(Review originally written at 17 July 2007)
It's amazing that a movie with such a concept and people involved wasn't more fun to watch. The movie seriously lacked some good laughs at times and I feel that the movie in its core had far more potential.
It's obvious that Gene Wilder wanted to make a Mel Brooks kind of movie. The movie definitely has the same atmosphere and ideas as "Young Frankenstein". Unfortunately its not as good and it shows how much quality Mel Brooks actually has, to have the skill to have simple, predictable and silly humor and still make an hilarious and classic movie with it.
The humor in this movie is just as absurd and predictable and unfortunately it just doesn't always work out.
The story is totally uninteresting and just serves as an excuse to put as many crazy characters as possible into the movie. It's a weird looking bunch with Dom DeLuise playing a woman! Could be me but I thought the sight of him was pretty darn hilarious! Halve of the time I didn't even bother to wanted to know what the story was all about, it was that absurd really!
The movie of course also features Gene Wilder but unfortunately he hasn't given himself better material and dialog to work with. So it's hardly his best or most comical role. The movie further more also features Jonathan Pryce, in one of his earlier movie roles.
Quite frankly I don't understand who the movie has such a bad reputation. I mean the movie is not all that bad. Yes, you have to like these sort of movies (Mel Brooks-type of humor movies) but I've seen far worse genre movies receiving far better criticism. It just doesn't seem really fair.
The special effects are definitely acceptable for its genre and year it was made in. So was its make-up and its entire professional visual look.
If you like these type of movies its very well worth seeing, though it's definitely not the best movie in its genre that is around.
6/10
Watch trailer
It's amazing that a movie with such a concept and people involved wasn't more fun to watch. The movie seriously lacked some good laughs at times and I feel that the movie in its core had far more potential.
It's obvious that Gene Wilder wanted to make a Mel Brooks kind of movie. The movie definitely has the same atmosphere and ideas as "Young Frankenstein". Unfortunately its not as good and it shows how much quality Mel Brooks actually has, to have the skill to have simple, predictable and silly humor and still make an hilarious and classic movie with it.
The humor in this movie is just as absurd and predictable and unfortunately it just doesn't always work out.
The story is totally uninteresting and just serves as an excuse to put as many crazy characters as possible into the movie. It's a weird looking bunch with Dom DeLuise playing a woman! Could be me but I thought the sight of him was pretty darn hilarious! Halve of the time I didn't even bother to wanted to know what the story was all about, it was that absurd really!
The movie of course also features Gene Wilder but unfortunately he hasn't given himself better material and dialog to work with. So it's hardly his best or most comical role. The movie further more also features Jonathan Pryce, in one of his earlier movie roles.
Quite frankly I don't understand who the movie has such a bad reputation. I mean the movie is not all that bad. Yes, you have to like these sort of movies (Mel Brooks-type of humor movies) but I've seen far worse genre movies receiving far better criticism. It just doesn't seem really fair.
The special effects are definitely acceptable for its genre and year it was made in. So was its make-up and its entire professional visual look.
If you like these type of movies its very well worth seeing, though it's definitely not the best movie in its genre that is around.
6/10
Watch trailer
No comments: