IMDb user comments for
1941 (1979)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 17:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

170 comments in total

---

49 out of 64 people found the following comment useful :-
If there's one thing I can't stand seeing, it's Americans fighting Americans., 24 July 2005

Author: nick kulasa (Kulasa@sbcglobal.net) from United States

One of the most satisfying things about reviewing movies is that you get to defend the ones you love. Steven Spielberg's 1941 is a film that has been ridiculed, vilified and just plain hated since it was released in 1979. Yes, it's way overdone and quite cartoonish, but I think it's damn entertaining.

Hey, blame Universal. They're the ones who kept throwing money at this project when it was widely known throughout Hollywood that it was a mess. But guess what? It's funny. Sure, it's a misfire and it lost A LOT of money, but it makes me laugh every time I see it and I watch it about once a year. Young Steven obviously bit off a little more than he could chew on this one, and sometimes it threatens to explode like a tube of toothpaste in a microwave oven, but let's examine the good points: 1. The story--A small California town near Hollywood, in the grips of war hysteria, believe they are being attacked by a Japanese submarine and a fleet of airplanes. Turns out they're right, but it doesn't really matter here. What matters is slapstick humor and a bunch of destruction. I mean a LOT of destruction. (More on that later.) 2. The cast--John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd, Tim Matheson, John Candy, Ned Beatty, Robert Stack, Nancy Allen, Treat Williams, John Candy, Warren Oates, Christopher Lee, Toshiro Mifune, Slim Pickens, Eddie Deezen, Perry Lang, Bobby Di Cicco, even Michael McKean and David Lander (Lenny & Squiggy) show up together. 1941 offers some great comedic characters in just over-the-top ridiculous situations. (Would you fly a plane just to sleep with Nancy Allen?) 3. The spectacle--The USO dancing scenes are wonderful, Spielberg's Rube Goldberg-like contraptions are great, everyone screaming things like "What the HELL is THAT?", and everyone looks like they're having fun with this movie. (Indeed, it is well documented that 1941 was NOT a "fun shoot".) This movie offers some things that you've never seen in a movie before, and won't ever again. Which leads us to....

4. The destruction--Everything in this movie gets destroyed: Beautiful mountaintop houses, giant Ferris wheels (in a classic scene), four or five airplanes, dance halls, movie theaters, Santa Claus, and especially people. There are pratfalls, huge brawls, nasty fistfights and air battles. (Hey, it was co-written by Bob Gale, Robert Zemeckis, and John Milius. These guys would go on to somewhat successful careers.) 5. The rest--There are car chases, motorcycle chases, and Japanese soldiers disguised as Christmas trees (in the director's cut.) There's Slim Pickens being forced to poop at gunpoint, chubby Wendy Jo Sperber desperately trying to make out with Treat Williams (who gives a wonderfully sleazy performance), and nerdy Eddie Deezen as the world's most annoying ventriloquist. There's Ned Beatty shooting an anti-aircraft gun through his house, Dan Aykroyd frothing at the mouth, smooth Tim Matheson trying to get some lovin', and John Belushi sweating and flipping out every five minutes.

6. My reasoning--I've stated before that movies you love as a kid you often feel very passionately about as you get older. (Although I have since reconsidered my long-ago love for Scavenger Hunt.) An 11-year old movie nut doesn't know anything about narrative or a director in over his head. I watched this with wide-eyed amazement when I was a kid, and I still do to this day. Although it's a satire, I wouldn't classify it in the same vein as Airplane! or the like. It's more like a Mad Magazine version of the war. I realize it's a mess, but it's a movie I will always love and defend.

Disclaimer: It's tough for a movie like 1941 to earn any new fans, because of its reputation as a monumental bust. This is no Howard the Duck or Ishtar, you know. (By the way, neither of those movies is as bad as the critical Armageddon they both received, either.) I think Spielberg was due for some backlash thanks to the brilliant work he did on Jaws and Close Encounters, and 1941 is certainly an easy target. I wish more people liked this movie. It would make my life so much less stressful.

Plus, you have to love a movie that has a tank drive through a paint store, come out the other side looking like a rainbow, then having it drive through a turpentine plant, only to end up spotless. It's just a brilliant and wonderful waste of Hollywood money.

