The Lone Ranger : Too bad this wasn't released in 2014

This has been a very bad year for movies. The Lone Ranger might have done much better this year.

Before we get started, does anyone want to get out?

Yep. Should have been released this year.

Great film in virtually every aspect, especially the screenplay which is excellent.

My primary complaint would be Terry Rossio and Ted Elliot overestimating the intelligence of audiences. Well, that's not really a complaint, I love what they did here, but the fact is, most people today are unable to grasp even the most rudimentary aspects of storytelling and only respond to characterizations, visuals and action sequences.

If I didn't see this film with my own eyes, I would have no idea that it's a great story and just assume that it isn't, but humor aside, the story here is truly great and that's a credit to the screenplay and the writers who wrote it. Coherent story. Detailed narrative. Logical plot. Plausible character development that is both rare and believable.

---

My primary complaint would be Terry Rossio and Ted Elliot overestimating the intelligence of audiences.

---

Oh boy, how much of a snob can you be?

I finally saw this move and I found it boring, predictable, and with some of the worse dialogue in the history of cinema.

What we have here is a perfect example of the DunningKruger effect with your little illusory superiority claiming this was some kind of super masterpiece that everybody seems to hate because they are stupid but not you oh no, you are not.

You know what? after finally seeing this movie today I don't even hate it, it had no effect on me, it was not thought provoking or interesting, all of the more "heavy" topics were covered in other movies much better and you could figure out all the major plot twists that were coming in the first 20 minutes of the movie. I had a few laughs and rolled my eyes when the dialogue became cringe worthy (most of the time). Overall it was dull and stupid only saved by the nice scenery, but I don't need a movie for that, I could watch some HD documentaries, because, you know, I am one of those low intelligence members of the audience that is writing to you in his third language and watch and enjoy good documentaries, has an acquired taste for Golden Age Russian literature and a passion for baroque music all while having a strong technical background as an engineer.

You like it? good for you, people are dumb because they fail to see how this is the second coming of Christ in the form of a film? Get a grip man, and get over yourself.

---

Oh boy, how much of a snob can you be?

---

Considering I've spent many hours in the past year correcting people's misunderstanding of the film's content (having to explain scenes, sequences, Native American beliefs and plot points) I believe it's certainly true that Terry Rossio and Ted Elliot overestimated the intelligence of modern audiences. The modern viewer is dumber than ever, only responding to the simplicity of characterizations, tone, length, visuals and frequency of fight scenes.

---

I finally saw this move and I found it boring, predictable, and with some of the worse dialogue in the history of cinema.

---

Sure. Don't believe it. Be specific or be called out as a liar. This film is no more boring or predictable than most blockbuster films released in the past 20 years and has a similar level of quality dialogue.

---

What we have here is a perfect example of the DunningKruger effect with your little illusory superiority claiming this was some kind of super masterpiece that everybody seems to hate because they are stupid but not you oh no, you are not.

---

No. Most people who've seen the movie either like it or love it. The ratings by the public prove it. Yet the tsunami of negative publicity by critics and the media have unfairly impacted the ratings just as negative publicity will impact a politicians poll numbers. Minus the negative publicity, this film would have a true rating of 7.5 or higher on IMDB which is what it deserves. I saw the film seven times in the theater including three consecutive weekends. Each time a huge ovation at the end with the loudest clapping I've heard from a theater audience in years.

---

You know what? after finally seeing this movie today I don't even hate it, it had no effect on me, it was not thought provoking or interesting, all of the more "heavy" topics were covered in other movies much better and you could figure out all the major plot twists that were coming in the first 20 minutes of the movie.

---

Bull. The "heavy" topics in this film are covered much better than in most blockbuster films and are far more relevant to human society than most of the recent popcorn films (comic book, sci-fi etc). And, liar, you could not figure out the major plot twists in the "first 20 minutes" because there were no indicators of them. None. Those were revealed later in the film. Most blockbusters are far more predictable than this.

---

I had a few laughs and rolled my eyes when the dialogue became cringe worthy (most of the time). Overall it was dull and stupid only saved by the nice scenery, but I don't need a movie for that, I could watch some HD documentaries, because, you know, I am one of those low intelligence members of the audience that is writing to you in his third language and watch and enjoy good documentaries, has an acquired taste for Golden Age Russian literature and a passion for baroque music all while having a strong technical background as an engineer.

---

No specifics. Just generalities that could be applied to any movie. No credibility here.

