possible Bond 23 Asian location, I think Bond can make a big step forward and back to the old days where Bond at the mark. Time for another Yolt, TMWTGG, DAF, LALD, TSWLM, Octopussy, OHMSS. If there is one actor who can do it then it be Daniel Craig.

Entertainment and/or intellectual engagement.

At least one of the above is required, if they're both there then that's terrific.

Sharky wrote:

PATHS OF GLORIA

Bambi Woods' great lost film.

Above all else films must be visually interesting. You'd think that would be a given, but most bore me rigid.

Part of the problem is that too many directors come from theater rather than technical backgrounds. Usually the end result is too many closeups of the luvvies.

ambler wrote:

Sharky wrote:

PATHS OF GLORIA

Bambi Woods' great lost film.

It gave a whole new meaning to the word 'firing squad.'

ambler wrote:

Above all else films must be visually interesting. You'd think that would be a given, but most bore me rigid.

I know FourDot and Harms to a lesser extent are determined to convince me otherwise, but I find this with the films of Sidney Lumet. A television director by heart, despite his use of lenses.

ambler wrote:

Part of the problem is that too many directors come from theater rather than technical backgrounds. Usually the end result is too many closeups of the luvvies.

*cough* Stephen Daldry *cough* Sam Mendes*cough*

It's funny how many people today will argue that film isn't a visual medium.

I find that completely fucking mind-boggling, and often remove myself from discussions like that.

That's just absurd. What type of medium do they consider it to be then?