1994: YEAR IN REVIEW : Down and Out in H’wood : ’94 was a low point, say two movie fans who are already looking ahead to ’95.

In considering the year in movies, the word disappointing springs quickly to mind. But why? Is it that it’s impossible to impress an audience in the afterglow of a season of cinema that reached a peak with notable efforts like “The Remains of the Day” and “Schindler’s List”?

Or was this year, with a few exceptions, simply riddled with bombs and stinkers? Then again, perhaps 1994 offered some pretty good movies, but we forget because it also produced “Bad Girls.” Movie commentators Kalle Matso and Scott White give a fresh perspective on the year.

*

Kalle Matso: I’ll tell you why I think 1994 was a bad year for American movies. The most provocative films--”Reality Bites,” “Natural Born Killers” and “Pulp Fiction”--all struck me as lacking any spirit, notwithstanding an intense love of TV and death. And, unlike in 1993, the movies that were made just to “pack a wallop” were not good enough to spawn their own line of action figures. Although some might not concur with me, I’d bet nine out of 10 people will agree that 1994 was a cinematic downer.

Scott White: First of all, I think you’re giving the American moviegoing public an overly fair shake. I think if you ask 10 people about 1994, seven of them will yell, “Yabba-dabba-doo!” Commercially, this was the most successful year for movies ever.

Matso: Well, there are other factors involved with that statistic: the economy, for example.

White: I don’t think that makes such a difference. It’s not like people check the Dow Jones industrial average before buying tickets for “Terminal Velocity.”

Matso: Well, what was your second point?

White: My second point is that many of us don’t care about any spiritual emptiness in cinema. The only reason we’re down on 1994 is because we’ve seen about five goodAmerican movies and 50 that made us want to learn a foreign language.

Matso: Give me some examples.

White: “Beverly Hills Cop III,” “My Girl 2,” “Major League II,” “D2: The Mighty Ducks,” “City Slickers II,” “Death Wish V.” 1994 could have been called “Derivative X: This Time It’s My Brother.”

Matso: Granted.

White: And another very important criterion for me is the quality of the middle-echelon movies: those that weren’t preceded by eight months of hype.

Matso: In other words, how many times did we walk into a theater on a wing and a prayer and end up the loser?

White: Right, and the answer for this year is “usually.” I give you “Intersection,” “The Getaway,” “Clean Slate,” “The Chase,” “Greedy,” “Lightning Jack,” “The Shadow,” “Cops and Robbersons,” “The Cowboy Way,” “Little Big League,” “I Love Trouble,” “The River Wild,” “Even Cowgirls Get the Blues,” “A Simple Twist of Fate,” “Color of Night,” “Airheads,” “Exit to Eden” . . .

Matso: You could have bought a Geo Prizm with all the dough you wasted on mediocre films.

White: Exactly. And I don’t need to spend money to waste two hours of my life. I get a much better bargain at home watching Nickelodeon.

Matso: So why do we get suckered into seeing these movies?

White: I think it’s the increase in marketing acumen. It seems that the worse the movies are, the better the publicity becomes. It all started out with “Batman,” a mediocre realization of the story’s potential. But that didn’t stop me from getting whipped into a consumer frenzy.

Matso: I know what you mean. I bought a cowl.

White: Of course you did. The public-relations wizards know we’re hooked. We’ll keep seeing the hot release, Friday after Friday, lack of ethics in cinema notwithstanding. Many of the releases in 1994 just didn’t happen to be so hot, that’s all.

Matso: Every year has bad films, and one year even had “Orca.” It just gets especially annoying when the good movies are few and far between. I mean, it would be pretty tough to put together a respectable list of best picture Oscar nominees; you’ve got “Pulp Fiction,” for one. “Quiz Show,” “Shawshank Redemption” and “The Lion King” were all pretty good.

White: “Pretty good.” Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Matso: Your point being?

White: In almost every genre, this year was a letdown. Last year the big-action flick was “The Fugitive,” which was justifiably nominated for best picture. Though they were decent movies, can you see nominating “True Lies” or “Speed”? That would be like giving an Oscar to “Octopussy.”

Matso: I have to admit the tale of the tape isn’t too encouraging for 1994. “Schindler’s List” versus “Little Buddha.” “Philadelphia” versus “Natural Born Killers.” “The Piano” versus “Andre.”

White: And the people that we can usually count on to redeem the year offered us precious little. Rob Reiner gave us “North.” Kenneth Branagh, “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” The Coen Brothers, “The Hudsucker Proxy.” Oliver Stone, “Natural Born Killers.”

