What is the difference between a good movie and an enjoyable movie?

As my Dad loved sharing films from his childhood with me when I was growing up, I developed an early appreciation for classic cinema. As I became a teenager and began to develop certain tastes in film, classic film was my gateway into a wider appreciation for movies. In those days I read the newspaper film reviews (Edmonton Journal & Calgary Herald) every week, watched Siskel & Ebert on television and read every guidebook to film that I could. I wasn't quite sure what to make of the non-English films which critics were always championing, nor did I think I could handle 'artsy' motion pictures from recent decades, but Hollywood films of the 1930s-1950s were at least of a type I was familiar with and could be pretty certain wouldn't expose me to any disturbing content.

Almost a decade ago I composed a list of movies I wanted to see. I started it by listing movies by filmmakers and actors whose work I already enjoyed and wanted to see more of; it expanded as I delved into lists written by critics, not only of "all-time bests" but best-of lists for specific genres of films. It was a massive list and took me several years to get through. While I had the list to go through, I was watching movies all the time; I would plan out my evenings, often watching 3 per night if I had no other plans.

I'm sharing all of this because I want to make it clear that I have watched a lot of films; I've watched films in a variety of languages from many different countries from every possible decade and every genre type. Compared to the average movie fan, I'm quote-unquote an authority. And yet I'm still grappling with this question: What is the difference between a good movie and an enjoyable movie?

For example, one of the first films I watched on my massive list was The Seven Samurai by Akira Kurosawa. I had read reviews which praised the film to the utmost and it didn't disappoint. I have absolutely no reservation about ranking The Seven Samurai a 10/10 film, a perfect movie. Is it one of the greatest movies ever made? Sure, certainly! Yet for all that, I've only seen The Seven Samurai the one time.

By contrast, I think I've watched the lowbrow comedy film The Naked Gun (directed by David Zucker) four times. Do I think The Naked Gun is a better movie than The Seven Samurai? No... depending on what you mean by "better".

Part of why it was so easy for me to watch every film on that massive list I put together is that with today's ready-availability of motion pictures, you can see virtually any film you want when you want to; at the very least, it's bound to be available for online rental somewhere. But after you've seen a movie once, why watch it a second time? Even if you recognize The Seven Samurai as being a cut above other run-of-the-mill motion pictures, why does it require a second viewing?

I certainly admire The Seven Samurai more than The Naked Gun. I'm happy to put it up on a pedestal. But the first time I saw The Seven Samurai it was all new to me - everything was a discovery. If I were to watch it a second time, there are certain things which I, as the viewer, would have to bring with me -- baggage which an unpretentious comedy such as The Naked Gun doesn't share.

1. The Seven Samurai is long: 207 minutes long. It requires setting aside a large chunk of my time.
2. The Seven Samurai is subtitled: I cannot put this film on as 'background' or watch it 'casually' - I must be willing to concentrate on the subtitles for the duration.
3. The Seven Samurai is sobering: this is not a movie you put on to have a good time with; there's very little humour and the action scenes are not meant to be thrilling.

Almost all of the film criticism I grew up reading offered guidance for a first-time viewer; they were careful to omit 'spoilers' and principally concerned with helping the undecided viewer decide whether the film was worth their time or not. Considering the books I read came from the era of revival houses and home theaters, I wish a little attention were given to movies which have repeat viewing value. This was something critics would gush about when talking about Citizen Kane or other worthy classics, but what makes a film worthy of repeat viewings?

First, is the viewer watching the film alone or with an audience? When I share movies in my library with other people, I try to tailor it to what those people have already seen and enjoy. For instance, when I learned my parents hadn't seen any of Preston Sturges' comedies I made a point of showing them a Preston Sturges film every time they visited me until my library was exhausted. Comedies are one of the best genres to share with other people; when a group of people are all laughing at the same jokes, you aren't left wondering if your friends 'get' your proferred film.

Second, how much time does the viewer have? Do you have 3.5 hours to spend on The Seven Samurai? Or only 90 minutes?

Third, what is the mood of the viewer? Do you want to play detective and pick out details you haven't noticed before? Do you want to meditate on the film's style, content or performances? Are you in the mood for challenging or even upsetting content? Are you seeking escapism through adventure? Comedy to help you through a difficult time?

There are movies which I think bear up extremely well on repeat viewings. It might helpful to consider films where mystery is an important component of the story. Dark City by Alex Proyas is such a film which revolves around a mystery. I find the solution to that mystery extremely satisfying and even provocative. For those reasons, I've been able to watch Dark City again and again; indeed, I think I've watched it once per year since I first saw it circa 2010. Even though I watch the film now knowing how the plot will turn out, I still enjoy seeing the mystery unravel; in fact, I think I enjoy more as I notice additional details which hint at the solution which weren't apparent on first viewing.

On the other hand, we have Christopher Nolan's The Prestige. When I watched this film, I was enjoying it quite a bit and wondered where it was heading. Unfortunately, I was extremely disappointed with the climax of The Prestige, to the point that I have never watched the film again, nor do I wish to. In that situation, the solution to the mystery did not heighten my enjoyment of the film, rather it spoiled my enjoyment of every scene prior to the climax.

Movies such as The Seven Samurai are easy to put up on a pedestal, but films aren't supposed to be placed behind a glass case to be admired - they're meant to be watched. Critics have frequently despaired at how audiences reward (what critics term) by-the-numbers fare while meanwhile (what critics term) artful films are neglected. There are plenty of artistic films I love and wish enjoyed wider appreciation, but at the end of the day I wonder: what is the difference between a good movie and an enjoyable movie? I realize that by every standard which film critics have preached at me for decades, The Seven Samurai is a triumph of cinema and one of the greatest movies ever made; and yet, I'm kinda certain I'll have seen The Naked Gun for a fifth time before I watch The Seven Samurai again.