What Makes a Film Bad?

[loIitoads]

I figured this should belong in this subforum.

Basically, what makes a film bad to you? Other than the obvious, such as poor plots, although you might want to expand upon that an explain what makes a plot poor. Is bad camera work forgivable? Wooden acting?


Personally I can forgive most things, but if the plot itself is seems tawdry or essentially pointless, I can't watch a film. Something like Tropic Thunder, or Don't Mess with the Zohan, which just push aside any connotations of the setting and story and replace it with a stream of lame jokes. Other than that, I don't particularly find gay characters in film to be fairly represented, and can't stand that every gay character seems to be either a minor character or the story has to deal with their sexuality. Heteronormativity within films is completely irritating, although some films have advanced, particularly Nick & Nora's Infinite Playlist recently, which was pretty progressive in its portrayal of gay characters.  

[RedWhiteBlack]

I can forgive the most poorly done aspects of a film if they aren't central to the film's development and/or meaning. If the film's cinematography is lacking, but it features outstanding performances, I might be able to forgive the back cinematography and still enjoy the film for it's performances.

The reverse works as well; if the acting is terribly wooden and contrived, and if the plot lacks substance, I can still overlook these aspects if the cinematography or editing is particularly great. For me, it depends on what context I'm looking at the film in for me to declare it as "good" or "bad." I good example of this, I think, would be Todd Haynes' Safe, which is a film that I think, lacks a little in the acting department, but visually, is a powerful film to watch.

On a related topic, I disagree with your opinion on Tropic Thunder. This is a film rich with critiques of the Hollywood studio system, and, to a lesser degree, the Vietnam War. At least, that's how I read it. Most filmmakers will challenge the notion that their film has political subtexts, but, as watchers of film, we normally add our own meaning to the film based on what was presented to us. While the filmmaker might say that the setting is unimportant to the plot, it does make a difference. While I could certainly imagine that Zohan could take place in any other city, I can't imagine Tropic Thunder made in any setting but a war setting.  

[loIitoads]

RedWhiteBlack

I can forgive the most poorly done aspects of a film if they aren't central to the film's development and/or meaning. If the film's cinematography is lacking, but it features outstanding performances, I might be able to forgive the back cinematography and still enjoy the film for it's performances.

The reverse works as well; if the acting is terribly wooden and contrived, and if the plot lacks substance, I can still overlook these aspects if the cinematography or editing is particularly great. For me, it depends on what context I'm looking at the film in for me to declare it as "good" or "bad." I good example of this, I think, would be Todd Haynes' Safe, which is a film that I think, lacks a little in the acting department, but visually, is a powerful film to watch.

On a related topic, I disagree with your opinion on Tropic Thunder. This is a film rich with critiques of the Hollywood studio system, and, to a lesser degree, the Vietnam War. At least, that's how I read it. Most filmmakers will challenge the notion that their film has political subtexts, but, as watchers of film, we normally add our own meaning to the film based on what was presented to us. While the filmmaker might say that the setting is unimportant to the plot, it does make a difference. While I could certainly imagine that Zohan could take place in any other city, I can't imagine Tropic Thunder made in any setting but a war setting.

I think I struggle with bad acting to a degree, it's something I can swiftly become tempted to turn a DVD off for. Equally, a terrible film I can watch to the end if I get caught up in the acting, or worse, the pretty actresses, I have a bad habit of that.

Perhaps a good question is what acting styles are annoying to you too? I find neo-Realistic and related styles of acting WONDERFUL, love them, but a lot of people criticise them for being too simple, too amateur.


I shall watch Tropic Thunder with these criticisms in mind, I have previously only seen it with 'bros'...  

[RedWhiteBlack]

You know, I'm not sure if I could say I find any one particular style of acting annoying. Non-acting, for sure, annoys me (like the Paris Hilton "omg look I'm on screen!" type of acting), but as for legitimate forms of acting, I can't say I find anything particularly annoying. I guess, for me, it has a lot to do with context; if the film strives for realism, yet the actors are wooden and unconvincing, that will annoying. Also, if the film tries to be a comedy, yet the actors play it straight, I will find it annoying.

