When you watch TV/movies, what are you most critical of?

[Everlong]

I'm a fairly critical person when it comes to books, movies and television. This probably has a lot of roots in my schooling -- as an English student in college it became ingrained in me to be very critical of everything that I read, and I've carried that on to this day. Of course, I can let go of that for certain types of movies, but let's say I'm watching a show or movie that was supposed to be critically acclaimed or that is taking itself seriously as a piece of art, I'm going to be much more critical of it.

Of the options listed, I'm probably most critical about writing, probably for the reasons I've already mentioned. I feel like you can have the best actors in the world, but a bad script or premise is going to doom the whole production. Take a look at the Star Wars prequels; there were some really talented actors in those movies, but there's no way they could have done anything with the crap they were handed.

What about you?

[Buck]

Writing. It can derail all the other shit even if everything else is rock solid.

[prophet]

I'd probably say acting although if truth be told I've never given it much thought and, particularly on this site, I've never given a film a bad score

I think bad acting is more off-putting to me than anything else. I'd like to think that a bad actor can make even the best dialogue seem unimpressive whereas a good actor can make bad dialogue seem better than it is, if that makes sense...

[Ali]

Honestly, it's kind of an "All of the Above". Really, I'm fine with a movie as long as it doesn't bore or anger me. Keep me invested for SOME reason. Even if it's done incompetently, I can still maybe have fun laughing at bad writing or acting or whatever. But if you are just BAD, if there is no soul or life or effort into a movie, that's where you lose me.

[ShaneOfan]

Effects have there place but not as much as writing and acting. I've seen enough movies where I have thought the writing was good and the acting sucked. Sometimes I've seen movies where I have thought the acting was good but the writing was bad.

[PorkChop]

Writing / Acting. I'd say it was about 70/30 split.

[Kyle]

Writing is most important to me. Acting is definitely crucial to pull off the script in a believable way, but without the writing there in the first place, the actors have nothing. For instance, Heath Ledger was amazing as The Joker and he made many of his lines very memorable, but without the writers writing it in the first place it's nothing.

[Racing Guy]

I would have to say acting. I can look over plot holes, or cheesy dialogue but those actors who sound like they're reading off a card in front of them is terrible.

[Locke]

I'm not really sure. I try not to break apart movies by this sort of "step by step" construction and just enjoy the movie (if I can) for what it's worth. I can't tell you how many movies that are so low budget, absolute shit looking movies, with terrible acting, that I still really enjoy. Pretty much any B (or worse than B) flick on Netflix about dragons, for example, I can sit down with a few beers and just love the shit out of it.

One of my favorite examples of a shit movie that I enjoy is Dungeons and Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God. It has pretty corny actors, pretty piss poor effects, and a cliche DnD story. For some reason, however, it sucks me in, and for the duration of the movie I'm immersed. I'm gone for 2 hours. Love it.

So I guess wherever "it immerses me" falls into is what does it for me.

[Kreashko]

I said acting. You might have the greatest story to be told but if the acting sucks in it then it falls flat on its face.