I just wanted to get some ideas and debate flowin'.

My take on this is mostly NO, nothing EXCEPT for some black comedies (Dr. Strangelove, The Loved One, Harold and Maude, Eating Raoul, Parents, Heathers) and a couple of quirky films (Rushmore and Ghost World).

I'm not counting junk-food movies, no matter how well done (X-Men, Lord of the Rings).

I just think Hollywood is in it for the bucks, not for the quality. It's a business, right, and they exist to make money (or to "put asses in seats" as I think Neal Stephenson wrote), so they aren't too concerned about being remembered 100 years hence for phenomenal films.

Not looking to make a flame war outta this, just looking for opinions.

Lords of Salem was incredibly psychedelic and cryptic--the kind of film that they don't make anymore and that rubs a lot of modern audiences the wrong way without everything being predicable and spelled all out for you. Definitely a cut above the rest and goes right where almost all modern horror films since the 80's have gone wrong.

Steven Soderbergh's Impassioned 'State of Cinema' Address

My Cousin Vinny. I just rewatched it....and it was good.

Hey, what about Videodrome?

Hah, mebbe not. ;)

no?

Star Trek

Okay, I finally thought of some titles. Blade Runner and Apocalypse Now. I don't think anyone would deny that those two are classics.

I went to Target last night (I was that bored.), I got to thinking about how radically different it used to be.Target and Wal-Mart , as well as K-Mart , of course , were real pits compared to what they've become (Lest anyone think I'm part of the problem , I've been in ONE WAL-MART IN THE LAST 28 YEARS.), tho' at least Wal - Mart had stuff like The Fleshtones ' first album and a big rack of 50'S AND 60's reissue 45s. In MEXICO , THEY STILL HAVE wOOLWORTHS ! tHE ONE IN pUERTO vALLARTA LOOKS JUST LIKE A tARGET IN 1975. 
 
dave said:

Yeah, remember the $1 movies, second-run? The Wal-Mart effect is very real, the big boys control the pond and the fishes...

I can't find anything online to support this, but a few years ago I heard that there's actually a limit on how many foreign movies can come into America in a given year. Can anyone give any information on that?
John Battles said:

It IS The Wal - Mart effect......Almost nothing gets into American theatres (Again , barring Blink - and - you'll miss 'em "Limited Engagements".) anymore if it's not predesigned to be a fucking blockbuster . Then , when it's gone (Mercifully) , it's gone. The days of second run theatres , and a movie making back it's intial investment before it's grossed enough to feed , clothe and house the entire population of West Malaysia for an entire year , are over. There may be a second - run house here and there , where you can see a movie that came out last month for less than $10 , but they're going the way of the Drive- in , and that's a damn shame. 

Since the 60s!  Of course! Way, way to many to list.  Besides, the 60s, while my favorite decade for music, might be my least favorite decade for film.

Hey John, I've seen "Dirty Shame" !!! And, yes, it was funny !

Faaaaaaaaar funnier than anything Jarmusch or Lynch have ever filmed (well, in fact the chicken in Eraserhead was quite funny but I'm still not sure he wanted it to be funny...).

John Waters rules !!!

John Battles said:

I'm drawing a blank. Who did "Night on Earth" and/or "Mulholland Drive"? Like him , too.

But , JOHN WATERS STILL DOES A MOVIE EVERY 5 TO 10 YEARS. "DIRTY SHAME " WAS HILARIOUS , AND VIRTUALLY NO ONE I'VE SPOKEN TO HAS SEEN IT.

One more thing to kick myself for, Scorcese's After Hours. Great black comedy. Really wish more people would do this type of stuff. Plus, he did that documentary on Fran Lebowitz, which is great, she always is.

Those are 2 of my favorite (prolly the faves) Waters movies!! They were 'family-friendly' but only up to a point. He says that was the most power he's ever had over his Hollywood movies. Cry Baby had a small army of stars and a decent budget, but the studio was wise enough not to fuck with his ideas while he was making it.

