People are opiniated assholes, let's get that clear. Of course they are. Having opinions is fine. Just don't be an asshole. This seems simple and straightforward enough, and yet. Anyway. What was I gonna talk about? Oh yeah. Of course: MOVIES.
With movies especially, considered against books, I defer judgement: I approach them lightly without outsized expectations and am apt to be satisfied with them if they entertain me. I am less picky about movies than I am with books, with one possible difference being that I can manage a wider range of genre in literature. Horror, for instance, is more difficult for me in the movies; it's just more visceral and awful and real. And, like with books as well if I'm being honest, I tend to avoid rating them or being super analytical over them.
The question becomes, for me, what constitutes a good movie? Is it the cinematography? The acting? The direction, editing, dialogue, genre, characterization, social commentary, soundtrack, roller coaster spectacle? All of the above?
The criteria is fluid, the metrics always in flux. A good movie for me does not always equate to a film that has a lot of cinematographic merit. A good movie, for me, has a lot to do with rewatchability. This errs significantly towards pure entertainment, these days. See: Marvel and DC superhero movies. I have found that so much of the dialogue gets old; the banter loses its luster. The roller coaster rides, tho? Marvel knows how to construct a good roller coaster ride. Formulaic they may be, after 50 million of them, but they rarely fall flat. Some even have strong emotional stakes, for goodness' sake.
The criteria, the metrics, comes down to the particular movie. Did it do what it seems to have set out to do? Did I enjoy and/or appreciate what it did, whether it matched what it seemed to have been trying to do or not? Those are the big questions. After that I can consider all the other little things: the cinematography, acting, dialogue, commentary, entertainment value.
When I start thinking about these things, the exceptions are what comes to mind (and maybe I should start giving concrete examples of movies in here somewhere). Sometimes the overall style and aesthetic trumps everything else, and as long as it's an aesthetic I can get behind and everything else is in congruity, than the aesthetics can be enough. Give me a good atmosphere any day; love a good atmosphere.
Alright I'll back myself up with an example for a point I'm about to make: Take Rosemary's Baby; a movie I feel has a lot of cinematographic merit. It is also a movie I never feel like I will need or want to watch ever again. One way I know it had a lot of merit, besides anything technical that I can remember, is that it has made a lasting impression on me. I can remember a lot about that movie, even 20 years on. Another movie I've only watched once for the same reason is Dancer In The Dark. That one, I need not have seen. I don't care to think about it at all, whatever mertis it may or may not have. BUT. That movie was my introduction to Björk. That soundtrack is phenomenal. But again! WHY ARE YOU TORTURING BJÖRK?? (I understand the behind the scenes situation was awful, too). So absurdly depressing, that movie, nay, straight-up traumatic. But thrice, it made me a huge fan of Björk, it's just that there's a million better ways to be introduced to her music than that friggin film.
I love a good heist film. Few have proper filmic merit—I'll have to find a list of the best, later; I'm sure there's a few more that I'm forgetting. The one that I love particularly is the French film Rififi, a solid film noir about an old thief just out of jail out to make the last big score of their career. The heist scene is notable for being 20 minutes of virtual silence: any noise and the alarms go off. I breathe Rififi in the same breath as The Third Man, a film that is undeniably an absolute classic.