Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex, Drugs and Rock 'N' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood (2003) User Reviews

A Glance at the Second Golden Age of Cinema

[evanston_dad · 7/10 · 26 April 2005]

"Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" is an orgy for movie lovers. How can anyone who loves film not be in heaven at the constant parade of landmark films and key industry figures that charges across the screen in this fast-paced documentary? If you've read the book, the movie will feel cursory, and one will find himself wishing for more detail, more insider stories. There are curious omissions here, and wonders if Bowser structured his content based on who he could get to agree to interviews. Altman is hardly mentioned, Scorsese (who shows up everywhere talking about movies) is not interviewed, and Kubrick isn't mentioned at all (save for one shot of the "2001" poster). Still, what's there is great, and if you're like me, you'll be left with a twinge of sadness that such a rich time in film artistry seems to be gone forever.

Grade: A-

Documentary on a golden era in Hollywood which didn't go sour so much as it evaporated...

[moonspinner55 · 7/10 · 27 July 2006]

After 20th Century-Fox's "The Sound of Music" raked in big box-office and Academy Awards, every Hollywood studio was busy for the next couple of years trying to duplicate its success (it isn't specified here, but Fox itself was one of the hungriest at pilfering from this genre). Unfortunately, "The Sound of Music" was really the end of the popular, old-fashioned, break-out-in-song Hollywood movie, giving way to the rebellious counterculture. Seen as a major turning point--and released before "Bonnie & Clyde"--"The Wild Angels", a Roger Corman biker flick from A.I.P. (which came out one year after "The Sound of Music"), signaled a change in perceptions. The studio system was breaking down and actors were no longer on contract (since the youth movement didn't exactly want pretty stars). Most young, hungry American movie makers of this period took their cues from the European directors of the early '60s, and this documentary chronicles their battles with the ever-present Hollywood regime into getting their avant garde movies made, marketed and released. Most of the movers and shakers from the past are here, looking quite good, and their recollections from this fertile period for thought-provoking entertainment are fascinating. The downfalls (the drugs, the egos) are documented in a matter-of-fact way, nobody is chastised or condescended to, as the rise of the summer blockbuster (Steven Spielberg's "Jaws") heralded the weakening of the character-driven drama. This film does make it seem as if the smaller, more personal Hollywood motion picture is completely dead now, but fails to take into consideration terrific films like "Sling Blade" or "Monster's Ball" which, high profile or not, give serious movie-fans hope for the future. But as a chronicle of this golden era, "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls", narrated by William H. Macy, is fairly straightforward, mostly accurate, very entertaining, and a great tool for film buffs who weren't privileged to have been there. *** from ****

Good introduction, but nothing on the book

[exterminator_99 · 6/10 · 22 February 2004]

The last golden age of Hollywood film-making is captured in this two hour documentary, based on Peter Biskind's bestselling book of the same name. Director Kenneth Bowser does a commendable job of corralling many of the key names of the period in this light but passable introduction to the topic.

Bowser's treatise of 1970s Hollywood is essentially a potted history of the time – many of the key developments and vital films that were made during this period are passed over or given nothing more than a cursory glance. The documentary suffers as a result and added to this, historical inaccuracies are also evident.

Film fans will most enjoy the scenes of archival footage – a desperately nerdy George Lucas being introduced as Francis Ford Coppola's 'assistant'; Jack Nicholson, Bob Rafelson, Dennis Hopper and Peter Tork on the set of The Monkees vehicle 'Head'; and the piece de resistance, a home movie with Messrs Spielberg, Lucas, Milius, Coppola, de Palma, Schrader and Scorsese all in the same room. To be a fly on the wall at that party!

There are also current interviews with the likes of Peter Bogdanovich, Dennis Hopper, Peter Bart, John Milius, Michael Phillips, Paul Schrader, Peter Fonda, Albert S. Ruddy and many more figures of the time.

Bowser's documentary serves as a snapshot of the time – Biskind's novel is a veritable diary. The book is packed with amazing stories that even a 13-part series couldn't document. Watch this documentary, get a taste of the time and then buy the book to immerse yourself in a fantastic period of American filmic creativity.

