You should ask yourself how you could get so irate that you deluded yourself into thinking that pointing out that reviewers weren't taking dictation was somehow a rebuttal.
That's a caricature of my argument that you've repeated twice now, not the one I've been making. You claimed that the movie reviewing system was "amazingly corrupted." For this to be true, you would expect the Hollywood studios to be able to exert enough influence to be able to get good reviews for bad movies. By and large, however, they can't even get mixed reviews for those movies, which is why studios regularly release bad movies without screening them to critics. I'm sorry I even brought up the manufactured film critic, which you've fixated on as a way of eliding this point.
This debate began when you claimed that movie reviewers were required by the studios to omit certain items in their reviews. This surprised me, and I asked for evidence of its veracity. So far, you've provided none. It still interests me, however, and I'd be happy to read about it if you can direct my attention to the appropriate place.
The rest of your post seems to be under the impression that I have ambitions to be a part of the film industry (I once did, but haven't for several years), as well as arguing over semantics. Scratch reaction for observation if you'd like. My point is no different.
Lastly, I've done my best to keep this conversation respectful. However, this is difficult when you see fit to call me "irate" and "deluded." I might very well be the latter, but I draw exception to the former.
Er, both "Chinatown" and "Bonnie and Clyde" are amazing movies and I love to watch them both. "Easy Rider" not so much, too much a product of its time, dated, and mostly plotless.
Easy Rider is mostly plotless, but I can't help but enjoy it. It has a rocking soundtrack, and a great supporting turn from Jack Nicholson.
Bonnie and Clyde, as influential as it is, has always bored me. I should probably view it again at some point.
The movie in question? Stealth!
