21st Century Hollywood: Bad, but overrated?

Mark Wood79 said:I mean, Americans have definitely imported a ton of "intellectual property" from Europe over the years, picking up plenty of ideas, but I wouldn't go quite that far.
The father of Hollywood is still D.W. Griffith, whose "Intolerance" had a massive impact on major European figures like Fritz Lang, Carl Theodor Dreyer, or Sergei Eisenstein, so I guess you could say the influence flows both ways.

It's just about building on existing ideas, really. It doesn't matter where you started.

Anyway, here's a link to a six-part documentary series that covers his work in Europe.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115134/...dits#directors

It’s a pretty deep dive into how film evolved, packed with tons of examples and clips.

Anyways, this whole list is just a byproduct of that "everything American is trash, everything else is peak" mentality...

Look, I’m all for skipping the mindless blockbusters, but honestly, which other industry has actually pulled off something better? Like, name me a crime flick that tops The Godfather...

Richard Wilson4 said:Either way, this whole list just stems from that "everything American is trash, everything else is gold" mindset...

Look, I'm totally against mindless blockbusters too—but honestly, which film industry has actually produced something better? Like, name one crime flick that tops >...

Take France, for example...

Nicholas Walker3 said:for instance, France......

Which ones specifically? I am genuinely curious about what you would pick! 🙂

Roger Allen3 said:Which ones specifically? I'm actually curious about what you'd pick 🙂

Rififi, Le Samouraï, and Borsalino are just a few of the absolute best crime flicks out there... I don't really do rankings, but these are definitely up there with The Godfather—and there are plenty more!

So, why the interest in my specific picks? 🙂

That initial list is quite peculiar; I haven't encountered anything quite like it before.🙄
I find it hard to believe any critics from New York or Los Angeles would ever put something like this together.
It feels as though Chicago is desperately trying to outdo everyone else in the US.
I can't help but wonder what exactly those folks over at the Chicago Sun-Times were thinking.🤷

Nicholas Walker3 said:Rififi, Le Samouraï, and Borsalino are just a few of the absolute best crime flicks out there... I don't really rank movies, but these are definitely up there with The Godfather, and there are plenty more!

But why specifically my picks? 🙂

Well, there are a few of you here who really know your stuff when it comes to French cinema, and I value your opinions. I'm just looking for some recommendations on what to watch after Le Cercle Rouge.😁

I'm honestly surprised—thanks for the kind words... though with JPM, I should have expected it. He definitely spends enough time diving into those "communist" films by Jules Dassin, who actually shot stuff for Americans before being chased off to Europe!

silentpilot6 said:It all comes down to how you approach the issue at hand...
we're constantly bombarded by Hollywood movies where most of them are absolute garbage or just mindless blockbusters designed solely to squeeze out a few extra bucks... on the flip side, when some European or Asian film makes its way over here, they tend to be genuinely high-quality gems. Because of that, we have this tendency to put every other foreign cinema on a pedestal, completely forgetting that European and Asian films aren't immune to crap, trash, or pure stupidity.
If we watched as many non-American films as we watch American ones, we’d probably run into just as much nonsense... 🤷

I'm inclined to agree with Legion here.

Regarding the list, the lack of clear criteria bugs me too—mostly because I actually want to check out these lesser-known films, but I'd enjoy it a whole lot more if the author explained *why* these movies are supposed to be great instead of just asking us to take their word for it. :Skeptik:

Is it actually true that in America they just churn out these $100 million blockbusters designed solely to compete for box office dominance by targeting the eighteen-to-twenty-something demographic? Honestly, for anyone sitting in their 40s, 50s, or 60s, isn't that just incredibly stupid? Most of what they produce is just comic book adaptations, animation, or some flashy high-tech spectacle aimed at the masses, all while bragging about massive profits and huge payouts, but when you finally step back and look at the big picture, I still find Hollywood to be the best—and mind you, that’s just my own subjective take.

Dennis Sullivan46 said:It’s true that in America they make movies with $100 million budgets just to compete on earnings, mostly targeting an audience between eight and twenty years old. For someone who's 40, 50, or 60, it feels pretty mindless. Most of the time it's just comic book adaptations, animations, or high-tech spectacles aimed at the masses—all about mass success and the money they raked in. But when you add it all up, personally, I still think Hollywood is the best, and I should mention that's just my subjective opinion.

Right, that subjective opinion of yours... your handle is practically a warning label... a thousand fireflies flying through the night, why would anyone think anything else? 😉

Anyways... I talk to people here quite often about European, Asian, and very frequently Latin American films, and those discussions inevitably lead to comparisons like this... what is the one film from that specific country or region that strips a society down to its bones the way "American Beauty" does? Or, give me just one damn sci-fi production from those regions that hits the level of "The Matrix"... or maybe a film that speaks of war through devastating visual poetry like "The Thin Red Line"... or just give me a work of pure genius like Lynch's "Inland Empire"... I'm still waiting for an answer.