Matso: In my opinion, Oliver Stone owes Quentin Tarantino a case of his favorite beer for ruining a good story idea.

White: I’m not finished. Tim Burton, “Ed Wood.” Barry Levinson, “Jimmy Hollywood.” George Lucas, “The Radioland Murders.” And Mr. Miyagi, “The Next Karate Kid.”

Matso: You’re right. Maybe the best thing about the year were those dark-horse movies that took the analysts completely by surprise.

White: Examples?

Matso: “Ace Ventura: Pet Detective” and “Four Weddings and a Funeral” both made it to the screen completely unheralded, both were very entertaining and both cleaned up at the box office.

White: Sure, and there’s a reason for optimism. Perhaps, with the success of independent films, Hollywood will be more receptive to throwing some cash at new and more creative talent. Then again, perhaps Jerry Reed will make “Smokey and the Bandit IV.”

Matso: The problem is that people in Hollywood have a penchant for misinterpreting the trends. They’ll cross-reference “Four Weddings” with “Ace Ventura” and buy scripts on comedians who demand prenuptial agreements. Besides, those weren’t the best movies of the year--just the biggest surprises.

White: For me, the best movies of the year were “Pulp Fiction” and “Forrest Gump.”

Matso: This is another problem. “Forrest Gump” is on my top five list too and yet I’m not convinced it was that great. It was a feel-good movie and Tom Hanks gave an incredible performance--there’s an excellent chance he’ll be offering another lecture at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion this year--but I thought the movie had real flaws.

White: Like what?

Matso: First of all, they went way too far with the technical razzmatazz. Every time Gump met a past celebrity with a badly superimposed mouth, it was about as impressive as shadow puppets.

White: Then I guess the most notable aspect of the year in film was the arrival of Tarantino and “Pulp Fiction.”

Matso: . . . which, as I alluded to earlier, created a lot of mixed feelings in most theaters.

White: What are you talking about? “Pulp Fiction” was an incredible movie.

Matso: Hey, I agree. I’ve never seen anyone tightrope between nail-biting tension and hilarious satire the way Tarantino does.

White: I sense a “but” coming.

Matso: But at the same time, I walked out of “Pulp Fiction” really depressed.

White: Why? Did you empathize with The Gimp?

Matso: No. I mean, it’s one thing if someone like Tupac Shakur makes a living composing violent raps. He comes from a violent world. This is not a guy you expect to do Peter, Paul and Mary songs. But where does Quentin Tarantino’s violence come from? Quentin worked in Manhattan Beach renting videos to no-life kids like you and me. What’s he drawing on--the time we toilet-papered the store?

White: So what are you saying, only John Gotti can make bloody movies?

Matso: No. I’m just saying the violence is a little easier to take when you know the writer’s representing experiences and not just conjuring up a lot of pain for entertainment’s sake.

White: It’s like you’re saying violence is sacred. “How dare he make a violent movie? He’s never killed anybody.”

Matso: But Tarantino treats violence so lightly. I mean, no one in that movie was good or bad. They were all just cool, which makes it seem totally acceptable to blow people away.

White: It’s supposed to be chilling. I can understand your being disturbed by the film, but I don’t think you can criticize Tarantino. That’s the nature of the gangster game. The story would have been very disjointed if, after every hit, John Travolta asked Samuel Jackson to just hold him.

Matso: You’re missing the point. Look at the most talked-about movies of the year: “Reality Bites,” “Four Weddings and a Funeral,” “Natural Born Killers” and “Pulp Fiction.” Translation: a movie about people without values, people who go to weddings but don’t get married, people who love to kill, and people who don’t love to kill but don’t have a huge problem with it either.

White: Why have you suddenly decided to omit entertaining and feel-good movies like “Forrest Gump” and “The Lion King”?

Matso: They were fun and I’m happy they got made, but it’s not like those movies are going to leave a deep imprint on the American psyche, unless you are really in the dark about how vicious hyenas can be.

White: So let me get this straight. You’re disappointed with the year because entertaining movies were too simple and the edgy, benchmark “Pulp Fiction” was too disturbing.

Matso: That’s right. And don’t be so incredulous. You were as disappointed as I was.

White: But in a different way. I just want more--more “Pulp Fiction,” more “Quiz Show,” more “Forrest Gump.” You want something deeper. You have to either take up audio books or move to a country that meets your spiritual standards. Me, I just have to wait till 1995 and all those hot new releases.