"No one makes more popular movies than the ones made in America, but it can't be great artistic news when it turns out that the movies that have the biggest global reach are the ones that are the least distinctively American."
That's likely why those movies have global reach - because they aren't American, they're more accessible to a global audience.
Another factor which has to be consider - and which was brushed on in that article - is that those successful movies don't rely on dialogue. They are primarily visually and action driven events. In all likelihood you can watch Gulliver's Travels with the sound turned off and still understand what's going on and get the humour. The same applies to Resident Evil - zombies being blown up doesn't require much in the way of subtitles. The most popular character in Ice Age was the mammal who was obsessed about his acorn - and he didn't speak.
If you have an English-language movie that relies on subtle plays in language it likely won't do as well in non-English speaking areas; in the same way that non-English language films are rarely box office hits in the US and the UK.
The lack of popularity in the US could be due to the stars in the film, and how well they're accepted or liked by the public.

Most of these fare well in Asia not much in Europe,where english is not the first language and people would rather watch fireworks on screen,for drama they prefer home grown products..BTW I'm from India and my fav. of the last year is Mike Leigh's Another Year,which was taken off theatres after 3 days and The Tourist is still playing here!

In Poland people like a trip to the Multiplex for fast food and fast food films. There is no other expectation from Hollywood films. Like the last post said, people prefer more local 'drama'. Mr Cosgrove is correct about more visual films working abroad. It's the same reason as to why Mr Bean is such a success

"In Poland people like a trip to the Multiplex for fast food and fast food films. There is no other expectation from Hollywood films."
It's the same across the world.

Another factor that has to be taken into consideration are ticket prices and how much disposable income cinema goers in the US have right now.

In the UK a multiplex ticket can cost up to £10-15 (about US$12-18). If prices are the same, or higher, in the US, it'll be a factor why films over there aren't doing huge BO numbers.

As someone who unashamedly loves big, dumb action films (although I can live without 3D) I say "Bring 'em on!" and here's why.

I go to the cinema to escape and as such I seek escapist entertainment. Life outside my window is, to coin a phrase, "nasty, brutish and short" and the last thing I want to spend my hard-earned money on are films where I have to watch other peoples misery writ large, like a mirror on my own. I imagine that it's much the same for folks in other parts of the world although I'm sure that issues such as dialogue Vs. action count for something.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not averse to a good drama and can watch them same as the next man, but it tends to be on TV or maybe a rental, rarely at the cinema.

International born, so will pipe in, I think the spectacle factor a huge part of reason. America does spectacle spectacularly. And we have the budgets to prove it (for us, my est so could be off, 100 mil big, 300 huge, in Asia, 25 big, 60 huge (and that scale a rarity, example is 20th Century Boys (info), big deal over there, only showed throughout Asia). Who doesn't like a big grand show? P.T. Barnum and Hollywood own that turf.

I think distribution of films (exhibition, dvds) a big factor, that turf constantly evolving.

One thing my int'l family and I agree upon? Luc Besson is terrific. There's a man who, on moderate budgets by Hollywood standards, makes a whole lot of fun, and keeps doing it. (I wish his films better distributed over here. See District 13 Ultimatum for a good time, includes a people's revolution and a whole lot of parkour fun by awesome David Belle.)

Is it just me, or is this comment thread getting a bit off topic?

I think, Scott, you may be asking the wrong people.

As a British cinema-goer, I'm not all that fussed on the origins of my films, though I find overly patriotic and Americanized History pretty difficult to watch.

Maybe the better question is why Americans aren't going to the cinema.

@Rosie: It's a fair question as ticket sales have gone down the last few years, the only reason revenues have held relatively steady is because of the boost in money brought in by higher 3-D sales and a little phenomenon known as Avatar.

When I first broke into the business, the conventional wisdom is that Hollywood could count on 1 billion movie tickets sold per year. It had been that way pretty much since the complete expansion of TV. But then the market expanded beginning in the 80s until it was 50% higher.

There have been peaks and dips. As recently as a few years back, people were suggesting the indie film world was as good as dead. Now Sundance 2011 is wrapping with at least 24 sales, a significant increase.

My hunch is we're in for another expansion of the market, not this year, but 2012 and for the next few years after that because it looks like the studios have hit bottom in terms of cutting back on the number of movies they make -- probably a contributing factor to the shrinkage of ticket sales last year and so far this year.

But as William Goldman said about the movie business, "Nobody knows anything."

I'm from Portugal and I wouldn't bother to see those movies you mentioned. Like voyageursolitaire, y favourite movie of the year was also "Another Year" by Mike Leigh.
Having said that, The Tourist is this week's top grossing movie in this drop-in-the-ocean-market.

