with all the qualities that make a movie a movie...the score, the actors, the story, the name, etc...

so with all those out there what are your #1 reasons for going to a movie?

i think story for me. yes, i like specific actors and directors, specific genres, but a good story and interesting characters are what draws me.

It depends. Sometimes it could be the promise of a good story, a surreal visual experience, or that I'm simply looking for a good time. I apologize if that response is unhelpful but it's rather difficult to pinpoint what exactly will draw me towards (or turn me away from) a specific movie.

bewbs

Director followed by story.

Director is number one. If I like their previous work I will go see the film. The only current directors now would be Tarantino, David Lynch and David Cronenberg.

Although if you put Liam Neeson with a gun on a movie poster I will be there opening night. Don't even need to know the title.

it all comes down to who the gaffer is.

Something which holds my attention, where my mind doesn't wander off and/or I don't fall asleep.

Movies with a unique voice and style. Everyone else is just making forgettable junk. Occasionally, a very formulaic film can be good. But it's rare.

I look for a compelling story passionately told.

I lean towards a good clapper loader.

A good trailer and a good cast.

Usually behind the scenes creative people aren't really draws for me.


I know movies directed by William Friedken always get plugged "From the director of The Exorcist..." But, honestly Friedken isn't really a draw for me and I don't think his directing style is anymore unique than a TV director.

I'm usually interested on the basis of the director or the property or perhaps the subject matter. If it gets bad reviews, though I've never been dissuaded from seeing it as a result, I tend to wait for the video release.

I of course always stay for a compelling story with interesting characters or intelligent points to make.

Yup, whenever I watch the French Connection, The Exorcist, Cruising & Sorcerer all I think about is TV director.

I thought even his latest films Bug and Killer Joe, were both exceptional. Friedkin's had his share of misfires, but the guy has made some fantastic films. I see no basis whatsoever for labeling him a tv director.

In descending order of importance to my viewing habits: Genre, concept/story, cast, director, popularity

I have used all these factors at various times. I find it hard to believe people here don't perform some sort of crude genre filter before watching most films, even if they don't admit it. Obviously this heuristic applies solely to films one completely controls and not situations where family or friends may dictate the choice.

There are also things that mean virtually nothing to me when picking a movie. Hollywood awards don't sway me at all, they are terribly unreliable at picking the best films.

An interesting story is the only thing that makes me want to see a movie (95% of movies today are not original, so I have no interest in them). I'm old enough to tell who the movie is targeting so I don't get hyped about movies like I used to and then get let down. I know 99% of summer movies will suck because they are dumbed down for teenagers, so I mostly only care about movies that come out in November and December.

This for me too.

If the genre and the story don't appeal to me, then I don't even care who are the actors or director or anyone else involved in the movie.

I rarely even pay attention to directors. 90% of the time I don't even know who directed the movie I am watching. Some of my favorite movies of all time I don't even know who directed them.

Popularity doesn't matter to me one bit. I like big summer blockbusters about equally with the smaller unknown movies.

Director and tone of the movie above all else. Uninteresting subject matter be damned, I loved The Social Network and that was about a guy building a website.

To Live & Die in LA & Rampage are also good.

The rating and runtime.

For your sake I hope the ticket office knows the title of the Liam Neeson movie.

Anyway, I would have to say genre at this point. Sad to say, the only movies I tend to see at the theater these days are the big spectacle/superhero movies. I have no interest in seeing a horror, romantic comedy, or even straight up comedies much anymore at the theater. Since movies tend to come out on home video 4-5 months after being released to theaters, I'm not very much inclined to rush to a theater. I don't even read reviews much anymore, partly due to Roger Ebert's death, and that no one seems to really write reviews where I get a sense of what the movie is about like he did (even when I disagreed with his critique). I like visiting the forums here to see what folks thought of a certain movie, then I'll make a mental note to see it later.

Oh, my response was about watching a movie, not going to it.

I usually gauge seeing a movie in theaters based on the "spectacle" factor - if it's something big and different that needs to be seen on a big screen (ie: Gravity, Interstellar, Avatar) then I'll give it a shot. If it's something I've seen before (standard big budget movies, super hero movies, etc; ) then it can wait. If it's going to be an obvious audience participation movie (Grindhouse - the movie reactions were a ton of fun) then I will also go just for the experience.

There are certain genres I'm interested in and certain subjects yet often I will be swayed by good reviews and good word-of-mouth.

Whenever a western comes out (very rarely, these days), I'm usually interested. If an Asian star is making their debut in an American film, I'll usually check those out, e.g. last year's MAKE YOUR MOVE, starring K-pop star BoA. I usually attend anime features that get distributed theatrically, e.g. THE TALE OF PRINCESS KAGUYA. I like biopics about artists and I'm a fan of J.M.W.Turner, so I went to see MR. TURNER. Certain reviews compelled me to see BRIDESMAIDS and I was very pleased I did.

I read a good review of RUN ALL NIGHT in the New York Times today, so I'm kind of interested in that because it sounds like a solid, straightforward crime drama, without too much foolishness. The rave reviews that JOHN WICK and KINGSMAN got all over the internet compelled me to see both of those, only to be supremely disappointed. It took several months, but I finally went to see iNTERSTELLAR in a theater the week before the Oscars because I felt I ought to at least try to see it on the big screen. Again, big disappointment, but at least I saw it. In contrast, all the hype over GRAVITY caused me to stay away when it was in theaters--no movie can be that good--so when it came on cable recently, the evening before the Oscars, I finally sat down to watch it and realized I'd been right to avoid it.

That's why you need to find a couple critics you trust if anything. It's tougher these days though, as my tastes rarely line-up with any subset of critics.

I understand this criticism, and that may be why he is my favorite director. Everything he does is to serve the story, very straightforward... no fluff or self indulgent shots to serve a whim... I think that is why I really like Eastwood's style as well...