tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post6913794965079101641..comments2023-10-22T09:05:13.481-07:00Comments on Because I Saw The Film: "Alive! It's alive! It's alive!"Marcyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-87148950828879044242008-07-06T07:47:00.000-07:002008-07-06T07:47:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-52866388402933450992008-06-03T04:02:00.000-07:002008-06-03T04:02:00.000-07:00But that is the point of a parody! Sometimes it wo...<I>But that is the point of a parody! Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Young Frankenstein was not a cheap idea.</I><BR/><BR/>On second thought, I agree. After all, I really like Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz and parody seems to be what they are doing, more or less.<BR/><BR/>So I take it back, that was rather too bold of a statement on my part.Anil Usumezbashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17320438983105774241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-37173572173469035672008-06-02T20:44:00.000-07:002008-06-02T20:44:00.000-07:00People like pop references they recognize, but the...People like pop references they recognize, but there are <I>many</I> comedies that are funny on their own terms. They don't need the references to fuel the humor. <I>Young Frankenstein</I> has a handful of those moments, so I guess that is why there are high schoolers who like the movie.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for sharing, Matt. I never knew that Mel Brooks and Woody Allen began their careers together. I think Woody Allen is funny, but like many, he has his share of comedic misses.Marcyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-52277532426108310332008-06-02T20:23:00.000-07:002008-06-02T20:23:00.000-07:00I was just playing the devil's advocate of sorts. ...I was just playing the devil's advocate of sorts. I like both of your pages, actually, and find a lot of what you have to say insightful, so it's not like it's anything personal. And honestly, you may be correct that high schoolers would find it funny, but I think, being that I have two very much younger sisters who are in middle and high school, that the majority of people that age (my sisters included) would find the film (YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN) lacking in any sort of relevance to their particular culture, and that is what I find most odd about the reaction to the films.<BR/><BR/>Also, I think it's worth noting that both Mel Brooks and Woody Allen began their careers together, sort of, as staff writers for YOUR SHOW OF SHOWS...on a completely unrelated topic, of course.matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00269017909461737952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-34877211487136936712008-06-02T19:56:00.000-07:002008-06-02T19:56:00.000-07:00Anil, I understand why you hate the film. I don't ...Anil, I understand why you hate the film. I don't think the Mel Brooks-type humor (same with Peter Sellers) is really compatible with what I find funny, but I thought <I>Young Frankenstein</I> had a few good moments and some great acting talents evolved (especially Kahn). Those pluses were enough for me to shy away from a completely negative review.<BR/><BR/><I>When comedy is altering an established genre to try to squeeze jokes out of it, I find it cheap.</I><BR/><BR/>But that is the point of a parody! Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. <I>Young Frankenstein</I> was not a cheap idea. In fact, I found it quite original. But the way some of the humor was executed was rather cheap.<BR/><BR/>Matt, I'm glad you liked my review, despite our differences. Like Anil, <I>Young Frankenstein</I> was also my first meeting with Brooks and I was disappointed. But I will watch <I>Blazing Saddles</I> someday just because of Kahn's Oscar nomination.<BR/><BR/>I've never bothered with any of the Scary Movies, Superhero Movies, or Date Movies because they look plain unwatchable. <I>Young Frankenstein</I> has style <I>and</I> originality, but I don't find all the humor funny. I agree with Anil on this: If it is a comedy, then it should be funny. All the jokes should work.<BR/><BR/>I think your liking of <I>Young Frakenstein</I> has more to do with your taste rather than your age. I know many teenagers who probably enjoy this movie as much as you do, Matt.