I guess they were popular enough that he could do both a re-make and a musical of Hairspray. That's good to know, right?
John Battles said:

I almost forgot about Cecil B. Demented. I liked that , too....I can't even remember if I saw "Serial Mom" all the way through .  But , Waters , for about 20 years  , has been making inroads to the mainstream , with varying degrees of success. Even "Hairspray" and "Cry Baby" only nominally reference the sleaze master of yore. I did'nt care , they're both funny as Hell. And , I don't even know that either did that much action at the box office , when they came out.
 
dave said:

Will do! I've loved everything I've seen by him so far, tho' I wasn't too crazy about Serial Mom. Cecil B. Demented made me laugh by poking fun at the indy film movement.

Yeah, remember the $1 movies, second-run? The Wal-Mart effect is very real, the big boys control the pond and the fishes...

I can't find anything online to support this, but a few years ago I heard that there's actually a limit on how many foreign movies can come into America in a given year. Can anyone give any information on that?
John Battles said:

It IS The Wal - Mart effect......Almost nothing gets into American theatres (Again , barring Blink - and - you'll miss 'em "Limited Engagements".) anymore if it's not predesigned to be a fucking blockbuster . Then , when it's gone (Mercifully) , it's gone. The days of second run theatres , and a movie making back it's intial investment before it's grossed enough to feed , clothe and house the entire population of West Malaysia for an entire year , are over. There may be a second - run house here and there , where you can see a movie that came out last month for less than $10 , but they're going the way of the Drive- in , and that's a damn shame. 

True. These guys should go the R. Rodriguez route and make a video movie on shoe-string budget, then put it in at Sundance. Small loans from friends, family, bank, even that Internet brain-storm thing (brainfart, name escapes me)...

Lutz Vipinderwoman said:

I don't consider "Hollywood film" in the least bit a nebulous reference. Just because a film studio or director may be based in Los Angeles, for example, doesn't make the director or film a Hollywood production. It's a matter of contracts and production that make the definition clear. Example of a Hollywood production: MGM, Touchstone, Paramount, Warner Brothers, Walt Disney Studios, etc. I don't happen to think Lion's Gate or any of its subsidiaries (Trimark, Mandate, Artisan) an independent film company, though that's what they like to label themselves for whatever reason. It's the Wal-Mart effect. Everything that was once original gets bought out by the big Lion. Some of the production companies named above actually started in Canada. It really bothers me to see that in this country, which is exactly why the very clearly diminishing ACTUAL independent film maker (or actual independent production company) in the United States is growing ever rare. It's like every other product in this country. Anything that has been around for 100 years in this country will tend to have its tentacles everywhere.

I almost forgot about Cecil B. Demented. I liked that , too....I can't even remember if I saw "Serial Mom" all the way through .  But , Waters , for about 20 years  , has been making inroads to the mainstream , with varying degrees of success. Even "Hairspray" and "Cry Baby" only nominally reference the sleaze master of yore. I did'nt care , they're both funny as Hell. And , I don't even know that either did that much action at the box office , when they came out.
 
dave said:

Will do! I've loved everything I've seen by him so far, tho' I wasn't too crazy about Serial Mom. Cecil B. Demented made me laugh by poking fun at the indy film movement.

It IS The Wal - Mart effect......Almost nothing gets into American theatres (Again , barring Blink - and - you'll miss 'em "Limited Engagements".) anymore if it's not predesigned to be a fucking blockbuster . Then , when it's gone (Mercifully) , it's gone. The days of second run theatres , and a movie making back it's intial investment before it's grossed enough to feed , clothe and house the entire population of West Malaysia for an entire year , are over. There may be a second - run house here and there , where you can see a movie that came out last month for less than $10 , but they're going the way of the Drive- in , and that's a damn shame. 

