Unpopulour opinion: This movie actually over performed
es, it was a hit. Yes, it made a lot of money.
The movie had longer legs than it's predecessor..
And I think that's actually why WB shook things up.
Yep, it was bang average. They had a great cast & director, and made a garish turd. The mid 90s was a dark age.
shareIt was the golden age in comparison to today
shareWow! What a generalization. Even just '95 is: Se7en, City of Lost Children, The Usual Suspects, 12 Monkeys and The Prophecy... I'd bet that on average the mid '90s comes out looking as good as any other period.
shareI grew up in that era, went to the cinema every other week, and our family rented 3-4 vhs tapes (mostly new releases) from the local video store every friday/saturday night. Mid 90s films (and onwards) were mostly mediocre films. Nothing special. Even back then I knew how much 70s/80s films stood out when compared to the current ones.
All the films that mean something to most older film fans were made in the 70s, 80s and early 90s. Films have steadily declined since that period. It doesn't mean they stopped making good films after that time, it just means all the very best ones had already been made by the time the CGI age kicked in with Jurassic Turd.
Ahh... one of the "anti-CGI, even when it's good" crowd. Well, I can find plenty of movies of value in any decade, if I don't limit myself to my favorite genres and this business of making out some decade as "the golden age" doesn't make any sense to me - including the last two.
share