Easy Riders, Raging Bulls

[richard-pullen-1 · 8/10 · 11 October 2004]

I read the book EASY RIDERS, RAGING BULLS by Peter Biskind and was amazed by it... If 'm honest I'm ashamed to say I rarely read for pleasure and it's something that I do meen to put right but EASY RIDERS, RAGING BULLS was an exception. Cliché's like "Couldn't put the book down" spring to mind!

Anyway this was a good, interesting documentary based on the points brought up in Biskind's book!

As a documentary it's very standard but the sheer subject matter makes it a very good 110 minutes of viewing.

Shame some of the big names didn't agree to appear on this film... it would have been so much better!

Good, broad study of the revolution of films from the '60s-'70s

[FilmOtaku · 8/10 · 24 May 2003]

I ran across the documentary by accident, and am really glad that I did - having been a slave to film study for the last 17 years of my life, I have read about, viewed documentaries involving, and seen the films of most of the filmmakers profiled in Easy Riders, Raging Bulls so I figured it would make for good background noise while I tended to some writing. What surprised me was that I had to postpone my work because I was literally riveted with this film.

Easy Riders, Raging Bulls chronicles the new wave of filmmakers who revolutionized Hollywood in the late 60's and 70's. While a lot of the stories are relatively well known (the foreign film influence, the problems with the filming of Jaws, the raising of the bar in terms of the box office gross) the candid commentary from the directors, producers, writers and actors that were involved was extremely enlightening and brutally honest. One story that sticks in my mind in particular is the telling by various people of the "Malibu Beach Group" that included Scorsese, Keitel, Spielberg and Paul Schrader among others gathering to party and discuss and debate film. Being a complete film geek, when friends and I get into philosophical discussions about where we would go if we could travel back in time to any moment, my answer has always been to be a production assistant on the set of Citizen Kane. After hearing this story in the documentary, transporting myself back to that scene is a close second. Supplementing these interviews were excellent behind-the-scenes footage that I had never seen of the filmmakers at work, which was absolutely fascinating.

While the documentary skips around according to genre, and not necessarily profiling a single filmmaker at a time, the range of directors presented is admirably wide. The obligatory (and famous) Coppola, Scorsese, Bogdanovch, Lucas and Spielberg are profiled with equal air time as directors who are not household names, like Sam Peckinpah, Arthur Penn and Hal Ashby. This is definitely a great documentary to catch if you want to get some ideas for films that you should watch but don't know are out there, as well as see some of the diverse portfolios the more "commercial" directors have in their pasts.

--Shelly

tough call

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 13 October 2005]

A documentary like Easy Riders, Raging Bulls should be the kind of documentary I should like more. It is chock full of interviews and choice information about the time period (60's-70's) in American cinema that changed everything, for a lot better and some for not. But there are a couple of problems that become inherent. If you have read the book which spurred on the documentary by Peter Biskind (also author of Down and Dirty Pictures, a book about the 90's independent film movement), it's kind of like reading a masterpiece in the trashiest sense. There is a lot more in-depth information in the book, however much of it at the personal expense of the filmmakers, writers, producers, and others that are written about (a good deal with gossip, interestingly enough on the special features of the DVD some of the interviewees speak out against the falsities in the book, Paul Schrader being one of them). The other problem is that the same year this documentary was released on Spike TV (then later to DVD, which is where I saw it), there was the great documentary in the similar, more satisfying vein, A Decade Under the Influence. It might be unfair to compare the two, however if one were wanting in the first place to get a video history- by way of movie clips and interviews- about the years that changed movies a generation before, I would go for 'Decade' due to it's more obscure film clips, and a few more revealing and insightful interviews.

