I've always been a bit dubious about using originality as a criteria. Firstly, been original doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be good. Secondly, take a movie like Citizen Kane (widely considered on of the best films of all time). It's basic message is that money can't buy you happiness -- which is hardly original and has been around since the start of time. Yet it's still considered the GOAT in-spite of that.
Well, of course there's no math equations involved. Just saying you can analyze the various aspects and compare their effectiveness to cinema at large. For example.
but the reason why I cant really rate movies objectively, is cuz sometimes there are movies that completely miss most if not all of these, but still somehow work. and you see this when "professional movie critics" give a movie a horrible rating. and the audience absolutely loves it. something to be said for that. Im trying to think of a good example of this.
Among proffesional critics, I suppose "artistry" would be the greatest criteria. Does this film have meaning? Does it have a point?
Heathers would be a pretty neat example of a film that manages to be artistic and populistic at both times. It's funny and engaging, escapists even. But it also contains a lot of meaning. You're supposed to try and make the world a better, more just place -- as Victoria does in the ending by reaching a hand out to the Overweight chick -- and not try to destroy it out of nilisistic rage as JD does.
The meaning of Citizen Kane would be the "money can't buy happiness" motif. While something like The Friday the 13th films would have no meaning, but contains boatloads of escapist fun to an general audience.
For example, not sure how anyone is entertained by There Will Be Blood unless they focus on the technical aspects. That film was long and depressing, but well-made. Not looking to argue its merits here. Just addressing your point.
I think that there is some movies that can be watched on a thematic level. In There Will Be Blood, it's about watching an avatar of capitalism (Daniel Day) clash with a avatar of religion (that other guy). Sure neither character is particularly likable or entertaining. But there is a degree of fascination to be found in seeing what drives them.
But I concur that No Country for Old Men is a far superior movie.
Veronica represents order, and JD represents Chaos. This clip specifically represents the two and what they are all about.
I'd say that Veronica and JD are more contrasted in how they chose to deal with the world. JD is sort-of like the dark side of Veronica.
The world in Heathers is the "clique-culture" of the school. Which the film at several point tells us represents America at large. It's also shown to be vapid and harmful.
JD wants to destroy it. He feels unloved so in retaliation he wishes to externalize his anger.
Victoria is initially seduced by this. She isn't all that heartbroken upon the death of the first Heather. But, as the film goes on, she grows to loath JD's nihilism and his wish to make other suffer.
Victoria is disillusioned with the world. She's a cynic -- but not really doing anything about it. JD opens a door for her to destroy it. But she rejects that -- because she realizes that what really makes her happy is the sort of friendship she had in her youth.
This is her character arc. Emerging from her cynical and ironic shell by JD to do something about it, eventually rejecting JD's nihilism out of moral principles, and then striving to make the world a better place through basic humanity.
There are some interesting differences between JD and Victoria. JD wants to kill everyone because he feels unloved and damaged by it. Victoria, meanwhile, remembers what it feels to be loved (her youthful friendships) and tries to restore that.
