And at the opposite extreme, you have "art films," where the point is the presentation not what's being presented. Not to say all such pictures have meandering, pointless stories -- but after ten years of watching "arthouse cinema" for a living, I'll take a cheap Hollywood potboiler from 1937 any day of the week over the latest bloated, incoherent offering from the Terence Malicks of the business. The pictures that bring out the crowds, even in our oh-so-self-consciously-arty town, are the ones that tell real stories simply and well.
Since 2005 our top-grossing attractions have been, in order, "Best Exotic Marigold Hotel," "The King's Speech," and "Juno." They were all well-constructed *stories* above and beyond any artisitc or social-commentary content, and that's still what people want to see. The grown-up moviegoing public wants less pretentious Film School gimmickry and more honest storytelling.
See a picture called "City Island," an extremely likeable drama from 2009 about a working-class New York family and the various people that float in and out of its orbit. It's funny, poignant, and honest, and while it wasn't a top-ten attraction here it did very well for us in the week that we had it. Of all the films I've shown over the last decade, it's one of my personal favorites. If I ever made a movie myself, it would feel very much like this one.
The Babadook. Scary and very good.
The Wizard of Oz. Lily's first time seeing it. Utterly entranced for the whole thing.
I sat through this. I just don't see what the attraction for this film was though. But then...I was never a Rita Hayworth fan.
Roman Holiday
If you can't understand the draw then I just can't help you.
You mean Rita Hayworth? Oh man, I think there were a LOT pretty women in that era than Rita Hayworth. Like Dorothy Lamour, Hedy Lamar, and Linda Darnell. Just to name a few. I know a lot of folks like Rita, but I just wasn’t a fan.