MovieChat Forums > California Split Discussion > WHY do people compare it 'MASH'?

WHY do people compare it 'MASH'?

posted 14 years ago by gnomekid
3 replies | jump to latest

True enough, both movies follow the "adventures" of two buddies (one of whom is played by Elliot Gould) in a unique little microcosm, there's lots of overlapping dialogue, etc. The movies do share some similarities, but I seriously don't understand how people compare 'California Split' to 'MASH.' Most reviews you read out there, including Roger Ebert's, call it a not only a better film than 'MASH' (a matter of opinion that I can't really take issue with), but also a funnier movie.

'MASH' is a full-on comedy. 'California Split' is much more of a "Let's follow these characters around and see what happens" kind of movie; there was humor in the film, to be sure, but I only laughed out loud three or four times. I just didn't think of it as a comedy at all.

Funnier than 'MASH'? NO FRIGGIN' WAY. But the movies are so different from one another, that I don't see how the comparison would be valid in the first place.

[–] DarrenDirt 13 years ago

Both were directed by Robert Altman, back in his golden age when the audience actually wanted what he had to offer.

Plus Elliot Gould, being Elliot Gould (again, back in his golden age).

Either of these movies are not for the brainless, not for the viewer who doesn't want to put effort into following what is happening -- and ESPECIALLY what is being said!

- - -

Chipping away at a mountain of pop culture trivia,
Darren Dirt.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WarpedRecord 10 years ago

This was nowhere near as strong as "MASH," and certainly worlds away from later Altman films such as "Nashville" and "Short Cuts." I'd call this a buddy picture rather than a comedy, and though I have no interest in gambling I found the characters intriguing. Still, it's one of my least favorite of Altman's films. 7/10 stars from me.