---

You like it? good for you, people are dumb because they fail to see how this is the second coming of Christ in the form of a film? Get a grip man, and get over yourself.

---

It's just an underrated film far better than most "blockbusters."

---

No. Most people who've seen the movie either like it or love it. The ratings by the public prove it.

---

Numbers show a different scenario, this people loved the movie but were not able to generate enough word of mouth? How about repeat viewings?

By the way, the latests Transformes movie was also critically panned and yet made a gazillion dollars. With EVERYBODY saying that it is a POS everywhere and somehow bringing crowds.

You said it yourself, this was nothing but blockbuster quality but it failed as a blockbuster.

---

And, liar, you could not figure out the major plot twists in the "first 20 minutes" because there were no indicators of them. None. Those were revealed later in the film. Most blockbusters are far more predictable than this.

---

SPOILERS:

Yes, they were and pretty obvious, the white business man IS the bad guy, like EVERY OTHER MOVIE EVER and he is going to screw the indians somehow because there is something in those lands that he wants. You knew it since the little speech at the beginning and the fact that he shows interest for the female lead. Natives sitting on something that the white man needs been done a thousand times now, even in other planets. I was thinking gold, but I guess they thought that silver would be more "clever". I even thought that maybe they needed to scare the indians away because they wanted the railroad to go through the indian territory or something to cut costs, and guess what happened as one of the big plot twist later on?

If I did not saw the rail road in the middle of the desert being already build coming it's because it was established that you needed a small army of a crew and a lot of money and time to build a railroad, yet this people are able to do it without any of the Native American noticing it.

---

Numbers show a different scenario, this people loved the movie but were not able to generate enough word of mouth? How about repeat viewings?

---

There were repeat viewings, but "word of mouth" is nothing vs. the media and critics. Positive word of mouth about a political candidate is useless if the online, print and television media labels him a fool 24/7.

---

By the way, the latests Transformes movie was also critically panned and yet made a gazillion dollars. With EVERYBODY saying that it is a POS everywhere and somehow bringing crowds.

---

High tech spectacle with lots of CGI action. Bigger market for that compared to the perception of a couple of guys in the desert with a horse and gun.

---

There were repeat viewings, but "word of mouth" is nothing vs. the media and critics. Positive word of mouth about a political candidate is useless if the online, print and television media labels him a fool 24/7

---

Cyclo Rider, I know you want to believe this because you really like this movie.

Most recent studies are not supporting this.

For example, one study from Cambridge and Cologne has a clear conclusion that social media (i.e., Word of Mouth) is an overwhelming and highly accurate predictor of how well a movie is going to do. Critical reviews pale in comparison.

Another study at Iowa State shows that professional critics have no effect on post movie evaluation, and while Social Media has more, it doesn't control a movie's destiny. In other words, repeat viewings don't depend on critics or Word of Mouth.

Yet another paper (admittedly on Chinese and Asian markets, but I think people are people) shows that the four major factors in getting people in to see a movie are (1) Word of Mouth, (2) Movie Critics, (3) Star Power, and (4) Trailers. The study goes on to say that movie marketers place too much importance on Critical acceptance and not enough on Word of Mouth and Trailers.

In short, at one time movie critics ruled the roost on who went to see a movie, but Social Media has become much more important in a lot of people's minds - particularly in the younger crowd which is the prime demographic for movies like this one.

That's a why the emphasis in the last few years on a movie's "buzz," which is strictly measured in Social Media, not critical reviews.

This movie was pretty terrible. The western genre is my favorite genre. It was not a good western, it was not a good film. I won't bother to explain because you have your mind set up.

It's a good film and a good western. Just not a typical western. There is actual character development here. And it makes sense within the narrative.

Because a story has character development doesn't make it a good film. Verbinski is good, but this didn't make the cut. He always has Rango for western though.

It's a very good film and haven't seen your explanation of why it isn't.

