The Impossible Question

About a week ago I was talking to somebody about how I want to be a film critic. This was the first time we ever met, so she asked me what kind of movies I liked. As much as a movie nerd as I am, I've never came up with a satisfying answer to this question. So, my best reply was "good movies." She smiled at my non-answer and asked what I thought a good movie was. Again, I was left without an answer, but I've been thinking about it since, and I think I have come up with a few general guidelines.

First, I want to be entertained. Now, different things entertain different folks, but here I can only talk about what entertains me. I am entertained by the feeling that something is actually happening on the movie screen. I like "Die Hard" where Bruce Willis has to save a high-rise from international thieves. I like "Crank" where Jason Statham is virtually bouncing around the frame trying to keep is heart pumping. In other words, I like action. I like a spectacle. But I do have standards in this category. The biggest reason why I didn't like "Wolverine" or "Transformers 2" is due to the lack of worthy action. Both films were full of boring chases, dull fights and explosions taking the place of drama.

Besides sheer entertainment value, I look for characters and stories that I can sink myself into emotionally. If a film is full of whiny, angst-ridden characters ("Donnie Darko," "Twilight," "Chumscrubber") then I'm not going to find the film engaging. If the film is full of real, or at least relatable, characters, then I can become a part of it ("American Beauty," "Funny People," "Annie Hall"). After all, film is an emotional medium. It should be a requirement for films to pull some sort of feeling from the audience. And if the movie fails to do this, it gets a knock against it in my book.

Now, not to sound too stuffy, but the next thing I look for is intelligence. What I mean by this is twofold. First, I don't want the movie to pander to me. Every Disney movie that comes immediately to mind does this. It shoves a sugarcoated ending down our throats that makes us feel warm and fuzzy. And that's stupid, boring and cliche. Ultimately, I think those endings actually do harm to us as a society, but that's another story. And, of course, I'm not saying every movie needs a sad ending, just a believable one. Not every little details needs to be wrapped up in a perfect little bow. 

Second, I appreciate it when the characters in a film or the filmmakers themselves discuss intelligent things (with dialogue for the characters, and via visual techniques for the filmmakers). The philosophy of mind, the nature of humans and the idea of self-sacrifice all make great subjects in film (as shown by "The Matrix," "The Dark Knight" and "9" respectively). It helps show that the people making the movie actual put some thought into it, and leads to a richer experience in the end.

Lastly, I look to the visual style when deciding the quality of a film. Does it just use boring wide-shots and medium-shots everywhere (every romantic comedy ever made), or is it more adventurous? The French New Wave filmmakers were the first to popularize jump cuts and that made them stand out visually. In Asian cinema they show more visually than we do with pages of dialogue. You need only view "Ichi the Killer," "Oldboy" or "Rashomon" to see that. And I believe visual style is so important because, again, film is a visual media. There's no point in making a movie if you aren't going to take advantage of the medium. 

It should be noted, though, that not every movie I like is a perfect 10 in each of these categories. "Cheats" contains engaging characters but lacks visually. "Die Hard" is entertaining, for sure, but isn't exactly the most intelligent film ever made. Often times, filmmakers have to willingly sacrifice one quality for another. But as long as a movie does well in at least one of these aspects, I'll walk away happy. "A Perfect Getaway," a moderately suspenseful thriller that came out this summer had engaging characters and had some visually stimulating shots, so I was glad. "G. I. Joe" had decent action sequences, so I didn't complain after the credits rolled. 

So, maybe the next time somebody asks me the question as to what makes a good movie, I'll be a little more articulate. I'll be able to enunciate that I like visually-stimulating, dynamic films with engaging and intelligent characters. Or maybe I'll just give them the link to this post and make them read my answer. We'll see.