Yes, I give it ten stars. I do this because I love it and NOT because I think it's a 'brilliant and wonderful' movie. Guilty pleasures are one of the best things in life, and 1941 will always have a welcome spot in my movie collection. And Spielberg knew what he was doing: When you close your movie with a picture of each cast member screaming at the top of their lungs over the credits, well that's just fun. Oh, and John Williams contributes one of the great musical scores of the past twenty years in this movie, period.

---

35 out of 45 people found the following comment useful :-
I cant understand why this movie is so reviled..., 29 June 2005
Author: goatboy500 from United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

1941 is considered to be Steven Spileberg's folly, a screwball farce about the Japanese invading America after pearl harbour, starring some of the greatest actors and comedians that ever lived. Some people hate it, I love it. Sorry for all you haters, but I guess the things I like are the things you dislike, but for the life of me, I can't understand why this movie is considered Spielberg's worst movie. For one, it's watchable, and for another, it's not full of Spielberg Schmaltz, (the thing i hate most about Senior Speilbergo's later movies, i.e Hook, Always, AI).

Treat Williams is an a$$hole but no-one plays a$$holes better (see; things to do in Denver when your dead), Robert Stack crying while watching Dumbo when a full scale dogfight rages outside the theatre, Ned Beatty destroying his house in an attempt to fight the Japanese, Slim Pickens faking doing a sh!t while Toshiro Mifune and Christopher Lee wait to find out if he's passed a compass. I'm sorry but but those are all comedic gems. Okay, so Belushi is wasted and is seemingly in this move for no reason, but Belushi in a cockpit without a bottle opener is funnier than anything with Sean William Scott in it. For me this movie hits all the right notes, and on reflection makes some very good points (the two numbskull's who mistakenly think Belushi's plane is a German fighter...the paranoia of anyone living in a coastal town after pearl harbour).

Give it another chance, then watch Jaws if you still don't like it.

---

29 out of 42 people found the following comment useful :-
What do the critics know?, 8 November 2002

Author: GoIllini from Tuscola, IL

Those who can't find humor in "1941" need to loosen up. This is one of the few movies I have ever purchased for my own personal collection. The Ferris wheel scene alone is an all-time classic. This is the type of picture that is fun to watch after a hard day at work. Open up a beer and enjoy.

---

23 out of 34 people found the following comment useful :-
It's gonna be a long war...., 15 September 1999

Author: George Litman from Marietta, OH USA

You can't have lofty aspirations all the time.

Even the director of such powerful films as "Jaws", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "ET" and "Schindler's List" has to take a break from all the serious issues in his films and play dumb at least once.

Just look at "1941".

With a plotline straight out of The Three Stooges and special effects befitting a WWII epic, "1941" abandons all pretense by parodying the opening of "Jaws" right off the bat and hitting every slapstick point from there on in. Spielberg knew that even if this turned out be a flop, it would be a good-natured one.

Just look at this cast! Not only are Aykroyd and Belushi at the helm, but there's talent like Matheson, Allen, Oates, Williams, Beatty, Gary (Roy Scheider's wife from the "Jaws" films), Candy, Flaherty, Stack (in his first comedic turn before "Airplane!"), Lee, Pickens, Deezen (a comic genius if ever there was one), Sperber and a whole herd of other I probably missed. All of them in the midst of the hugest battlefield of comic carnage ever seen.

And no wonder. "1941" was co-written by Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale, Spielberg protogees who went on to further success with the "Back to the Future" films, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", "Used Cars", (all with climaxes as wild as the entire running time of "1941") and the vastly under-appreciated "Death Becomes Her". Even John Milius (director/co-writer of "Conan the Barbarian") lends his pen hand.

In the end, you'll be dazzled, breathless, stunned and amazed, but by no means bored. And, with any luck, amused.

"1941" - it was a very good year.

Nine stars. And don't worry: it's all for the good of the war effort.

---

14 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
Worth watching at least once., 19 March 2005

Author: zmanjz from York, PA

1941 is a unique movie. 1 part of it is animal house-esque lowbrow humor, 1 part is B-movie love story, and 1 part stoic war movie, and 2 parts insane hilarity.

It is a weird mix to say the least.

First, the problems: 1. The first half of the movie is slow. It grinds on making you wonder why you're watching this movie.