From the top of my head.
They actually used damsel in distress scenario. (one of the biggest cliches period)
The bad guy is very much in fact a bad guy (and he's also wealthy)
Armie Hammer cannot act to save his life.
A lot of cheesy dialogue.
The jokes were flat out bad. I just felt so bad for both Depp (who I wanted to take it out of this move *big fan* and verbinski) This MOVIE NEEDS TO END. Or their careers might.
Tonto telling the story to the kid and being a narrator could've worked but it just doesn't feel right. It would've been better if verbinski simply just told the story without it.
The entire 3rd act was a mess.
This is off of the top of my head. Also Tontos dialogue was very clunky.
The film made Johnny Depp look bad. Lately not a hard thing to do. But this could've been a good western film. It could've been a good film. Went in to the film expecting to like it. Fun action/adventure film, something like Sherlock Holmes or Pirates of the Caribbean 1-3. Nope. Just a lot of low level storytelling that felt very amateurish, and lots of things felt unnecessary.
Didn't really like the unrealistic train crash in the beginning of the film.
Those were my general feelings after viewing it. What a bad film. It's a joke.

High Points.
HBC (who is always lovely even with a wooden leg)
Tonto's backstory
I really liked Armie Hammers brother in the story. His character was much more intriguing.

Ultimately I'm sorry I don't like the movie you like. I know how it feels when something you love. Someone else hates. You think these people are crazy. I love film, and I am very fair when I view something. I really wanted to like this movie. Thought I was going to. Why don't you tell me some movies you like so at least I can say well you don't have bad taste. This is just guilty pleasure to you. As for me I love the Mummy 10/10 (brendan fraser) Not considered a good film. I love it though. I don't see any flaws. That story even uses damsel in distress. (to me it just feels less cheesy) Love all the characters, constantly funny. Great film. Guilty pleasure but I love many other respected films as well. I don't forget the mummy though.

I'm no movie snob but I enjoyed the movie. This was the first time I saw the actor Armie Hammer(that has to be a stage name.No one names their son after baking soda.) He seems like an OK actor.I get the feeling the film was critically panned because of political correctness.
That's just my two cents.

He is indeed an heir to the Hammer Fortune.
Enjoyed his work in The Man from Uncle.
Liked Lone Ranger too.

This post completely lost all credibility when you ended it with "Hey, guys, I'm really, really smart!"

Your proficiency with languages, your hobbies, and your career choices have absolutely no place in this discussion.

You basically posted a big, convoluted comment about a film just to say "Hey, guys, look how great a guy I am!"

@cyclo_rider. Your review couldn't be farther from the truth. I know your trolling, but I was laughing right along with you. Lone Ranger was a horrible piece of junk that violated the character of the Lone Ranger and Tonto and Silver and Scout, in every single way. They made the Lone Ranger a stooge and Silver some kind of trick ponyliterally. This movie was a waste of time and the proof is in the ratings and box office returns. This movie couldn't decide if it was for kids, or adults, and never found the balance. This film should be deleted from all archives.

You are the troll. cyclo ryder has passionately as well as articulately made his case for this under rated classic. If a movie speaks to you that is enough to make it a success. You really need to get a life! I have a friend who, years ago, would not buy a cd(yes I'm a fossil)until it was in the Top 20. He was too insecure to trust his own judgment/tastes. You are that type of person as wella follower yech

Are you completly sarcastic here?

Tonto had his moments, other than that, this film was crap.

Brother with wife and kid, a wife who likes the other brother better, they are going out on hunt for a killer.gee, wonder what will happen? The brother may as well have said he had 2 days till retirement.

Then they walk into the most obvious ambush, one they even had a suspicion of, after this brother already knew something fishy was going on with the old white dude.

Then, we can't even let the brother die with some dignity and just get shot, nope, he still has to be alive and sit there while some SOB further humiliates him. That might work if this was some revenge movie, but the Ranger was just some sissy who no matter how many times he personally sees this pyscho kill people, still insists "we must bring him to justice".

I could go on and on about the whole film. It was just a fail, it had potential, but went nowhere. Oh, I also love how you make the crack at people's intelligence when pretty much every scene of this film was comprised of typical, lazy plot lines done in the most juvenile way.

Au contraire!
A Million Ways to Die in the West (May, 2014) not only suggests otherwise, but it could have detracted from TLR's base, and stole whatever "alternative-Western" thunder that TLR (July release) might have had.

A similar situation would be the Independence Day-Mars Attacks debacle of 1996.

____________________
The story is king.

Guardians of the Galaxy is winning every week now, with weak numbers. The Lone Ranger could have had a lot longer run this year, and built up some word of mouth.

---

Before we get started, does anyone want to get out?

---

I don't quite get what you're saying. Do you mean that this is just a weaker year for competition?
-Did that help A Million Ways to Die in the West?
-And would AMWTDITW help or hurt TLR?

And if it's a weaker year for competition, isn't that also an indication that it's just a weaker year for the box office in general, so TLR might have made less because of that. In other words, TLR might have been just part of that weaker competition for other movies, like GOTG.