Most of the time I'll continue to watch a bad film if the cinematography and mise-en-scene is just gorgeous to look at. I've managed to sit through Repo! The Genetic Opera based solely on the fact that I enjoy watching the set-design, and to a lesser degree, the lighting. There were so many times when I wanted to stop it, but I just enjoyed looking at it, and almost stopped paying attention to what little plot there was, and focused solely on the image. The movie wasn't great by any standards; the acting was sub-par, and striving for realism, while everything else around it suggested an almost dystopian expressionism. Even though it was a musical, which, by nature, tend to merge reality with fantasy, this was a movie that was trying to be both Rent and Saw, which is a combination, in my opinion, that does not work. While horror-musicals can be done well (see Sweeney Todd) this was a concept that was too poorly executed to be any good.  

[loIitoads]

RedWhiteBlack

You know, I'm not sure if I could say I find any one particular style of acting annoying. Non-acting, for sure, annoys me (like the Paris Hilton "omg look I'm on screen!" type of acting), but as for legitimate forms of acting, I can't say I find anything particularly annoying. I guess, for me, it has a lot to do with context; if the film strives for realism, yet the actors are wooden and unconvincing, that will annoying. Also, if the film tries to be a comedy, yet the actors play it straight, I will find it annoying.

Most of the time I'll continue to watch a bad film if the cinematography and mise-en-scene is just gorgeous to look at. I've managed to sit through Repo! The Genetic Opera based solely on the fact that I enjoy watching the set-design, and to a lesser degree, the lighting. There were so many times when I wanted to stop it, but I just enjoyed looking at it, and almost stopped paying attention to what little plot there was, and focused solely on the image. The movie wasn't great by any standards; the acting was sub-par, and striving for realism, while everything else around it suggested an almost dystopian expressionism. Even though it was a musical, which, by nature, tend to merge reality with fantasy, this was a movie that was trying to be both Rent and Saw, which is a combination, in my opinion, that does not work. While horror-musicals can be done well (see Sweeney Todd) this was a concept that was too poorly executed to be any good.

As far as I'm aware, Repo! wasn't to be taken seriously and was trying desperately to play everything it was for ironic value, which is something I hate in films. I think it looked pretty good, but in this day and age, when cinematography is basically reliable in most mainstream films, I look for more than good camerawork and set design (which is the sort of thing you expect to be strong in a horror film anyway).

After watching Hard Candy I was really impressed by the digital recolouring (going off on a tangent here). Usually I'm not a fan of CGI or tampering particularly with the picture, but I've got to admit I was really drawn in by the more subtle approach taken there as opposed to, say, 300. Returning to what makes films bad; CGI, and specifically, CGI that is not needed. The worst offender I saw recently was in Quantum of Solace during the first chase scene, in which Bond and the villain being chased fall through glass and ther's a short CGI sequence of 'them' falling through scaffolding. Personally I don't see why they couldn't have done it in live action and less speed rather than using lots of short cuts to try and disguise the horrible CGI.  

[RedWhiteBlack]

Coupled with the poor CGI in Quantum, it also suffered from poor editing. Maybe the editing came from the fact that the CGI was poor, but I remember watching some of the fight scenes and car chase scenes totally lost in what was going on because I found that it just wasn't clear enough.

And I never realized that Hard Candy was digitally recoloured. Granted, I just turned on the TV one day and started watching it without any prior knowledge, so I obviously wasn't looking for it.  

[loIitoads]

RedWhiteBlack

Coupled with the poor CGI in Quantum, it also suffered from poor editing. Maybe the editing came from the fact that the CGI was poor, but I remember watching some of the fight scenes and car chase scenes totally lost in what was going on because I found that it just wasn't clear enough.

And I never realized that Hard Candy was digitally recoloured. Granted, I just turned on the TV one day and started watching it without any prior knowledge, so I obviously wasn't looking for it.

The editing was delibrately obscurant, I don't enjoy that, and it's becoming a trend in modern action sequences. I hope that doesn't become too popular.

I suggest getting a DVD (or an HD DVD... I can just imagine how much better it'd be then...) for Hard Candy, one of the few films I'll go nuts for. The digital colourist actually gets a listing in the introduction credits, which is pretty rare. It's a fairly subtle approach that they take though, basically just editing the intensity of the colours depending on the mood of Page's character. I'd like to think it works at a subconcious level even if you don't notice it directly, although I was always struck by the use of colour in the film anyway.  

