this is who we are

Is it just me or was the 1990s, in general, way too commercialized? Not a single film comes to mind that speaks deeply to anybody except MAYBE Forrest Gump (1994) and that's kinda sad, since that film, at its heart, has no root in reality, but it's too realistic to be a "fantasy" per se, and the writer(s) of the film seemed to realize this for there's TONS of comedic scenes, some of them can be read as inspirational/moving or so corny you know they must be joking (i.e.: him running his braces off...). If it weren't for the historical backdrop of the film, I don't think anybody would care about that film.
Personally, I think the best film of the 90's was the thing that summed it up the most: 1999's End of Days w/ Ahnald; I saw a TV spot for the film and was spellbound; I knew it HAD to be seen in theaters to be truly appreciated and it did not disappoint. It was atmospheric, if not downright scary, had some solid touches of humor, the devil's vessel was played to a T by Gabriel Byrne, and the special effects were like cotton candy on steroids (not that I would endorse the use of steroids for ANY purpose, but you know dang well what I mean, so shut up!).
It's not that End of Days was THE BEST film of the '90's, you see. It simply sums up the decade; instead of a jaw-droppingly original and compelling film, what you get is everything you already knew a film could be but hadn't quite been; you get all the toys under one tree wrapped with the most expensive ribbons and wrapping paper, but if you're like most people, you'll ignore the wrapping paper and ribbons, no matter how much they cost'd, you'll rush through the box to find out what's inside and you'll be disappointed at how little you've received for the years (ok, MONTHS, actually; this IS a Christmas analogy isn't it? Well, I didn't specify the occassion that these "presents under the tree" come, but you know what I mean, now get out of my way...friggin' schizo...oh, wait I'm talking to myself, aren't I? I'M the schizo....AAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!) of yurning and anticipation (ah, the power of not writing with old fashion pencil & paper!).
Of course, I NOT being like most people was highly appreciate of every minute morcelish detail and its meticulous present-ation (get it???? ha ha ha ha.....). And I think that about sums up the '90s. Phony as hell, with no intention other than gaining money. I can understand a producer thinking "we're gonna be RICH!", but a writer and/or director? There's GOT to be more on the mind of a successful writer other than "getting the job done".

Examples, if you're totally lost as to where I'm coming from, of TRULY GREAT filmmaking can be summed up in these two cult classics that were also critically and financially successful (and have aged quite well):

Stanley Kubrick's A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971)
Dan Aykroyd & Harold Ramis' GHOSTBUSTERS (1984)

ACWO is DISTURBING; it's brutal and unflinching in its subject matter. This is the reason why it's NEVER going to fade with time; until the day comes when the words empathy and sympathy are erased from the dictionary and historians can only read about it, ACWO will remain a chilling display of the evil men can and have done/will do...Stanley Kubrick was not trying to be "daring" or "controversial" or anything like that; he was simply taking what was on his mind and putting it on paper in plain honest terms. Other "shocking" films, films that are no longer shocking, go easy on the viewer, they assume there's a limit on how much the audience's mind can take, they censor themselves.
GHOSTBUSTERS is a fantasy film that takes place in the real world. When I was a wee young lad, I didn't even understand the film; the etherial purples and blues of the ghosts, the intricately detailed "proton packs" and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, and the overall fantasmic tone of the film, the rushing, beautiful music, the cinemagraphed versions of New York's various scenic spots, the seemingly endless supply of "tools of the trade", I mean, really, NOTHING in that film is an exact duplication of what you're bound to see in everyday life. Yes, many of the locals that you see in the film do exist, but, as I specified just a few minutes ago, they are cinemagraphed (I think that's the word; spell check isn't saying it isn't, so hopefully you either know what I mean or can find out...); cinematagraphy in a lot of movies is barely, if at all, noticeable. In GHOSTBUSTERS, it was essential to the atmosphere of the film.
Ghostbusters was constructed similarly to the "classic" Cassablanca. The writer of the film? Sure, he's to credit for getting the film's skeleton written, but you can't put all the credit on him, like in a lot of movies; some of the most memorable lines of dialogue in that movie were created on the set, by the director. Ghostbusters was originally written as a COMPLETELY out of this world sci-fi/horror-comedy, but due to budget constraints of the time, a 2nd writer was recruited by the director to take the heart of the script and turn it into something that was easier to film.
Was this done for money? No. It was done by a team of people working to achieve a common goal: to get this sucker made! A lot of the film's greatness was pure luck (i.e.: Ray Parker Jr's last minute theme song). But isn't talent kind of the same thing?


This decade, for the most part, is no better than its predecceser. Batman Begins (2005) was AMAZING, and its sequel The Dark Knight (2008), although not as emotionally gripping as BMBG, you gotta admit, a lot of the exchanges and images STICK WITH YOU long after viewing it and you feel compelled to watch it again and again...
Hopefully after Christopher Nolan's first two Batman interpretations and this year's success (thus far) of The Last House On The Left remake - which from what I hear is to the original LHotL what Batman Begins was to Tim Burton's 1989 Batman (i.e.: expanding on the ideas in the original and creating its own vision instead of borrowing from past achievements), maybe Hollywood will consider putting forward the finances necessary to make a truly great film that isn't "based" on some other work of art. A big risk you say? Well, surely you can't sink a ship that's already drowning...