____________________
The story is king.

I'm saying 2014 is a weak year at the box office because the films are worse than they were in 2013, at least in polular appeal. TLR would have had less competition this year, and theater owners might not have yanked it as quickly.

Competition didn't do this film in.

Nor did critics or word of mouth.

Its an average film ,which was over budgeted that was uneven and full of miss opportunities.

They chose the wrong brother. Having two fumbling main characters slap sticking all over the Wild West while American Indians tribes are being slaughtered and a decent Ranger had his heart cut out.

They excused Tonto red face antics with Tonto be crazy and turned a noble , driven Lone Ranger into a bumbling idiot who macked on his dead brothers wife and neither he or her cared about that said dead brother was barely a week dead.

Competition didn't do this film in, the film did this film in.

Sometimes, not even Johnny Depp mugging or big explosions and stunts can compensate for a terrible film.

Plus you could see the hidden bad guy a mile away. Oh look , rich elder gent creepy stalking the Ranger wife and trying to buy her gifts?

Whom, I wonder if he's evil.

Look in Tonto flashbacks there where two men who slaughtered the Village. Hmmmm well who else in the film so far could match the description of the second man.

And so forth.






-
In a fair universe, we would all be better people.

---

They excused Tonto red face antics with Tonto be crazy and turned a noble , driven Lone Ranger into a bumbling idiot who macked on his dead brothers wife and neither he or her cared about that said dead brother was barely a week dead.

---

This post is indefensible as the above aspects are not in the film.

The facts:

1. John Reid is a smart young city lawyer who behaved exactly as a smart young city lawyer would under the circumstances. When the story begins, John has no prior experience dealing with sadistic outlaws on the ground, but a series of traumatic events culminate in him becoming the Masked Man seen in the film's climax.

2. John Reid never hit on his dead brother's wife, nor did he have any relationship with her apart from a normal brother-in-law/sister-in-law relationship. Trying to rescue a kidnap victim (in this case his brother's widow) does not qualify as a romantic relationship. John even left Rebecca as soon as she was rescued. He had no interest in a romantic relationship with her as he explained to Tonto earlier in the film, nor does the story ever hint of one.

Re Sirus_51: "Its an average film ,which was over budgeted"

Not sure what you consider an average film, but here are a few possible examples:
-(Second weekend drops)-
The Equalizer45.1%
Gone Girl29.6%
How to Train Your Dragon 250%.
The Boxtrolls30.7%.
Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day37.6%.

Going farther back,
Zoolander (2001)38.7%.


The Lone Ranger dropped 60.6% for its second weekend, and 60.9% for its third weekend. Both of those are higher than normal drops, I believe.

If you don't think the above films are fair examples of an average film, look up any movie that you consider average and see how fast it sank in the weekend B.O.

A fast drop indicates poor word-of-mouth and low re-watching.
____________________
The story is king.

No. The effectiveness of bad media publicity on the minds of the public. All unwarranted, though. It's a great film.

I highly disagree. The Lone Ranger is one of the best photographed and stylized film this side of Avatar. It's a movie set in the Old West. People went into this movie with a lot of misconceptions about what a film should be like, what a Western should be like and especially what The Lone Ranger should be.

True.

http://goo.gl/NA95XH

I don't see why it would make a difference, the trailers looks like crap. From people I trust who have seen it the general census is it's bad. As a mentally functioning adult I can tell from a trailer if I'll like it. I know fanbois will say "But you can't tell when the obvious bad guy turns out to be betraying our beloved heroes!" and all I can say is cheap plot twists do not make a movie. I don't need to see After Earth to know I wouldn't like it, the trailer shows Jaden can't act, plus M Night Shamalamadingdong is the nonwhite Kevin Smith at this point.

Would Waterworld do better if it was released now? What about Pluto Nash?

Agreed.

A terrible film is still a terrible film. Some films are so bad no matter when you release it , its going to bomb .

The lone Ranger was one of them.


-
In a fair universe, we would all be better people.

Except there's nothing terrible about this film.

It's a GREAT film in all aspects of filmmaking. Everything about it is top notch. The climax is one of the best ever filmed and better than the climax in any Marvel movie.

