Hollywood vs. Counter Cinema

After reading Wollen's article, it is obvious that counter cinema is vastly different from Hollywood cinema.  Narrative intransitivity, estrangement, foregrounding, multiple diegesis, aperture, unpleasure, and reality are the seven distinguishing techniques used in counter cinema... but I'm not sure how it is that these combine to make a "good" movie.  While it is an accomplishment to break from the traditional language of cinema, is it true that counter cinema devolves into "audio and visual sentamentalism"? 

Are the filmmakers of counter cinema attempting to redefine the purpose of movies?  If Hollywood movies are entertainment, meant to be absorbed by the masses and sold as commodities, what are counter cinema films striving for?  If they are looking to produce art uncorrupted by the Hollywood system, why does narrative intransitivity, estrangement, etc. lead to good art?  If you do not evaluate the films according to pleasure or popularity, by what standards should they be judged?

I dunno.  Food for thought.