JCC Movies that were instantly forgotten.

Sorry to disappoint, but I think there are lots and lots of Americans who see it that way too.

 

You think I think that's disappointing? Come on Bor, you know me better than that.

 

It makes no sense within even the context of the movie.

It is a funny speech.

Although I still like Bill Pullman.

 

So much doesn’t make sense within the context of the movie.

Jeff Goldbloom hacks and ultimately defeats the aliens using a Mac laptop.

Also Smith and Goldbloom’s mission is basically the same thing Anakin would do in The Phantom Menace. There’s just so much else going on in TPM copying ID4 is not what stands out.

 

It seemed hype as hell when I was, like, seven. But I agree that I think most folks who go back to that movie these days are in it for the action and camp, so they don't take many aspects of the writing all that seriously.

 

To me, a lot can be forgiven if a movie is entertaining and fun. Maybe that's a low brow perspective, granted. But a LOT of movies fail the "is it at least entertaining" test, so...

While I haven't watched it in a long while, and while my many frustrations with "plug and play" technology makes me laugh at the ease with which Earth tech interfaces with the alien tech, I've always found ID a fun time.

 

Some movies aren’t actually trying to be entertaining, and so it’s not fair to use that standard across the board. The movie Mediterranea, for example, is about the harrowing journey of a migrant traveling from Africa to southern Italy. If the filmmaker had made that story entertaining, then he would’ve failed. Luckily, he didn’t.

 

Please don’t take my bring up the Mac interfacing with alien tech as my not liking ID4.

Things like that are the fun of what makes that movie so enjoyable.

I don’t understand. What is the movie like? Is it excruciatingly boring or brutal to watch?

Maybe it comes down to the definition of entertaining. Are the terms entertaining and engaging interchangeable?

 

I think we can all agree that since we have opinions on ID4, it's most certainly not forgotten.

Now the sequel, THAT I forget even happened.

 

I would say 12 Years a Slave sparked the modern renaissance of slavery films (Birth of a Nation, Emancipation, etc) that are really relatively more graphic, focus more on the interior lives of slaves, and nod to the contradiction of religion in slave life in more nuanced fashion.

Anyway, a logical flaw of this approach is that a “Best Picture” award must be handed out every year but there simply isn’t some seminal, genre-defining cultural touchstone with that same frequency. This discussion only makes sense if you can point to more deserving/influential movies in the same year that didn’t win. The classic example would be Malcolm X. I don’t even have any idea what it lost to, but it does not have even one quarter the impact.

 

It lost to Schindler’s List.

Spoiler

Just kidding that movie was released in 1993 and won the 1994 best picture oscar, Malcom X is 1992 and the winter that year is Silence of the Lambs.

Spoiler

No that’s Best Picture winner in 1992 Oscar for movies released in 1991.

Unforgiven won for 1992 in 1993. Malcolm X was not nominated for best picture. Denzel Washington was nominated for best actor.

 

I tend to forgive plot holes or some things that don't work or make sense if the movie is able to evoke any kind of real emotion. The kind of emotion doesn't matter and really varies from movie to movie. A comedy should make you laugh; a horror movie should disturb you, scare you or both; a thriller should create tension; some dramas should make you cry. "Entertaining" is a pretty broad term and so is "engaging." My question is always, "Am I moved emotionally?" If the answer is yes, then I forgive other flaws; if the answer is no, it's hard to connect to the movie for me. Sometimes the emotional component is very subtle; other times, there's an intellectual component, but I don't draw lines between those things really or even from an appreciation of the craft. Sometimes, a movie is great at making you think, but that bridges to the emotions because, hey, in this case, I enjoy being made to think or being engaged on the intellectual level. I get emotional pleasure out of intellectual activity, whether that's thinking through a puzzle box of a movie or appreciating the great camera work on an aesthetic level. For me, it really does all go back to the emotion.

As for Independence Day . . . it's got a great score. I used to own that soundtrack and play the absolute hell out of it. David Arnold, as I recall. Really great soundtrack.

 

Not boring at all. It can be brutal, but the characters are captivating and it shines a light into the lives of people who are rarely given the role of protagonist in cinema (or even, the role of human). But it’s difficult to watch in a lot of ways, given that it’s confronting really severe issues relating to the treatment of fellow humans that many of us don’t think about very often (and that most don’t do anything about). But yeah, it’s semantics I think. As “entertaining,” to me, means…fun. And it seems most dictionaries follow that definition. Here’s Oxford’s definition (the most entertaining dictionary, by the way):

“…providing amusement or enjoyment.”

