You’re sitting there in a theatre waiting for the show to start. You patiently wait as the rows of seats begin to fill and people start pouring in. A few moments later, the lights begin to dim and the film starts. You watch and you watch, and after an hour and a half, the film ends. From there, you’re left with the aftermath. Some people say the film was great, others say it was awful. Then, there are those who said that the film was better than they expected and others say that the film was a let down. With all of these mixed emotions toward a film, this begs the question: What exactly separates a good film from a bad film?

This a difficult thing to ask, as well as answer, due to just how cinema has changed and grown over the years. From the era of silent films to sound films in black and white to full color films to even films like Toy Story, that are done in full CG (computer graphic) animation, it is hard to even be sure of what it takes to raise the bar in cinema anymore. However, we can pinpoint what good movies do that most bad movies don’t. You see, a good movie has characters that leave an impression on the viewer, an environment that the character can thrive in and most of the time, a problem that a character can overcome.

Let’s look at a film that is considered one of the greatest films of all time. Amadeus is based off the Broadway play by Peter Shaffer. This film has phenomenal visuals and an excellent cast of characters that play their parts to a tee. This alone does not make a good film. It doesn’t matter how good the characters are unless the script is just as good. Amadeus could have a script written by a five-year-old or the equivalent and be panned by critics and audiences everywhere, but people would still come back for the visuals. Now, this doesn’t make the film good or bad but it does raise the question of just where the film went wrong.

We could also look at the direction to determine if a film is good or bad. If I am directing a film, for example, Silence of the Lambs, and I have Dr. Hannibal Lector psychoanalyzing Clarice, but I have Dr. Lector spin around in circles while he’s doing this, the audience is taken out of the scene. They are just left asking the question, "What the hell is Hannibal doing?" I saw a production of Macbeth a few months ago. During one of Macbeth’s monologues, the actor stood behind the three witches and said his lines, but he spat every other line throughout the scene. At that point, the rest of the audience and I were left wondering just what the hell Macbeth was doing.

One of the key things that has to happen in a film for it to be good is that the audience has to give a shit about what’s going on! The only way we can give a shit about what’s happening is if the actors give a shit about what’s going on! I shouldn’t have to say this, but you would be surprised at just how much Hollywood doesn’t get it. Let’s look at a film that is absolutely despised by pretty much everyone. M Knight Shyamalan’s After Earth staring Will and Jaden Smith. Now, if you know the Smith family, then you know that they are talented people. Will has shown his talents time and time again in films and t.v. shows like The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Concussion and The Pursuit of Happiness. Jaden was good in the Karate Kid remake, which didn’t actually have karate in it, but it was still good. But when M Knight Shyamalan got a hold of them, Doug Walker a.k.a. the Nostalgia Critic said he, "Shyamalized" them and eliminated all emotion from them and turned them into boring, lifeless characters that no one gave a crap about.If you want a more in depth look at After Earth, go check out Doug Walker’s review of the film. It's actually pretty funny.

Another part that we could look at is if the film immerses you in what is happening. When a film is in theaters, it has a few key set jobs or goals that it has to accomplish. One of these jobs/goals is that it has to immerse the audience in the environment that the film is taken place in. Let me ask you something, did you go to see Avatar back in 2009? If you did, you probably saw it in 3D. If you did then you know just how breath taking the effects were. One felt they could reach out and touch the plants and animals, just as the main characters were. The film properly used 3D to its' advantage, and soon it became a hit.

Let’s look again at After Earth. The environment in it holds a lot of possibilities, but the only problem is that they don’t freaking use it! In all honesty, a movie where two people get stuck on a planet where everything is designed to kill humans (overlooking the obvious plot holes) isn’t that bad of an idea. But when you don’t use that environment, how is the audience supposed to care about what problems the characters may face? We can look at Army of Darkness as a prime example of the environment working with the character to benefit the rest of the film. As I’ve mentioned before, the whole idea behind Army of Darkness is what if a character in a series gets so fed up with all the crap he’s gone through that he just wants to accomplish his goal and go home. So how does the environment work off this? They throw in a crap ton of cartoony villains and effects just to piss off the main character, which makes all of his reactions badass and hilarious at the same time.

Then there is one of the key things that makes a movie good, which is the problem that the character faces. In films, a character has to face a problem in order for the plot to take off. That is, unless you’re the BigLebowski where you can do and accomplish nothing and inspired a whole religion around the film. Let’s look not at a film but at a television show called Avatar: The Last Airbender. This show ran for three seasons in the early 2000’s, and the main problem was that Aang (the last air bender) had to face off against the Fire Lord to save the world. The show rarely ever showed the Fire Lord except during the first season, and up until then, we only ever saw him in the shadows. The beauty of this is that since the Fire Lord had control over a whole nation and army, we saw what he commanded his troops to do. What he commanded them to do was not pretty. We even go to a flashback where we see that the Fire Lord’s troops have massacred the air benders, just to get rid of the avatar. The characters have to work off of the main problem or problems and use them to their advantage. In doing so, they build an army to stop the main problem. If a character doesn’t work off of the problem to move the plot forward, then there is no reason for the problem or obstacle to exist. As such, there is no reason for the main character to exist.

To wrap things up, we can’t determine which movies are good or bad. Despite this, we know what we want to see in a film. If we don’t see those things, we either lose interest or we leave the theatre and wonder just what could have been. However, as bad as a movie is, I would encourage you to stay throughout the whole thing. This is not only to see if there is any redeeming quality in the film, but also because, let’s face it. If you pay an average of seven dollars to see a film, you might as well stay for the whole thing, even if it sucks. Next time you see a film, don’t just look at it as a film. Look at it as an experience or an escape from reality for a little bit, and see something more.