A rare film that nails it across the board. Just don't expect a macho hero right away, but a film with actual character development. Inexperienced law school graduate sees his naive idealism challenged by several traumatic events that prompt his growth into the title character in the final 1/2 hour of the film. He doesn't just put on a magical mask per se. This is an intelligent film. A culmination of traumatic experiences faced by the character, not the mask, are what ultimately change John Reid from idealistic young lawyer to masked "outlaw" Lone Ranger. The change is refreshingly realistic and believable from a point A to point B perspective. The title character's spectacular emergence in the film's finale is made so much more impactful by the gradual nature of his development.

One of the best films of 2013 and one of the best blockbuster-style films of the past 20 years, IMO.

A beautifully crafted, well-written story.

Definitely would have performed better as a summer, fall or winter 2014 release.

---

Except there's nothing terrible about this film.

---

That's certainly your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

---

One of the best films of 2013 and one of the best blockbuster-style films of the past 20 years, IMO.

---

In my opinion, not even the best movie that opened in the first week of July 2013, let alone the last 20 years

---

A beautifully crafted, well-written story.

---

In my opinion, one of the most uneven, tone-deaf, predictable train wrecks (pun intended) of a film I've seen in a long time. Michael Bay makes better movies than thisin my opinion. Verbinski made a much better, more visually interesting, and better-plotted western with Rango.

---

That's certainly your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

---

The film's IMDb rating of 6.5 is most impressive considering the avalanche of negative media publicity. All publicity connected to the film was insanely negative and weak minds fell for it. Yet "10" votes outnumber "1" votes by a margin of 4-1 and the film rates a respectable 6.5. Same as Into the Woods, for example. Dare I say minus the influence of negative publicity, the film would rate a 7.5.

---

In my opinion, not even the best movie that opened in the first week of July 2013, let alone the last 20 years

---

You're wrong as evidenced by your inability to formulate a fact-based argument against the film using only its content.

---

In my opinion, one of the most uneven, tone-deaf, predictable train wrecks (pun intended) of a film I've seen in a long time.

---

I can tell you didn't see this film. Are Marvel movies not predictable? This film is less predictable than any comic book movie of the past 5 years. And you haven't provided any specifics from the film itself because you're mentally incapable or you haven't seen it? You lack credibility.

---

Michael Bay makes better movies than thisin my opinion. Verbinski made a much better, more visually interesting, and better-plotted western with Rango.

---

This is better and more intelligent filmmaking than anything Michael Bay has ever done. And more interesting than Rango which is animated.

---

The film's IMDb rating of 6.5 is most impressive considering the avalanche of negative media publicity

---

6.5 is fair. It's not great, just fair.

---

You're wrong as evidenced by your inability to formulate a fact-based argument against the film using only its content.

---

Which he did, because he said the film was an uneven scripted train wreack.

---

I can tell you didn't see this film. Are Marvel movies not predictable? This film is less predictable than any comic book movie of the past 5 years. And you haven't provided any specifics from the film itself because you're mentally incapable or you haven't seen it? You lack credibility.

---

And you lack credibiltiy the second you start insulting people for having a different opinion. But I guess it makes you feel smarter.

---

6.5 is fair. It's not great, just fair.

---

Minus the overwhelming influence of negative media publicity, this film would be rated between 7-8. As is, the perfect "10" votes outnumber the "1" votes by a 4-1 margin.

---

Which he did, because he said the film was an uneven scripted train wreack.

---

He, like you, didn't see the film. That's why you post generalized remarks with no specific content from the film itself.

---

And you lack credibiltiy the second you start insulting people for having a different opinion. But I guess it makes you feel smarter.

---

I don't respect the opinions of weak-minded people who didn't see the film, but were influenced by the media coverage and therefore mimic it.

Which he did, because he said the film was an uneven scripted train wreack.

Uneven train wreck? Why was it so hard for people to follow what was going on? Why was it so uneven? Every character has a different motivation. It's that simple. It was actually more coherent than the entirety of the Coen brothers' bloated version of True Grit. If you and the other critics of this film couldn't follow the characters, what they were doing or why they were doing it, I pity you.

No it would've done much worse

Sometimes you just gotta sit down and endure the bullsh**

Nope. Would have done much better in Summer 2014.

The box office was way down this year and most of the event films were junk.

With Edge of Tomorrow, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Guardians of The Galaxy, Fury and The Judge, this year really isn't as bad as you might think. But, The Lone Ranger is still a highly underrated Western.

TOO BAD it was ever released. Too bad there was film in the cameras.

