Debate: Good Movie vs Entertaining Movie

[BKS]

So lately I've seen a few movies. Some I consider good, some I don't. Transformers 2, for example. I don't consider that a good movie. The Hangover, I considered that a good movie.

Enter the problem. I found Transformers to be very entertaining. So, can a movie be entertaining while not being a "good" movie? My thought is yes. And at the same time, can a good movie fail to entertain?

So Explosm, tell me if you think this can be true, tell me what you think makes a good movie, and what makes an entertaining movie.

[Heksen]

An entertaining movie is rarely good. The classic example of this is an action movie. While all the fighting and swearing is fun to look at, the story is often just shite. The actors don't show "real" emotions or atleast more sophisticated emotions then anger, happiness and being horny. Often it's also victim of stereotypes.

But a good movie isn't always entertaining either. I think drama films are very good, but they aren't really entertaining. Why? Because the viewer needs to think to understand the story. They often haven sub-plots, red herrings or more underlying philosophical themes. While in an entertaining film, the viewer gets all the stuff immediatly and lacks the sophistication.

To be honest, I don't know any movie that I found both truly entertaining and good at the same time.

[InnerDemon]

An entertaining movie is rarely good. The classic example of this is an action movie. While all the fighting and swearing is fun to look at, the story is often just shite. The actors don't show "real" emotions or atleast more sophisticated emotions then anger, happiness and being horny.

Yeah, but then again the lack of complexity makes some movies more entertaining. Because what I consider to be "entertaining" (in most cases) is a movie that relaxes you, that allows the watcher to wind down not being compelled to actually use his receptive or comprehensive skills. An entertaining movie is a movie you can easily fall asleep while watching, so to say.

[Metalhead636]

I judge different movies on certain scales. If a movie is intended to be a good movie (Like an Oscar nom), I would judge it on that factor. If it is aiming to be entertaining (like a summer action, comedy), I would judge it on that scale.


I find it unfair when people are comparing the years movies and put entertaining stuff like against Oscarian stuff.

[cptlol]

A good movie can suck at entertaining when in the wrong mood.

[Pencil]

But isn't being entertaining a condition for a movie to be good?
If a movie is very well played and the story is really interesting, but somehow it's not entertaining, then I think it's not a good movie.

[Duece]

Any movie i consider good would never fail to entertain. But a movie specifically designed to entertain will loose its relish.

Unless it's grandma's boy. oh yea

[Oofie]

But a good movie isn't always entertaining either.

A good movie isn't good if it's boring.

Just because it's got more depth doesn't make it less entertaining. Or it shouldn't.

[Quadros]

The fact is that movies are made to entertain. That's their prime function, their role in society. If they fail to do that, they're 'bad' at what they do, hence bad movies. Maybe I'm moving the goal posts a bit but I think a film can be a good statement, or a good artistic expression, but a bad movie. The Weatherman, for example, is a fantastic exploration of midlife crisis, the emptiness of a broken home and the importance of family, but a truly shitty movie. Shoot Em Up has a cheesy, crappy script, is over the top, ludicrous and pretty poorly acted by all but the lead and the villain, but is a great film, purely because it's entertaining and it takes the piss out of itself the whole way through. There's no depth past the point of 'look how fucking dumb action films are' but it still entertains admirably. The fact is if you don't engage the audience you've failed. If only 3 intellectual snobs 'get' your movie, you're not a genius beyond the lesser masses, you've failed. You've made a bad movie. Maybe a great piece of art, maybe a great statement, but a bad movie.

[WoeStorm]

Quadros, I believe the question about entertainment was a personal thing. If you're not entertained by a movie, then it's not an entertaining movie. It doesn't mean it's bad, you can see that the movie was well put together, had a good plot, well acted, and the characters were easy to connect with and had depth to them, but if you're not entertained by all of this then it's just not an entertaining movie.

Movies can be good but not entertaining, good and entertaining, or bad but entertaining. Just because it's entertaining doesn't make it a good movie.

[Sanlands]

I think being entertaining is a package deal.

A good movie has to be entertaining or it isn't very good.

[Sieda]

To me a 'good' movie and an 'entertaining' movie are the same thing. You watch it, you enjoy it, and the movie has served it's purpose. Whether or not it has fulfilled any sort of artistic goal is irrelevant. If it's not entertaining, I consider it a bad movie. Even if you're laughing, amused at how shitty it is, at the end of it... you're still left feeling like you've been ripped off, it's draining.

