Film General : Spielberg's 1941 is more mediocre than bad
Re: Spielberg's 1941 is more mediocre than bad
When ten-year-old me snuck into the local theater to see it, I immediately understood where the movie was coming from it's a John Ford spoof by way of Mad Magazine and framed ala It's a Mad Mad Mad World.
It's got an amazing cast, great John Williams and period music, ridiculous set piece gags and a lot of period-specific jokes and references (this is what I think most audiences miss).
I've never understood the hate for it.
How many syllables Mario?
It's got an amazing cast, great John Williams and period music, ridiculous set piece gags and a lot of period-specific jokes and references (this is what I think most audiences miss).
I've never understood the hate for it.
How many syllables Mario?
Re: Spielberg's 1941 is more mediocre than bad
High expectations killed that movie. I've never watched it, but I was a kid when it came out. It was Spielberg's next movie after Jaws and Close Encounters (huge hits), it had a great cast for the time, and was heavily advertised. To then deliver a mediocre movie is a recipe for disaster.
Re: Spielberg's 1941 is more mediocre than bad
I personally really enjoyed it myself. Not laugh-out-loud funny, but pretty amusing.
"You're dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway". - Walt Disney
"You're dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway". - Walt Disney
Re: Spielberg's 1941 is more mediocre than bad
It's better than mediocre.
Spielberg's 1941 is more mediocre than bad
It doesn't have a clear main character to follow either.
But the setpieces are good and I quite like the look of the film and Spielberg's eye for camera movement is definitely on full display.
I think it's time we re-evaluate this movie.