When I watch a movie, I look for a good story and good acting. I don't really care too much who's actually playing the character (I can never remember names anyways) so I expect a nice performance regardless.

I do expect the plot to be logical (based, of course, on what they have to start with) but I can always give a little leanway to some improbability/unlogical action (not too much for the latter, though). I'm really into a good story.

As far as action goes, I don't necessarily look for it, however, I can't sit through an uneventful movie. A good example would be "The Good Shepard." It had a nice cast but was ultimately, for lack of a better word, boring.

What do you guys look for?

This is a good thread because everyone looks for something different.

From a broad perspective, I always look for good story telling.  Next on my list would probably be good acting (although I can deal with just average acting), but only because really bad acting is one of the most distracting elements of a good story.  I don't need a film to necessarily be "real world" logical, but I like it to maintain some kind of internal logic with the rules the movie sets up for itself.  That being said, if the internal logic IS real world logic, then I expect it to uphold some kind of reality.  Finally I look for interesting visuals.  Film is a VISUAL medium, so when art direction is impressive or the cinematography is particularly spectacular, it definitely gets my attention.

Now to get more specific.  I don't compare different kinds of movies to each other.  I expect different things from different films.  Otherwise I would be disappointed ALL THE TIME.  I'm capable of being entertained for the sake of entertainment, although the movie might never make my "best ever" list.  For instance, I know what to expect when I go see GI Joe or Wolverine.  It's something different than what I expect when I go see Atonement or No Country for Old Men.  My standards of rating are kind of adjustable...you get the idea.

 Well, this answer has definitely changed over the years. I used to love films (and music) from outside the mainstream - so deep heavy foreign flicks were the norm.

Now, I like originality. I loved the Matrix, but was none too plussed by the sequels, which were just more, and yet changed the message of the first film.

I like to be entertained - I won't deny that No Country or There will be Blood didn't entertain me, but to be honest, I'd rather watch something a bit more escapist at the moment. People hitting each other never hurts (me), either. That said, i just watched Wanted with some chums (& some wine) which to my (adled) mind was a poor film. 

Yeah, novelty is what does it for me...

A good story is what interest me the more, I'm tired of the same plots, (bad guys wants to kill, destroy, take over the world, but the good guys oppose and kicks the bad guys butt... etc etc etc).

Good acting comes second, I mean who wants to watch a movie where the actors don't know what they doing?.

And a good unexpected ending. I hate movies where the endings are so easy to guess. 

This actually made me think quite a bit, but after pondering over it I've come to notice what I like isn't just the "cool characters" but ALOT of characters. I find that movies with alot of characters are way more appealing to me than just the story of one man or him and his two buds. Now this doesn't mean I want an all-star cast because I believe too many directors think that by having some big names like Will Smith make the movie an instant success. You have to think, we have over 6 Billion people alive there HAVE to be thousands upon thousands of people with greater acting skill then even recognized.

For a movie to be good, in my opinion, it has to make me think. And I'm not talking about a movie where you have to think and figure out what the heck just happened because you just found yourself thinking about something else during an extremely long and boring monologue by some guy (I don't know why but Twilight and New Moon come to mind, no offense to you fans). But thinking too hard makes my head hurt (movies with big scientific words and a confusing plot). The movie also has to make me feel. I have to be able to connect with a character, or I can't see into what is happening. An emotionally dead movie puts me to sleep, but an overly-emotional movie feels awkward. I guess that (since I'm wandering around with my response and its time to reign in/sum up) what I look for in a movie is balance. 

Great Acting

Great Plot

Good Story

Logical Plot

are rquirments for a great movie

Cool characters

action

suprise /dramatic ending*

are required to keep me entertained the whole way through

if its a comedy, it needs to be funny and i dont give a crap about anything else

*not required but they help

The question is, what makes a BAD movie ENDING?

Usually one where there's a HUGE HOLE in the plot, and the producers are so caught up in their own hype that they completely overlook it; and so the ending is pure deus ex machina of why it didn't FALL THROUGH the hole in the plot.

Like Superman: he can fly the speed of light-- that's seven times around the world in one second-- but he can't catch 2 missiles because they're going in opposite directions. PWNED!

