MovieChat Forums > Young Einstein (1989) Discussion > Why wasn't this movie more popular in th...

Why wasn't this movie more popular in the U.S.?

posted 21 years ago by OCOKA
37 replies | jump to latest

I was completely unaware of this movie as it wasn't playing in my neck of the woods in the Southern U.S. in 1988. However, when Iwent to Germany in the summer of 1990, it was still in circulation and being played at several major movie houses in Frankfurt a.M. and elsewhere, where it was immensely well received.

The question is, why didn't this classic movie receive a wider cinematic release in the U.S.? I just loved this film to bits and I thought the story was so fresh and original. Its humor was really Australian -- which was really refreshing. This may have been the reason why it was dismissed by major distributors in the U.S.

Nevertheless, I clearly regard this flick as perhaps the BEST movie of 1988. Period. (I also loved the soundtrack title song: "Great Southern Land".)

[–] Trillian_42 21 years ago

Simply? Because Americans suck.

We can't/couldn't process something like this, it's alternately slapstick and bone dry humor. No one can/could peg it as one or the other so I think people were so caught up in facts and points that they couldn't just ride on.

That, and we made Pluto Nash.

[–] rwsmith29456 17 years ago

It was popular with ME in the U.S. and I'm sure quite a few other people that visit this board. There are even some U.S. made movies that aren't popular in the U.S.

[–] jackamaku 21 years ago

Wow. Trillian 42 would sell out his/her own country over a Yahoo Serious film. Very sad. And Momoro, do you realize you said that Young Einstein was "too sophisticated" for American audiences? I'm emailing this to my friends. Never has Yahoo Serious and the words "too sophisticated" come together before. When I saw this movie I though I was watching Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors because the humor was so labyrinthine. We sat around afterward trying to analyze all the layers of Mr. Serious' complex comedy. Pure Genius. I give it a 3 out of 10.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] northeastkc1 21 years ago

I heard a great sound bite on NPR tody. It went something like this: Most American films are made according to a 3 part formula. Blow up some stuff. Shoot some people. Have sex. ;-)

[–] NeoLeo 21 years ago

That sounds like Hollywood to me, but you forgot the ubiquitous CGI effects.
That doesn't mean we all like them, though. We're just presented with little else to choose from.
Personally, I find Young Einstein to be 91 minutes of inspired lunacy. Is it silly? Of course it is, but don't we all need a little unadulterated silliness every so often?

"You came here in that? You're braver than I thought."

[–] northeastkc1 20 years ago

Please recall that I was simply quoting the statements of another. That said, I wouldn't actually say that the "ubiquitous CGI effects" were actually forgotten, they simply are the underpinnings of the three previously mentioned elements.

[–] NeoLeo 20 years ago

they simply are the underpinnings of the three previously mentioned elements.

Not necessarily. Have you seen The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones? Hollywood loves CGI for the sake of CGI. Just one more gimmic they can sell.

"You came here in that? You're braver than I thought."

[–] mizutamariis 16 years ago

That sounds about right... Damn Americans... Wish I wasn't one... I'm going to be adopted by the Welsh. The Welsh are funny. This ~movie~ was funny! I laughed my butt off!

[–] kstone2 21 years ago

I think this movie just requires an open mind. And that's pretty hard to come by in most American audiences.

Also, you have to think of cinema as an art form. Not everyone has the same tastes. This film is certainly a lot different than most movies I've seen. I guess that's why I liked it so much.

[–] TheSalmonOfDoubt 21 years ago

Well - I actually thought this movie was awful
To the poster who stated this movie was above the head of the Mainstream American .. what are you on? ...

Call it personal taste or whatever you like - but it is quite possible to be sophisticated and still (and I know your gonna find this hard to believe)consider Yahoo Serious a complete one joke pillock.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheSalmonOfDoubt 21 years ago

Ok - so your real position is that you like the movie cos it appeals to your tastes.
Let's leave sophistication out of the argument - personally I don't find this to be a sophisticated movie at all and actually forgive its shortcoming on the basis of that (totally misstated the whole premise behind the theory of realitivity) Sight Gags - of which it abounds - aren't generally considered the hall mark of the high brow .. really not seeing how being in anyway shape or form Sophisticated would allow you to enjoy this film anymore than simply taking it for what it is... a few moments of nonsensical comedy grounded in pseudo science for the masses.

[–] theclarkone68 21 years ago

>>>>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 19 years ago

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!

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Studman_Productions 19 years ago

What is this? Hey momo you from Texas? Cool!

Stephen Tobolowsky & Keith David: The Greatest Character Actors Ever!

[–] theclarkone68 19 years ago

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.

[–] Studman_Productions 19 years ago

[–] Dengar 21 years ago

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 20 years ago

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 20 years ago

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 20 years ago

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 20 years ago

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 20 years ago

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 :D

[–] aurelie_ledoyen 20 years ago

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

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rrtyson2 19 years ago

"This movie I hate to say, was too good for us Americans to enjoy"

Are you kidding me? Maybe you loved it because YOU WERE NINE!

[–] gosundancekid 18 years ago

hullo!

one of the posters mentioned it should be a cult film. well, in my country it is a cult film.

one of my favourites.

andrea

[–] burninblazes 20 years ago

Too sophisticated? This is one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen in my life.

_ _ _

"Why spend your life making someone else's dreams come true?"

-- Ed Wood, the movie

[–] JahWoo 18 years ago

i was ten whenit came out...I think it was marketed towards kids because I remember being excited about it...lol. 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.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] KingNine61 16 years ago

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 16 years ago

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.