Sure, the discussion might veer off into other topics that Hollywood doesn't touch—things an Asian film might handle perfectly fine—but my own little explanation (that is, my explanation) which I cling to like a drunk to a pier, is that a rating for those kinds of films is often accompanied by an unspoken, ever-present "well, considering what this is and who made it, it's brilliant"—it's almost like affirmative action applied to cinema.

Mind you, I don't want it to seem like I have something against European cinema... there's good and bad there too, but I often feel like I simply have to shift my criteria when watching a European film just to meet the basic requirements for it to be classified as watchable, let alone a masterpiece.

So... yeah... that's that.

Gerald Barrett25 said:I mean, take my subjective opinion if you want... honestly, given your username... there are a thousand reasons why someone would think otherwise 😉

Anyways... I find myself chatting with folks here quite often about European, Asian, and—very frequently—Latin American cinema. In those debates, we inevitably end up making comparisons along these lines: which film from a specific country or region dissects and exposes its society to the core the way "American Beauty" does? Or, just give me one—just one damn sci-fi flick from those regions that hits the level of "The Matrix"... or maybe a film that captures the devastation of war through visual poetry like "The Thin Red Line"... or even a work of pure genius on par with David Lynch's "Inland Empire"... I'm still waiting for an answer.

Sure, the conversation might drift toward topics that Hollywood doesn't touch—things an Asian film might handle perfectly—but my personal explanation (that is, my take, which I hold onto like a drunk holds a lamp post) is that the rating of such films is almost always accompanied by this ever-present sentiment: "Well, considering what this film is about and who made it, it's brilliant"—it’s almost like affirmative action applied to filmmaking.

Now, mind you, I don't want anyone thinking I have something against European cinema... I have my issues here and there, sure, but it often feels like I simply have to adjust my criteria when watching a European film just to meet the bare minimum requirements for it to be classified as "watchable," let alone a masterpiece.

So... yeah... that's about it.

"American Beauty" isn't actually that special... personally, I prefer "Ice Storm" (1997) on that subject... "Beauty" has that unnecessary element: the narrator...
and if you want to see society being dissected, look at early Pier Paolo Pasolini, or Fassbinder, or Godard, or a whole bunch of them.

"The Matrix" is a fun enough flick, but it's a bit too much "boom-crash"... check out "Stalker" instead; that is true sci-fi and layers of depth—compared to that, "The Matrix" is like San Remo compared to Richard Wagner or Bach.

"The Thin Red Line" is a great film, true... it should have swept the Oscars... but take a look at this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091251/ maybe one of the two or three best war movies ever made.

As for "Inland Empire"... well, it's tough to find anything remotely similar to Lynch, just as it's hard to find anything like Abbas Kiarostami, Theo Angelopoulos, or Jancs... he's one of those brilliant Americans who carries more of a European vibe than an American one anyway.

You've listed two mediocre films and two absolute gems... it's all a matter of taste, I suppose... so, really, the only area where Hollywood truly stands above the rest is the sheer amount of cash they throw at things. Everything else is a much longer discussion filled with beautiful cinematic gems from all over the world.

I don't know about you guys, but I honestly feel like we’re confusing quality with sheer quantity here, when at the end of the day, the result ends up being roughly the same. Personally, I don't think Hollywood is actually as bad as people claim; I think it all comes down to the math (just some rough numbers I'm throwing out here):

Americans might churn out 500 movies a year. Out of those, maybe 10 are absolute masterpieces. If I watch 100 films, I'll probably catch all 10 geniuses, 50 mediocre ones, and 40 total flops.

Meanwhile, the French (for example) might only make 40 movies a year. Of those, 5 are brilliant. I'll likely watch all 5 of those gems (based on recommendations, obviously) plus another 10 average ones.

So, logically, I’m going to praise the French. It’s hard to miss the mark with them, mostly because they don't produce the kind of mindless comedies or poorly made action flicks that you see in the States. What reaches the average viewer from countries outside of America is usually the cream of the crop, whereas what floods out of America is often just straight-up trash. I really think that's the crux of the matter. 🤷

Anyway, I'm not trying to start an argument 🙂, but I feel like only those who have seen maybe 20-30% of American cinema—while having seen over 70% of everything else—have any right to say that America is terrible and Peru, or wherever else, is superior. But I doubt many will actually do that, because if they did, they'd just pick the best stuff from America and end up buying into some failed stories from Peru. Mark my words. (It's why most of you find American indie cinema a disaster, while I, as a Canadian, can pick out a few gems and be perfectly happy.)