However, I also think that there are 'great' movies. These are the kind that you remember long after you've seen them, they provoke you into thinking and possibly reflecting on your own life. I've seen so many "good" movies over the years, but the great ones are the one's that stand out, having made some sort of impact on my consciousness. They go beyond just 'entertaining'.

[BKS]

Transformers brought this on. I enjoyed myself while watching the movie, but the reviews are shit, and lets face it, the explosions and slow motion fight scenes held it together. I was entertained.

Burn After Reading, my first time seeing it I was not entertained. Sure, some parts were funny, but at the end of the movie I wasn't impressed. Yet, Rotten Tomatoes hailed it as something great. (This was the reason I went to see it.)

It's very confusing

[John Travolta]

I don't enjoy some classics that many people like- the "good" movies. Many times they're a chore to watch. For example, I didn't The Godfather, was indifferent to The Departed and was bored by Taxi Driver.

I also don't like some of the blockbuster hits, Transformers is gay as shit, I hate all of the comedies that are overquoted and overrated and that are just movies that come on in between of better films.

But, it's all preference.


To be honest, I don't know any movie that I found both truly entertaining and good at the same time.

Have you seen 12 Angry Men?

[Sanlands]

I can see the different views of entertaining.

But usually good movies = movies critics like.

Although my own personal opinion is very different.

[hollywood_maggot]

I value emotional art, so a movie to me CAN be entertaining without being particularly good on an artistic or emotional scale.

A highly emotional movie on the other hand, doesn't necessarily mean its entertaining. Entertaining suggests to me that it makes you feel good. There are plenty of fantastic movies that leave you feeling vulnerable, sad or just plain amazed. Not necessarily entertaining it my use of the word.

[Quadros]

Quadros, I believe the question about entertainment was a personal thing. If you're not entertained by a movie, then it's not an entertaining movie. It doesn't mean it's bad, you can see that the movie was well put together, had a good plot, well acted, and the characters were easy to connect with and had depth to them, but if you're not entertained by all of this then it's just not an entertaining movie.

Movies can be good but not entertaining, good and entertaining, or bad but entertaining. Just because it's entertaining doesn't make it a good movie.

No, they're like any other art. If they don't entertain you then they're not good. There's no subjectivism involved, if you sacrifice engaging your audience to make a statement or for artistic designs and then plan to show it to the public, you've missed the point of film entirely, because if you don't engage with your audience and entertain them with it then they're not going to pay enough attention to understand your message or your vision, and if they do they're going to connect their appraisal of it to how bored they were by the movie itself. You can be artistic or send a political message without being unentertaining, some of the best films have done that. We're not talking just the most 'superficial explosions and fight scenes' kind of entertainment, and it doesn't have to entertain every thicko in the crowd, but it does, in the end, have to entertain on some level.

[hollywood_maggot]

I guess you're defining entertaining as engaging then.

[Quadros]

Well yeah, there's no discernible difference between the words in the context we're using them, is there?

[hollywood_maggot]

Depends, as in my above post, I associate entertaining with positive, escapism. Not simply engaging. If we define it the way you do, then yes, I agree with you. I don't think it can even be argued against.

[Ocellatus]

A good movie is produced as a piece of art, an entertaining one is usually produced as a product.

[Laurence]

Transformers brought this on. I enjoyed myself while watching the movie, but the reviews are shit, and lets face it, the explosions and slow motion fight scenes held it together. I was entertained.

I had this exact dilemma. I saw it yesterday and I thought it was terrible, but I was entertained. It's like every time anything happened Michael Bay decided to get the shot from every bloody angle by spinning around it. It was infuriating. I reminded me of the Radioactive Man movie from The Simpsons - "We have to shoot it again and again, and again and again and again! From all possible angles!". It really detracted from the whole thing. That movie could've lost half an hour and would've been much better.

[opn4bzns]

Burn After Reading, my first time seeing it I was not entertained. Sure, some parts were funny, but at the end of the movie I wasn't impressed. Yet, Rotten Tomatoes hailed it as something great. (This was the reason I went to see it.)

It's very confusing

Burn After Reading isn't a particularly artistic movie. It's not dumb or trashy, but its primary purpose is entertainment. That's just an example of an entertaining movie you didn't like.

[bono]

For me the difference lies in the fact that I can watch an entertaining movie many times (great for hangovers when you stare vacantly at the TV) but a good movie I cant necessarily watch too often (for example I thought Sixth Sense was good but I cant really watch it again because now I know what happens at the end). So for me an excellent movie would combine the 2 together and that type of movie I can watch repeatedly.

[Ocellatus]

Good movies make me think, but entertaining ones do the opposite.