In fact, over half of the people in one documentary are also in the other, like Dennis Hopper, Paul Schrader, Peter Bogdanovich, Ellen Burstyn, Roger Corman, and Monte Hellman among others. It's not that this documentary in and of itself is not insubstantial. On a base level you get the lowdown, about how as Hollywood's studio system was on the decline, filmmakers who were coming up in Corman's enclave (Coppola, Hopper, Bogdanovich, even Scorsese), along with some other key outsiders, infused European ideals into their personal statements, making great art and some money in the process. On the level of just giving forth the information, it's not a bad telling of tales, and has a couple of interviews I wasn't expecting. But, again, my sense of proportion was out of place; I could sense that the doc, much like the book, was more interested in some of the more 'seedy' details (i.e. the stuff about Julia Phillips, or Bogdanovich, which is practically a quarter of the book) than in the actual cinema-contexts of the work. You also don't hear as much about the power of the influence on the filmmakers, which was an appeal of 'Decade'. It's not too tough a call to make, and if you've seen 'Decade' before 'Easy Riders Raging Bulls' you may agree. I liked it, but it's not saying much when the book, which itself was readable mostly for the sake of history (some worthwhile, some not), was better.

awesome.....you don't know how to make a film, i do, so let me do it !

[dhawal_aryan123 · 10/10 · 9 October 2011]

revolution of films from the mid'60s-late'70s... in the mid 60's, during the peak of European cinema (with directors like- Bergman, Fellini, Godard, Truffaut) Hollywood was on a downhill loosing its artistic touch. big studios wanted to make same old movies and film audiences wanted more realistic cinema.. after redemption of old studios, then came a new wave of young filmmakers who defined the Hollywood now. martin Scorsese, Francis ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, peter Bogdanovich, Hal Ashby, Dennis hopper, warren Beatty, were practically just movie-nerds who wanted to talk about films all day and make them...

and of course sex,drugs, rock n roll culture played a big part in this evolution too. movies like bonnie and Clyde, easy rider, the godfather, taxi driver, mean streets.

its a great documentary about, how few trend setting directors took control of film/Hollywood from studio-centralized oriented films, in their own hands. also early days of jack Nicholson and Robert De niro.

but once in 70's, these directors made blockbusters like godfather, jaws, star wars... studios figured out the way to make big money and now its all about just "big-budget-B-grade movies"

filmmakers in 60's were- you don't know how to make a film, i do, so let me do it ! and finally after 10 years studios were able to say- yes we do know how to make money, and u will make it for us !

Nothing of actual substance, but moderately entertaining

[MovieAddict2016 · 6/10 · 28 September 2005]

The withering latter-end of 1960s cinema gave birth to a short-lived area of mainstream artistic vision - the 1970s was a decade wherein "the director was the star of the movie." I've never thought of it this way, but as the documentary points out, it's a valid and poignant summary of the time period.

This documentary - based on the best-selling book - offers an in-depth analysis of the film-making process of the 1970s... it starts out with "Easy Rider," from the late '60s, which became a huge box office success despite its profane content and extremely low budget.

The financial success of the movie seemed to spawn a new generation of artistic, low-budget films -- Scorsese and Coppola seemingly leading the revolution onwards.

Dennis Hopper would later fail with his semi-sequel to "The Last Picture Show" (as chronicled here) but other directors had success with their projects, attracting viewers despite the grungy themes of the films.

I've heard that cinema "died" in the 1970s, so far as that people had stopped going to see movies...without the influx of 1980s blockbusters, we might not have films today. I think that's rather a stretch.

If anything "Raging Bulls, Easy Riders" exaggerates the mild box office returns of the decade and tries to compensate for their low intake by citing critical praise for the films...all well and valid, when discussing the artistic merit...not financial gain.

I found this to be a rather enjoyable documentary, but I didn't learn anything I hadn't already known. It's got some good interviews, but they're not as insightful as they are amusing anecdotes.

If you are a film student, you could probably view a better and more in-depth summary of the decade; however, for novices, this is good starting ground.

An exceptional film...educational and entertaining

[rmc65 · 10/10 · 7 April 2003]

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.

A Bit of a Stretch

[apboy2 · 6/10 · 28 April 2003]

I read and enjoyed the book, too, but it and the movie make several points I disagree with: _ Almost all of the people mentioned in this film are still around, if you don't count cancer victim Hal Ashby, one-hit wonder Sam Peckinpah and the inconsequential Julia Phillips. The idea that most of them crashed and burned, never to return, is a bit of a stretch, unless you include those whose careers have tanked over the past 20 years, e.g., Coppola. _ The film neglects to mention that the architect of the auteur-smothering blockbuster was/is Steven Spielberg, who never seems to have had a nasty moment with anybody ... not the Easy Riders/Raging Bulls, and not the studios. There was some good dish, though, and on the whole it was worthwhile viewing.

