Why wasn't this movie more popular in the U.S.?
-
theclarkone68 — 22 years ago(April 01, 2004 07:58 PM)
I stand by my earlier assertion that this movie probably does go over the heads of mainstream Americans,<<<<
Gee, could it not be liked because maybe, just maybe, it was simply a terrible movie? Nah, that can't be it because we're just too stupid to 'get it'. Sh!t, why do people always use suck weakass excuses like "it's too sophisticaed" or "they just don't get it" when people are trying to defend a terrible movie? Mainstream audiences aren't as stupid, lazy, uneducated, unsophisticated, etc as you think. Sure, they like terrible movies, but there's usually a reason for that whether it be because the characters are engaging/charismatic, special effects, they can identify with with the movie, nonstop action, etc. I thought this movie was full of dry, lifeless humor from unengaging characters in situations I didn't give one sh!t about. -
Bitter_Almonds — 20 years ago(August 04, 2005 01:06 PM)
I sort of liked the movie back in the late 80s, but most of the proponents of this movie are making me think otherwise. I don't get how lambasting American movie-goers can be construed as an informed/intelligent opinion for how good or funny a movie is, but maybe that's 'cause I live in the US
Do The Mussolini! Headkick! -
theclarkone68 — 20 years ago(January 06, 2006 07:10 PM)
I'm not trying to propose Mr. Serious as a latter-day Picasso, but simply suggesting that naive work can cloak a very sophisticated mentality.
Isn't it funny how some people have to invent excuses as to why this movie wasn't terrible? You can dress the movie up all you want, but that still doesn't make it good. This movie is barely more sophisticated than
Bio-Dome
.
Nothing's too good for the man who shot Liberty Valance. -
Dengar — 21 years ago(April 19, 2004 09:31 PM)
I agree wholeheartedly with Momoro, in every way. I am an avid film watcher (and involved in the business), and rate this film right up there in my top 10, along with The Godfather trilogy and Citizen Kane. Now let's be realistic, in that comedy is the most subjective to taste, so I don't expect people to "get" or "not get" the film. Comedy aside, I think the technical achievements it offers, including art-direction, casting, acting, and soundtrack all merit much attention, whether one enjoys slapstick or not.
-
bingeboi — 21 years ago(June 26, 2004 01:54 PM)
Citizen Kane is an unwatchable piece of crap that everyone is to afraid to speak truly about. The Godfather films are only really interesting in that the Corleone family is a bunch of lawless criminals and most "Americans" are morbidly fascinated by their story. You "industry types" are alway talking about technical achievements or "dramatic sophistry". Point is that you would not understand what we Americans like in movies because we have so many choices, if we choose to exercise them. Unfortunately all to many of us do not. Before you start spewing your prejudices on here again come to America and see what we are really like. We can watch all sorts of films foreign or domestic, and I at least chooose which movies I like by watching them, not by who directed them. Even the best directors make mistakes, and so on down the totem pole.
Young Einstein is a funny entertainig film, but it does NOT have half the talent or technical achievements, dramatic sophistry, that the Lord of the Rings contains. J.R.R. Tolkien should have been American!!
Peter Jackson in collaboration with George Romero, the best movie of all time would be created.
"The Realm of Sauron is ended forever"
When there's no more room in Hell, The Dead will walk the Earth" -
lgattell — 21 years ago(July 18, 2004 10:44 AM)
Although i have rather enjoyed reading your various opinions about the movie in question I don't think peoples personal tastes are the major factor in why this movie did/does not rate that well with americans.
Being a low budget australian movie it did/does not get the "air time" for people in the US to be aware of it.(Already stated by some of our American friends)
True it is not for all tastes but name a film that is, im willing to bet that if someone were to put up the capital to get this film "out there" and in peoples faces in the US it would have the same appeal it does anywhere else in the world.
What im trying to say is although people of the same "race" may have certian common beliefs at the end of the day were all humans and were all individuals.
Some poeple like apples and others like oranges and thats all there is to it. -
fuzzipuao — 21 years ago(July 27, 2004 10:23 PM)
And some prefer bannanas.
I think this movie has cult potential just because it is a fun, silly movie. I think Yahoo Serious was going for the Einstein who stuck his tongue out at the world. He did a wonderful job! And the sound track is amazing.