[Heksen]

A good movie definitly has to be engaging. If it doesn't do that, the movie will fail to bring its message. But what matters is how it engages.

A comedy engages you by making you laugh, but it doesn't do anything else. An action film can engage you because all the action gives you adrenaline, but nothing else.
That's what I call entertaining: It amuses and engages for a while, but that's it. It won't change your opinion or give you really useful information (maybe it will give you some trivia, but that's all).
Like hollywood_maggot said: "positive escapism"

A drama rarely truly entertains, but it does engage. Because the focus is often on the (developing) emotions and personalities of the starring characters, it isn't all "served on a plate". Here, the viewer is engaged by thinking and feeling a bit like the characters. This can create somewhat of a bond and possible change your weltanschauung .

Also, to correct my previous post: I have seen 1 movie I thought was both entertaining and really good; Scarface. The swearing and violence entertains, the story and characters are good and it also has some minor comical lines .

Good movies make me think, but entertaining ones do the opposite.
That basicly sums up this post.

[Quadros]

Good movies make me think, but entertaining ones do the opposite.

Well then you've got the line wrong. That's not 'good v entertaining' that's 'smart v dumb'.

[P0K3M0N_MA5T3R]

For me Saving Private Ryan is the ultimate film to meet both categories, it's an amazing film, and it's constant non stop action, the non action scenes are fantastic as well though. I can understand why some might say it's not entertaining though, since it's quite graphic, and the subject matter isn't something a lot of people see as entertainment. I would put Lord of the Rings Two Towers here too, the other 2 aren't as great as the middle one if you ask me.

[Sanlands]

I was thinking the same thing.

[Frause]

For me Saving Private Ryan is the ultimate film to meet both categories, it's an amazing film, and it's constant non stop action, the non action scenes are fantastic as well though. I can understand why some might say it's not entertaining though, since it's quite graphic, and the subject matter isn't something a lot of people see as entertainment. I would put Lord of the Rings Two Towers here too, the other 2 aren't as great as the middle one if you ask me.

If you liked that movie, check out Stalingrad. Its a German movie about a group of Wehrmacht soldiers in Russia, very emotional and told from a side that rarely gets looked at in a personal way in war movies.

[ultrasoundchick]

I do believe that movies can be either good or entertaining, but rarely both. I think a good movie makes you think, or has a good message, while an entertaining movie just entertains you. I guess you could compare it to reading a book and playing cards. Although it takes some thought to make the right moves in a card game, it takes more comprehension to read a book.

I agree with Pokemon, "Saving Private Ryan" is probably one of the better movies that could very easily fall into either category. Another one that comes to my mind is "The Wizard of Oz."

[SourChicken]

Movies are meant to entertain. If it's not entertaining me in one way or another, it's not doing its job, and thus is a bad movie.

[Ocellatus]

Well then you've got the line wrong. That's not 'good v entertaining' that's 'smart v dumb'.

I find smart films to be good and dumb films to be entertaining.

[CnGy]

The Hangover, I considered that a good movie.

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

Wow.

I thought you'd say something like The Shining, or you know, any movie, that's actually good.

[SODA]

I make no distinctions between "Iconic" or "Oscar" movies and "Entertaining" movies, I watch a movie, and if I enjoy it, then it was a good movie.

[Fluzz]

Clerks was good but failed to entertain. Clerks 2 wasn't good, yet entertaining.

[Ocellatus]

I was entertained by Clerks, and I thought it was good.

[hollywood_maggot]

Eh...As much as I love Saving Private Ryan, I think it only really wins on the entertaining side of things. Sure, that opening 20 minutes is some of the greatest war fiction ever made, but apart from that it's not exactly a deep movie. It paints germans as baddies, ignores any contribution other than the Americans to the landing, and follows a fairly formulaic approach, as well as stereotypical characters without much depth. *shrug* Just putting it out there.

[gtfoofmyhouse]

Wicker Park is the most entertaining movie that isn't very good, the acting is poor and it isn't written very well but it keeps you watching.

[Quadros]

I find smart films to be good and dumb films to be entertaining.

So smart films don't entertain you?

[Tweek]

An good film is an entertaining film with better acting, directing etc etc. Better production in general.

[BKS]

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

Wow.

I thought you'd say something like The Shining, or you know, any movie, that's actually good.

I was keeping movies relevant to new releases. Besides, The Shining is a great movie, not a good movie.

[CnGy]

OOOOh. Well fuck man, that's a huge difference isn't it.