I don't consider "Hollywood film" in the least bit a nebulous reference. Just because a film studio or director may be based in Los Angeles, for example, doesn't make the director or film a Hollywood production. It's a matter of contracts and production that make the definition clear. Example of a Hollywood production: MGM, Touchstone, Paramount, Warner Brothers, Walt Disney Studios, etc. I don't happen to think Lion's Gate or any of its subsidiaries (Trimark, Mandate, Artisan) an independent film company, though that's what they like to label themselves for whatever reason. It's the Wal-Mart effect. Everything that was once original gets bought out by the big Lion. Some of the production companies named above actually started in Canada. It really bothers me to see that in this country, which is exactly why the very clearly diminishing ACTUAL independent film maker (or actual independent production company) in the United States is growing ever rare. It's like every other product in this country. Anything that has been around for 100 years in this country will tend to have its tentacles everywhere.

If it looks or sounds intriguing I'll see it, big studio or not, Mega-plex or Aht-House theatre. It's just the content that I'm thinkin' of, myself.

John Battles said:

My personal definition of "Hollywood" does'nt exclude any American Directors that can get their movies screen in a first run , or less pretentious and/ or literally off the beaten path art house. Even "Art House" cinema has a different connotation than it used to.

Maybe I was generalizing putting directors like Jarmusch or Waters (Who , with the exception of "Dirty  Shame" , has been doing far more mainstream pictures in recent years , but, I liked most of them (Pecker, Serial Mom...) ) in the "Hollywood" bracket , but , to me , if it gets shown in a theatre I don't have to spend an hour ,  hour and a half,  getting to , it's probably still Hollywood on some level. 
 
Lutz Vipinderwoman said:

I'm not sure whether I'd categorize Jarmusch & Lynch as "Hollywood." Lynch yes, lately tho' less so, but Jarmusch and Waters? I don't consider them to be Hollywood directors. Well, in that case since I'm pretty sure Hesher (2010) was indie-film candy money via Hollywood production, it did make me laugh, but it annoyed me in it's Hollywood formulaic way of insulting the audience's intelligence by non-explanation, completely unlikely scenarios and the obvious bullshit pathos via a deficient means of trying to be funny at the same time. There are lots of Asian films that seem very over-the-top with the histrionics, but can still elicit emotion from the audience. That's good storytelling. Hollywood films have lost that ability long, long ago...all shock value and special effects start to wear as time goes by.

I actually have very low expectations where Hollywood films are concerned and generally tend to pass them, unless it's something playing at a 2nd-run movie theater. . .I saw Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey at such a theater. I was genuinely interested in it. It was a 169-minute video game/chase scene though; I know that war after war and only men (yes 1 female main character in the whole film) made it true to that part of the actual story, but it just seemed to me it was all the directors "going through the motions" and substance was lacking, though the cinematography was good (I say good, not excellent). I saw a bit about the making of this film previous to seeing it and it just looked like a whole bunch of people working on this film and rushing to meet a deadline. I don't see that as inspired film-making and the end product proves it.

I've heard non-Hollywood actors/actresses who come to work in Hollywood say they did one film and had to leave because the atmosphere was "toxic." I believe that. I also saw Mike Myers in an interview say that he did not want to do another Austin Powers film after the 2nd one and was followed, harassed and basically bullied (in full mafioso style) until he would finally put out the final Austin Powers film, Goldmember, (I did genuinely like all the Austin Powers films). If this is how the Hollywood producers treat actual talent, I don't want to support them. Of course, the documentary Girl 27 (2007) pretty much confirmed to me that Hollywood has always been a grand Cosa Nostra since day 1.

Will do! I've loved everything I've seen by him so far, tho' I wasn't too crazy about Serial Mom. Cecil B. Demented made me laugh by poking fun at the indy film movement.

My personal definition of "Hollywood" does'nt exclude any American Directors that can get their movies screen in a first run , or less pretentious and/ or literally off the beaten path art house. Even "Art House" cinema has a different connotation than it used to.