A very good documentary about Hollywood following the collapse of the studio system.

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 20 December 2014]

This documentary spans a period from about 1960 to 1980. The traditional Hollywood system was quickly crumbling--brought on by some incredibly expensive flops, such as "Cleopatra". And, because television had taken away from the film business so much, profits were way, way down. In reaction against the past and to help them out of financial meltdown, the studios turned their eyes to a whole new breed of filmmakers--folks who were making films that were little like the films of old. Now the new auteurs were the boss-- and in many cases they were wildly successful and in a few others they became the victims of their own egos and lifestyles. The film features tons of interviews with various Hollywood experts and craftsmen.

While I agree with some of the folks who have reviewed this documentary that many of the films mentioned in the documentary are way overrated, I cannot help but admire the overall quality of the film. It is slickly made, has exceptional graphics and is clearly a work of love. Well worth seeing--particularly if you consider yourself a film buff or expert on the medium.

What's the point?

[kanekuni · 16 May 2004]

Don't think the point of the book/movie was that the people mentioned have disappeared off the face of the earth -- just that they have never achieved the critical AND commerical heights they achieved in the '70's. Spielberg and Lucas have survived and flourished, but they never had any intentions of CHANGING Hollywood, their films basically fit within an established Hollywood tradition. They were squares, in other words.

The New Hollywood

[BandSAboutMovies · 6/10 · 9 March 2021]

Every few years, I re-read the Peter Biskind book that this documentary was based on, if only to make myself more depressed as time goes on over the fact that the New Hollywood that changed cinema faded so quickly and was replaced by whatever we have now.

Kenneth Bowser directed this - and several documentaries on another of my pop culture obsessions that had a brief period (s) of greatness followed by mediocrity, Saturday Night Live - and it's the perfect companion to the book, building on the stories there by featuring interviews with most of the people who survived, like Martin Scorsese, Dennis Hopper, Peter Bogdanovich, John Schlesinger, Johnathan Demme, John Milius, Karen Black, Cybill Shepherd, Francis Ford Coppola and more.

Many of the subjects from the book - including Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Robert Altman and William Friedkin - declined interviews. That said, Spielberg and Lucas come off the worst in the book, so I can see them not wanting to be part of a movie that was going to blame their blockbusters for being the end of the artistic aims of Hollywood. To be fair, the movie lays a lot of the claim for that at the fact that so many of the New Hollywood auteurs flamed out or had badly recieved films. But Spielberg and Lucas did slam the blockbuster nails into the coffin.

When asked about the book, Robert Altman said, "It was hate mail. We were all lured into talking to this guy because people thought he was a straight guy but he was filling a commission from the publisher for a hatchet job. He's the worst kind of human being I know." And Spielberg was reported as saying that every word in the book about him was "either erroneous or a lie."

As for Friedkin, who was painted as a bully in the book, he said: "I've actually never read the book, but I've talked to some of my friends who are portrayed in it, and we all share the opinion that it is partial truth, partial myth and partial out-and-out lies by mostly rejected girlfriends and wives."

I kind of love that Bogdonovich said, "I spent seven hours with that guy over a period of days, and he got it all wrong," and still shows up in this movie.

A little less informative and fascinating than "A Decade Under the Influence"

[Rodrigo_Amaro · 8/10 · 18 October 2012]

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

Ah, them were the days...

[Red-Barracuda · 8/10 · 7 March 2012]

The book 'Easy Riders, Raging Bulls' by Peter Biskind is a highly entertaining and informative account of the period between the late 60's and the early 80's when the big American film studios released a series of quirky, challenging and controversial films made by an assortment of auteurs. This era has since become known as the time of the New Hollywood. It was a glorious epoch for motion picture art; a time when directs such as Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Sam Peckinpah and Roman Polanski – amongst many others – were producing an unprecedented body of personal films. The book details the emergence of the movement from key early films such as Bonnie and Clyde and Easy Rider to the fall of New Hollywood by way of the emergence of the blockbuster movie typified by Jaws and Star Wars and epic failures like Heaven's Gate. It's a book highly recommended to anyone with a love for American movies from this period.

