Giant Movies That You Never Hear About Anymore (2 Viewers)

Not nearly the quality of Shawshank (though still in my personal Top Ten)- is Rudy.. to this day, i cant watch he last 20 minutes of that movie without becoming emotional, like lump in my throat, single tear in the corner of my eye emotional... I mean, (*spoiler alert*)- HE GOT TO PLAY IN THE GAME!
Field of Dreams for me ‘game of catch’ gets me every time
 
Bad Boys For Life is going down as the biggest blockbuster of 2020---do you think we'll be quoting that one in 20 years? Or by the end of football season?

To be fair, the box office died after March, so it was a small window.

And there are plenty of later-franchise movies that make bank on name recognition but make zero cultural impact. People will still occasionally reference The Hangover. No one even remembers what happened in The Hangover 2 and 3 despite those making a lot of money.
 
Harlem Nights was always one of my favorite movies in my teens. Everyone I knew growing up watched it and quoted it all the time. I looked it up recently had had no idea it was so poorly rated. Not that I care about ratings. I'd still watch it if I find it on and I still quote it quite often. The only part I remember being awkward back then was Dwyane Wayne's acting, specifically his really bad crying. Although the scene with the little gun is pretty funny.

I dont remember the scene you're referring at all. I dont remember him being in Harlem Nights but its been a minute since I've seen it I guess.
 
I dont remember the scene you're referring at all. I dont remember him being in Harlem Nights but its been a minute since I've seen it I guess.

Think he means arsenio hall

And the little gun scene and orange juice scene makes me laugh every time
 
I dont remember the scene you're referring at all. I dont remember him being in Harlem Nights but its been a minute since I've seen it I guess.
Think he means arsenio hall

And the little gun scene and orange juice scene makes me laugh every time

Coincidentally I'm watching it now on some HBO channel and it is Arsenio. My mistake, but thanks for the correction. Yes the orange juice scene and the alley fight scene are the best. Any scene with Vera is great.
 
Coincidentally I'm watching it now on some HBO channel and it is Arsenio. My mistake, but thanks for the correction. Yes the orange juice scene and the alley fight scene are the best. Any scene with Vera is great.

Ah okay! If I had caught the last sentence beforehand I could have put it together, LOL. I was to busy racking my brain trying to think of what scene Harrison was in.
 

Here's a nice list from Cracked. I've only heard of two of those movies.

All five of the movies on that list are pretty terrible. I love the last line in the explanation for why so many people went to see "Smokey and the Bandit":
So I guess it actually makes sense. If the Fast & Furious movies can be hits starring actors with zero charisma, think about what happens when you add a few stars with actual comedic ability.
:lol:

And he's right about why it was a hit. People loved Burt Reynolds and car stunts, so it was a perfect storm. Add in an all time gem in Jackie Gleason, and people were hooked. Sally Field was a big box office draw at the time as well. But it is a stupid movie, and hasn't aged well.
 
I Know What You Did Last Summer
1607319452567.png
The four headliners were all a HUGE deal at the time. Its pretty shocking how irrelevant all of them are now.

Also, Cruel Intentions (half of the same cast)
 
Not sure if it would qualify as "Blockbuster" but all those Pauly Shore movies in the early 90s - Encino Man, Son-In-Law, Class Act, etc.

Also in the late 80s, there was this Australian guy named Yahoo Serious. He made this movie called Young Einstein, who seemed to be all over MTV for a period of time, then the Berlin wall fell and he dropped off the face of the Earth.
 
Kingdom of Heaven was not exactly a blockbuster in the US but did very well overseas. Some attribute this to its sensitive treatment of Islam. In one scene, Salah Al-Din, after taking the city of Jerusalem, walks into a room, picks up a cross from the floor, and returns it to an upright position on a table,

While the movie takes some artistic license, it it fairly fact-based. Salah Al-Din is rightfully portrayed as a chivalrous (for the times) general.

To Balian "I will grant you and your people safe passage"

"When the Christians conquered Jerusalem, they butchered every man, woman, and child in the city"

"I am not those men. I am Salah-Al-Din. Salah Al-Din."

