Saturday Night

Saturday Night has some entertaining scenes and moments, and even around the first half is fairly engaging as this pot-boiler biopic about the night of the first SNL (90 minutes to be exact since the film shows us the clock, a mistake I'll get back to), and Lorne Michaels being swept up in every bit of the chaos that he had before him with a show that he wasn't even fully sure what it was going to be. Smith as Chevy Chase (maybe the most interesting character as laid out in terms of how he's set up and treated by other characters like Milton Berle) and the guy playing Dan Aykroyd probably come off the best and most engaging.

Unfortunately, Reitman has that problem that comes upon directors of biopics sometimes - and in his case he probably knew one or two of these guys when he was in diapers - where this feeling that this subject matter is SO important and what happened in this case would have reverberations throughout the history of modern comedy and pop culture and television as a Medium..... well one, we *get* it, especially after the first time you lay it all out (and by the third fourth or fifth time I lost count in the last third of this, especially everything with the Willem Dafoe character (he tries his best but this guy is like many others here a one note joke), and two, if you happen to be coming into this only with a very casual admiration of Saturday Night Live, it can feel all the more grating.

I have that insight seeing this with my better half, who has never watched a full episode of the 70s show (probably not many of you have either, let's be real, I know I didn't see any till the DVDs came out some years ago), and came away not only unimpressed but finding depictions like for John Belushi totally grating and for Jim Henson outright insulting. I get it as well, since unlike with Chase we don't fully get a sense (outside arguably a Weekend Update moment) of what Belushi had as a mad comic genius about him, so he comes off like a rancid lump of a human being (no shade on the actor Matt Wood), and once it gets to that ice skating in Rockefeller center bit (in October, huh) Reitman has settled into sentimentality that is just garbage and is not affecting.

If you feel the emotion coming from the last sections of this, I get that since it's easy to drink up as it's come after Reitman has already re-shaped and re-formed so much history into this one-night-OMG-athon so some may need that release. I found that these moments where Reitman and company look at this story with the "Wow This Was GROUNDBREAKING You Guys" glasses takes away from what really works here which is showing the smaller moments and process - again, when you are showing us how deranged and confrontational people could get BTS and the myriad problems that came with making things for TV in 1975 as opposed to telling us - and building up real character dynamics, which are hit or miss.

Frankly, having the Dafoe character, this snide antagonist who makes an about face with Chevy Chase after he tells a couple of just halfway decent jokes to a room full of suits and spends most of the movie as this "you better or else dun-dun-dun re-run of Carson instead" thread is just counterintuitive; you don't need a villain in this story because time and the 38 different things happening all at once are the engine of the dramatic conflicts (a cross between less stressful Safdie brothers and okay Altman multi-quilt character patterns), and Labell and Sennott and (in as Dick Ebersol as the closest to a company stooge who still fights for Lorne) Hoffman plus a few others know the stakes here are sky high for what they want to do.

I can't say there aren't things here that made me laugh because, come on, JK Simmons as Milton Berle is on par with like Bob Hoskins as J Edgar Hoover, like put it on "Character Actor as X" Mount Rushmore, Matthew Rhys as George Carlin is a Hoot and a half, and there are little nuggets and pockets and beats, like Garrett Morris and his dilemmas, that keep you interested. But overall, aside from the aforementioned issues that come with biopics (and or telling your audience the same thing over and over because you may be cnbically worried they're on their phones while watching, sign of the times right) are compounded by the whole narrative shape which I find flawed too.

One of the things that makes Saturday Night Live when you hear about how it's made so compelling is how from around Monday night to Saturday night everyone is locked in to making this show whatever the hell it will be, and I wonder if it had been spaced out instead over five or six nights- instead of this where it really feels like two hours has passed in the span if half an hour- character dynamics could flow better and even Dafoe could have time for some more meat on that character's skeleton. The structure might be fine if it didn't sort of unravel and deflate where the tension feels lost as Reitman gets us into an unbelievable tract of, oh, Lorne found writer Allan Zweibel one night writing jokes for a hack comic at a bar and hired him on the spot to start that night and... huh? Sorry but does that truly need to be here, especially when it's like 30 mins to air in the structure of the movie??

So the point I'm making is... it's *okay* and while I don't think it's that good overall, it's hard to get mad at it so much as feel some disappointment in what it tries to accomplish. Or, maybe just watch that one documentary James Franco did several years back on a Week in the Life of SNLs team.

This is one of those films where you see the trailer and think "How in the hell are they going to pull this off?" It's going to require taking risks, a lot of dramatic tension, some very funny dialogue, and anecdotes we haven't heard about 100 times in 50 years.

Jason Reitman (barring Ghostbusters sequels) can make some pretty decent films when paired with a writer who colors outside the box and digs deep into characters (Diablo Cody, for example, with Juno and Young Adult). Gil Kenan does not appear to be one of them, given this film's "insert the crowd pleaser here" script.

It seems like Kenan and Reitman are a little too cowed by the mythos of SNL to really try anything outside of too-timed "bits" that smack of bad sitcom or over-the-top dramatics that don't really generate any tension.

The cast is, by and large, pretty terrific... except for Gabirel LaBelle. Labelle often seems just befuddled and gaping-mouthed, characteristics I don't often equate when conjuring up the Lorne Michaels *I've* read about and seen over the past half century.

"Michaels was kind of a cypher" Reitman says in the film's commentary. Fair enough, and likely true, but it doesn't help to have this unknowable entity at the center of each scene. Many people have complained that the original core SNL cast is given rather short-shrift, and they're right. Again, Reitman says in the commentary "I wanted people to get to know not only the 80 some characters but the background actors as well...." And that was green-lit?

If you're an SNL fan, this is worth a watch, simply because it's a fascinating glimpse at how a show like SNL can even exist, week to week, without it being a seismic train wreck. Reitman manages to impress us in this regard. As a technical masterwork, it hums. And there are many fine performances (cameos?) here that pop: DaFoe, Simmons, Tracy Letts, Cory Smith's Chase is particularly good.

Cooper Hoffman maintains a hot wired mix of anxiety and bravura as Dick Ebersol... it's probably the strongest performance, with the most face time in this picture.

But having Phillip Seymour Hoffman for a dad, I'd say he's got a bit of an advantage in the genetic gift arena --- I'm guessing you'll see more of him soon and I for one can't wait. Jason Reitman comes from good stock too, but in this case he's maybe not playing to his strengths. In Saturday Night, he's drowning.

There's a scene at the end when LaBelle hires Josh Brener (playing legendary writer Alan Zweibel) at a hellish comedy club that exemplifies two things: first, the exaggerated facts of this piece and it's near miss misanthropy.

If Josh Brener, a subtle almost lethally understated comedic actor, had been cast as Lorne, this might have been a very funny movie.

Presented to us as occurring in "real time" as the hour and a half long movie counts down the last 90 minutes before the first episode of "Saturday Night Live" (then called "Saturday Night") went live on air. We are invited to witness and get dragged along backstage as we enter the chaos of this hollywood-magic version of the start of a legendary TV show.

Long time fans of SNL will enjoy spotting the many, many easter egg references to SNL's most-famous and beloved sketches, the majority of which would not have been present and ready before this first showing.

The pace and action are frenetic as disaster after disaster happen while the hundreds of tiny little gears required to make something like SNL all try to come together in some form which will work and produce a viable show by the time the curtain raises.

The character actors chosen to mimic the first cast are spot on and do a great job really embodying what are undoubtedly huge shoes to fill. They are extremely fun to watch and carry the majority of the film with great humor.

But I fear Lorne Michaels was miscast or poorly written, because as our main focus of this maelstrom of frustratingly inept administration, he largely devolved into an amateurish and annoying little twit we keep waiting an waiting and waiting to see rise to the occasion, and never truly does.

He can barely share his vision of the show with mealy-mouthed human words and wanders around from fire to fire, never actually putting any out and immediately forgetting them as he toddles on to the next.

When the first show is pulled off, it's largely because everyone else had been carrying on without him and made it work in spite of him.

I also just irrationally hate his face and the little look he gets when anything goes wrong; it's like an overwhelmed, pissed off toddler is smelling something bad.

This film is a fun bit of nostalgic fantasy homage. A visit from the spirit of SNL past. But it definitely is NOT a biopic recreation of what actually happened, and should not be viewed as such.

This is a film largely for the fans, and other viewers will find it hit or miss, and will most likely find themselves googling the mentioned sketches afterwards.

This movie depicts the run up to the first performance of Saturday Night Live. The run up is shown as chaotic, frenzied, and disorganized, with no final list or ordering of sketches and the set still under construction. Creator/Director Lorne Michaels darts frantically between the cast, crew, writers, network executives, and special guests. All the frantic activity becomes tiring, but the 139-minute movie still manages to drag in a few places.

I wasn't there, but several events depicted seem to be of dubious historical accuracy, such as when Michaels wanders out of the building shortly before showtime. This makes me wonder if the chaos was created by the screenwriter and the director.

The most enjoyable part of the movie was watching the portrayals of the original cast members, although the portrayals of John Belushi and Chevy Chase seem exaggerated. Being familiar (or becoming familiar in advance) with the original cast members is helpful for getting the most out of Saturday Night. Overall, the movie is entertaining and occasionally funny but falls short of the high bar set by the original production.

This is the hardest review ever for myself because I don't completely know how to feel about this film. If you didn't grow up watching SNL or know nothing about the OG cast or how SNL was started you're going to be incredibly confused, lost and bored. I think that's the issue I have with this movie is you have to essentially know who everyone is from the beginning of SNL. Tons of name dropping and names and no back stories, if you go in wanting to watch a movie that will explain it to you... this isn't it and you will most likely walk out. So it really puts the category of viewers quite small. I grew up watching SNL (but in the Sandler, Farley, Spade, Farrell era). If it wasn't for my dad being obsessed with older beginning SNL and always having it on I would have hated this. My husband grew up on MadTV and even though some big names like Belushi, Chevy chase, Dan Aykroyd from movies growing up he had no clue who anyone else was. We had to come home and watch the first episode and I had to explain a ton of things he wasn't picking up on. Like the relationship with Lorne and his wife and the connection with Aykroyd there. Most people wouldn't have a clue though.

I will say the casting is INCREDIBLE, I did laugh at some parts although I think it had potential to be a bit funnier. It's not wildly inaccurate at all like some people say. Most of the things were true just some didn't happen THAT night.

The actors did absolutely amazing, and the 70s vibe and filming style was great. It really felt like you were immersed. I did feel a bit stressed out, I don't even drink and I left thinking "I need a drink, I feel like I just had an exhausting day at work".

I do recommend watching the very first episode ever prior to going if you haven't seen it in awhile. They absolutely nail some scenes it's uncanny.

Sadly I think this movie will bomb, but they really did a poor job making it watchable for anyone who is now considered "boomer" age or close to. Many people in that category no longer are watching movies in theaters much, passed away or are now stuck in their Jesus ways they'll be offended at things they probably weren't in 1975. Obviously some people in that category will love it but I would guess that may be far and few between.

You might enjoy it if you also do research on the beginning of SNL first and know what they all looked like but that's a lot of work to ask of viewers.

I don't recommend seeing it in theaters if you even think you might be lost, you will be. I honestly think even myself if I watched it from home I would have got distracted. My husband and I were the only ones in the theatre not a single other person and I caught him scrolling on his phone a couple times. I have never seen him do that in a movie before so I know he was bored.

So idk I give it 10/10 for casting and acting and doing great capturing the era. 7/10 because I'm one of the few people under the age of 50 who knew the history. But if I was a regular person just watching a movie for fun I would have given it a 2/10.