Truly Memorable Movies since 2000?

[Paul MacLean]

Lately, some of my Facebook friends have been commemorating the release dates of a number of classic movies from decades past. "On this date in 1977 Star Wars was released", "On this date in 1982 E.T. was released", or Alien, Poltergiest, Conan The Barbarian, Gremlins, Back to the Future, etc.

I haven't seen anyone posting "On this day in 2002 Attack of the Clones was released" or "On this day in 2006 V For Vendetta was released" nor indeed commemorative nods to Gladiator, Twilight, Avatar, The Dark Knight, Minority Report, etc. All the movies they are celebrating are from the 1970s and 80s.

I submit, that on-balance, movies were a lot better then.

And I'm not "blinded by nostalgia". I agree there was a lot of garbage in those decades. Megaforce, St. Elmo's Fire, Red Sonjia and Born on the 4th of July are hilariously bad. I found both Platoon and Forest Gump sappy and pretentious. And a lot of critical and commercial hits from back then are barely-remembered today -- Reds, Porky's, Tootsie, Terms of Endearment, Country, Good Morning Vietnam, etc.

Nor do I think movies since the turn of the millennium have been uniformly awful. I love some of the Harry Potter movies. The Patriot was incredible. The Passion of the Christ remains an indelible viewing experience. The Pianist and Sully were terrific. I really enjoyed a number of the X-Men movies, Catch Me If You Can, Batman Begins, The Mummy, Gladiator and The Martian.

But truly iconic movies have been few and far between in the past couple of decades. It's the films from the mid-70s and 80s (and even the 90s) for which people seem to hold the most passion, rather than those from the past 23 years.

Certainly, a lot of movies from the mid 70s and 80s were unlike anything seen before -- Jaws, Blade Runner, The Dark Crystal, Ghostbusters. Films that contained homages to golden age movies (Star Wars, Raiders) or The Twilight Zone (Poltergeist, Back to the Future) still repurposed those old tropes in a new and inventive ways. Even a kooky fantasy like Highlander was unlike anything that had come before.

And obviously studios are aware of this, because they keep doing remakes and sequels to movies from that era. Yet, is Man of Steel really as great as Superman: The Movie? Is Blade Runner 2047 as great as Blade Runner? I daresay most people at this point are more aware of Alien than Prometheus. Only Top Gun: Maverick equals (and to my mind, surpasses) the original. And even a silly movie like Supergirl was more entertaining than most of these dour (and overlong) comic book flicks from the past decade or two.

And it wasn't not just "popcorn" movies that were better in those days. There were also films like Chariots of Fire, Breaking Away, The Right Stuff, Amadeus, Witness, Ran, The Killing Fields, The Mission, etc. And while it's fair to say that things started to "peter out" in the 1990s, there are well-remembered pictures from that decade too -- Goodfellas, Last of the Mohicans, Schindler's List, Braveheart, Titanic. All of the above pictures are better-remembered than The Hurt Locker, Brokeback Mountain, Milk, Boogie Nights or Goodnight and Good Luck.

Of course there were great movies in every decade going back to the 1930s. In fact my personal top 5 favorite films are mostly from the 1950s and 60s. But I do think the mid 1970s to the mid 1990s were a very concentrated era of enormous (and game-changing) inspiration, and produced more classics than any other era.

What say you?

[jkholm]

I think there are many reasons for the lack of memorable movies in the last twenty or so years. One is that "the movies," meaning films made specifically to be shown in a theater and marketed as such, finally lost the long running battle with TV as America's entertainment medium of choice. With the easy availability of VHS tapes to rent, the increasing number of cable channels and finally streaming services, there's just more options at home and intentionally or not, marketing and creativity moved away from the big screen. There may still be good movies being made today but they make much less of a cultural impact than they used to.

Another reason is the woke, identify driven approach to storytelling. Universal themes about what it means to be human are a thing of the past, replaced by micro-identity driven "stories" that are more often works of political activism than entertaining or thought provoking stories. And it's not just the plots of modern movies that fail to appeal to a mass audience, it's the whole approach to making them. Writers and directors are no longer hired based on merit. And even if a non white male has genuine talent, there's no longer a system to nurture that talent, no system for working your way up. Not only that, but the sheer number of movies and TV shows being made makes it nearly impossible to have quality control.

