Review of 1941 (1941) by Cameron J — 11 Jul 2011

But, it's a spoofish comedy written by critically acclaimed drama fimmaker Robert Zemeckis and directed by dramatic spectacle-maker Steven Spielberg. How could this possibly go wrong? Well, it didn't but it certainly didn't go right either. It's not bad, but it is a - as said best by Chuck O'Leary - "loud, chaotic, overproduced comedy that's often more destructive than funny". The film suffers from a lack of development, expendable scenes, forced scenes, slowness, plenty of fall-flat jokes and some sense of humor inconsistencies. It has the makings of a bad movie, but it never fully hits that mark.

The film is extremely flawed and while it's certainly not good, it's not bad. Before I say what saves the film, allow me to touch on the other strengths. The film is supported by a deal of entertaining spots, fair cinematography, fine production designs, dazzling effects and... well... that's all I got. The film really does boast fine technical value, but in a way, to its detriment. As dazzling as the technical value is, it drowns-out the film, making it rather noisy and somewhat hollow. Really, the film has far more flaws than strengths and what strengths it does have work against the film to an extent. Really, what saves the film is but one simple thing: there's nothing to hate about it.

Man, I was hoping to hate this film, because I had a great negative review in mind. I have got to start watching more bad movies. Well, until then, allow me to say that "1941" is an overblown mess with little to praise, but little to hate it for, leaving it to simply rest as a passable watch, though nothing that will keep you from saying "I wonder what else I could have done in that time.".