> Artistically, it was a beautiful work, and it
> had great emotional force . . . the waves of
> emotion it created

Isn't that enough?


> I have been startled these days to find a lot
> of my friends judging movies on purely artistic
> merit, while I still focus on story and
> characters.

I think artistic merit and atmosphere are very underrated. Even if the characters and storyline had been dreadful I think I still would have loved the movie, due in large part to its spectacular art.
The characters may not have been the most original ones ever, but they were well defined, and I can't see why you'd complain about them. The storyline may have used some common themes (man loves woman, love is forbidden for business reasons, etc.), but it explored them in a fascinating and at times very suspenseful manner. And, yes, it did have unique twists and turns. And even if it isn't original it can still be good.


> The storyline, the characters, and the ideas
> behind it neither challenged my way of thinking
> nor showed me a new way of looking at the
> world.

Is it supposed to? If those are your requirements for judging a movie to be good then I don't think you could find many "good" movies. To me, a movie is "good" if it is told well, acted well, shot well, and so on. So long as it does a good job in telling its story (and the story isn't boring or stupid) then it's good in my mind. I cannot possibly expect movies to challenge my way of thinking or show me a new way of looking at the world, I don't think any movie has ever done that for me, and I doubt one ever will. I still love movies, and I still think many movies are good --- excellent, even.


Although, yes, Faux Pas was right about the seduction scene. Ouch.

-Eric Sleator
Tue 12 Feb A.D. 2002