So, it's a bit ridiculous to claim America is entirely bad and France is entirely good. Everything has its bright spots and its dark moments; it's just a question of which ones we happen to encounter more often. And just to be clear, I'm not some huge fan of Hollywood, but I'm trying to be objective. ☕

Sure, money plays a role, of course, but let's just imagine for a second that it isn't the deciding factor.

@Jessica Nguyen85

If you want to be taken seriously in these deep discussions—honestly—you’ve still got quite a way to go. This kind of response is exactly what I’d expect from someone who’s only seen maybe "ten" films—and by that, I mean a solid 50 at most—that aren't massive blockbusters (I'm talking a couple of hits from South America, some Asian horror flicks, and the occasional European indie)........

Looking at those two replies above mine, I can see exactly what you're missing...........there's Kobayashi, Melville, Wong Kar-wai, and dozens more names that could go on forever!

I honestly feel like movies being made today just don't hold a candle to the stuff coming out of the 60s and 70s...

I should probably point out one crucial thing: production and distribution are exponentially more powerful now than they used to be, which means there’s a massive flood of content hitting screens constantly; and since there's always been a higher volume of garbage than greatness, we’ve ended up with a much larger pile of mediocre films to sift through.
On the flip side, maybe great cinema just isn't given the reverence it once was, though that doesn't mean those masterpieces have stopped existing—you just have to know where to look and how to spot them.
And let’s be real, some films only truly earn their respect after years of sitting in the shadows, right?
Lately, I’ve actually found myself revisiting my favorite films from this decade, and even as someone who considers himself a total film snob, I’ve surprised myself by how much I actually enjoyed certain titles.

Then there’s the issue of ideas. It’s not just about movies; it applies to any form of art, really. Humans are limited creatures, and in the early days of literature, film, music, and everything else, true ideas weren't really "out there"—they weren't being shouted from the rooftops or laid out for public debate by people thinking in isolation. Over time, those ideas became tangible, eventually wearing thin until they turned into nothing more than tired, muddy stereotypes, making it incredibly difficult—practically impossible—to find something genuinely fresh; perhaps the only thing left is to present an old idea in a completely original way. Have we hit our creative ceiling? Of course not, it’s simply a matter of the era currently dominating the human psyche. There are still absolute masterpieces out there, but nowadays, people seem less interested in the story itself and more obsessed with technological bells and whistles, which is understandable given how virtualized everything has become; physical reality is out of fashion, our gray matter is being undervalued, and the emphasis is placed on things that aren't even real. The real question is: when will entirely new ideas emerge that can shatter this environment while still managing to exist within it?

But looking at it concretely, there are plenty of excellent films out there, and I believe every decade has its own specific charm that deserves to be studied as such. You could claim every modern bestseller is total trash, but then where are authors like Tolstoy, Schiller, Proust, and the rest of that crew today? Are people just stupid now, or is it something else entirely? We still have geniuses like Einstein—maybe even smarter ones—but there just isn't a vacuum ready for those massive breakthroughs yet; there are plenty of writers and filmmakers oozing with quality, but there’s no sense of surprise because people have grown accustomed to it, though that certainly doesn't mean something revolutionary won't follow. Maybe sooner than we think. It usually takes time for a period to get its label, like Realism, Romanticism, or Modernism; right now, we just call this the "new era," but I bet they called the 1950s the exact same thing back then.

The same goes for the film industry at large; most of what I said above was directed toward American cinema specifically. It isn't dying, but it isn't exactly moving forward either.

Benjamin Thompson66 said:"American Beauty" isn't exactly a standout for me... I find The Ice Storm (1997) much more compelling on that subject matter. Beauty suffers from an unnecessary element: the narrator...
If you want a real dissection of society, look toward early Pasolini, or perhaps Fassbinder, or Godard, among many others.

"The Matrix" is a decent enough ride, though it feels a bit too much like a loud blockbuster... if you want true sci-fi depth, watch Stalker; it possesses a layered complexity that makes The Matrix feel like San Remo compared to Wagner or Bach.

The Thin Red Line is certainly a great film, no question... it really should have swept the Oscars... but take a look at this instead:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091251/ This might just be one of the top two or three war films ever made.

As for "Inland Empire"... well, finding anything comparable to Lynch is as difficult as finding anything truly akin to Kiarostami, Bartas, or Jancs... he is one of those brilliant Americans who carries a distinctly European sensibility rather than a standard US one.

You’ve listed two mediocre works and two absolute masterpieces... it all comes down to taste, I suppose. Ultimately, the only area where American cinema holds a distinct advantage over the rest of the world is the sheer volume of capital poured into production; everything else is a much longer conversation involving beautiful cinematic gems from across the globe.

To analyze society, one shouldn't feel compelled to watch Pasolini, or even Godard, simply for the sake of watching non-American cinema. Why not, for instance, explore the work of Altman or John Sayles instead of American Beauty?