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Anil's top 50...well, tastes differ, I guess. I would probably pick <I>GoodFellas</I>, <I>Raging Bull</I>, and <I>Taxi Driver</I> over <I>The Departed</I> too. I think we all hold several outrageous opinions about certain films, though...I'd pick <I>Spider-Man 3</I> over its predecessors any day.Marcyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03026474177609894679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-14660737561324683142008-06-02T17:20:00.000-07:002008-06-02T17:20:00.000-07:00Matt, it makes me happy that you took the time to ...Matt, it makes me happy that you took the time to check my 'Top 50 or whatever' list before coming up with generalizations about me. Our difference is, I don't see our conflicting views and/or tastes as a reason to dismiss your opinions and credibility - otherwise I could easily go on and say the same thing about you for loving the pre-dominantly loathed Temple of Doom more than the critic/audience favorite Raiders of the Lost Ark.<BR/><BR/>To be honest, I think Taxi Driver belongs in that list but it's not there yet simply because I need to rewatch it and decide where to place it. I really love Raging Bull and Goodfellas but I don't see them as perfect pieces according to my criteria. If that makes me someone not to be taken seriously, so be it. Better than being the lap dog of consensus thought (not that I'm insinuating <I>you</I> are, don't get me wrong)<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, the superiority of No Country for Old Men over Fargo (or any other Coens film for that matter) is so profoundly obvious to me that I don't even feel like writing a single sentence to back my opinion.<BR/><BR/>Sorry for being slightly off-topic. In order to return to the film under spotlight,<BR/><BR/><I>"as most of the insipid "comedies" that attempt this humor (SCARY MOVIE, SUPERHERO MOVIE, DATE MOVIE, et al.) are nothing more than quickie pop-culture reference throwaways, with nothing to offer, and little to no laughs in the whole affair."</I><BR/><BR/>I just don't see how Young Frankenstein is any different. Yes, it doesn't bend the genres to unrecognizable shapes but is that enough reason to praise a comedy? If a movie has nothing more to offer than laughs and if laughs is the only thing that I fail to get, there is something wrong in that equation.Anil Usumezbashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17320438983105774241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-72538203955432413422008-06-02T13:37:00.000-07:002008-06-02T13:37:00.000-07:00I find it very strange that you and the poster abo...I find it very strange that you and the poster above me had such a strong distaste in your mouths after viewing YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. This and BLAZING SADDLES are amazing, genre-defining pieces of filmmaking, and I literally can't think of anyone I know who doesn't like either film. But, to each his own, I suppose.<BR/><BR/>What I find particularly interesting about Brooks' work is that it adheres very strictly to genre rules, without bending the structure so much as the content. The entire idea is completely groundbreaking, even to this day, as most of the insipid "comedies" that attempt this humor (SCARY MOVIE, SUPERHERO MOVIE, DATE MOVIE, et al.) are nothing more than quickie pop-culture reference throwaways, with nothing to offer, and little to no laughs in the whole affair.<BR/><BR/>And maybe, just maybe, I'm on the very cusp of generational lag myself in what I find to be entertaining or worthwhile (which would explain the disconnect on the Brooks films). And maybe I'm turning into an old fogey, or maybe I'm not. But I will say this about the above poster, just because unlike Brooks this is not really up for debate - really, ask just about anyone...Anyone who lists NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN instead of FARGO or THE BIG LEBOWSKI or MILLER'S CROSSING, or THE DEPARTED instead of RAGING BULL, GOODFELLAS, TAXI DRIVER, THE LAST TEMPTATION OF THE CHRIST, or THE LAST WALTZ in their top 50 or whatever list...well, they lose a lot of credibility. <BR/><BR/>But that's neither here nor there. I liked your review, despite your not having liked the movie. At least it was pointed and well-explained.matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00269017909461737952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4581610664264670624.post-74179510130786962892008-06-02T01:12:00.000-07:002008-06-02T01:12:00.000-07:00The first thirty minutes of the film does not incl...<I>The first thirty minutes of the film does not include many successful attempts at humor</I><BR/><BR/>I think the whole film itself, except Hackman cameo, is a huge, unsuccessful attempt at humor. This was my first meeting with Mel Brooks and if I have to arrive at some early conclusions with this one, I will say I don't find his style of humor funny at all.<BR/><BR/>I simply hated it. When comedy is altering an established genre to try to squeeze jokes out of it, I find it cheap.Anil Usumezbashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17320438983105774241noreply@blogger.com