MartinHafer 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.

Rodrigo Amaro 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

MisterWhiplash 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.

jpschapira 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.