Finally, something I've been thinking about but can't quite put together in a coherent way yet, is my theory that 9/11 changed America far more than we think. It seems obvious to me that movies started getting worse in the early 2000's. Why then? Could a horrible attack like 9/11 have altered far more than just our international relations and security measures? I've read that World War One had a profound impact on the world, not just politically, but artistically as well. Classical music became more and more atonal and avant-garde in the 1920's. Architecture became weird and ugly. Modernist novels with unusual prose and stream of consciousness ideas were more frequent. The "roaring twenties" was a time of cultural rebellion. I wonder if something similar is happening today. Could the horrors of 9/11 have changed people's perceptions about what good art is, what the purpose of art is?

[Paul MacLean]

Finally, something I've been thinking about but can't quite put together in a coherent way yet, is my theory that 9/11 changed America far more than we think. It seems obvious to me that movies started getting worse in the early 2000's. Why then? Could a horrible attack like 9/11 have altered far more than just our international relations and security measures?

That's very interesting. I didn't think of that!

And I'm sure you're onto something here, since, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, two successful franchises made their debut -- Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, plus we had two more installments of the Star Wars prequels. It's clear our culture, suddenly very shell-shocked (and frightened) responded to the clear-cut, high stakes "good vs. evil" idea running thru all three of those franchises.

However, I think what studios took away from the success of Potter and LOTR was that adaptations of material with a pre-sold audience -- books, graphic novels, comics -- was the way to go. And they continue to play it safe by adapting novels and comics (and making sequels).

I've read that World War One had a profound impact on the world, not just politically, but artistically as well. Classical music became more and more atonal and avant-garde in the 1920's. Architecture became weird and ugly. Modernist novels with unusual prose and stream of consciousness ideas were more frequent. The "roaring twenties" was a time of cultural rebellion. I wonder if something similar is happening today. Could the horrors of 9/11 have changed people's perceptions about what good art is, what the purpose of art is?

It may well have. Tho in this case, art seems far-more dumbed-down and less-challenging compared to that of the 1920s. Even new classical these days music is melodic and accessible (and sounds like pre-2000s film music!).

[AndyDursin]

Great posts guys, I'm sorry I'm late to reply but I've had a lot going on this week and am trying to get a column out, several days late on top of it.

The overall feeling I have is giant corporations have put their foot down more and more on the product they are releasing. And since it's all about the $$$, they largely don't care about anything other than the effects-filled garbage playing in theaters en masse today, since that's what appeals to the overseas market. Making some "worldwide blockbuster" like AVATAR or other typical Disney crap just brings the dollar signs into focus even more clearly for them -- so what began as a shift in the 80s (albeit with directors still able to exert some creative control usually on what they were making), played out more clearly in the 90s, and now is a total preoccupation for them, had lead to the anonymous "blockbuster after blockbuster" model we see today.

The reason for the remakes and recycles is obvious: it doesn't cost anything to exploit the IP you already own. You can see some exec thinking, "take a chance on something new? No thanks! It's already there guys, plus it shows our stockholders we're not taking any chances -- we're all going to make money on the stuff we've made money on before while risking less!" That is clearly why they keep "going back to the well" even though it's short sighted because a) the product they are outputting is often junk and doesn't have any of the impact of its predecessor(s), and b) it's not cultivating new audiences for the future. They're mostly one-offs, quick cash-grabs like "the latest Disney live-action remake" -- even though Disney must know they can't keep making a new LION KING every 5 years (they may try though!).

Plus, there are also fewer studios making movies (RIP Fox), fewer places of distribution...I would've thought "the rise of Youtube" (as much as I love it) would've created some fresh filmmaking voices but that's yet to materialize.

I completely agree with Paul about the 70s-90s having a very specific concentration on quality films -- and I think John is really onto something with some interesting points. The 9/11 comment is very interesting also, and I don't disagree, though I felt "something had shifted" before that -- back in the mid/late 90s as the quality of studio output seemed to be on a general decline. To wit, I used to meet my parents for movies on Friday afternoons from grade school through college, but by the time we hit 96-97, with some exceptions, I wasn't doing that as much. There wasn't as much "good stuff" out there to warrant weekly trips to the movies -- which we did all throughout my grade school and high school years, from 87-93 or thereabouts.

