I don't understand why a lot people feel an intense hatred of high budget Hollywood films, when at least a small percentage do deserve the praise bestowed upon them.
It's not an intense dislike on my part, per se. I've seen a lot of big budget films that have totally tanked on screen and many were pre-graphic enhancement.
Heaven's Gate comes to mind.
I'm just used to seeing superior acting as those are the films and plays that draw my attention. I've seen,
Wicked on Broadway three times, arguably one of the most lavish plays in production, and loved it each time. I also enjoyed the Broadway comedy remake of Hitchcock's,
39 Steps where a cast of four played over 150 roles and the set was bare bones. It was just as good in it's own way and very low budget.
You specifically mention Hollywood films. Which is to imply that Americans, more than anyone, throw vast amounts of money at a film in hopes of winning an Oscar and that's my take. By and large, American film makers
have big budgets and for some, bigger is better. However, look at the works of Orson Welles, or Frank Capra or Raoul Walsh. They struck a balance and made some amazing films that remain classics.
I was just thrilled that Ms. Bigelow was able to capture the intense relationship of men in combat in a very small, elite group whose job was virtually a suicide mission. Then to get into the mind of the main character and try to let the audience feel his motivation, well that's superb direction with a fine touch.
Sort of the flip side of what Clint Eastwood was able to do with,
Bridges of Madison County. He placed the control of the action in the hands of Meryl Streep. Perhaps because she could assert her character without being over powering and controlling, after their relationship had begun and through the rest of the film and even after her character's death.
On my part, not an intense dislike or even mild disdain. I just take big budget films with a "wait and see" attitude.
