What exactly do film critics mean when they say is a film is badly directed?

How is it possible for people to actually tell when a film is badly directed.Its quite easy to tell when a film is badly written or badly acted, but what are the signs of bad direction?|||They mean that they think it was badly directed. In the structure of movie making the director is the team captain. Bad acting is often as much the blame of the director as the actor. Same with bad writing. Sometimes it isn't the words that are bad but how the director tells the actor to perform them.





And sometimes the directing isn't bad so much as not a style the review likes. So the answer is that it is often subjective and there isn't a checklist of signs to follow.





An example to finish off. The first two Harry Potter movies were directed by Chris Columbus, who is known for working well with young and often unexperienced child actors. He directs kids by doing what's called "line reading", in other words, he just tells them how to say the lines. Yell this, be mad here, cry here. etc. It works but many feel it is flat acting. It's not even enough to qualify as acting. Some reviews would call that bad acting or even bad directing since Columbus tells them what to do.


Jump to Harry Potter number 3 and a new director. Alfonso Cuaron also is known for working with young actors, but he treats them like adults in the sense that believes they are smart enough to get to the emotional center of a scene and how that character would speak and react in that moment and play it. In other words, he lets the kids act. and you can see it if you watch the movies back to back. Same actors, same character, same style of dialogue because it was the same writer. But there is a richness in the 3rd movie that was missing from the first two.|||The director sets the scene, he tells the actors, camera and set people what to do. Hes like the manager of the film. Critics look at all aspects of the film, if the actor is normally good but in the film seems unnatural, unfitting that could be a sign of bad direction. Areas of the film that don't fin in or make sence are also signs of bad direction (and editing) Actors in awkward places, movements, camera angle are what the director directs.|||Well, think about it. When you yourself watch a film, can't you tell with the first few minutes that it's gonna suck? Critics don't always have it easy in their defense,because no matter how excruciating they have to sit through a crappy movie for ethical reasons then of course,it's open season, which is by no means to say that they're always right. The director is the captain of the ship and it's his responsibility to see that everything from costumes to continuity is up to snuff. They don't just sit there and yell"Action" a good director approaches a project with a vision. A hack films anything any old way with no real regard as to the finished product.


And that concludes my rant for the day!LOL|||Well, a director chooses the camera angles and tells the actors how to do the scene. The director gets most blame if the movie fails.





So when a critic says a movie is badly directed, it means that he director chose the wrong shots and directed the actors badly.. but nonetheless, critics are nothing more than idiots who don't know the difference between their *** and their own face.|||It can be bad cinematography, unnecessary scenes, or a kind of scattered, all over the place feeling to the film, among other things.