Saturday Night

Elton John may have sung that "Saturday night's alright for fighting," but it turns out it's even better for comedy-at least that seems to be part of the thinking behind the creation of Saturday Night Live. Though, let's be honest, that was low on the list of reasons.

This film about the very first episode of SNL might not be the most accurate depiction of history, but it sure knows how to entertain. Despite featuring paper-thin characters, ludicrous moments (seriously, no comedy writer gets hired five minutes before a show starts-I'm calling BS on that), and yes, even a cameo involving Milton Berle's penis (Not joking), it somehow manages to pull it all off.

Uh, that is pull the movie off, not Milton.

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.

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.

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.

I thought the frenetic pace of the movie was executed almost flawlessly. It kept moving, the camera swinging around the room to give the feeling like it was all in one take, or long takes.

The acting was fantastic, so many famous people were portrayed so well. What was really impressive was how many people we came across.

One reviewer stated that they were upset Gilda Radner wasn't featured more. I will say this is a fair criticism. She has a couple scenes but we don't get to hear her talk about her comedy. Although she does have a more thoughtful scene at an ice rink where she shows how free spirited and thoughtful she was.

As for the plausibility of the timeline of events, it's completely unrealistic. It's 45 minutes to air and people are just sitting in rooms hanging out. But at the same time, it's pretty brilliant because you get to see all these characters and also feel the anxiety of having a live show coming and still needing to work on the production up to the minute.

And the fact that the network didn't have confidence in the show and Lorne Michaels is running around trying to bring it together is probably how it really felt to bring something so new to TV.

And it was funny!