2. The "Love story" subplot is poorly executed for what this movie is trying to do.

3. many of the actors are not used to their fullest potential (especially Dan Akroyd and John Candy) while others receive excessive screen time. (see: The slow moving love story sub-plot) But then there are the good aspects: 1. John Belushi is hilarious. He would have been funnier had he interacted with more characters rather than appearing in many solo shots, but he was funny.

2. The "Epic Battle" was great. It had me laughing as my sides hurt.

3. Slim Pickens: His appearance in the movie was truly where the movie stopped being slow, and the fun really started. He was great in his scenes and between the dialogue and his visual scenes, you can't help but laugh.

There's more, but in short, if you don't mind sitting through a slow build up, the payoff is worth the wait.

It's not the best movie ever, but in the barren entertainment landscape that is Weekend Television: Finding this movie can be like an oasis in the desert. It's solid Saturday afternoon fun.

---

7 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
This film was made for 1% of the population. Happily, I'm in that 1%., 23 April 2001
Author: Dave Hogan from Los Angeles, Ca

Steven Speilberg once asked a friend of mine, "Why didn't anyone like this movie?" Well, I think that I can answer that - "1941" is a gigantic in-joke. The people who are in on the joke are people who, like myself, have an oversized love and knowledge of the city of Los Angeles and it's history. I think that in the vast, world-wide movie-going public, this group probably comprises 1%. For that group, "1941" has a wonderful nostalgia value. And for the people in that 1% that have a twisted sense of humor and enjoy seeing nostalgic L.A. blown to bits, this movie really delivers. By the way, the folks with that twisted sense of humor probably account for about 1% of the original 1%.

I don't know why, but having grown up in L.A. and being an aficionado of it's history, I find it funny to see planes in a dogfight over Hollywood Blvd, the ferris wheel rolling off the end of Santa Monica Pier, and aircraft crashing into the La Brea Tarpits. But for non-locals and people unfamiliar with the paranoia that gripped Southern California in the wake of Pearl Harbor, this movie will likely seem confusing and silly. To the history buff with a twisted sense of humor (like me, proud member of the 1% of the 1%), the movie is not only amusing, but sometimes surprisingly accurate, historically. Robert Stack plays General Joseph Stillwell - a very real historical figure in L.A. history. Stack even bears a striking resemblance to the real General Stillwell. The whole movie is based upon a few real-life incidents of panicky anti-aircraft fire that occurred over L.A. in 1941/1942, as well as a Japanese sub that actually shelled an oil refinery near Santa Barbara. Like "Chinatown" (a film mistakenly thought to be an accurate account of L.A. water politics in the 1930s), "1941" borrows from real-life history and distorts it into pure fabrication. The difference is that while "Chinatown" is a noir drama, "1941" is an over-the-top comedy. Both films appeal to the historian, but as it is often said, comedy is much harder to pull off than drama. You either love "1941", or sit though it, saying, "huh?".

---

9 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
Could have been so much more, 7 October 2005

Author: galfridus73 from United States

I keep thinking that Spielberg should have let this one go. There is immense potential here, but not under his direction. If there has ever been a movie begging for a remake, this is the one.

A strong cast, a decent script, a good idea all the way around.

But Spielberg should have never directed this. He doesn't know how to handle such a large ensemble cast and, as we have seen from him since, he doesn't do will with comedy unless it is incidental humor in another project.

Don't get me wrong: I own this movie on DVD and I watch it every now and then. But, when one looks at something like Altman's "M*A*S*H" and then compare it to this... I can't help but feel sorry for "1941."

In the end the movie is worth seeing if just for John Belushi's performance as Wild Bill Kelso and for Toshirô Mifune's comedic (if, unfortunately, stereotypical) turn as the Japanese sub commander. However, do not expect this too be one of the classic comedies of all time. If you are looking for a truly good comedy poking fun at the insanity of war, then pick up "M*A*S*H."

Someone: Get the rights and remake this into a truly good movie!

---

11 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
best comedy i've seen in a long time, 18 January 2003

Author: lumpynose from near SF, California

I'll keep this short; read msa0510's review for a more in-depth review. The best part in this movie is Slim Pickens. Just thinking about his scenes makes me start laughing again.

It was nice having the "Making of 1941" on the dvd and seeing the remarks by Spielberg; I knew this movie had been panned by the critics but I hadn't known that it was popular in Europe. I can't understand why we Americans don't find it funny; it's hysterically funny to me.