The special effects are very good, and the dynamics of the major players on both sides are fairly accurate. Reynaud du Chatillon was indeed a psychopath. A Nathan Bedford Forrest of his time.
The Knights Templars are depicted a bit, unfairly, IMHO. They weren’t these completely irrational, warlike zealots the movie depicts them as. Templars we’re expert Medieval archeologists, merchants and soldiers who’s primary job was to help accompany Christian pilgrims on the way to the Holy Land. The Crusader Wars didn’t end with the capture of Jerusalem, BTW. The movie ends with Balian, the French iron smith, being approached by Richard the Lionheart, asking him to join his Fourth Crusade, which he refused. The Templars, reportedly, discovered the Ark of The Covenant and some Biblical relics after the 1st Crusade and carried them back to Rome, secretly and were paid hush money for their work and their silence, as well.

Saladin was an enlightened, somewhat chivalrous General for his era, to a certain extent. But he was certainly a highly intelligent, Islamic scholar and if some of his fellow soldiers or fellow Muslims couldn’t grasp his higher view of Islam, he’d dismiss them outright and keep walking right past them. A bit of a prig, but an enlightened one. He and Richard the Lionheart certainly developed a strong relationship later on after the Fourth Crusade.

Actually, Reynaud was more incompetent and inept as a king and military commander. Psychopathic tendencies? Sure, but Nathan Bedford Forrest was actually a highly successful commander and Confederate guerilla leader. Sure, there was the Ft. Pillows massacre murdering black soldiers after surrendering in 1864 IIRC, but Bedford’s views towards African-Americans during the Civil War and later on as KKK’s first Imperial Wizard during Reconstruction weren’t that uncommon for Civil War or post Civil War Southerners, as despicable and horrific as it was. But Forrest was a capable officer and military leader compared to du Chatillon.
Eva Green’s interesting character was unfairly edited out as King Baldwin’s sister and Balian’s secret lover.
 
It took A LOT of artistic license. King Baldwin did not live in peace with Saladin. As soon as the regency over him was over, he refused to ratify the treaty that his regent had agreed to and began attacking. Saladin did agree to give safe passage at Jerusalem, but it was only after Balian said he would destroy the Muslim sacred sites. That is touched up in the movie, but it wasn't an act of kindness by Saladin as the movie suggests. He wasn't going to give safe passage until Balian made the threat. In addition, the people had to pay a ransom in order to leave (they had 50 days to do it). Those that couldn't pay the ransom were forced into slavery.
I think also Saladin was forced to make concessions to allow Christian pilgrims safe passage to holy sites after Richard the Lionheart’s 4th Crusade recaptured some Crusader states along the modern Israeli/Lebanon Mediterranean coastlines and IMHO, if it weren’t for Richard’s reconsolidation of these Crusader states like Acre, the European presence in ME during this time would’ve ended a century earlier instead of Acre’s fall in 1291.
 
I am not saying one side or the other was worse. Both had their issues. I am just saying the movie portrayed Baldwin too "good." The first chance he got, he attacked. There may have been a period of uneasy peace, but I would attribute that to more of both sides beating up each other bad enough that there was a re-group. Two years after Montisgard, Baldwin was defeated and almost captured at the Battle of Marj Ayyun. I think this had more to do with the relative peace after that than Baldwin's goodwill.

As for Balian and Saladin, Saladin wasn't offering terms. Balian said, "Okay, I will destroy your holy sites--how about that." Saladin didn't want that on his head, so he gave terms. And as for the slavery, even if they were eventually released (which I am not convinced of), slavery for any period of time is terrible. Plus, you had to pay a ransom in order to avoid the slavery. The basic events were correct, however, the movie clearly wanted protagonists and antagonists, and skewed the characters to fit those roles. Baldwin wasn't really looking to live in peace with the Muslims, and Saladin wasn't as magnanimous in victory as portrayed either.
Slavery in any period of historical era is wrong but let’s not try and argue that ancient antiquity slavery or captured soldiers, Christians and Muslims, sold as slaves as akin or equivalent to the racialized slavery during the Age of Exploration and European slave trade of the Middle Passage from the late 17th century-early 19th century until the international slave trade was abolished in 1808.

It also can’t be compared to the radical Social Darwinist eugenics theories of the late 19th century that espoused dominant historical race struggle and dominance of Aryan Germanic/Anglo-Saxon cultures over European or Slavic Jewish races or cultures which eventually led to the Nazi Holocaust.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom