What is it you hate about 1941
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — 1941
stepstonefilms — 15 years ago(January 18, 2011 01:42 PM)
It seems most people who see 1941 don't like it. What specifically is it you don't like? Certain scenes? Characters? Too long? Too loud? Certain actors?
"I've never seen a sight, that didn't look better lookin' back".
-
mike_cable — 15 years ago(January 26, 2011 06:30 PM)
I remember it from when I was younger, but never really watched it completely. As far as Belushi and Aykroyd are concerned, I loved films such as Neighbors, The Blues Brothers at the same time and a lot of the Saturday Night Live sketches were hilarious. But for some reason, I didn't connect with the humour very well. Maybe the writers didn't really give the actors much to really use very well.
Watching it for the first time in about 25 years recently, I found that I could see and understand the humour, but it just wasn't very funny. Maybe the setting of the 1940s wasn't very appealing to me, I don't know. I did however find the Japanese sub scenes amusing.
The dance scene was horrendous. -
uruseiranma — 15 years ago(January 30, 2011 11:21 AM)
It just really feels like a guy trying too hard to be funny. It's like an open mic night I went to: there were about 2 dozen people doing their thing, and only 2 of those people actually made me laugh.
I don't hate it with a vengeance, as there's far worse movies then this.
Watching Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen reminded me a bit of my experience watching 1941: alot of what was deemed to be 'funny' just wasn't.
"Thanks, guys." "So long, partner."- Toy Story 3 (9/10)
-
jrs-8 — 15 years ago(March 07, 2011 02:31 PM)
The problem is the script. Too many characters that you don't get to know at all to care about. There is no central character (though Belushi's Wild Bill Kelso probably comes closest) and too many sub-plots. It's often beyond silly and it is WAY too loud. Many actors (particularly Dan Aykroyd and John Candy) are totally wasted in throw away roles. It was as if Spielberg decided he was going to throw everything into the film but the kitchen sink and then threw that in too. The mix just didn't work.
-
athorpe-1 — 9 years ago(May 13, 2016 06:06 PM)
I agree. I'm watching right now. More laughs than I've had in a while. I especially loved Slim Pickens and the one Japanese crewman who keeps yelling "Horrywoo!" It's a classic and deserves to be remembered as such.
-
surfercharlie25 — 14 years ago(August 24, 2011 02:13 PM)
I think a lot of people missed the point of the film. It wasn't trying to tell a story as much as it was trying to get laughs and get people to say things like, "Oh, look, there's such-and-such an actor!" Spielberg even said that the main attraction the film had for him is that it was so chaotic and he wanted to do that kind of film.
I wonder if most people don't understand what the film is trying to be. They could have talked to Robert Stack. From what I heard, Stack understood immediately what kind of movie it was (more a lot of comedy sketches than a story-driven film) and threw himself into it immediately. He must have liked it, because immediately after 1941 he did another sketch-driven film, AIRPLANE!. The only difference between AIRPLANE! and 1941 is that AIRPLANE! made more money.
"I nominate Young Werther here." -
Teremov — 14 years ago(January 16, 2012 09:00 PM)
I just watched 1941, and I found it way funnier than Airplane!, which was no more than a silly parody of Zero Hour! I watched that also. ZAZ just took the original plot, rewrote it in a silly way and threw in some random gags, while Spielberg, Zemeckis and Gale (ZGS?) actually tried to come up with something new, crazy and risky. It was a greatly directed, wonderfully casted hit-and-miss madness. Airplane! was only a hit-and-miss parody.
-
matt197981 — 14 years ago(January 23, 2012 12:21 PM)
I love this movie it's funny and makes me laugh I love the chaotic feel of the whole thing
My mini city
http://wonker-town.myminicity.com -
gulag — 14 years ago(March 26, 2012 10:13 AM)
When I saw this in the movie theatres back in the day I remember it had a lot of bad press. I went in expecting to dislike it. But I was pleasantly surprised that I actually found it fascinating. I just didn't think it was a comedy. To me it was a strange surreal take on war hysteria. As a comedy it doesn't work, Spielberg isn't a comedy director. But as a strange chaotic surreal farce it's quite interesting, if a minor work. It's a shame we have to read words like 'hilarious' on the poster or DVD case, but 'hysterical' fits.
-
pv61 — 13 years ago(June 09, 2012 06:26 AM)
First of all, I didn't find it funny.
Then, there was John Candy,
and then there was some kind of weird lighting, very uncomfortable, blurry, in the beginning, that made it look like those scenes in TO BE OR NOT TO BE, where Ms Bancroft demanded vaseline filter lenses
I could have stand the vaseline and Candy, but the plot was not at all funny to me.
I liked the dance number performed by the navy boy in the contest and Treat Williams, that's all
Seems like Mr Speilberg's sense of humor is a very weird one, I like most of the stuff he has directed, except this and HOOK -
-
CannibalCraig — 13 years ago(October 29, 2012 08:29 AM)
I don't know why people don't like this. I grew up watching it and I still roll over laughing whenever I watch this. I am not even a huge Spielberg fan, but this movie was hilarious.
I'm just a guy that likes horror flicks.