Very well executed

not horrible nor great

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

My impression of this documentary wasn't so great due to the fact of already seeing and knowing a similar themed work a few years ago called "A Decade Under the Influence" (2003), directed by Ted Demme and Richard LaGravenese, which was a better project for numerous reasons. I enjoyed "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" for all the information that wasn't present in the other film but that's it.Narrated by William H. Macy, the movie presents a panorama of the New Hollywood, the generation of artists, directors, writers and even actors who gave a fresh air to the decadent old system of Hollywood, which was losing space and audience because of television's quality. People weren't going to the movies but after 1967 this started to change drastically when those rebel and young folks decided to make their revolutionary, controversial films inspired by what was going on in foreign cinema and movements like Nouvelle Vague, the Neorealism etc. Coppola, Lumet, Lucas, Spielberg, Scorsese, Altman, Cassavetes and others who made dynamic, powerful, explosive and box-office hits that molded how Hollywood is today with movies that now are true classics like "Jaws", "The Godfather", "Dog Day Afternoon" and many more. As established in both documentaries the period goes between 1967 and 1980, ending with the abysmal failure of "Heaven's Gate" putting studios in charge of the movies again, rarely giving final cut to the auteur.Based on a highly controversial book written by Peter Biskin, the film is filled of conjectures, gossips and speculations. Since most of the famous names like Spielberg and Lucas aren't here to present their side of the story (they're also absent in "A Decade..."), and even with reliable sources who were part of the movement giving their testimonies, this seems lacking in authenticity (the wild parties; or Brian DePalma disbelief in the effectiveness of "Star Wars" just to mention a few). There's good interviews with Karen Black, John Milius, Paul Schrader, Michael Philips and others who were part of the movement but a lot of absences here (they declined interviews for this particular project but accepted for "A Decade...", like Robert Altman for example).To me, the most fascinating aspect of the film was the explanation of the group's downfall (very few directors escaped from making flops after flops). There's a female producer who said something about how the box-office race affected the industry. If at one time studios were concerned about the product and the quality of it, now it's a money grabbing race just like the horse tracks.If viewed before "A Decade..." (which, again, is so much better developed) you might enjoy it more than I did. It's an entertaining piece, somewhat objective and a good source of information for starters in becoming familiar with the New Hollywood and their movies. 8/10

Easy Riders, Raging Bulls (2003) **** (out of 4) I've often been criticized for overly bashing movies made the past twenty years but perhaps deep down I'm just wishing for a return to the 1970's, which was following a decade for a horrid studio films that were being made for millions, yet couldn't find an audience. The studios were one by one pretty much shutting down yet on the outside there was an up and coming ground that was ready to rebuild Hollywood with their sex, drugs and rock and roll.Easy Riders, Raging Bulls starts off showing the decline of the 1960's yet quickly flashes to the one success story that is B-Movie legend Roger Corman who turned out low budget films that brought back millions by going the drive-in route and causing the teens to line up at the doors. While Corman wasn't the greatest director, he certainly knew how to spot talent and by this he helped discover talents such as Martin Scorsese, Jack Nicholson, Dennis Hopper, Francis Ford Coppola, Peter Borgdanovich and many others.The defined genre in Hollywood started with Easy Rider, which was a low budget film that was made my stoned hippies yet it hit a nerve with people and became a huge hit. Although there had been many biker films produced before this one, this film had sex and drugs, which was speaking to a new generation and soon these young talents were going to Hollywood wanting to make their own films. Hollywood had burned itself for over a decade so they slowly started to listen to these teens who in return were making modern classics. Films such as Midnight Cowboy, Targets, Chinatown, Five Easy Pieces and Mean Streets are just a few titles that this crowd brought in.However, this new crowd also brought a lot of drugs to Hollywood and their ultra-egos slowly started to destroy their lives. The documentary talks about the wild parties, the sex and how this had an impact on the director's careers. Once considered something great they were slowly dying on their own success. Towards the end of the documentary the film flashes back to Corman who pretty much saw the end of this period when Jaws was released. In Corman's own words, the studios finally realized how he was making so much money. Corman was simply making B movies that would attract all sorts of teens. The studios then started to deliver the summer blockbuster with films like Jaws and Star Wars, which were nothing more than B movies with a budget. In 1980, Scorsese fought back with Raging Bull, which was the last "director's" film to come out of Hollywood.Easy Riders, Raging Bulls is a candid, revealing and downright fascinating look at the greatest era in Hollywood where the studios were the small guys and the small guys, the directors, were running things and turning some very small movies into films that are now looked at as classics. The documentary does a brilliant job at showing what type of crowd these guys were with interesting interviews with the likes of Peter Bark, Peter Bogdanovich, Ellen Burstyn, Richard Dreyfuss, Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, Cybil Shepherd, Laszlo Kovacs and many more. These people tell stories from behind the scenes of the production of these movies as well as stories of all the sex and drugs going across the town.Considering the horrid movies that are being made today, one can only wish this period of Hollywood would return. Watching the film it makes it seem so clear at what it took to make these classics. It wasn't a budget or a star but a director who had the courage to be daring and not worry about pleasing the audience. Instead of playing to the crowd these director's played the crowd. There's some wonderful home movie footage of the Easy Rider hippies taking over Cannes plus wonderful stories about Alfred Hitchcock's AFI Lifetime Achievement Award where most of the young crowd was in the bathroom snorting coke while the legendary director was speaking.Easy Riders, Raging Bull at most is very entertaining but I'm sure many new viewers will also find this to be an incredibly learning experience. Being only 23 years old, I know many my age who simply don't "get" older films yet I'm sure after watching this they would see how much daring films used to be before the likes of Spielberg and Lucas turned them into a cash cow. The film talks very openly about the good old days and they also talk candidly about why they ended. Those interviewed give a wonderful vision of those days and director Kenneth Bowser has a terrific time telling these stories. The worst thing about the movie is that it just runs two hours because this is the type of entertainment that could have gone on for fifty-hours and not once become boring. Anyone interested in the 1970's filmmaking or want to learn about it should certainly check this out.

