Ok, time for the survey and another CarnivorousPlant Conspiracy Theory:
Answer True or Flase, not “Yes, well, maybe but on the other hand…”
I like Star Wars “A New Hope” T
I like Space Balls T
I like Trek TOS T
Dink, dink! Dink dink dink Dink Dink Dink!
And fifty-three years after It Happened One Night.
Man, that Mel Brooks has no sense of timing, does he.
“I’m my own best friend.”
Am I the only one who thought Robin Hood: Men In Tights was better than Spaceballs?
rjung, I enjoy both about equally. Robin Hood would actually smidgen out Spaceballs by a bit.
And to those who dislike Spaceballs… let’s just say if I’m going to watch crude obvious comedy, I’d rather watch comedy that doesn’t make me cringe like There’s Something About Mary, Meet the Parents and Van Wilder.
I think that Mel has been at his funniest poking fun at race relations in America. The funny part of them combing the desert is not the fact that they are using combs, but that they give the black guys the styling pick, which is what black people would be more likely to use. So Dark Helmet obviously gave the black guys the styling pick and they were pissed because it was so much smaller, so they said, “We ain’t found sh*t!”
All of the racial jokes in Blazing saddles were great. They are so funny because despite all of this political correctness that has been going on, this flies in the face of it and makes us laugh in spite of ourselve.
Everyone agrees that Young Frankenstein is genius.
Most people would say that Blazing Saddles and The Producers are worthy.
The rest get sharply debated. Some see Mel as incapable of doing no wrong. Others (a lot of others considering how some of these other movies were box office failures) see the the rest of Mel’s corpus as flawed.
Why are these other movies flawed, while Young Frankenstein was a success? Because Young Frankenstein (and BS and TP) were movies unto themselves. Though YF and BS were parodies, even if you didn’t know what was being parodied, these movies stood on their own.
The other comedies of Mel that were based on slapstick and parody wound up being bad movies. They were just strings of barely related skits, word plays, and potty jokes. No real story line, no real character development. However, if you are looking for a few jokes, you’ll like it. If you’re looking for a good comedic movie, you’ll be disappointed.
The movies Mel made that were intended to be real movies wound up being just bad movies.
Peace.
That’s like saying a poke in the eye is better than a kick in the balls.
I wasn’t much of a fan of Spaceballs, even though I greatly looked forward to it as both a big Brooks and Star Wars fan. The whole thing felt like a Mad magazine parody. Except Mad’s version was probably called something like Star Blech or Barf Wars.
What’s bothered me about Brooks’s films post-High Anxiety (for me, his last very funny film) isn’t just the increasingly juvenile humor in the writing. It’s that his work as a director has devolved to the point where his films are positively torpid, dragging the funny to a literal halt by pausing the action after each punchline.
This tactic works on stage, where actors/comedians can judge for themselves when the laughter has subsided enough to keep going. But IMO film directors should never fall into the trap of anticipating huge laughs. It’s far worse to overestimate the length of the possible laughter response (resulting in the “dead air” of inaction on screen coupled with awkward audience silence) than to underestimate it and move quickly along. The latter option risks only that a few lines might be missed here and there. And that’s something a good scriptwriter will compensate for anyway.
I think this axiom is especially true for directors working off their own screenplays, since what writer doesn’t want to believe that his jokes will create hysterical laughter? That’s what I think has happened to Brooks. In his later films, i.e., the ones he’s primarily written alone, he does everything but play a drumroll/cymbal crash and say “ha-cha-cha!” after each punchline!
IIRC, there’s a saying that half of comedy is timing. Brooks seems to have lost his, alas.
To me, Brooks’s best work as a director was back in The Producers, thanks to its much faster pacing (more along the lines of a Marx Bros. movie). Even Young Frankenstein shows more of the heavy-handed style. Fortunately, the script, which I seem to recall was mostly written by Gene Wilder, was more than strong enough to withstand the slowness. Besides, the genre being parodied lent itself to a more leisurely pace. The script, the cast, and the production values were all so amazing that I can’t blame Brooks for taking his time!
So I agree with Qadgop the Mercotan: Wilder and Brooks were a magical pairing. Brooks made Wilder less sentimental and cautious, and Wilder gave Brooks finesse and characterization. (Kinda like the old Astaire/Rogers canard, “he gave her class, she gave him sex.”) Alas, I have the vague recollection that there was some sort of rift between Wilder and Brooks … some interview where Wilder says “we won’t work together again” or something like that. 
Anyone know more about this?
Geeze, choie, way to overanalyze! Sorry for the boring diatribe, guys.
“We’ve gone plaid!”
“I am your father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former room-mate.”
“Smoke if you got 'em!”
“That’s the kind of combination an idiot would put on his luggage!”
“Why didn’t somebody tell me my ass was so big?”
“Oh yes, sir. Snotty beamed me twice last night. It was wonderful.”
No. “Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.” is one of the best lines ever.
As for the rest of the movie, with the exception of a couple of good bits, it was average at best. Corny and obvious but also harmless fun in a silly slapstick sort of way if you’re in the right mood.
But that line was a classic.
That would be better on a Darth Vader T shirt than “Who’s your daddy?”