In the UK I think it's ticket price leading to a "bang for your buck mentality". If you're a family with a couple of kids (the target for the classic 4-quadrant movie, right?)then you're not going to be able to afford regular trips to the cinema - it's treat. So, you're going to opt for the one with all the fireworks. The sooner the distribution and exhibition of movies become democratized (via new dsigital methods of screening) and going to the cinema becomes a weekly event again (it was for my parents) - the better. Persoanlly I like Ken Loach's idea for the Municipal cinema.

Indians prefer big scale thrillers, adventure or action-packed films.

Hollywood spectacles, even if without a great storyline or depth, have extreme high level of execution, which Indian films cannot match. They can be dubbed into various Indian languages, which people don't have a hard time understanding.

Even good Indian films struggle to be cohesive; good story-telling isn't such a strength. Even when you see contrived characters, the scale of the action sequences provide you a good enjoyable ride.

As someone mentioned, most are conditioned to seek escapist cinema. As such even entertaining and superb flicks like The King's Speech struggle to find a good mass.

Still a long way to go but things are gradually improving. As they say, with the growing middle class, who are now more aware, and fed-up of local low-brow fare, they appreciate good dramas and other genres. One genre that's breaking through is animation. But then...you expect Pixar to make a killing any where!

Yet...it's the 'easy-to-understand' polished works, with super locales, fast action and great music that rules the roost. Till last year, the biggest Hollywood hit in India was Titantic and then...Avatar took over.

Don't be fooled it wasn't Cameron's brand that worked. It was his films. And in India, such biggies rely big time on dubbing - it's a huge market. So yeah more the 'visual storytelling', the better, the bigger, the better.

Blockbusters have always traditionally done better internationally than their dramatic counterparts.

We also export our movies on a scale that very few other places do. Hong Kong really is the only other competitor. And until recently, there was a fairly large gap in perceived quality. (I actually think they're kicking our ass now -- which is why we're ripping off a lot of the Asian market films).

We're also a nation that pretty much only speaks English. The language of commerce. Most European countries have several languages.

I think it all adds up.

US's tradition of film, homogenized culture, practices of appealing to as wide an audience as possible (particularly studios), and lack of competition both in terms of quality and quantity are large contributors to why we do so well internationally.

The quantity and variety of our films also makes us a more picky audience. There are definitely large gaps in release schedule in many foreign countries. Gaps that simply don't exist in the US market. I'm pretty sure I could go 52 weeks of the year here and see a new movie every weekend. That's not necessarily true in other countries.

I'm South African. Hollywood will release about 800 movies in America. Only 200 of them will be shown here -- the exhibitors pick and choose what they think will do well. So the quality of the average American movie is perceived to be higher.

That said, action and explosions are the same in any language. Most people want to go to the cinema to be entertained.

Judging from the shelves of my local DVD store, kung-fu and horror are very popular.

Comedy very much depends on cultural references. Our local comedies generally feature lavatory humour and traffic cops looking silly. Marriage and relationships are the same everywhere so comedies addressing those themes should travel. Comedies that rely on references to obscure American rock groups won't.

Some movies may touch a sore point with Americans but not with others. For instance I'm baffled as to why Jarhead didn't do well. I think it's a brilliant movie, but maybe a bit uncomfortable for Americans.

As an expat living in Taiwan I have noticed many moviegoers here are attracted only to movies with big recognizable names, popular themes and a limited amount of dialogue. Coen Brothers movies barely last a week, 2012 sold out for weeks and The Social Network, although popular was considered boring -- after 15 minutes the theater was aglow from cellphones. I have also noticed that subtitles are not always accurate or the dialogue (translation) has been changed to suit local understanding so films with more dialogue might be understood differently and in turn, not the way initially intending by the filmmakers. Since the dialogue is different, movies that rely heavily on writing are not enjoyed in the same way. Obviously, action movies or comedies (like Mr. Bean as mentioned earlier) fare better due to their visual and physical portrayal but if there is too much dialogue the cell phones tend to come out.

A lot of really good information in this thread. One thing that comes up again and again in a discussion like this is reminding us how movies are at their core a visual medium. And that is a big reason why Movie A succeeds internationally and Movie B does not. Action, Thriller, Sci-Fi, even Fantasy and Horror are stronger genres per overseas interest specifically because they rely on visual storytelling more than Dramas. As clanning points out, Sorkin may be hugely admired in the States, but in certain international territories, his reliance on dialogue as in The Social Network results in the cellphones coming out.

Comedy is tricky. If it is physical comedy, that can be a plus. If it's dialogue-driven comedy, that can be a negative. There is a maxim in Hollywood: "Comedy doesn't travel." More often than not, that proves out in terms of foreign revenues.

Takeaway: Always be mindful of the visual elements in your story and write to that. The more visual, the better for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is the studios' sense of how well the project can play internationally.

In short: if you can mute the sound, turn off the subtitles, and still follow the story and enjoy the film, you've got an international hit.