[Peache5]

Tropic Thunder was horribly dissapointing...and it kinda made fun of Vietnam...not cool  

[loIitoads]

Peache5

Tropic Thunder was horribly dissapointing...and it kinda made fun of Vietnam...not cool

I think it was aiming itself more at Armageddon Now than Vietnam itself, but they don't seem to have thought about sensitivity to the historical facts, I'll agree.  

[BearHugsOfDeath]

Really bad graphics.

No ending to the plot.

Terrible costumes.

Poor motivation for actors/actresses to act out plot.

stare crying scream  

[RedWhiteBlack]

I've recently discovered a type of film that annoys me: the Docu-Comedy. I recently saw What Would Jesus Buy?, and it annoyed me to no end. It is a documentary about Reverend Billy and the Stop Shopping something-or-another Choir who are on a trip across America to save American's from the "Shopocolypse," whatever that is. While the message is interesting -- don't consume at Christmas, but rather, spend it with loved ones -- it's rather outdated and I found it to be horribly preachy, even if it is a send up to religion and consumerism. I disliked how I was constantly questioning the validity of the film because the premise was set out for an entirely comedic affect; I wasn't sure if this was a mockumentary like This is Spinal Tap or if it was a legitimate documentary. I find the same problem with Michael Moore's films, but to a lesser extent, I suppose. While they may be entertaining, the way they set out presenting their argument ends up taking away from it.  

[LunaSoulKeeper]

I love comedies but movies that make fun of other movies is getting too dumb and common. Tropic Thunder was making fun of many movies but it reminded me of Platoon the most. Platoon ~ staring Charlie Sheen, a movie made specifically after the recollcts of the directors voluntering in the Vietnam War. Yes Charlie Sheen only does himself when he acts but the other actors were the main dish served in the movie. I liked that movie and making fun of it seemed obnoxious. The reason Platoon was good was because it didn't have any bullcrap seperating reality from his view. Sure there was more going on in the Vietnam War then was shown in the movie but it was what the director had seen and thats what makes it a honest piece of work. Repeating something over and making fun of it is just junk. I rather see something mildly retarted than a paticular old setting placed in modern trashy cinema.  

[loIitoads]

RedWhiteBlack

I've recently discovered a type of film that annoys me: the Docu-Comedy. I recently saw What Would Jesus Buy?, and it annoyed me to no end. It is a documentary about Reverend Billy and the Stop Shopping something-or-another Choir who are on a trip across America to save American's from the "Shopocolypse," whatever that is. While the message is interesting -- don't consume at Christmas, but rather, spend it with loved ones -- it's rather outdated and I found it to be horribly preachy, even if it is a send up to religion and consumerism. I disliked how I was constantly questioning the validity of the film because the premise was set out for an entirely comedic affect; I wasn't sure if this was a mockumentary like This is Spinal Tap or if it was a legitimate documentary. I find the same problem with Michael Moore's films, but to a lesser extent, I suppose. While they may be entertaining, the way they set out presenting their argument ends up taking away from it.

I'll agree with this, good documnetary film-making has really dropped post-Moore's first burst of popularity, and now we're getting all sorts of 'zany' documentaries like Where in the World Is Osama Bin Laden?, etc.  

[Artist89]

Bad camera-ing, too many cliche's, too many twists, doesn't follow the book, and probably some other stuff that I can't think of.  

[Rosary16]

I think it depends on how much the director and the writers throw into the story and how much time they spend on the character development. A good example would be Coraline. Henry Selick was so focused on the magic stuff in the book (the garden, the circus, the acrobats, the spirit kids, and the other visuals) that he completely neglected the character development. Every scene was so packed with all this magic stuff that it lost its charm quickly and it just became an exhausting movie with flatly-written characters.
Another example is Spike Lee's Inside Man. The two and a half hours thing killed it. It should've just ended with Denzel Washington rescuing the bank hostages, but no! Lee thought it'd be better for the main character to talk with the terrorist even after the hostages have been rescued. Basically it's one of the movies that when you think it's ended, something else happens and you're just sitting there, thinking, "Good Lord, when's this thing gonna end?"
So, too much substance, flatly-written characters, unneccessary subplots, and of course bad acting can botch a movie.