It's a perfect 10 in my book; so few comedies these days are so over-the-top funny as this movie is.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Slapstick static..., 2 March 2008

Author: moonspinner55 from redlands, ca

Director Steven Spielberg's first theatrical misfire has bombastic humor and amped-up energy to spare--all it needs is a sharp, merciless editor to eliminate its excesses. Made up of equal parts "I Wanna Hold Your Hold" and "Animal House", the film opens with a spoof of "Jaws" that is funny and well done. The USO sequence is alive and crackling (any of the scenes with Bobby DiCicco and Dianne Kay are good), however John Belushi's Captain Wild Bill Kelso is a nuisance (perhaps recasting Belushi in Treat Williams' role of Corporal Sitarski might have saved some time). Buried under the morass is a fitfully funny spoof of wartime, although I tired easily of Ned Beatty running around with a shotgun. Robert Stack is wonderful, and the scenes between Tim Matheson and Nancy Allen in the airplane are fine if overextended, just like most of the bits and pieces in "1941". It has gloppy cinematography, messy comic staging and unconvincing sets. Spielberg's hopes for a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad War surely include isolated moments of inspiration--even brilliance--but those moments get trampled in the traffic. ** from ****

---

6 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
The poorest film Steven Spielberg has ever directed – a colossal mish-mash that has only curiosity value going for it., 6 August 2006

Author: Jonathon Dabell (barnabyrudge@hotmail.com) from Wakefield, England

Steven Spielberg has spent the past three decades directing one successful movie after another. A look down his list of work would throw up titles like Duel, Jaws, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, E.T, Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom, Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade, Jurassic Park, plus many other box office goliaths. What is more impressive still is the fact that many of his films are very good too. Not just box office successes, but genuinely well-made and well-crafted films. It is hard to think of many Spielberg films that are truly bad – some might mention Always, a somewhat soppy and forgettable love story from 1989, while others would opt for Hook, a rather over-glamorised revisit of the Peter Pan story made in 1991. But neither of these movies is actually BAD in the true sense of the word - just disappointingly average when compared to the director's better works. There is, however, one Spielberg film that fails in a spectacular way, one film so overblown, disorganised and clumsily structured that there might be proper reason to regard it a disaster. That film is 1941.

America is thrown into panic when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbour shortly before Christmas, 1941. On the Californian coast, people suddenly brace themselves for the possibility of a Japanese attack against their great coastal cities such as San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco. It is around this time that various people get caught up in adventures during one hectic night in LA. First, there's family man Ward Douglas (Ned Beatty), whose house overlooks the Pacific Ocean – he spends the entire evening engaged in a gunfight with a Jap submarine that surfaces in the bay opposite his home. Hollis Wood (Slim Pickens) is captured by the same Japanese submariners and swallows a compass so that they cannot easily navigate their way back out to sea. Then there's crazy pilot Wild Bill Kelso (John Belushi), who single handedly patrols the sky in his battered fighter plane, searching for enemy planes approaching the American coast. Meanwhile, young fast-food chef Wally Stephens (Bobby Di Cicco) spends the entire evening trying to win the affections of a young beauty, but faces stiff competition from the horny soldier Sitarski (Treat Williams); womanising army man Birkhead (Tim Matheson) lies his way into danger in order to impress a sexy female named Donna (Nancy Allen); and a couple of nitwits (Murray Hamilton, Eddie Deezen) spend the night on a fairground ferris wheel looking out for enemy planes and submarines in a foolhardy attempt to protect their country from an invasion.

It's obvious just from the plot synopsis that 1941 is a cluttered, unfocused mess of a movie. There's too much going on – too many unrelated subplots and too many big actors in preposterously brief guest roles – for the film's own good. To further confound matters, Spielberg opts to present the film, in his own words, as a "stupidly outrageous celebration of paranoia". In other words, he has turned this plot in the unlikeliest of comedies. However, Spielberg's idea of comedy in this film is to throw as much broad slapstick and expensive destruction at the audience as he can. The non-stop obliteration of streets, buildings, vehicles and even fairground rides loses its ability to provoke laughter through sheer unrelenting repetition. Throughout his career Spielberg has often been criticised for being too sentimental, but in this film he goes completely the other way and creates a film that is, if anything, excessively destructive and anarchic. 1941 is a spectacular failure – worth seeing on a curiosity level, but certainly not interesting in any other way.

---

---

Page 1 of 17:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history