[Ikin]

A good movie to me is one that emphasizes the artistic qualities, whether that be subject matter, filming techniques, etc., while also being engaging to watch. An entertaining movie is the opposite, it de-emphasizes the artistic points to make it more consumable. I like the way Ocellatus put it.

A good movie is produced as a piece of art, an entertaining one is usually produced as a product.

[Quadros]

This is ridiculous. 'Good' and 'entertaining' are in no way mutually exclusive terms. Indeed 'entertaining' is one of, if not the criteria a film has to fulfil in order to be deemed 'good'. There's no getting around that fact. This is a discussion of 'smart v dumb' or even 'art v product' but it's not 'good v entertaining' and giving your own definitions of those words does not make this debate any less inherently flawed. You can't just redefine words. I'm looking at YOU, America.

[SourChicken]

Sum up that post in three words. I don't understand your foreign tongues.

[hollywood_maggot]

Quadros, according to the dictionary the word entertaining means to "to hold the attention of pleasantly or agreeably; divert; amuse."

A movie can be good without being pleasantly distracting. Just a random example, Donnie Darko. That movie is dark, you don't necessarily get enjoyment out of it, it leaves you sad, maybe confused. But it's engaging and it's good. But not entertaining.

[Tweek]

You're interpreting the definition incorrectly.
Entertainment doesn't have to be pleasurable.

Quadros is exactly right.

[hollywood_maggot]

The definition quite clearly states 'pleasantly or agreeably'. How much more in your face do you need?

[Tweek]

Agreeable, as in to your liking.
When I said you intepreted the definition incorrectly maybe you should have gone over it again.

[Oofie]

A movie can be good without being pleasantly distracting. Just a random example, Donnie Darko. That movie is dark, you don't necessarily get enjoyment out of it, it leaves you sad, maybe confused. But it's engaging and it's good. But not entertaining.

You're really fucking stupid.

If you didn't get pleasure out of a film, you wouldn't watch it.

[Quadros]

Quadros, according to the dictionary the word entertaining means to "to hold the attention of pleasantly or agreeably; divert; amuse."

A movie can be good without being pleasantly distracting. Just a random example, Donnie Darko. That movie is dark, you don't necessarily get enjoyment out of it, it leaves you sad, maybe confused. But it's engaging and it's good. But not entertaining.

INCORRECT. When I watch Donnie Darko I think 'wow, that's a great movie'. 'I really enjoyed that movie'. I react agreeably to it. 'Entertaining' does not necessarily involve pleasurable emotions or conveying pleasurable events and themes, only a pleasurable OR agreeable effect. It's widely held that theatre was a popular form of entertainment in the 17th century, and think of what fucked up shit some of Shakespeare's and Marlow's plays are. If you enjoy watching something, it's entertaining.

The definition quite clearly states 'pleasantly or agreeably'. How much more in your face do you need?

The word you're missing there is 'or'.

[CnGy]

You're really fucking stupid.

If you didn't get pleasure out of a film, you wouldn't watch it.

No, I can attest, lots of movies you watch because they make you uneasy.

A good example is Synecdoche, New York.

I didn't even finish watching that because it made me so uncomfortable, but now I want to finish it.

[Oofie]

Because it interested you? Or engaged you? Which is basically entertaining you. Or because you want to have the satisfaction of seeing the end, thus it held your attention somewhat agreeably.

I know what you mean, Requiem for a Dream and the Girl Next Door (the one about torture, not the teen flick about a porn star) grossed me out so much I had to look away from the screen at time, but I still watched them through because they held my attention in a grotesque but effective manner.

I think Requiem is a good film, and an entertaining one, it's just not a particularly happy one.

[CnGy]

It's the same thing, but it's important to realize that there are very different versions of that same thing.

[InnerDemon]

I think every good movie has to be entertaining, just like some of you have already said. There are shit movies though (shit plot, poor acting, bad distribution and so on) which can still entertain you. They are the movies you feel ashamed about after having watched and enjoyed them.

[hollywood_maggot]

The word you're missing there is 'or'.

I hate it when I'm wrong like this.

[Welsh_Chickky]

I think every good movie has to be entertaining, just like some of you have already said. There are shit movies though (shit plot, poor acting, bad distribution and so on) which can still entertain you. They are the movies you feel ashamed about after having watched and enjoyed them.


I agree with InnerDemon, it also has a lot to do with personal preference.
For example, I thought Terminator: Salvation was a shit film, way overhyped and the storyline was crap but it entertained me.

[Quadros]

I hate it when I'm wrong like this.

If it's any consolation being right like this gives me an erection.

(Yes fans, my erection is pretty much a constant.)

