When seemingly nine out of ten 'popular' movies are so strikingly similar (esp. Will Smith, Bruce Willis, et al), I have a problem calling them interesting.  People go because they are told to, and they believe that the film is interesting because they saw a newspaper ad where Peter Travers called it . . . "Interesting! A Must See!!" before he even saw the film himself. 

What's interesting should challenge us, not re-iterate the same schlock every week.

I was at David Gordon Green's premiere of George Washington at the Toronto Film Festival, and he noted that he wanted to make a film "different from all those loud, fast movies that I fall asleep during." 

Still, he's not "people in general" who somehow stay awake during a Will Smith film, based, I would argue, on the promise of something 'interesting' that never comes.  The baffling part is that they never get upset about having the promise remain unfulfilled.  I think that is because commercials and media coverage generate so much fanfare for the sake of itself that some level of curiosity is satisfied merely by seeing the film in its entirety, whether it is 'interesting' or not.(Maybe it's a different studio in the US, but try to avoid an ad for a film by Revolution Studios when you're at the TV for a hour - just try.  Darkness Falls, Tears of the Sun, Anger Management, etc. etc.  Not only have I seen these films before, with different titles, but I have already seen most of the films themselves just by watching the spots on television.)  

We watch developments on television, literature, sports, film (now even more closely than ever linked to consumerism, as so many new 'cutting edge' directors have cut their edges directing commercials), and we see how popular culture has become closer to, in the words of Adorno, a culture industry. 

The safest way to make money is to capitalize on what has already fought to become successful.  The studio heads who oversee these movies that are (supposedly) 'interesting' for 'people in general' are far from shy/secretive about this.  On top of only re-doing what's already there, they remain slave to their own test screenings that are made to ensure that the audience (assuming changes are made, which so often they are) will see exactly what they want to see: nothing new, unsettling or challenging.

Repeating what's been done, to the pre-determined satisfaction of an audience that is increasingly concerned (through no huge fault of their own) with consumption instead of mediation . . . you tell me how that makes for 'interesting' fare.  Sure, there are many anomalies (many here would seemingly say that the Matrix is one), but this is a highly predictable and repetitive industry that we're talking about when we get into major studios.  Anything can turn out to be 'interesting' for 'people in general.' The question is what the execs do with themselves when it happens to one of their films - accidentally - since they're primarily concerned with giving the people what they've already had, since that is time-tested for making money.

Most (all?) execs of major studios will gladly make a crappy and uninteresting movie - if they are relatively certain that it will make $80+ million (probably because Bruce Willis is going to play a down-on-his-luck, break the rules tough guy in adverse circumstances, or something of the like).  Thus, the major system is far from something that we can assume will consistently give us 'interesting' fare, and it's far from given that something is interesting just because people decided to go check it out.  (I myself am fairly judicious about what I see/pay money for, but many people I know will pay $14 Cdn to see a film merely out of a curiosity loose enough that they can't even say if the film will be interesting or not.  Most of them, admittedly, don't even care about that - they just want to get out of the house for a night, presumably to see some friends.  Not exactly the qualifier for what's! 'interesting.')

Of course, this whole argument is moot if you hold 'interesting' to mean something that people will pay money for, or something that the mainstream media itself will call interesting. 

(As an end note, I'd like to say that Will Smith has been arbitrarily chosen.  He was bearable in Six Degrees . . . and he may indeed be bearable again someday.  His ratio of gross income to repetitive, unintesesting films seems to be the strongest over the last seven years or so, hence his name being used.  Incidentally, he was also one of the few celebs to be outspoken with the media about his non-attendance of the Oscars in protest, and I'd hate to fully undermine such a stand by saying that he is wholly, permanently unbearable.)