MyDarkStar

Any documentary on The Beatles which is only 2 hours long is obviously not going to really be "compleat". You could make an 8 hour documentary on their amazing career & it still wouldn't seem like too much.

With that said, this documentary is extremely well done. One of the things I really like about this documentary is that it spends its 2 hours very well. It uses those 2 hours to show the aspects of The Beatles which had long-term effects upon music and culture, such as depicting the evolution of their music from simple pop to more complex album-oriented music to even more experimental music. It also does a great job in painting a picture of how and why the four of them were growing apart - and why their breakup was all but inevitable by the time they reached the end of 1969/beginning of 1970.

The documentary is not perfect. More detail could have been spent on such aspects such as the making of their albums - especially The White Album & Abbey Road. Having seen this documentary several times, it now seems like they only sketch out the details of those albums, especially Abbey Road. But ultimately, this documentary does an extremely good job of showing the important details of The Beatles career in just 2 hours. It also does a good job in showing George Martin's importance in their career.

Final word : Show this documentary to anybody who has medium or even above average knowledge of The Beatles & they will learn a great deal about The Beatles in just 2 hours.

I've always felt this movie was extremely overrated by fans of SNL at the time. By the time the movie came out, people were so in love with the whole Blues Brothers phenomenon on SNL, that it really wouldn't take too much of a quality movie to capitalize upon that.

The script, which included some of the most idiotic chase scenes in cinema history, seems like it was written in a single night of chemical indulgence. By the time you get to the end of the movie, you get the feeling that John Landis knew the movie wasn't really working - so he decided to just make the scale of the chase scene completely ridiculous in order to try and make someone laugh at something.

The music numbers are what saves the movie from being a complete failure. They're so good that they will make you forget about just how stupid the rest of the movie actually is.

Side note : I think it's worth noting that John Landis is completely overrated in himself. Sure, he directed "Animal House", and "American Werewolf In London". But, his failures FAR outweigh his successes. Just to name some of his other flops : "Spies Like Us", "Three Amigos", "Oscar", "Beverly Hills Cop 3", and of course "Blues Brothers 2000". I've always felt that "Trading Places" could probably have been a better movie with a different director.

Having grown up with Star Wars as a child & being introduced to Mel Brooks films as a young teen, this movie seemed like a dream match when it was announced in my late teens. I mean, Mel Brooks was going to make a spoof of Star Wars !

It had been a while since the last Mel Brooks movie, and even though History of the world Part I was not even close to what I had come to regard as up to par for a Mel Brooks film, I was excited over all of the possibilities that Star Wars would provide for Mel Brooks' parody. But I soon realized in the theater that this is simply not a funny movie. The humor in this is so shallow & unimaginative that I still have trouble believing that this came from the same person who brought us Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles. Those films featured witty and clever type of slapstick comedy. It was the type of comedy that knows no time period. At times those films would incorporate risque humor that actually worked. Here, Mel Brooks' comedy seems so umimaginative. It's grammer school kid humor. He actually spoofed the Jabba the Hut character with a character named Pizza the Hut...and for as stupid as that sounds, it's even more idiotic & unfunny on the screen. It's just not funny. What was once Brooks' risque mind is now pre-puberty humor : "My schwartz is bigger than yours." I remember sitting in the theater just waiting - HOPING - for a scene that would even hint at the genius of Blazing Saddles & Young Frankenstein. There isn't one in this film.

Even the cast is hopelessly unhappy. Jim Candy, Rick Moranis, and Bill Pullman seem poised for humor - but everything that comes out of their mouths is just predictable & childish. Every character in this film seems like it was conceived within a 5 minute idea session where all the writers and Brooks got together & said things like "What's a good spoof for Darth Vader ? How about um....Lord Dark Helmet ! HAHAHA ! Yha we'll use that ! So, what's a good idea for Chewbacca ? How about a half dog/half man character ? YHA ! Let's use that ! What should we name him ? How about something stupid like Barf ? Yha ! Let's do that !"

There is such a wealth of material to spoof in Star wars that I still can't believe someone (especially Mel Brooks) could make such a shallow spoof such as this. What I had hoped would be a return to form for Brooks turned out to be confirmation that his comedic ability had indeed seen its best days. AFter this, Brooks only made more and more hopelessly tired spoofs such as Robin Hood : Men In Tights, and Dracula : Dead and Loving It. Mel Brooks' humor is indeed gone. Nowadays when I see him make guest appearances on Curb Your Enthusiasm he seems like that old uncle who tries to make all the kids laugh at family get togethers. The uncle was probably a funny kid back in high school - but now the years have caught up with him & his humor is just tired, dated, and boring.