Lynch doesn't possess some sort of "European style," and frankly, the phrase "European style" is somewhat meaningless. If we are going to debate this, Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive couldn't be any more American than they already are.

Broadly speaking, there is no such thing as a bad or overrated national cinema. Any argument regarding the superiority of non-American film versus the inferiority of American film strikes me as nothing more than surface-level snobbery.

Nothing new there, when I actually stop to think about it.

wiredbison82 said:If you want to dissect society, you don't need to turn to Pasolini—and Godard is even less necessary—just for the sake of watching European, or rather non-American, cinema... why not watch something by Altman or John Sayles instead of American Beauty?

Lynch doesn't have some "European flair," and honestly, the term "European style" is pretty meaningless here; if we’re really going to argue along those lines, Blue Velvet or Mulholland Drive couldn't be any more American than they already are...

Generally speaking, there's no such thing as "bad" or "overrated" cinematography—so all these posts about the superiority of non-American films versus the inferiority of American ones actually just boil down to the shallowest kind of snobbery.

Nothing new there, when I really think about it.

Altman and Sayles definitely belong to the upper echelon of great American filmmaking.
I wouldn't quite agree regarding Lynch, though—and I have plenty of reasons for that.
And look, it isn't snobbery; it's more of a pushback against the typical American way of viewing film, rather than being against the movies themselves.
A movie that wins an Oscar for Best Picture is essentially the film of the year—at least according to them, representing the whole world. And let's be real, the Oscar for Best International Feature is marginalized even when compared to an Oscar for editing.
You see that kind of arrogance everywhere—even in the names of the Super Bowl or the World Series or whatever else. I mean, what the hell does "world" even mean in that context?

wiredbison82 said:If you want to dissect society, you don't need to go watching Pasolini—and Godard is even less necessary—just for the sake of watching European, or rather non-American, films... I mean, why not just watch something by Altman or John Sayles instead of American Beauty?

Well, obviously there’s a whole lineup of names in American cinema who have done a great job of dissecting American society too... Coppola, Hopper (Easy Rider), Dassin (do we even count him as an American!?), Stone, and more.

But since the comparison being made here is specifically about American vs. non-American cinema, then that's really the premise we should be debating!

Benjamin Thompson66 said:And it’s not about being a snob; it’s more about pushing back against the standard American way of looking at movies, rather than hating the films themselves.

Some really sharp modern philosopher with a Marxist bent once argued that in this age of mass mechanical reproduction, art has reached a point where anyone who experiences their own "artistic" pleasure—which is usually more emotional than aesthetic anyway—suddenly decides they're an... expert. It’s kind of like how a die-hard football fan watches enough games and thinks they know the game, or how a cinephile watches enough movies and starts approaching arguments in a very uncritical, purely subjective way.

So, we aren't really debating film as some "objective, standalone work of art," but rather the act of "watching"—basically, what kind of individual reaction does the viewing process trigger?

Which brings us back to my take, and the take of quite a few others here, regarding those famous "best films" lists. What criteria are people actually using when they pick them? Let's just agree on what makes a film "the best" first... if we can settle on the standards, picking the titles will be the easy part.

My main benchmark—after the obvious technical stuff like space and time, editing, internal consistency, and structural integrity (where I think about 95% of everything produced fails, honestly)—is whether there is a core idea,

... preferably something fresh,

... that the film attempts to convey through its entire structure (not just one or two flashy scenes, but the whole thing; I know that sounds pedantic, but that's my biggest gripe with certain Asian cinema, for instance),

... how uniquely identified that idea is (subtle dialogue and visual cues shouldn't just create conflicting ideas; a film shouldn't wander down several paths only for them all to end in a dead end, which seems to be a common trait in European cinema),

... and how much the movie relies on the viewer's cognitive abilities given the "suspension of disbelief." For me, that's the most vital requirement for a film to succeed as a specific visual medium of moving images. In the best films, a rationally dosed amount of tension leads to a "suspension of judgment." It’s that feeling where you're still thinking about the movie three days later, or even three months later, using it as a frame of reference—like, "I think I've experienced or felt something similar before." Sorry, I'm overcomplicating things, so this might come off as a bit half-baked.

//** There's probably a hundred other points, but I have to head to a meeting... actually, maybe it's better this way because my biggest struggle is ever consolidating my thoughts into a coherent post... which is why people often accuse me of trolling... better to just skip it...

Gerald Barrett25 said:... trying to convey the entire film to the audience—I mean the whole thing, not just one or two scenes—which sounds a bit silly, I know, but it's my biggest gripe with certain foreign cinema—

What specific films led you to that conclusion? Honestly, I highly doubt you reached that verdict by watching Paramount Pictures or Hitchcock, or maybe Spielberg or Scorsese!?