Young Frankenstein (1974)

Director: Mel Brooks

Cast: Gene Wilder, Peter Boyle, Marty Feldman, Cloris Leachman

Have I Seen it Before: Indeed. It was the movie my wife and I had watched on our first date, although I had seen it several times before then. To the best of my memory, I don’t think I’ve watched it since then.

Which is so weird I can’t even begin to wrap my head around it.

Did I Like It: I’m not even sure where to begin this review. This is by far the best movie Mel Brooks ever made. I’ve never been able to get over myself long enough to get into Blazing Saddles (1974)*, and while you might think I would be a devotee of Spaceballs (1987), but I’m not. Brooks’ swing for the sci-fi has two major problems in my mind. First, there’s never a moment of the film that doesn’t groan from the fact that it was clearly made in the `80s. Second, I never once get the sense that Brooks is terribly fond of any science fiction movie. Thus, the spoofing never rises above a joke factory, and Spaceballs never becomes a legitimate science fiction movie in any measurable way. All of Brooks’ films are funny**, only a few of them are special.

It might seem like I am spending an inordinate amount of time in my Young Frankenstein review talking about how much I don’t like Spaceballs, but the contrast is key. Every moment of Young Frankenstein feels like it would fit in quite well with the upper echelon (read: the early ones) of Universal monster movies. This has James Whale written all over it, and I get the sense that Brooks enjoyed a James Whale movie once or twice in his life. This cast is perfect. You know it is perfect because it might very well be possible that Madeline Khan is the weak link in the chain, which means it may have the greatest cast ever assembled for a film, as Madeline Khan could keep otherwise underwhelming films aloft through sheer force of will and personality.

*Despite my relative antipathy toward his western opus, it’s hard to fault somebody for making such an indelible one-two punch in film comedy inside of one 12-month period.

**Well, not you Dracula: Dead and Loving It (1995). Not all films are create equally, if I’m being honest.

Johnny Dangerously (1984)

Director: Amy Heckerling

Cast: Michael Keaton, Joe Piscopo, Marilu Henner, Peter Boyle

Have I Seen it Before: I can reach into memories of the distant past to a screening on cable. Is this the last movie I saw for the first time on cable? I certainly can say that I’m probably never going to see another movie for the first time on cable. It’s almost sad...

Did I Like It: I think I’m under an obligation—with the amount of writing I’ve done about the films of Michael Keaton—to say that I unequivocally do like the film.

And yet...

Everyone here (yes, even Piscopo) feels like they’re working against their strengths. In an attempt to be a Mel Brooks/ZAZ-esque take on gangster films of the, Amy Heckerling feels more at home with the more grounded comedies that made up the eventual highs of her career in Clueless (1995) and Fast Time At Ridgemont High (1982). That’s not a terribly bad mark against her as a director, as the ZAZ team eventually became involved in hum-drum fare like Mafia! (1998) and things so foul on spec, they’re not even worth watching in the first place, like An American Carol (2008). Even Brooks whiffed out in the end. Dracula: Dead and Loving It (1995) was certainly a sour end. Hell, plenty of people like Robin Hood: Men In Tights (1993) and Spaceballs (1987) but neither have ever done much for me.

I’m stalling, I know. Is Keaton any good in the film? It’s always a delight to see him, but he’s playing the role largely straight here, with none of the anarchic qualities that introduced him to movie audiences in Night Shift (1982) and he perfected in Beetlejuice (1988). It’s hard to say that I don’t particularly care for a Michael Keaton picture, but if I’m not laughing, and he’s distressingly bland in the whole thing, it’s hard not to confront reality.

The Shadow (1994)

Director: Russell Mulcahy

Cast: Alec Baldwin, John Lone, Penelope Ann Miller, Peter Boyle

Have I Seen It Before?: Oh, sure. I’m still kind of befuddled why this film didn’t take fire in 1994 like it might have. There are troubles with the film, to be sure (more on that later), but there are several far worse film that captured the imagination of America’s youth. It sure captured mine. I bought up all the Shadow action figures I could get a hold of, and grabbed as many tapes of old Shadow radio shows as I could, igniting my interest in both Orson Welles and radio drama.

Now that I think about it, this film has quite a lot to answer for.

Did I like it?: Let’s dwell on the positives, shall we? I think the only thing that separated Alec Baldwin from a long run as a verifiable leading man is a run of bad luck. In this film he is equal parts menacing, funny, and charming. Had he been British, he would have made a great Bond. Even though this film kind of falls apart under its own weight, I could have watched a long series of him as Lamont Cranston. I’ll eagerly take 30 Rock as consolation prize, though. The rest of the cast is brilliant. The movie contains Jonathan Winters, Ian McKellan, and Tim Curry without breaking a sweat. Every other bit part (and some of the leads, let’s be honest) ooze b-movie goodness in ever second of screen time.

Jerry Goldsmith’s score is one of his best, and that’s a career that’s included Gremlins (1984), Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979), and Star Trek: First Contact (1996).

The film looks amazing, from the cinematography through the production design, all the way through the set decoration. I dare say a far more effective art deco nightmare than some of the contemporary Batman films. It manages to make an effective Times Square of the the 1930s using only matte paintings, and the Shadow’s sanctum is one of the cooler sets that is tragically underutilized. The whole world, filled with an evil man forced into redemption—and his agents—is fantastic.

Now, if all of that had been used in service of a storyline that wasn’t held together by very weak string, and further waylaid by what feels like tampering at the editing bay, then we’d be celebrating this film for the delicious pop explosion it could have been.

But then again, so many films stories are flimsy as hell. Who cares? Let’s give this film all of the credit it is due.