What's the difference between a good movie and a bad movie?

The gap between good movies and bad movies varies from person to person, and different people have different views on movies. In fact, many people simply think that the quality of a movie is a recognized attitude. In fact, there are many subjective differences, just like Stephen Chow's previous westward journey. Few people said that his films were good in the 1990s, but they became classic films after 2000, so the way to judge them depends on the change of people's ideas. In one place, like Jim Carrey, pretending to be a geek is regarded as a classic, while Stephen Chow is regarded as rubbish without meaning. This is the most intuitive example of different reviews of the same movie.

I think the best way to interpret a good movie is to leave a feeling for the audience. Just like Xiaogang Feng, many people think that the pictures of his previous Fiona Fang movies are inappropriate, but such people don't go to see them, because you will find that the plot will actually make you ignore the expression of the movie, even if it is diamond-shaped. As long as the plot has a story, everyone will forget this expression and only care about the plot.

Movies also have a lot to do with genres. Drama films and reality films, even documentaries, actually make people feel good, but we also need commercial films. We give movie tickets for movie stories to satisfy our fantasies. Writing is a win-win model and an unchangeable reality.

The same example will also appear in modern movies, such as the latest Raytheon 3. Before Raytheon 1 was released, many professional companies said that it was an inferior work of Marvel comics, just making up the numbers. However, after people insisted on three works, Raytheon 3 could also defeat the Justice League. This way of victory is a kind of word-of-mouth accumulation and the establishment of personal style.

Bad movies are actually the same idea. No matter how good you used to shoot, suddenly one movie didn't pay attention, then the whole series may be terminated. So bad movies are not always bad movies, or they may be the failure of later creativity, which makes IP unsustainable. I think the difference between the two is mainly reflected in the script, actors and editing. A film needs a lot of effort from preparation to release. Every step will affect the quality of the film, from the selection and modification of the script before shooting, to the running-in of the director and actors after shooting, the cooperation of artists, props, lighting, photography and makeup, and then to the editing by the editor after shooting.

But among them, scripts, actors and clips are the most direct visual effects that are finally presented to the audience, while the functions of other positions are weakened through the screen, which only plays a icing on the cake and cannot determine the quality of a movie. Let's talk about the script first This is the cornerstone of a movie. Without a good script, everything behind it is useless. What is a good script? First of all, it must be analyzed clearly, reasonably and complicated. Only when this condition is met can it be called a qualified script. If you want to achieve a "good script", you must improve on this basis, or have a novel idea, think about what others have not thought of, or sublimate your emotions and be invulnerable. Only in this way can you stand out.

For example, Chen Kaige's The Promise and this year's The Legend of the Demon Cat are the best illustrations. The plot of Promise is complicated, chaotic and terrible, and The Legend of the Demon Cat is progressive layer by layer, and the second half is quite fascinating, which can be regarded as an above-average work.

If the script is the soul of the film, then the actor is the coat. No matter how beautiful the soul is, it cannot attract people without a good coat. Personally, I am not a professional film practitioner, so I can't evaluate it from a professional perspective. From an audience's point of view, talk about good movies and bad movies in my heart.

1. The most basic thing is the feeling of watching a movie. If nothing else, pay for a movie. After watching it, I think the film is worth the ticket price. You can have a simple plot, like a popcorn movie in Hollywood. You don't want any depth, you just want a good time, special effects are flying all over the sky, and the fight is exhausted. On the other hand, bad movies, 50 special effects and 30 acting skills make you feel sorry for the investors. Can they be good movies?

2. More core, plot depth. A good movie may not be handed down as a classic, but a classic movie will not be bad. You see, The Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather, Forrest Gump, and even Wrestling Dad, which was a big fire in China last year, are enduring through high-quality plot content. Compared with special effects movies and popcorn movies, such movies are more touching because of their profound plots, and special effects will eventually become obsolete, but people will not. What's the difference between bad movies? They have no deep plot to say, or even a reasonable and specious plot. Can a movie that doesn't even understand the story be good? The film is a concrete audio-visual work, and the picture is the most intuitive thing to spread to the audience. Therefore, if the photography of a film is not good, it will ruin a good story, a good actor, a good director's thinking and so on. So good cinematography must also be indispensable.