Originally Posted by Killericon
Basically, I have two types of movies I like: Entertaining Movies, and Good movies. Entertaining movies are ones that could be considered "bad", if you look at the acting, script, and overall quality(in a movie critic sort of way), but is made enjoyable by the presence of gratuitous humour or action(Starship Troopers is the example I always give of movies I consider to be 'Entertaining'). Good movies are ones that have good writing and acting and directing(Three things Taken BARELY had, if at all. The Script was horrific).
While the movie was fun, and thus entertaining, it was by no stretch "Good". I got my hopes up because of IMDB, and was thus extremely disappointed.
I can concur with that. I guess I have a larger degree of separation between things or a different scale. But that makes sense, I certainly have been entertained by very bad movies (My dad and I call them TME, Totally Mindless Entertainment) and as a horror movie aficionado I have seen my fair share of stupid, poorly written poorly acted films (some are just funny in their stupidity). I also concur with your arguments about Taken (btw the hiding of the text was cool) so I guess I too can say it was entertaining not good. Maybe for me the entertainment was that totally mindless thing and the knowledge I knew exactly how it would end (I checked expectations of realism at the door). After watching serious drama films like Revolutionary Road I guess I just needed a check my brain at the door film which this did. And I enjoyed Liam Neeson...it was interesting to see him as the action hero, not the intellectual or really dramatic role, though I would not say this was his best film by any means though also not the worst (Star Wars Phantom Menace was probably his worst).
As far as my scale for evaluation, I tend to think of things in different ways, but I like your approact, though