> I'd say you want an interesting but expect incredible production values Smoke was an interesting movie, and cost $7M. (It didn't make much more but it wasn't

> I'd say you want an interesting but expect incredible production values Smoke was an interesting movie, and cost $7M. (It didn't make much more but it wasn't a failure.) Moon was a fantastic movie, and cost $5M. The little CGI it had was pretty obvious but didn't affect the viewing experience. (It also made near-zero returns.) Requiem for a Dream was - and remains - an outstanding film. It flopped in box office but must have made pretty penny on home sales. Dead Man is an interesting movie, and still one of my favourites. It works on the audience for the same reason Apocalypse Now does: episodic films in general are considered "artsy" and hard to chew, but turn them into thoughtful road movies and the audience enjoys the experience. Pan's Labyrinth is just damn good. It cost €13.5 to make, and grossed $37M. Home sales must have added even more since then. All the films above are both interesting and, in terms of bloated Hollywood budgets, were cheap to make. I would take any one of them over the perfumed sewage that floods the film theaters. And for reference, I did see Doctor Strange in a cinema so I do have a metric for calibration. My opinion stands.