Plenty of great movies do that, but some great movies don’t. Though I suppose “enjoyment” can be very broadly defined…

 

I’d still call that entertaining. Perhaps engaging is the better term,

 

Good call. Engaging. I think every single film should attempt to engage an audience. Unless it’s a protest against film itself trying to explicitly not engage an audience. Hey, great idea. I’m going to go make a movie about painting a house beige.

 

One "problem" with this Thread, as entertaining as it is, is that it's hard to really define "instantly forgotten".

Is it a movie that few people see in the theaters?
Is it a movie that few people see in theaters or at home (via Blu-Ray, being aired a lot, or streaming)?
Is it a movie that had a lot of hype and buzz and maybe even won awards that "few people seem to talk about" (subjective, of course)?
Is it a movie that made a lot of money that "few people seem to talk about"?
Is it a movie that maybe won a major award - say, Best Picture - over a movie that is still famous or even iconic, that you might have vaguely heard of but that's about it?

And of course, almost any movie you mention, someone is gonna go "Hey, I haven't forgotten that!"/

For me, I think Avatar ALMOST fits the bill. It made a gazillion dollars. It just spawned a sequel that made a gazillion dollars. There is an Avatar-themed ride at one or more Disney parks. And yet...

I hear almost NO talk about it in geek circles. There aren't that many Avatar toys. I don't constantly see Avatar T shirts. Avatar memes. The world of Avatar didn't seem to engage many in the enduring way that, say STAR WARS did/has. There is no way to dispute the money it has generated, so clearly a lot of people have seen it and a lot of people wanted to see the sequel. I just feel that, for two movies that have made truly astonishing box office, I "hear" almost nothing about the world of Avatar.

 

I think you over thinking it. Avatar doesn’t count because there is an amusement park ride. For a Star Wars movie The Rise of Skywalker could count - but maybe not for a movie in general.

This is the sort of movie that’s immediately forgotten.

 

Wait…how can you name something you forgot? If you remember it…you remember it.

 

Agreed on Tron 2 as getting a lot of likes and wows and then very quickly getting forgotten about, I would also add X-Men: First Class (initially pretty widely seen as great prequel and/or more reboot, then quickly considered to be just more of the same with a lot of people thinking not as good as before). Also Chicago, most of that was just hype of It's a big new musical(!) and then later most people didn't care.

Fairly often considered the last time or at least one of the last times Jack Nicholson didn't go huge/hammy, otherwise still loved by more anti-authoritarian and counter-culture leaning people.

I think a lot of people (obviously a bit more older people) love Hoffman in big part for his acting in it and being part of his range throughout his career.

Very rarely is it someone's favorite movie ever, or one of their top 10-20, but I think Crowe and Connelly are still pretty loved, definitely respected for their acting in it. I love Lord of the Rings but hate when its fans attack and dismiss A Beautiful Mind for beating it (likewise Star Wars fans attacking and dismissing Annie Hall).

A lot of people (well film fans) still love Swank and Freeman and Eastwood's acting in it as well as the script/structure/story development.

The widest audience won't remember or love much out of the last 10-15 years but that doesn't mean other films are or should be regarded as huh.

 

I'm reminded, it seems a lot of people loved War of the Worlds '05 very early on and for a few years (though Cruise and the kids were always pretty polarizing), considered greatness, amazing, what other films should be but it surpasses them, then after those very first few years pretty overlooked, and even considered one of the distant lesser ones, in terms of discussion of Spielberg films and also sci fi/action/thriller/planet war or invasion films.

 

Young Einstein 1988

I remember this got a lot of coverage at the time and it's young star was meant to be the next big thing. can't remember the last time anyone ever mentioned this , don't know what happened to Yahoo Serious.

 

I have to agree about Avatar. It's remembered as such an era defining work, and for being watched by so many people, but we need to consider that
1) it was also supposed to be a pioneering work in 3D technology, and nobody gives a **** about 3D anymore
2) I don't think it ever occurred to me, online or in real life, to see any Avatar scene or character ever be mentioned in a conversation for any reason. Seriously, has it ever happened to any of you to have a friend at some point saying "remember that scene in Avatar?" ?