I love both '1941' and 'BTiLC'
-
rascal67 — 10 years ago(August 12, 2015 02:29 AM)
Sure, it's no "Schindler's List",I judge it for what it is, a funny, silly, ensemble comedy, with some great scenes
No need to be sorry about something you enjoy. It wasn't meant to be a SCHINDLER'S LIST and far more entertaining and enjoyable than Spielberg's bland masterpiece. 1941 is what it is, and it sure is visually awesome and impressive to look at. It may be silly and absurd, but so is the pandemonium of war.
-
Fenris Fil — 10 years ago(September 25, 2015 03:49 PM)
I am glad some people like this movie. A lot of effort clearly went in to it and while it fell flat for me it is good to know some people gained enjoyment from it.
There is nothing wrong with "lighthearted" and "nice", I just feel that such a movie shouldn't last over two hours.
IMHO People shouldn't apologise for liking or disliking something. It's just opinions.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. -
dan-1315 — 10 years ago(October 15, 2015 01:45 PM)
I saw this movie with a group of friends in a theater when it was released. I laughed so hard my sides ached! This is the only film where I laughed so much that that happened! I got the in-jokes with the Jerry Lewis character, the National Lampoon humor, Belushi and Aykroyd's clowning around, the stunning (for the time) special effects, and so on.
Later, I was fascinated by the extra scenes in the TV version, and I never understood why it "failed" at the box office. (Spielberg's office insists it eventually broke even.) I blame the marketing. Universal brought in Columbia Pictures money because it got cold feet on the budget, and I think they studios had more money by the film failing than if it was a moneymaker.