[ch_sm]

Look, this is a losing argument. It’s ok if you prefer stuff like Zemeckis (who I might add, made a lot of melodramatic films himself) over international films, but that doesn’t them objectively better or more watchable for everybody.

I’m just going to leave this random link here: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls003889355/

[unsupp0rted]

Look at all those top non-American films on that list:

1. Once Upon a Time in America

2. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

3. The Great Dictator

4. Lord of the Rings

5. Chinatown

If there's one thing you can't associate Charlie Chaplin or Jack Nicholson with, it's Hollywood.

Number 9 on your list is famous non-Hollywood filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock.

[ch_sm]

> Look at all those top non-American films on that list:

That’s not a list of non-American films, it’s a list of non-American directors.

To answer what I assume is your every so snarkily delivered point: Yes, about a third of the directors on that list ended up successful in Hollywood. Does that mean international films are bad? Probably not! Does it maybe mean even Hollywood recognizes that there is a lot of international talent, and very good international films being made? Probably yes?

[unsupp0rted]

What’s the relevance of non-American directors?

Nicole Kidman and Chris Hemsworth, say, are as Hollywood as it gets.

Heck so is Salma Hayek.

The point is that intl can’t compete with Hollywood because Hollywood is widely appealing and relatively very good.

It doesn’t matter that Alfred Hitchcock became a naturalized US citizen.