My Movie Review/Rant on Gone with the Wind · 11:43pm Jan 22nd, 2019
Caution: This review is something that is completely negative. If you wish to turn back, go ahead. But, if you wish to read, well...you can do that if you want. Feel free to comment, I appreciate that always.
I have two words to say about this movie, which is most likely the reason why I never bothered with an introduction.
WORST!!! MOVIE!!! IN!!! HISTORY!!!
Okay, that’s really four words, but still...it’s absolutely terrible!
The film takes place in Southern America, where it witnesses the events of the Civil War and the Reconstruction Era. The film’s protagonist is Scarlett O’Hara (played by Vivien Leigh), the strong-willed daughter of a Georgia plantation owner, who has a crush on Ashley Wilkes (played by Leslie Howard). But, he doesn’t love her in return, and he’s married to his cousin Melanie Hamilton (played by Olivia de Havilland). Along the way, Scarlett is being pursued by another man who does have a crush on her, Rhett Butler (played by Clark Gable).
I’m not gonna lie, it isn’t without its pros. I thought the performances that the cast gave their characters were really engaging, the most intriguing of them being Clark Gable’s performance as Rhett Butler.
The historical accuracy that the film had was also a nice touch, such as showing the culture of the South, the Civil War, and the Reconstruction Era.
There are also some funny moments here and there. One comedic moment for instance being that a woman was secretly using her feet to dance even though she wasn’t supposed to because she was in mourning.
But none of those pros will ever make up for how truly terrible this movie is.
Scarlett O’ Hara was completely unlikeable! She’s spoiled, greedy, a brat, and in every way selfish and mean. She kept wanting Ashley Wilkes to be the guy she would spend the rest of her life with despite the fact he doesn’t love her back, and she kept pushing away Rhett Butler, the guy who really does love her. Whatever character development she also had came in too late, because by the time she figures out she doesn’t need Ashley, loves Rhett, and completely commits to him, he leaves her!
Every character that actually was likable got taken out of the film as if director Victor Fleming hated them and wanted them dead, most notably, Scarlett’s father, her daughter, and Ashley’s wife, Melanie.
The story was very long and confusing too! The dramatic moments the film had were too intense and didn’t lead up to anything great. If Fleming’s goal was to stay true to the book in order to make people depressed and angry to the point of seeing a counselor, he certainly accomplished that!
So, in conclusion, Gone with the Wind isn’t what I would even call a classic and should never have come into existence, and if I were you, I wouldn’t see it even if my life depended on it!
As a result, I rate the movie a complete 1 1/2 out of five star rating. I might as well classify it as "Gone with the Woes" from this moment on.
Wow. And I thought my review of Simba: The King Lion was intensely negative.
I've never really seen this movie, so I can't really say one way or another if I agree here.
But remember this: there are things out there much worse than this. Like the afore mentioned Lion King knockoff.
I've actually come to look forward to seeing your movie reviews. I hope I can keep up my own. Nice work!
So, you like the performances and the setting, but you don't like the plot and character aspect of it. I can see how that would translate. I have a dislike for movies like that too, like Jane Austin movies or Disney Live-action remakes.
I haven’t seen this, and if I ever do, it will only be because of how famous it is. It might be nice to be able to say that I’ve seen it, but it sounds terrible, even before reading this review. I still don’t see why so many people seem to think it’s somehow one of the best movies, it certainly doesn’t seem that good, even if it’s not as bad as I expect.
Either you love Gone With The Wind or you hate it.
And whichever you feel tends to be a generational thing.
Your statement was excessively exaggerated. Because you're nothing like your older people from the the 20s or behind. The bad side with this movie is that's what some women are back in the day, exaggerated or not. They're quite spoiled, frivolous, impetous, somewhat seductive and/or high and mighty, more so the artistoes. Character development wasn't a thing in that time period. It's 100% drama, it's just pure crying and all hat no cattle behaviour from those people. It's also glorifying life back in the Civil War while butting in stereo depictions of blacks, with sex to add chili on the jalapeño pie. Heck even Rarity herself or even Spoiled Rich might get a taste for this type o' photoplay, while at the same time contemplating what's the bad side with her aristo-oriented lifestyle. That's one of the genre of movies on that time period. Conversely for contemporary critics it's one of the greatest classics in history. But frankly my friend, I don't know if you give a damn.
5001114
I saw what you did there
5001114
I will have to disagree with you on that, mostly.
5001320
Your statement of Worst Movie in History is still an overstatement. Because you're a millennial like us, your taste for the old are different from that of most old people.
5001534
There are actually many movies from the early 1900s’ that I do like. This film just isn’t one of them.
5001540
It's 100% drama. Surely you complain about it while conversely these old people can grasp its artistic style. In light of your disagreement, movies in that time period do not harbour sequels, and thus don't give time with character development, or those movies intentionally omit character development at all, some of those movies are love dramas or perhaps some musicals. But that's what aristo-brats are back in the day, dramatic or realistic. They're spoiled like ponies of Canterlot. They keep slaves because they live in the south. In spite, that Scarlett girl was created and made that way to intensity the drama and tragedy like it was some sort of Greek play. It's 100% drama, all hat no cattle, for old or grown up people who are used to this type of aesthetic, but most young people like us have polarizing opinions presented on it. There are many different types of drama, people simply find ways to intensity them, at times at the expense of something significant. Seeing as constructive criticism is my preference over slightly exaggerated ranting, you may have to do the next review on the so-called "greatest movie ever made", Citizen Kane, starring Orson Welles.
5001557
How is my review exaggerated, entirely?
I thought it was really constructive.
5001560
There's a difference between criticism and ranting. Everything you said here was actually destructive criticism. The thing is it's executed like a kid pouting about scary movies. Trust me I've seen a lot doing this style. Criticism involves constructive judgement on a critical level on something, while proposing ways on how to improve such artwork. Ranting on the other hand, often employs exaggerated objections about something they don't like. The emphasis is more on the negative side with poor to medium judgement on the positive. Worst movie ever, absolute garbage, it sould never exist, etc. etc, those are the overstated terms often used by ranters. It's like you put more blazing fire on fire that fights the ice rather than intensify both the ice and fire that's the work of art. Or you put whip cream on an Oreo cookie with the cream being the bad and the cookies sandwiching the cream the good. If anything, you should reconsider this whole thing and try not calling it it's absolutely bad. This movie is a masterpiece, but what's a product without its flaws. I too was critical on it. I saw everything up there and it actually does live up what you say is a "rant". The next time you review such, don't just say or act something on impluse and jump straight to a point. Destructive criticism works by demoralizing a work of art thus discouraging the artist and damaging his or her reputation, or if he or she is dead, disgrumbling a devoted group of people. Usually the source of flame wars and cancerous trolls on the Internet is because of demoralizing rants of something with flaws. Seeing I don't wanna instigate atrocity, you said it yourself you'd appreciate anything here. So don't get yourself fired up. I'm a conservative Brony and one of the reasons I was trying to stay austere as a fan is avoidance of negative influence and the avoidance of ranting, choosing constructive judgment over D-riding or demoralizing MLP. But don't get me wrong, we do not want travesty on this site. I can be a bit reckless, but my brother used to be a user of "Paulli" and I kicked him out because of his bizarre, erratic and dirty history of comments.
5001005
Who’s Jane Austin?
5003207
She wrote Pride and Prejudice. I think it's boring and doesn't make sense.
5001572
For the record, I’m not a millennial. I was born in 1999.