[quote]Precisely, and that's my point: it's hard, but it can be done. As I said, I believe that a film can't be graded based solely on the merit of each of it's qualities in some stringent metric, but there is an overarching quality that any film has that is definable, but it is super-hard to do so.[/quote
Actually, I'm all for this. I love the idea that there's an absolute objectivity behind it all. For that to be the case, however...I'm not sure you have to divorce a film from the viewer's experience. I do think you have to divorce it completely from both culturual impact and financial success. Well-directed movies follow similar patterns. They invite you to get lost in them, so to speak. They also require a critical, active eye and mindset. They are comprised of vivid moments, each milked for all their potential. Glossiness is the negative counterpart to that, or as Kael said, the relentless march of a movie to fulfill its obvious purpose. The best qualities for a movie to have are to be interesting, provocative, dense, enthralling.

It helps me to think of a good movie as a moving graphic novel. There's the initial punch of reading/seeing it for the first time. But a good graphic novel invites you to return to specific moments, to scrutinize them, and to be fascinated by them. A good movie offers the same.

Personally I think that there exists an objective base to what makes a great or good film. Perhaps this base is 50%. Perhaps 70%. Perhaps higher.

But there are a number of variables. Intangibles, if you like. If there wasn't, none of us would be here discussing films.

It's like economics, which is prone to assuming that people always make rational choices. But "rational" is not completely objectively defined either. It's rational for me to prefer chocolate to jumping off a cliff. But is it rational for me to prefer chocolate to sucking lemons, if I really really like lemons?

People are swayed and prejudiced by their own experiences.

I read an excellent customer review of The Room (2003) on Amazon, which said that it was the only film that (the reviewer) could give 0/5 objectively, but 5/5 subjectively. Fine, and I get it! But what if millions of people feel this way. When, and to what degree, does The Room become in any way an objectively good film?

Many advances in film have been defined by things which were once thought to be bad. Most obviously Godard, but studio execs were at first worried that The Godfather had poor lighting. Of course it wasn't a question of, Godfather has objectively poor lighting in places, but subjectively it's great. It's just that Godfather forced objective standards to be reevaluated and altered, as many great movies have.

But The Room...I haven't seen much, but what I have seen is not remotely unique or interesting. It's bad in a way that many amateur films are bad. It's popularity ust seems like another meme to me. There's nothing objectively impressive about the Harlem Shake videos, but I know plenty of people who'd subjectively give them 5/5.

But films which posture themselves as great works of art are usually bogus in their own way. There's no room for a viewer to be amused, inquisitive, or curious. White Elephant vs. Termite art is still one of the most important ideas around.

The isn't true.

The Room's failures aren't merely down to the everyday, common or garden incompetence you'd find in a zillion other productions. It represents a concentrated, scene-to-scene demonstration of what can go wrong in film making, on a level that actually justifies its cult status.

1. Django Unchained
2. The Avengers
3. Skyfall
4. The Hobbit
5. The Dark Knight Rises
6. The Amazing Spider-Man
7. The Raid Redemption
8. Ted
9. The Cabin in The Woods
10. The Expendables 2