Oh my. The 70s were brown, man.
I think I’ve seen all the Mel Brooks movies? On VHS in the early 80s. And I don’t really remember this one, except that I think it’s not really one of the better ones? So why did I buy this? Because I kinda sorta want to watch all of his 70s movies again… so why not start with the one I don’t remember?
I mean, there aren’t that many:
Yeah, it’s getting kinda meta.
Heh heh.
Well… Well, OK, it’s a parody of a Hitchcock thriller. But it also kinda tries at being one of these thrillers? So while there are jokes — a lot of them — it’s not like a Zucker/Abramhams/Zucker movie from the same era: It’s kinda subdued.
So while it’s amusing, it’s not exactly hilarious? The jokes aren’t *snap* *snap* *snap*.
Yeah, the movie is just getting flabbier and flabbier. It’s not like the first half was chock-a-block with gags, but now there’s even fewer.
*sigh*
Heh heh, that’s a good one. The joke’s even more relevant today, somehow.
I quite liked the way this movie started, but halfway in, it lost all momentum. And it feels stupid to complain about a movie like this getting “too silly”, but… that’s not it exactly. The writing just felt very lazy: They went with the first joke they thought of and called it a day. It should have been sillier.
Eh:
Pauline Kael of The New Yorker shared the same objection, writing that “Brooks seems to be under the impression that he’s adding a satirical point of view, but it’s a child’s idea of satire; imitation, with a funny hat and a leer. Hitchcock’s suspense melodramas are sparked by his perverse wit; they’re satirical to start with.”
I don’t think that’s it, either. The problem is that there’s long stretches of movie where there isn’t much funny stuff going on.
High Anxiety. Mel Brooks. 1977. ⚂
Leave a Reply