Richard Corliss Quotes

I'm not trying to be self-serving, but you know, you get to Hollywood, and if you want to make something big and loud and dumb, it's pretty easy. It's very hard to go down there and make a film like 'Sideways,' which I thought was a great film. They don't want to make films like that anymore, even though that film was very successful.

Who says that big-budget films are safer than mid-range films? In terms of return on investment, I'd rather have 'Sling Blade' and 'Shine' than 'Volcano.'

I would define independent film as a movie that is not financed by any of the smaller film companies. Because then, those are movies that in all likelihood are made without stars. And then they have to rely just on the material.

I guess, in a sense, 'Audition' was a film that gave me an opportunity that I hadn't had up until that point. So that's definitely one that is important to me. Then there's 'Visitor Q' that kind of taught me that there are some kinds of films that can only be made as low-budget films that really wouldn't work as anything else.

'Haraamkhor' is a low budget film. We are not worried about the box office because our film is already in profit. It's got a strong content that will reach people's heart.

I've always felt that an independent film is a film that almost doesn't get made.

I make one film in three years, if I go wrong it will take me another three years to prove myself.

Hollywood and Bollywood films cannot be compared because of their budgets!

When I see Kickstarter, I don't see a company. Instead, I see a social movement. I see people doing things for people.

Making a film - particularly what I think is a good film - is the result of a team of people, and the end result has many, many hands on it.

We tend to see films as artifacts of one mind. The reality of it is, I think, when you come out here and start working, you have to learn pretty quickly that it's a very collaborative process.

A lot of independent filmmakers are really catty.

When I see good films not doing well, irrespective of my role being appreciated or not, I have a problem because then the producer who has made a loss will never believe in investing in good cinema.

As bad as some movies can be, good movies are also possible, sometimes through the very heinous corporations we love to trash.

For a filmmaker, whether the film is liked, understood or appreciated counts as much as the moolah.

I will continue to work with newbies as long as the script and the director are good.

You see, I believe a producer's job today is as important as that of a director.

I'm envious of 'Glee' - artists turned their libraries over for free because they knew it would lead to album sales.

I know Alexandra Shipp personally, and that would be really cool to work with her.

I don't choose to make movies as small as the movies I've made. The combined budget of my two films is far under $5 million, but it's just by necessity that it ends up being that way.

Making an independent film is so different.

You don't necessarily need Bollywood for wider acclaim.

I feel that if you want to make films, you have to be willing to make it without a fee. You get a deferment, I guess.

In Bollywood, the film's stakes are as high as the actor. In Hollywood, they are way above, and the day we realise this in our industry, we will start appreciating actors.

No studio picks up the phone after seeing 'Dogtooth' and goes, like, 'We have the next superhero movie.' Though if one did, that would be an interesting studio to work with.