Maybe I was generalizing putting directors like Jarmusch or Waters (Who , with the exception of "Dirty  Shame" , has been doing far more mainstream pictures in recent years , but, I liked most of them (Pecker, Serial Mom...) ) in the "Hollywood" bracket , but , to me , if it gets shown in a theatre I don't have to spend an hour ,  hour and a half,  getting to , it's probably still Hollywood on some level. 
 
Lutz Vipinderwoman said:

I'm not sure whether I'd categorize Jarmusch & Lynch as "Hollywood." Lynch yes, lately tho' less so, but Jarmusch and Waters? I don't consider them to be Hollywood directors. Well, in that case since I'm pretty sure Hesher (2010) was indie-film candy money via Hollywood production, it did make me laugh, but it annoyed me in it's Hollywood formulaic way of insulting the audience's intelligence by non-explanation, completely unlikely scenarios and the obvious bullshit pathos via a deficient means of trying to be funny at the same time. There are lots of Asian films that seem very over-the-top with the histrionics, but can still elicit emotion from the audience. That's good storytelling. Hollywood films have lost that ability long, long ago...all shock value and special effects start to wear as time goes by.

I actually have very low expectations where Hollywood films are concerned and generally tend to pass them, unless it's something playing at a 2nd-run movie theater. . .I saw Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey at such a theater. I was genuinely interested in it. It was a 169-minute video game/chase scene though; I know that war after war and only men (yes 1 female main character in the whole film) made it true to that part of the actual story, but it just seemed to me it was all the directors "going through the motions" and substance was lacking, though the cinematography was good (I say good, not excellent). I saw a bit about the making of this film previous to seeing it and it just looked like a whole bunch of people working on this film and rushing to meet a deadline. I don't see that as inspired film-making and the end product proves it.

I've heard non-Hollywood actors/actresses who come to work in Hollywood say they did one film and had to leave because the atmosphere was "toxic." I believe that. I also saw Mike Myers in an interview say that he did not want to do another Austin Powers film after the 2nd one and was followed, harassed and basically bullied (in full mafioso style) until he would finally put out the final Austin Powers film, Goldmember, (I did genuinely like all the Austin Powers films). If this is how the Hollywood producers treat actual talent, I don't want to support them. Of course, the documentary Girl 27 (2007) pretty much confirmed to me that Hollywood has always been a grand Cosa Nostra since day 1.

right ! i WAS THINKING OF LYNCH , TOO. Did'nt mean to snub him....

See , there ya go. "Dirty Shame " , PLAYED THE FIRST RUN THEATRES , AND NO ONE HAS SEEN OR HEARD OF IT.....Here's some free advice for everybody - Buy or rent the UNCENSORED "DIRTY SHAME" (IT WAS ORIGINALLY RELEASED IN AN EDITED OR "Neutered " version , but people with sense demanded the durty version , which also has a documentary where Waters explains all the kinks mentioned in the film (Hey , I had'nt heard of some of them.), AND SOME THAT ARE'NT (The look on his face when he  tries to tell the camera that Dirty Sanchez and The Hot Karl never existed is priceless !).......
 
dave said:

Jarmusch did Night On Earth, and David Lynch did Mulholland Drive (which I've yet to see).

Yeah, and Waters is also a good example, tho' he wants to do a children's movie next! I'd say he's used himself up at that point! John Waters: Subversive Success

Haven't seen (or heard!) of Dirty Shame, but that sounds more up my alley.

All good examples, thanks for reminding me.

John Battles said:

I'm drawing a blank. Who did "Night on Earth" and/or "Mulholland Drive"? Like him , too.

But , JOHN WATERS STILL DOES A MOVIE EVERY 5 TO 10 YEARS. "DIRTY SHAME " WAS HILARIOUS , AND VIRTUALLY NO ONE I'VE SPOKEN TO HAS SEEN IT.

