Saturday Night: La noche que cambió la comedia

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.

As someone who grew up with Saturday Night Live (SNL) on in the background most Saturday nights, thanks to my parents, it's no surprise I've developed a deep affection for the show. Over the years, the format and talent involved just kept improving. While I'm part of the era with names like Seth Meyers, Jimmy Fallon, and Tina Fey, I've always looked back on classic episodes with fondness. There are sketches from decades past that I still revisit because they're just that iconic. Naturally, all of this made me curious about the film Saturday Night, now in theaters. And if you're a fan of the show, particularly those old enough to have experienced the original cast in the 1970s, here's why you should definitely check this one out.

Most people see Saturday Night Live as a lighthearted, easy watch, a way to get a few laughs late at night. But what many don't realize is how chaotic and stressful it was to actually get the show on air, especially in the early days. The film dives into the behind-the-scenes madness leading up to the premiere episode on October 11th, 1975. Ninety minutes before going live, the set was still unfinished, people were being fired, mistakes were being made left and right. It was a whirlwind of confusion and stress, and the film places you right in the middle of it. From the moment you're thrown onto the set, there's an undeniable energy as everyone scrambles to get things ready. It's a thrilling ride without a single dull moment.

Directed by Jason Reitman, Saturday Night feels like his best work since 2009's Up in the Air. His direction injects the film with a kinetic, almost frantic energy, perfectly capturing the chaos of a live production on the verge of collapse. The cast delivers outstanding performances, each of them embracing the high-octane tone Reitman clearly set. Dylan O'Brien nails his portrayal of Dan Aykroyd, Cory Michael Smith captures the essence of Chevy Chase, and Nicholas Braun impressively balances two distinct characters throughout the film. However, the standout by far is Gabriel LaBelle as Lorne Michaels, the mastermind behind it all. LaBelle, who was solid in Spielberg's The Fabelmans, truly shines here, delivering a breakout performance that anchors the entire film. His portrayal of Michaels is captivating, he shoulders the film almost entirely, with only a few scenes where he's not the focal point.

Now, while Saturday Night excels in capturing the essence of its characters and infusing humour to keep audiences laughing, it does have one notable flaw: it stretches the believability of how all of this could have unfolded in just 90 minutes. Though the film isn't meant to showcase sketches from SNL itself, I couldn't help but feel that the story ends a bit abruptly. I expected the conclusion, but still, it felt like a few more beats could've been hit before the credits rolled. That feeling of "is that it?" holds the film back slightly for me.

In the end, Saturday Night isn't a masterpiece, but it's an energetic, fun film that captures the frantic spirit of creating live television. It made me laugh a lot, and the energy was infectious. Despite its imperfections, I had a great time watching it.

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.

"SNL" has been around before I was born an "NBC" staple that I've watched some over the years, it's celebrated here with this auto bio type picture from Jason Reitman as it goes behind the scenes to see how the first and original show in Oct. Of 75 went on the air. The movie is funny and full of drama showing how the cast, crew and comedians, struggled to get it all together for Lorne Michaels to go on the air(hey he could even rival Johhny Carson!). The sets, clothing, and dialogue captures times of the early and mid 70's and seeing Chevy Chase, John Belushi, and Andy Kaufman in their early years was a historical laugh feast. Overall not the greatest still a film that any historical film buff should see.

I expected to really enjoy 'Saturday Night'. I was hoping for a fast-paced and hilarious look at a historic night. They got the fast-paced bit down (perhaps even a little too fast-paced for its own good at times) but the hilarity never came. Instead the movie came across quite unpleasant, with forced drama for the most part.

There are a lot of characters in this movie and very few of them are interesting to watch. 1975 was far too long ago for most of us to know who these people are, but it seems like the movie just assumes that we will. And because of the structure there isn't much, if any, time to set up and develop the characters. So we are just told, here's a person who was there that night, enjoy their screen-time. I will say the scenes with Chevy Chase were interesting, but that probably worked for me because I know who he is and am a big fan.

I felt like there was so much potential for comedy and witty dialogue and yet it just never came. A funny situation would arise with a character taking drugs that were too powerful for them, but the movie was in such a hurry to get to the next scene that it couldn't breathe and become a memorable scene.

This probably sounds like a very negative review, and it is, but it's more negativity aimed at what this film could've and should've been, as opposed to the general quality of the film. It isn't a bad film, but it should have been so much more. 6/10.