I think this is the wrong approach. See movies because they interest you. Decide if they are good or bad after you've seen them. Yes, we have film critics and internet comments and marketing that tries to tell you if something is good or bad before you've seen it, and yes, some of those sources of information might align well enough with your tastes to be trustworthy, but just as likely, and especially with original movies/concepts, people don't know how to evaluate it and if you get swept up in the general opinion about it, that in and of itself can turn it from being something you might have potentially enjoyed to something you'll all but hate by default.

This whole idea of wanting to protect yourself from 'bad' movies or only see things that are 'worth' seeing. I mean. They're movies, ffs. It's not like you're making investments here. At best it's a profound and emotional experience that great art can provide, but everything failing that is different degrees of "welp". Too often, 'good' simply means not 'bad', is the point. Where the only benchmark is 'kept me engaged for a couple hours', but how many 'good movies' have you seen that years later you can barely remember at all or don't think about, or even eventually come to realize they were kind of crap but didn't say/do anything about it because at the time you were completely on board the hype or marketing or being told it was good by everyone?

Once upon a time, we took chances with things and it was okay to see a 'bad movie', fun even in its own way. Today we try to shield ourselves away from anything that isn't 'good'(where good basically means the best) while only allowing 'bad' if it is prepared for (e.g. "I want to see this for how bad it is!") and leaving almost no room to... just watch shit and see how it makes us feel and go from there.