True. Good stuff is where you find it, but while these folks we've been talking about can move back and forth, I do think they are the exceptions. And I think Soderbergh may have made his last unusual film, most of the last few don't seem to be pushing the boundaries.

There's Sturgeon's Law: 98% of everything is crap. It's getting harder (it seems to me) to find more films that stand out from the pack.

Grazianohmygod said:

I think the Hollywood label is a bit hard to define.

A lot of the filmmakers mentioned in this thread have the unique distinction of being able to intermingle with the Hollywood sphere while still being labeled "independent." Lynch, Waters, Jarmusch, and Wes Anderson all remain somewhat separated from mainstream cinema, but that doesn't mean that a major studio won't produce or distribute one of their films.

Soderbergh is the one that operates most within the Hollywood tradition, but he still makes whatever he damn well pleases, whether it's a three hour movie about Che Guevera or the latest Ocean's 11 sequel.

I think a lot of good stuff has come out since the sixties. Some of it was produced by the Hollywood system, a lot of it was produced independently and then co-opted or distributed by Hollywood. Any time you're gonna talk about an artistic medium, you're going to find about 75% of it is garbage and 25% of it is worthwhile. The same goes for movies made before the 1960's. Lots of junk out there, but some wonderful stuff if you know where to find it.

Agreed. I prefer Asian films and the odd film from Europe. Even if it's a violent film (like Korean Park Chan-Wook's revenge trilogy Oldboy/Sympathy For Mr. Revenge/Lady Revenge) they can do a better job of every aspect: story-telling, cinematography, etc.

Hadn't heard of Girl 27, but I'm looking forward to seeing it, thanks.

I do like films that make me laugh, there just don't seem to be many of them. I thought Mystery Men, against all odds, was both clever and funny. Saw the first Austin Powers (and Wayne's World) and got a kick out of both.

Yes, I would agree that H'wood lost the ability to tell a story well long ago.

Lutz Vipinderwoman said:

I'm not sure whether I'd categorize Jarmusch & Lynch as "Hollywood." Lynch yes, lately tho' less so, but Jarmusch and Waters? I don't consider them to be Hollywood directors. Well, in that case since I'm pretty sure Hesher (2010) was indie-film candy money via Hollywood production, it did make me laugh, but it annoyed me in it's Hollywood formulaic way of insulting the audience's intelligence by non-explanation, completely unlikely scenarios and the obvious bullshit pathos via a deficient means of trying to be funny at the same time. There are lots of Asian films that seem very over-the-top with the histrionics, but can still elicit emotion from the audience. That's good storytelling. Hollywood films have lost that ability long, long ago...all shock value and special effects start to wear as time goes by.

I actually have very low expectations where Hollywood films are concerned and generally tend to pass them, unless it's something playing at a 2nd-run movie theater. . .I saw Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey at such a theater. I was genuinely interested in it. It was a 169-minute video game/chase scene though; I know that war after war and only men (yes 1 female main character in the whole film) made it true to that part of the actual story, but it just seemed to me it was all the directors "going through the motions" and substance was lacking, though the cinematography was good (I say good, not excellent). I saw a bit about the making of this film previous to seeing it and it just looked like a whole bunch of people working on this film and rushing to meet a deadline. I don't see that as inspired film-making and the end product proves it.

I've heard non-Hollywood actors/actresses who come to work in Hollywood say they did one film and had to leave because the atmosphere was "toxic." I believe that. I also saw Mike Myers in an interview say that he did not want to do another Austin Powers film after the 2nd one and was followed, harassed and basically bullied (in full mafioso style) until he would finally put out the final Austin Powers film, Goldmember, (I did genuinely like all the Austin Powers films). If this is how the Hollywood producers treat actual talent, I don't want to support them. Of course, the documentary Girl 27 (2007) pretty much confirmed to me that Hollywood has always been a grand Cosa Nostra since day 1.