This documentary is an attempt to capture this story, to detail some of the key films and interview a few of the film-makers involved. Of course it can never cover the scope of the book. Nevertheless it remains a useful guide to the films, and it does cover the basic key points that Biskind made about the trajectory of New Hollywood and why it happened in the first place and why it ultimately died. It suffers a little from the people it doesn't speak to such as Scorsese, Coppola, Friedkin and Polanski. And it could maybe have done with more actual clips from these films. But any documentary that covers this golden era of film-making has something going for it straight away. Therefore it comes recommended to IMDb users. Also worth noting is that the DVD contains over an hour and a half of extra material that is just as fascinating and should definitely be viewed. For another view on this subject – and for my money an even better documentary – try A Decade Under the Influence, also released in 2003.

Catchphrases without substance

[jerk1483 · 27 August 2004]

This docu makes the misguided error of comparing the careers of Hal Ashby and Steven Spielberg. More different film-makers there have never been. However, by sheer virtue of sharing artistic or commercial success in Hollywood in the same decade, these two anomylous inclusions are lumped in together. Peter Bogdanovich regales us simpletons with his self-encyclopedia, as if he were ever more than a journey-man director. It's intriguing to see the commercial success of The Exorcist and the critical success of Mean Streets sharing the same five minute discussion with various Hollywood talking heads all of whom are past their prime.

One of the rare gems of the film is the sequence recalling how Martin Scorcese, Paul Schrader, George Lucas, Spielberg and many other prominent male film-makers would hang out in the same beach houses in Malibu, but it's only ten minutes long. This is a film obsessed with the tangential perks of that divine spark that was the 70's renaissance of American movies. Presumably this film is based on a best-selling book of the same name, but all this film can sum up is that a bunch of cool movies came out in the 70's, and that, YES, the men who made those movies hung out from time to time. Honestly, you'd be better off just watching every film by the directors that this film interviews and save yourself the thankless task of listening to too many Hollywood has-beens pine for yesteryear. What really happened to these people's careers? Drugs for some, ego for others. Spotty at best, this film just isn't all it could be. 3/10

Good but nothing special. These stories have been told too many times

[jon_averill · 6/10 · 26 November 2020]

I loved the Peter Biskind book but this feels a bit sloppy as a documentary. I guess the film is nearly 20 years later and when the book came out these stories hadn't been told as much as they have since. It just feels like a retreading of the 70s Hollywood story in a tick the boxes manner that's been done better already.

The 70's...It really happened

[jpschapira · 8/10 · 1 July 2005]

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.

Not a perfect documentary but still a riveting watch if you are a movie fan

[Colbridge · 7/10 · 22 June 2023]

I haven't read the book on which this documentary is based but for all of it's flaws and omissions I found this a riveting watch being a movie geek and in particular a fan of movies made in the 1970's.

Following the collapse of the studio system in the mid 60's a group of younger, more visionary and more European influenced American filmmakers emerged to rewrite the landscape of film and American cinema, filmmakers like Francis Ford Coppolla, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Brian De Palma and others would go on to produce some of the most defining moments in modern cinema and influence many generations that followed.

Beginning with Roger Corman's involvement in giving future talented filmmakers their big break, like discovering Francis Ford Coppolla and producing his first feature Dementia 13, the documentary spends a lot of time in the late 60's with the likes of Sam Peckinpah, Dennis Hopper, Warren Beatty and Peter Bogdonavich before diving into the iconic titles of the 70's such as The Godfather, French Connection, Taxi Driver, The Exorcist, Jaws, Star Wars and ending with Raging Bull that was released in 1980.

The most glaring omission of course is the non-participation of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg in this documentary and not enough time is dedicated to their influence on movies which is still resonating today.

So not a perfect documentary by any means as it's a broad sweep on 10 years or so of changes, from the studio system to independent cinema, and how this changed and saved Hollywood but there's enough stories, tit bits and information here that will satisfy most film fans.