Too bad it's rated a respectable 6.5 despite the negative media publicity. Without the influence of negative media publicity, it would rate a 7.5 at least, because it's a 7-8 caliber film.

Cyclo Rider, I completely agree with you on THE LONE RANGER. All in all, a great summer movie that many didn't understand. But you know, quirkiness and creativity always get mistaken for stupidity and cliche by dull minds.

I thought I knew a lot about the movie, but today I learned a lot more from listening to this guy's extensive review of the movie:

Defending The Lone Ranger - A Critical Re-Evalutation



He starts out with points anybody paying attention picked up on, then goes on to talk about aspects that I completely missed the first few times I watched it. For example, while I caught the ties to Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns and Arthur Penn's LITTLE BIG MAN, I completely missed how the themes of John Ford's THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE were core to the story being told.

It's a long assessment, but very in depth and worth listening to. I think you'll find it interesting. Perhaps others will as well.

"The triumph of intellect and romance over brute force and cynicism."

give it up. Big Bomb. Another in a long line of flops from Depp.





"I think fast,I talk fast,and I need you guys to act fast if you want to get out of this." THE WOLF

---

give it up. Big Bomb. Another in a long line of flops from Depp.

---

Which was preceded by a long line of hits by Depp. So what? How many billion dollar grossing movies have you headlined?

"The triumph of intellect and romance over brute force and cynicism."

Absolutely true. But you can't play that Pirate guy in every movie. Now he is on a losing streak. And the LONE RANGER was a terrible terrible movie and a big bomb.

---

Absolutely true. But you can't play that Pirate guy in every movie. Now he is on a losing streak.

---

Johnny Depp tends to play eccentrics, but not they're all different eccentrics and different performances. Jack Sparrow isn't Raoul Duke who's not Barnabas Collins who doesn't resemble Tonto or Charlie Mortdecai. Saying they're all the same doesn't make it true. It just signals to me that you're intellectually lazy.

---

And the LONE RANGER was a terrible terrible movie and a big bomb.

---

Nah, it was a great movie that bombed at the box office. I know it was great because I watched it again just the other night.

That said, there are many movies I love that bombed at the box office. Off the top of my head:

FIGHT CLUB
THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION
THE PRINCESS BRIDE
SERENITY (and the tv series it's a sequel to, FIREFLY)
STARDUST
BLADE RUNNER
BRAZIL
BLADE RUNNER
SORCERER
DUNE
KISS KISS BANG BANG
SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD
COWBOYS VS. ALIENS
THE ADVENTURES OF BARON MUNCHAUSEN
THE BROTHERS GRIMM
A KNIGHT'S TALE
RETURN TO OZ
JOHN CARTER
THE BIG RED ONE
EMPEROR OF THE NORTH
HUDSON HAWK
BRINGING UP BABY
THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES
ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST
ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA
DUCK, YOU SUCKER
THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY
BRINGING UP BABY
DARK CITY
DREDD
THE FRIGHTENERS

You get the idea. For people who are maybe afraid of having an opinion not validated by others, box office is super important. For me, a movie that bombs is often an indicator that something interesting is going on that's out of the norm and worth looking into. If you can think of some other movies that are bombs that you can recommend, I'd appreciate it.

"The triumph of intellect and romance over brute force and cynicism."

Great and Bad are subjective. You can like any movie you like. BUT, a movie that bombs at the box office, is critically reviled, and receives no peer awards (Oscars, SAG's etc), IS objectively bad. You can't argue facts.

---

Great and Bad are subjective. You can like any movie you like.

---

You should've stopped there, while you were ahead.

---

BUT, a movie that bombs at the box office, is critically reviled, and receives no peer awards (Oscars, SAG's etc), IS objectively bad. You can't argue facts.

---

Movies bomb all the time. I'm supposed to care about what everyone else thinks?

Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar. Does that mean he's a bad movie director in comparison to, I don't know, Hugh Hudson, Robert Redford, and Kevin Costner? What a load of crap.

I don't pay too much attention to the Oscars. I have a foolproof way to tell what the best and most important movies are from any given year: Which movies are people still talking about ten years on? That tells you everything you need to know.

"The triumph of intellect and romance over brute force and cynicism."

EVERYONE THINKS. That is your problem. You could be right. In 20 years this bloated garbage might be a classic. It has happened before. But when a movie is critically reviled and nobody goes to see it, the film is objectively bad.

And let me answer your last question. GONE WITH THE WIND, CASABLANCA.

There you go.