Top 250? Why?

Rating: 1/10 (25 June 2009)

This movie is so pompous and cheesy, that i can't believe it's in the top 250. Although i'm only 30 years old, i'm wondering a lot about the general filmtaste nowadays. There was a time in cinema, i'd say from circa 1945 to 1975 when movies from all over the world had a chance to be seen in the main cinemas. But when the Blockbuster thing started at the end of the 70's and since then the only purpose of Hollywood is to promote a 200 or 300 Mio. movie so intensive that everybody believes this must be the peak of inventive cinema today, since then it is really hard for true filmmakers to get only a little space on the market. I'm not saying that all the Blockbusters are crap, but mostly it's just overblown action nonsense. Hollywood today is not a place for creative film-making, because the producers must be sure to get at least the amount of money back they are investing on it. But how can there be art, when money plays the central role???? And is it necessary that a film costs 200 or 300 Mio. dollars although there is definitely no need for that for making a brilliant and innovative film. For example "one flew over the cuckoo's nest 1975" = 4.4 mio. There are loads of movies the costs were uner 100000 dollars, but even then many of these films are uknownn masterpieces!