The real greatest generation

[pmtelefon · 9/10 · 9 March 2021]

"Easy Riders, Raging Bulls..." is a solid documentary. It covers a lot of ground in its limited running time. I actually read the book many years ago. "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls..." does justice to the greatest generation of filmmakers to come out of Hollywood. People ask me why do I watch a lot of old movies. I tell them because of these guys.

Easy Riders, Raging Bulls

[henry8-3 · 6/10 · 16 December 2020]

Documentary looking at how the control of film making in the seventies moved away from producers and the studios and into the hands of now very famous auteur directors.

The first half of this film is the rather typical talking heads format all saying how brilliant and talented everyone was. The second half is much more interesting as it articulates well the decline of the auteurs due to sex, drugs and rock and roll (mostly cocaine) and a considerable number of good films (sometimes) which no one went to see. So ultimately it rather refreshingly acknowledges the talent and the good films, but persuaded that they can make rubbish and that most of them returned to studios and high budget B movies to keep paying the mortgage. Interesting.

Easy Riders, Raging Bulls

[Prismark10 · 6/10 · 16 January 2021]

This documentary is based on Peter Biskind's book. It charts the decline of the movie studios in the 1960s and how the new auteur directors fuelled the rise of the new Hollywood.

In the 1970s troubled studios such as Paramount Pictures turned round their fortunes with movies such as The Godfather by Francis Coppola and Chinatown by Roman Polanski.

Other studios took note and realised that they needed to tap the new younger audience. Studios were willing to give a freer hand to young directors such as Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg.

Actors such as Dennis Hopper, Warren Beatty, Jack Nicholson also got into the production side of the movie business. Being an actor was not enough, they wanted to write or produce or direct. Even as in the case of Beatty it meant conflicting the director's vision.

Of course it was not all plain sailing. Too much booze and drugs meant that some filmmakers such as Peter Bogdanovich and Dennis Hopper could not keep control and deliver hit movies.

This was an informative documentary but it was also clear that it was bite sized. It was a primer that skims through much of the 1970s cinema and I suppose the book goes into the subject in greater detail.

The documentary also suffers from some key players not being directly involved. There are no direct interviews with Spielberg or Coppola or Friedkin. Instead relying on archive footage.

Sex, Drugs, Movies

[Michael_Elliott · 25 November 2006]

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.

Told in very broad strokes but still interesting and well structured

[bob the moo · 8 September 2005]

In the 1960's the Hollywood studios were having a hard time of it. Their audience had grown up, been attracted away by television or had simply become bored with big musicals and the usual fare being fed to them. Against this backdrop some young talents started to come though, breaking the normal operation of the Hollywood system. With Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda making drugged out movies, Coppola being given his big shot and coming up trumps, Spielberg and Lucas coming through to create the idea of blockbuster cinema or Martin Scorsese coming from one Roger Corman feature to create Mean Streets and Taxi Driver.

Based on Peter Biskind's book this film takes on the near impossible task of covering a decade or so of change within the Hollywood system and pretty much does it well. Even having watched it and seen how it did it, I am still impressed by how it managed to structure itself in a way that didn't seem to struggle with the scope of the material and delivered such a broad picture of the time. Viewers with a better knowledge of the era or some of the specifics films in question will probably feel a bit short changed as the film does flash over a lot of stuff but the majority of people will find that it keep moving along enough not to really notice. The reason for this is that the film keeps the delivery coming in consistent broad strokes that mean the audience never gets into the detail but knows that this is about a wide subject.

The talking heads are well managed and really help keep this approach up by giving plenty of good contributions without dragging the film down into the detail. William H Macy does a good job of narration and his lines are well written – informative without being obtrusive. The absence of Spielberg, Altman, Lucas and a few others is not that great a loss because their characters and egos would have dominated a bit too much in a way that the majority of the others don't.

Overall, the specifics can be found elsewhere but this is an effective and interesting broad look at the era of the director. It never gets too deep into the detail of any one story but it doesn't matter too much as the delivery generally supports this broad approach to produce an enjoyable documentary that will suit the majority of viewers.