[Welsh_Chickky]

If it's any consolation being right like this gives me an erection.

(Yes fans, my erection is pretty much a constant.)

:lol:
Do you ever pass out from lack of blood to the head due to constant erectness??

[Quadros]

I'm the reason people give blood.

[Welsh_Chickky]

I thought as much, thanks for clarifying

[BKS]

What I'm asking is the difference between good and entertaining. I agree with Quadros, I don't see a difference between a good movie and an entertaining movie.

The movie may not be technically "good", but if it kept me entertained or scared or whatever, then I consider it money well spent and therefore, a good movie.

[timbot]

I think an entertaining movie can be good in just the way you said.
What I thought from your original post, and what a lot of people on here seem to be going with is a different idea of "good," though.
For example, when I was in college, we often distinguished between "literature" and "Literature." The first being basically anything written, and the second being the stuff that's really supposed to make the reader think and come away with more than just an escape for a few hours.
So, when you said "good movies," I was equating those with "Literature."
A movie has to be good on some level to be entertaining. I think I've heard some people talk about Michael Bay and how he's not really a very good director. Perhaps he's not, I don't know shit about movies and directors. But, I certainly know that he's more talented than I am. If I tried to make a Transformer's movie it would not be good enough to be entertaining. However, even if it's good and entertaining, it's not necessarily "high art."

[BKS]

I think an entertaining movie can be good in just the way you said.
What I thought from your original post, and what a lot of people on here seem to be going with is a different idea of "good," though.
For example, when I was in college, we often distinguished between "literature" and "Literature." The first being basically anything written, and the second being the stuff that's really supposed to make the reader think and come away with more than just an escape for a few hours.
So, when you said "good movies," I was equating those with "Literature."
A movie has to be good on some level to be entertaining. I think I've heard some people talk about Michael Bay and how he's not really a very good director. Perhaps he's not, I don't know shit about movies and directors. But, I certainly know that he's more talented than I am. If I tried to make a Transformer's movie it would not be good enough to be entertaining. However, even if it's good and entertaining, it's not necessarily "high art."

Exactly, and then we need to take into factor everyones likes and dislikes. I dislike certain genres, other people dislike certain actors, etc. Good/entertaining movie to me is not the same as it is to other people. In fact, I find it pretty pretentious when someone says a movie is "bad" because they don't like a certain actor/director.

[SourChicken]

Sometimes a bad actor can make a movie less awesome than it should be, though.

Examples:
Every Asian person in Gran Torino
Shia LeBouf in Transformers (admit it, you'd like it more without his stupid face)
Kate Winslet in Titanic

[Quadros]

Sometimes a bad actor can make a movie less awesome than it should be, though.

Examples:
Every Asian person in Gran Torino
Shia LeBouf in Transformers (admit it, you'd like it more without his stupid face)
Kate Winslet in Titanic

Toby Maguire as Spiderman. Kid can't act for shit, it's like he gets the expressions wrong on purpose.

[SourChicken]

I was just watching Spiderman last night as a matter of fact, and I noticed just that. If it weren't for Willem Dafoe, Kirsten Dunst's boobs, and super powers, that movie would suck.

[hollywood_maggot]

If it's any consolation being right like this gives me an erection.

(Yes fans, my erection is pretty much a constant.)

As of topic as this is, I'd like to gloat in the fact that while I may have been wrong, I just added to your problem of a hideously mangled, by this point permanently hemorrhaging penis.

[BKS]

Toby Maguire as Spiderman. Kid can't act for shit, it's like he gets the expressions wrong on purpose.

The first one wasn't too bad because he ended up having a mask on for the most part. It went down hill from there. I can't watch anything with Anna Faris in it because she genuinely sickens me with her acting. She's horrid. Still, again I'm at a crossroads.

Good acting is integral, but when the acting hits that all time low, it adds to the movie. So bad its funny. Honestly, there are some movies out there that were so bad we loved them.

[Quadros]

The first one wasn't too bad because he ended up having a mask on for the most part. It went down hill from there. I can't watch anything with Anna Faris in it because she genuinely sickens me with her acting. She's horrid. Still, again I'm at a crossroads.

Good acting is integral, but when the acting hits that all time low, it adds to the movie. So bad its funny. Honestly, there are some movies out there that were so bad we loved them.

The Seagal Equation: Shitty acting+Shitty, predictable plot+Ridiculous love interest+Almost offensive token minority sidekick+ too much gratuitous action= AWESOME.

[John Travolta]

I liked Mad TV's parodies more than Seagal's actual movies.