I think there are many reasons for the lack of memorable movies in the last twenty or so years. One is that "the movies," meaning films made specifically to be shown in a theater and marketed as such, finally lost the long running battle with TV as America's entertainment medium of choice. With the easy availability of VHS tapes to rent, the increasing number of cable channels and finally streaming services, there's just more options at home and intentionally or not, marketing and creativity moved away from the big screen. There may still be good movies being made today but they make much less of a cultural impact than they used to.

The paradigm has absolutely changed in that what's going to movie theaters are, more and more, increasingly anonymous, big studio IP based on prefab brands and franchises.

As I've often written, the kinds of movies that would populate theaters in the fall in the 80s and very early 90s -- "adult movies" that were character driven, or star driven vehicles -- have been vanishing from theaters I'd argue from the mid/late '90s on. Those projects have increasingly become "mini series" for digital consumption, streaming, HBO, whatever -- they're being made, but the projects that would often be configured as "studio Oscar bait" usually aren't movies anymore. They're being made as streaming projects instead (which is why the Oscars themselves have become more and more irrelevant, celebrating a tiny pool of "prestige" indie movies almost nobody is watching). COVID pushing everyone to watch content at home accelerated this whole process that would've played out over a longer period of time otherwise.

I also agree the good movies DO have far less a cultural impact -- but so does a lot of pop culture. As a society it's all "watch what we want, when we want." But it's causing this odd sensation that nobody is watching things at the same time, we're not experiencing them together anymore. The rare deviation is something like TOP GUN MAVERICK which seemed like it got everyone out to the theater to see it based on word of mouth. But whether it's a show or a movie that's exclusive to streaming, there's no "togetherness" anymore in terms of how it's experienced. Most consumers don't own 10 streaming apps, so I often run into "have you seen ___ movie or show" and the other end will not even be a subscriber to the source, so the conversation just ends. And it works the other way around also.

This isn't the way it used to be when we had 4 or 5 TV channels -- and people were FORCED to watch the same things -- or when movie attendance was at its apex. Right now it's diminishing returns at the movies unless you're into this grind of recycled IP after IP getting rehashed over and over -- and even then, the grosses are drying up...with FAST X and THE LITTLE MERMAID all "underperforming" domestically, and INDIANA JONES looking like a washout completely.

The question then is what's Hollywood going to do -- and they seemingly don't have any answers at all in terms of how to bring the audience back, or keep the audience that's there engaged. Once the rehashed IP doesn't draw people in, what do they have to keep it going? I feel we are heading towards that inflection point, and it's not going to be pretty.

[andy b]

For someone who was quite active in this industry in Europe at the time frame being discussed here, here are a few observations.

Up until the early 1990’s we handled films in very defined ways. There were a few big or now termed blockbusters, Towering Inferno, Jaws, Star Wars, Superman The Movie, Star Trek The Motion Picture, to mention a few I worked on, plus many others, these were all handled with the add campaigns in full swing, huge budgets to encompass every possible avenue of sales and promotion. We were given full reign to explore the unusual and often did. A while back on FSM someone was asking about Star Trek MP & I had a lot to do with this, one of the areas I took on was placing full colour adds in woman’s magazines, YES women are Trekkies to! In all honesty it was unheard of to do such a thing. Now blockbusters are thrown out & no $100 million Friday? Then forget it!

Then we had the “good” films and we looked for the market place, The Dogs of War (a personal favourite) to begin with for us (Europe) longer was better, we had time and no budget to build on Walken and The Deer Hunter hullabaloo and we moved forward with trailers that pointed out some action and some talk, you the audience we going to hear chat and be rewarded, there are many like it, The Godfather, The Anderson Tapes etc. These films were not ever going to set the world alight, but given a steady market place were going to give in some cases substantial rewards at the box office.

Last, the filler! These are a personal favourite, outrageous advertising, and short running times, what the USA would term “grind house” – a term I never heard of by the way until the Rodriguez / Tarantino film! The Corman, The Cannon, The Empire pictures, and others. Often double bills and easy to sell, even with no budgets outside paper appeal (posters press stills etc).