I wouldn't even put it in the same catagory as LOTR movies, none of which I have seen, nor am interested in seeing. This does not put down the amazing work done on those movies, just says that I don't like fantasy that takes itself too seriously. Give me silly fun any time! -
tpnance — 21 years ago(August 23, 2004 06:18 AM)
I so agree. I loved this movie along with the movie "Reckless Kelly". It is pure silliness and loads of laugh of loud fun. The only films to be compared to this of only films of this category. I rank the film out there with "Cry-Baby", also that film didnt make it to box offices here in the states where i live. But is so funny and that is all it is ment to be.
-
ivegottheskill — 21 years ago(July 30, 2004 04:22 AM)
I didn't think it was that bad. First of all, its supposed to be a comedy, so it won't appeal to everyone (hence probably why it didn't appeal to many americans with their wierd sense of humor).
As it is a comedy and isn't based on fact from the start, plot holes and the like have to be ignored. Just focus on the movie being a piece of entertainment (i.e. nothing more than moving pictures with sound) and its possible to appreciate other aspects of films such as this.
Soundtrack is cool as well
-
aurelie_ledoyen — 21 years ago(December 31, 2004 10:37 PM)
This movie I hate to say, was too good for us Americans to enjoy..I myself loved it as a child of 9; it was just so funny..of course noone else around me had seen it, probably because they would'nt laugh at the asylum scenes or father-son dialogue in Young Einstein.
I loooved this movie but as for Best Film of 1988 I'd have to say it's a tossover between this one and Willow.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.~ Carl Sagan -
JahWoo — 19 years ago(January 18, 2007 12:37 AM)
i was ten whenit came outI think it was marketed towards kids because I remember being excited about itlol. I think i didn't get to see it until it came out on video.but..it was a movie I remember I wanted to see.
-
KingNine61 — 17 years ago(September 20, 2008 11:17 PM)
Okay, so I.m necroposting. It happens. But I thought I'd throw some context into the mix and see what rises.
Then YE was released in the United States, the adverts for it billed it as a "runaway hit" in Australia. The land down under was very trendy here at the time. We had muscular Aussies pitching alkaline batteries, a line of Aussie hair care products was very popular and koalas and kangaroos were everywhere (not the actual animals, but images of them). Foreign films don't get wide release here very often (virtually NEVER back in the eighties) and I figured if this film is such a hit in Australia and it's released to American audiences IN THE THEATERS, it's going to be something special.
Wow, was I wrong.
I brought a date to it and I had to apologize afterward.
It isn't sophistication or intelligence for the reason why this film was rejected by American audiences, as this film is neither sophisticated nor intelligent. But whatever.
The French like(d) Jerry Lewis and we typically saw him as a total buffoon who did a telethon every now and then. Germans think that David Hasselhoff is a swell guy, but Americans see him as a walking punchline. A careless logician would conclude that there is something wrong with the French and Germans, but I don't think so. It's just that their cultures appreciate that form of entertainment for whatever reason.
Americans didn't like Yahoo Serious. So what. At least he has Australia.
KNAPF -
tyrDC — 17 years ago(January 13, 2009 12:13 PM)
There's also the notion that if it's made in a country other than the US it
must
be more high brow. Other countries make bad/ stupid/ and just plain awful movies too. Nowadays it's like when any comedy show out of England is immediately praised by American hipster types basically because liking British comedy supposedly adds to one's coolness credibility even if Brits themselves think the show is terrible. I think in general Americans did take this movie at face value- it was silly, schlocky and not exactly a high quality film. Just because it's "foreign" doesn't mean it gets a free pass. I liked this movie at 9 years old when it came out so does that mean at 9 I was an extremely sophisticated fim connoisseur? Doubt it, I thought Ernest Goes to Camp (an American movie) was hilarious too at that age and it's rated about the same as this movie- deservedly. Don't get me wrong, I like my campy movies like Army of Darkness and Buffy the Vampire Slayer but I would definitely not say that it's "too sophisticated" for some people to get. -
sanctuary_thirteen — 16 years ago(September 08, 2009 05:22 AM)
Honestly, after seeing this movie again for the first time SINCE 1988, I think this movie was at least 10 years ahead of its time. I realize in a lot of ways its just a dumb comedy, but in others, it shines.