Or Predator: he won't attack people who don't have weapons-- but the gang keeps going around carrying weapons! PWNED!

In order to PWN a movie, you've got to find the HUGE HOLE in the plot-- and it has to be TRUE in order to be funny.

This is why some of them aren't funny. In Lord of the Rings, they COULDN'T just fly an Eagle in with the Ring. They did it to get OUT, and they weren't so stupid. So it's not not true, and so it's not funny.

Or Avatar:  it didn't MATTER whether the Smurfs knew what they wanted, they weren't going to let them HAVE it, since it would kill their "Tree of Life" like in Pocahontas.

The point is, it has to be TRUE to be a biting satire.

Like with Indiana Jones; they're after the Ark of the Covenant, which in reality DOESN'T have any freaky powers. So come up with a reason that they WOULD be after it-- it's full of the world's greatest BEER! Indy is humliated, and suddenly it's not so funny that the girl's a beer-slut.

Or TItanic: in reality, there WAS no Rose-- likewise no Jack, and no priceless antique-necklace; and yet in this docudrama movie ABOUT the Titanic, they claim there WAS.  So HAVE AT IT!

THE TEN RULES OF A GOOD MOVIE:

Rule 1: ORIGINALITY. If my first thought is "SEEN IT!" or "oh, that's such a cliche," then it's clear that the writers are uninspired hacks who are simply leeching tired old used-up gimmicks.

Rule 2: HUMILITY AND UNPREDICTIBILITY: You are NOT God, you are NOT creating the Heaven and the Earth. Do NOT think your movie will be good because YOU make it, but only because of your DOING things that MAKE it a good movie. The best chef can make a turd sandwich.  Likewise, NOTHING works, if it's obvious what's going to happen; it SPOILS the drama, like someone shouting out the ending.

Rule 3: PLAUSIBILITY: Things should make sense within the context of the movie, without concealing information; likewise, information should be given in a WAY that makes sense, not just by a vital plot point being mentioned by dumb luck.

Rule 4: CONSISTENCY. Even if the film's not real-life drama, it should always at least play by its own rules-- otherwise it's a hole in the plot, or a deus ex machina. Without inner consistencey, the film loses all credibility with the audience. And the rules can't be made up specially to suit the plot, either.

Rule 5: PACING AND TEMPO: the story needs to flow and unfold gradually as necessary for the desired effect, not simply as the plot requires it. Dramatic foreshadowing and gradual exposure need to be carefully handled to avoid blowing the dramatic tension entirely-- like a horseman dimly seen following the departed Ferry, rather than a Nazgul chasing the hobbits onto the raft at the last second, which completely ruins the final chase to Rivendell.

Rule 6: RESPECT FOR THE WRITER. The film-staff must confer directly with the writer, or (with a deceased writer), the writer's estate and agents, in order to get the right message and delivery. A producer should NEVER simply read a book and have the arrogance and audacity to think that he knows how to make the film BETTER than the writer, or just because it IS a film and not a book. This is why the Harry Potter movies were more true to the book, than the Lord of the Rings-- i.e. the author was CONSULTED AND RESPECTED, rather than MOONED.

Rule 7: If it's a sequel, be sure the film CALLS for a sequel, not just a way to milk a dead cash-cow.

Rule 8: Avoid complicating things just to be complicated; some people will think this is "brilliant," but in reality it's just a tangled web of lies to cover up a bad story-line.

Rule 9: DON'T cast actors based on names, or to use the film as stepping-stones for their career. PUT THE MOVIE FIRST.  There's no way to tell good acting from great acting, but rather there should be great DIRECTION, and the director should cast the movie according to actors who can best present what he WANTS to be seen in the film.

Rule 10: THOU SHALT RESPECT THE AUDIENCE. Do NOTdumb-down things for the audience, or be afraid an audience won't understand or appreciate something grand or classic, thinking you have to spoon-feed them crap; that's insulting, and if you don't respect your audience then it will show. They're NOT the mindless blobs  you've been led to think they are-- they just don't have anything better around.

With those rules, the rest is up to the author.