What changed? To start with VHS, films lost their “outing and event” appeal, multiple television channels and the need to be fed with as much as possible, wall to wall programs. Never ending. Discs came along, laser way too high brow and user-unfriendly DVD yes! Much more like a CD and so easy. At home you can talk all over the film you can stop and start do as you wish! The film event has gone. What did not help, cinemas either held the same film over for weeks or months! Fact, a screen I was trying to get product in held Crocodile Dundee in a 2 screen town for 38 weeks! Why because Fox reduced the take to 5% after the first 8 weeks and it was taking money, why risk anything else! Made no sense and literally forced people to the video store. Cinemas never changed their ways due to costs, poor seats, poor sound, poor images, over priced concessions again it all goes on and on. Then came the killer, the internet! Blanket marketing, one size fits all adverts and word of mouth in seconds not days. In all honesty, no offence Andy, but I really do not understand press screeners and advance copies, money going out the door for why? A product is released and the web is drowning in reviews within an hour or less!

The product from Jaws onward had to make massive returns and the studios wanted less gamble and more income, everyone, not publicists by the way my contract was almost stagnant from 1987 to 1997! Wanted larger slices of the pie. So, safety even boring rules the day.

But do not forget this what we think or see as a “classic” “amazing” “astounding” was often in their day not so great, Paul mentions Poltergeist, yes it was a hit but not adored as it is today, many cinemas dropped after the first week in Europe. Studios are also catering for a new fresh audience my niece who loves films calls 2000 to 2015 films “old films” I call 1950’s“old films”, the studio has fought tirelessly “yesterdays heroes” by the time it hits the screen, the public has moved on! then tries to re-invent the wheel almost endlessly so trot out the same old title with a new cast and a few changes, we dislike it but to many it is new and their first time, my neighbour’s 6-year-old has asked me all about Indiana Jones and not seen a previous film! But it looks great to him, so he is going with his dad on opening day.

Times move and often fast, we are being left behind.
Great post Paul.
Regards
Andy b

[AndyDursin]

Andy, thanks as always for your insight! But I have to wonder...is it "us" -- or the movies themselves? As a viewer I've adjusted, I watch streaming, I love the home viewing experience. Theaters have scarcely changed, barely innovating in decades from a technical standpoint, and content wise, we know how stale what they are regurgitating is!

The only other thing I would counter is to take the point Paul was making -- these modern revivals/remakes/sequels are not having, at all, the impact the first STAR WARS or RAIDERS did. Fewer people are seeing them. They're not making the same money (adjusted for inflation). In terms of "pop culture impact" they are not registering at all in terms of significance. Those movies all took classic movie, or Saturday matinee tropes (the kind kids of ANY age would want to see like you wrote!), and remixed them in a fresh or engaging way. But these new movies aren't doing that. They're just regurgitating Indiana Jones for the millionth time, even though Spielberg clearly had the good sense to stay away from this film.

Indeed, this INDIANA JONES may be one of the biggest bombs in Hollywood history in relation to cost based on the reviews it's gotten, and the box-office projections it's getting. Disney has managed to both annoy the very fan base it wants to grab and fail to cultivate young viewers, who simply don't care by and large, at the same time.

To see how much they've failed: Disney's STAR WARS toys have been a TOTAL dud -- they've failed to rake in the merchandising money they thought they were going to get when they bought the company. "The kids" just don't care and Disney has turned what was a "special event" franchise into an oversaturated "just another brand IP" in their stable of them. If Disney truly wanted to unload Lucasfilm back to George (or whoever), it's clearly been de-valued from what it was when it got here.

That's why I feel there is a major game of diminishing returns, in sync with the dropping attendance that's going to be a serious threat to the theatrical experience going forward.

[andy b]

My thoughts are that it is 50 / 50 or the great English saying 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other.

The internet has made programing wall to wall, everything all blurs into one thing, films are given no life to breath find an audience and make its own way forward. The never ending onslaught of product constantly knocking each other out of release or cinema screens has caused the public to really not care or bother to see a film on release. What in my day was a 6 month window to VHS / disc and a year before television or longer (example Dr No never TV screened in the UK until 1974 - due to continuous re-issues) product is now out within a month or so, yes the odd exception, Top Gun Maverick, but why make the effort of a cinema visit ? MJ is of course the true Cinema goer on this site.

What has made an equal problem is cinemas simply have not moved with the times, my own home theatre is fully Atmos with 36 Atmos certified speakers, a 100 inch screen, pre- amp, amp & processor, hell it sounds better than the local multiplex, not as big screen, but not shabby either. So the cinemas are out dated for the audience of today. When you do go, the audience has grown up in the era of home entertainment & never shut up or stop playing with phones the entire time, why go?