There was a great and truly improving decade for Hollywood; the 70's. Many think, and I probably agree, that the best cinematographic decade took place in the nineties, but, even if we want it or not, the directors of the nineties started making films in the 70's. Kenneth Browser's documentary, narrated by William H. Macy, tells how these directors emerged."The secret of making a film is just saying that you'll make it", said in his twenties a director the documentary refers to as "the man who would be king". That's Francis Ford Coppola, who made movies even if the studios didn't want him to. His is one of the many stories we meet, but we doesn't meet him; he doesn't talk in the documentary. We know "The Godfather" was seen by many people, but Coppola doesn't tell us that.Peter Bogdanovich does tell his story. His wife talks, about when they were filming "The last picture show", and about the close relationship he had with Cybill Shepherd, probably an affair. He was one of the various directors who were more important than the studio and producers. When a director could do things right, he got authority. William Friedkin, who made two successes in a row, gained authority too.You can't say much about the documentary. It is good, it tells its story correctly, but the thing is that there are no actors, no choreography; everything is real. And we believe Dennis Hopper when he says he was stoned as he shot "Easy Rider", and we believe Kris Kristofferson when he says Sam Peckinpah went down too many times, we believe Julia Phillips when she says she was bad.I came to find out what they call now B-Movies, like "Jaws", the first movie to make 100 million in the box office. Then a bunch of B-Movies came, just with the objective of winning money. The thing is, they were greatly done in some cases, by A-Directors, if you get what I mean. Steven Spielberg was a kid, and made his TV film "Duel", and started improving technology…You know what came later on. So, when Coppola's apprentice George Lucas showed a raw version of "Star Wars" to the industry, and no one liked it, Spielberg said: "You're going to make millions". You know what happened.We meet many more also. There's Arthur Penn, and therefore how good was Warren Beatty with his money and his way of controlling directors. There's Robert Altman, who could be the only star in one of his films, which caused him many problems, and successful films between 20-years periods. There's Roman Polanski, who's considered a fugitive, but lost his wife in the States, because of his uncontrolled life. She had a baby inside. Then he made, in his own vision, "Chinatown", starred by another influential actor, Jack Nicholson.Richard Dreyfuss talks, so does Peter Fonda. Jonathan Tapin says he got money to produce a film, from a not influential director, which starred his friends and dedicate and passionate actors; Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel. This movie was "Mean Streets". During a showing an important producer left his seat and Tapin: "Oh, he doesn't likes it, he's leaving". Then this producer got near Tapin's seat, and said to him: "This is the best film I've seen this year, but I have to go to the bathroom; can you stop it?" Paul Schrader tells the camera about his period of loneliness, when he was going nowhere, and although not as affected by drugs and alcohol as the rest, he took a rest. He was one of the "nerd" guys, as they described them. When everybody when to the Phillips' house to get high, Spielberg, Schrader and Coppola where guys that enjoyed chatting about movies. So it occurred to Schrader the idea about the taxi driver. So when he wrote his next script, he couldn't find a director. "Direct it yourself", his friends told him. But for some reason, that special director of "Mean Streets", who was always willing to do the original, and that actor who had already won an Oscar for "The Godfather", were the people for the project.This is how Robert De Niro and the director I haven't said the name (you know who he is) teamed up again for "Taxi Driver". Coincidentally, after the 70's ended, all the other pioneers were steady and that passionate director Marty Scorsese wanted to quit his career, encouraged by Bob De Niro, he have one last shout. This is when we see one scene from "Raging Bull", and the beginning of another history, that is the 80's.

This is a great look at Hollywood in the 1960's and 1970's. If you hadn't already noticed, that was an era of great American films, and "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" tells you how and why. The interviews and narration are awesome, and I love seeing all those old movie posters and clips. There may be a few independent filmmakers missing from this piece, but it's impossible to cover them all in just 2 hours. Plus, the thesis of this film deals with the major studios and how talented YOUNG artists briefly took control and made cool movies with studio money. I only wish the industry was like that today.