MovieChat Forums > History of the World: Part I (1981) Discussion > The problem with this movie is too many ...

The problem with this movie is too many reaction shots

posted 12 years ago by jgroub
18 replies | jump to latest

I watch this movie like a moth goes to a flame. I can't resist it, whenever I come across it, I watch. But it has not aged well.

My 15-year-old self loved this movie 30 years ago. Now, meh, not so much.

After every joke, they always have this reaction shot where the characters are reacting to the jokes. This really makes the jokes cheaper - the joke should either stand on its own, or it shouldn't be in the movie. Bad move on Mel's part to film it like this.

And it's so shticky. He cleaned out all the Borscht Belt comedians from the Catskills to make this movie, and boy does it ever show. Everyone's mugging for the camera and really trying to sell their jokes. It's too over the top. As a kid, I didn't know any better, but now I do. This one is pretty much a stinker all the way through.

Except I love that Last Supper sequence. And Harvey Korman is just plain funny no matter what.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] Bemfactor70 12 years ago

Agreed. The shtick makes this movie almost unwatchable now. The entire movie is pun after pun after pun. It's the kind of stuff that isn't even remotely funny anymore.

It's still enjoyable in a reminiscent sort of way, like seeing an old friend. Unfortunately, the jokes have become stale and predictable.

[–] MyDarkStar 12 years ago

I agree. And I also view this movie as the beginning of the end for Mel's effectiveness as a director/writer - for all of the reasons you state. From here he just got more and more reliant upon puns and such tricky type of cheap humor. Two of my favorite comedies of all time are Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles. But after those he went into a steady decline and this really marked a point in which his comedy took a much more calmed down and boring approach.

[–] richrol 12 years ago

I feel sorry for you guys. I still laugh my ass off.

[–] mapatric 12 years ago

For real. Men In Tights is pure genius from start to finish.

[–] nashknight-1 11 years ago

I partially agree. When I was a kid I thought this is the best movie in the world. I watched it again last night and I still liked it, only not so much. But I wouldn't go as far as to say it's a stinker.

[–] snelling 11 years ago

It has nostalgic value. If I watched it fresh now I probably would not like it.

Rebuild the WTC exactly as before and keep old movies accurate!

[–] willydoe71 10 years ago

I whole heartedly disagree. I think this movie is even more funny now than when I was a kid because I can appreciate the jokes even more. I love how they play to the camera in this, and the onslaught of famous faces makes it all the more better.

[–] ohhkayfolks 10 years ago

Agreed. Loved this movie when I first saw it as a 12-year old, am 27 now and still howl with laughter when I watch it.

[–] MikeHunt1075 9 years ago

there is no problems with this movie.

[–] jgroub 9 years ago

There is problems with your grammar, though.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] MikeHunt1075 9 years ago

Lol, that the best you can come up with to retaliate when someone doesn't agree with you? pathetic.

[–] jgroub 9 years ago

I'll be here all week. Which fortunately, is shorter than this movie will be around.
Try the veal.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] leetron 9 years ago

It's good to be the King!

Hey Whitey! Where's your hat?

[–] dunlap-mark64 9 years ago

I've never thought the "reaction shots" were the worst part of the movie; it's the fact that nearly all of the humor is so juvenile. It's as if Mel Brooks wanted to make a movie that would only appeal to 15-year-olds.

[–] jgroub 9 years ago

Which is exactly how old I was when I first saw it. Over and over and over again.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] dunlap-mark64 9 years ago

I think I was 16 or 17 when I first saw it. I watched it over and over again too, when I was young, but I've never thought of it as a great movie, or as being anywhere near as funny as Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein.

[–] jgroub 9 years ago

I agree; those two are sheer brilliance compared to this one. But being a horny teenager, I always preferred all the "It's Good to Be the King" stuff.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] nameismike69 8 years ago

I was never a history person and frankly I always tried watching this film since 1981 and I found it difficult to get to the end around the last 25 minutes...I shut it off ... Mel I thought peaked with High Anxiety and that film was ok... After that I see why he slowed down I still haven't seen the Robin Hood film but don't have much interest or Spaceballs I wasn't into much either. Mel directed about 5 great films most of them with Gene Wilder and that was it.