Marketing is also not given any chance to really build interest, this is in part to the one & only time on the last film I ever worked on Fellowship of the Rings, where there were focus groups reporting how the trailers & posters were trending! WOW glad I retired!

As for the product, the costs are so high the returns are expected to be huge as is the risk, therefore the never ending list of production companies all want massive pay back, so try to stack the deck in what they think is the market place. Truthfully where films are concerned William Goldman made the greatest comment "no one knows anything", so why should things of changed?

As for the tie-ins as you say the toys for Star Wars, it is no longer new or unusual it is expected & the audience has turned off, I always recall trying to convince Warner Brothers to produce a Luck Dragon Falco from Never Ending Story, they would never go for it, due in part to the train wreck response to ET tie-ins. But it was the most asked for character for years, especially as they did 2 more films!

My opinion is that the new viewers are drowning in mass information & entertainment film or other wise is now just lost in amongst the rest of the media barrage. We think the product is bad in part due to rose tinted eyes of yesterdays films were better and in part as the product of today is not truly aimed at us and added to which the studios / producers are looking to dump it as fast as they can into a pay stream - Netflix, discs whatever the next cheque comes from. Some of the films Paul mentioned only found their true audience the tape or home entertainment release, Blade Runner is a great example, I literally could not give tickets away for screenings in London!! But now it is a masterpiece by those who found the tape etc.

But all I can say there are gems out there, really enjoyed The Menu, it will never find an audience sadly, but that happened many times in my day, so nothing changed really, just more costly and too many clones of existing product.

But thanks Paul for an interesting post.
regards
Andy b

[Eric Paddon]

To see how much they've failed: Disney's STAR WARS toys have been a TOTAL dud -- they've failed to rake in the merchandising money they thought they were going to get when they bought the company. "The kids" just don't care and Disney has turned what was a "special event" franchise into an oversaturated "just another brand IP" in their stable of them. If Disney truly wanted to unload Lucasfilm back to George (or whoever), it's clearly been de-valued from what it was when it got here.

To me, it's always seemed as if movie toy merchandising can never be as lucrative as it was in the pre-home video era for a simple reason. When I was a kid in the 70s, a toy related to a TV show or movie was basically the *only* way I could keep experiencing that film or series because I didn't have the ability to watch it again and again. The Star Wars toys filled a need for kids because when the movie ended its run it was GONE. "Star Wars" didn't air on TV until 1983 so the memories of the first film were cloaked in what we could remember based on our immersion in the tie-in products. They don't and can't serve that role any longer.

[Monterey Jack]

To me, it's always seemed as if movie toy merchandising can never be as lucrative as it was in the pre-home video era for a simple reason. When I was a kid in the 70s, a toy related to a TV show or movie was basically the *only* way I could keep experiencing that film or series because I didn't have the ability to watch it again and again. The Star Wars toys filled a need for kids because when the movie ended its run it was GONE. "Star Wars" didn't air on TV until 1983 so the memories of the first film were cloaked in what we could remember based on our immersion in the tie-in products. They don't and can't serve that role any longer.

^ This. Kids obviously still play with toys, but their use as "avatars" for movies that you could only see once or twice in theaters, then not again for YEARS until they his VHS or had their "network television premiere", is an idea that's long past. Plus, even toys don't seem to have as much allure for youngsters as screens these days. Oftentimes at work I'll see kids who aren't even out of diapers yet playing some toddler games on an ipad while mommy shops, and it makes me wince every time. God forbid that you INTERACT with your kids, or at least give them something to play with that encourages a modicum of imagination. Star Wars, G.I. Joe, Transformers, Lego bricks...I played the HELL out of my childhood toys. These days, nerds my age will have a wall of Funko Pops they don't even bother to take out of the damn boxes (because to do so would reduce their "collectable" value, of course! ).

[AndyDursin]

Kids (and actually a lot of adults with these pricey sets) are still playing with Legos all over the place, Theo has been into those far more than action figures! And I'm not talking about only action figures either but general merchandise would've been a better way to phrase it. Because thats down also, the overall licensing isn't what it used to be. Disney also closed the Star Wars hotel so obviously we know what's up there, there is a disconnect between fans and newer characters. They do not hold the same appeal fans had with the 77 characters obviously.

I just disagree with the notion that things arent any different than they were 20 and 30 years ago, that there wasn't anything new when Star Wars, Raiders, Superman came out. Some people would say "oh its just Saturday matinee remade" but it was a hell of a lot more than that. Audiences had not experienced genre filmmaking on that kind of level with John Williams music piping into stereo before on the big screen. The treatment, humor and style were all hugely innovative. They weren't self parodies, they brought you a new experience that appealed to everyone.

But there is nothing innovative about what Hollywood is turning out now. They are revivals that are copies of copies, offering nothing fresh but almost always just more of what we have already experienced....and not made as well or with as much care at that. It's a diminishing returns game.

I mean the best thing about experiencing a great movie was experiencing something you hadn't watched before. Today, mostly it's stuff people have already seen giving off exactly what you expect. It's why fewer and fewer people are going every year (and something like Top Gun Maverick sticks out like a sore thumb because it WAS well made and got an adult audience to go back to the movies...but really that's looking like a one-off right now. Most product isn't on that kind of level)

There is no comparable cinematic era that's producing as high a ratio of sequels/remakes as this one, it's not even close. Failure to make original content is going to kill some of the theaters entirely because the formula is drying up. It's not a self sustainable model.

[mkaroly]

For me there are only a few really memorable films post-2000. The LOTR trilogy was super-memorable for me as was The Dark Knight trilogy from Nolan. After watching Blade Runner 2049 a second time, while it does not have the impact the first film does, I really feel it was a well made film and memorable in its own right. The only other film for me that was truly memorable was Dune Part One. I am hoping Dune Part Two does not fail me...lol...otherwise, aside from the Godzilla releases (they were fun) and honorable mention to Skyfall (arguably my favorite Bond film from the Daniel Craig era), I can't think of anything else that strikes my fancy or that was "memorable" (I suppose the Star Wars trilogy was memorable but for all the wrong reasons).

I don't know what happened or changed; I have enjoyed reading the posts here as there are a lot of good theories in them. For me, I have gone back to older films from the 30s, 40s, and 50s as well as classic Japanese films (Kurosawa, Ozu, the Zatoichi series of films, etc.), Clint Eastwood westerns, Orson Welles films, etc. I have no desire to watch the majority of what Hollywood puts out there - cannot explain why except to say that I appreciate the artistry and imagination of films of the past much more than I do most anything that passes for a film nowadays.

I am much the same with music...what passes for music nowadays (American Idol and The Voice corporate products) makes me sick. I will listen to groups I liked in the past who still make music (Stryper, Extreme, Queensryche, etc.) but otherwise I have gone back to the roots and listen to stuff from the 70s and 60s - groups and artists who influenced the groups and artists I listen to. I explore catalogs of artists and groups I should probably be more familiar with based on my tastes and have found that to be much more rewarding than trying to get through a the pop and "country" garbage that I hear everywhere.

[Paul MacLean]

Most consumers don't own 10 streaming apps, so I often run into "have you seen ___ movie or show" and the other end will not even be a subscriber to the source, so the conversation just ends. And it works the other way around also.

Yeah. I have a friend who wanted me to check out Ted Lasso. Naturally, I wondered if it was on Prime, or Netflix. He answered "It's on Apple TV" -- which I don't have. Oh well.

...my neighbour’s 6-year-old has asked me all about Indiana Jones and not seen a previous film! But it looks great to him, so he is going with his dad on opening day.

Times move and often fast, we are being left behind.
Great post Paul.

Thanks Andy! And thanks also for your fascinating insights and anecdotes.

A number of years ago my nieces went to see Jurassic World, which they proclaimed "better than the original!" But of course kids tend to seize upon the latest novelty. The son of a friend of mine once proclaimed "The Phantom Menace is the greatest Star Wars movie!" But a couple of years later, he came to the conclusion "A New Hope is the greatest Star Wars movie!"

For me, I have gone back to older films from the 30s, 40s, and 50s as well as classic Japanese films (Kurosawa, Ozu, the Zatoichi series of films, etc.), Clint Eastwood westerns, Orson Welles films, etc.

Yeah, me too. The only "silver lining" about this creative desert is that it's given me the chance (and impetus) to discover older films. I've even dipped my toes into Soviet-era movies since Hollywood has nothing of interest today!