The film opens majestically à la "2001" with a vision of our gesticulating monkeys.When the title 'our forefathers' appeared, I laughed at both the punchline and the friendly jab to Stanley Kubrick
No offense to "2001" fans but who doesn't skip the monkey parts?
Mel Brooks however can see the comedic subtext of the prehistoric world and with Sid Caesar as the star of the chapter, he provides a nice little series of sketches retelling the invention of fire, the first artist, the first critic ... some jokes inspired smiles, the first marriage bit was mildly funny when Tex Avery used it in "The First Bad Man", but that's Mel Brooks you know, he throws you one gag after another and the one that doesn't work is only a little low spot before a higher bump.
Now the film opened with a big joke, Mel Brooks wanted to make a big film, one so big that it would deal about the History of the World, and it would be a two-parter... I reckon his merit to have created the only film whose title is a joke itself. But I wish the film could hold up to that premise, "History of the World Part I" isn't exactly the comedic odyssey Orson Welles' voice-over prepares us to, in fact it's one epic cinematic muddle out of which some genuinely hilarious moments emerge and keep the joke-o-meter on a good track, which allows Mel Brooks to arrive safely at 'The End' without compromising his reputation as one of the most inventive and outrageous comics of his generation.
The problem is that the most inspired moments can be compacted in a half-hour format. The Roman part drags on for too long and Gregory Hines, as Josephus, does his best to prove how valuable he was but he's not given good material and can only indulge to the kind of token black man's shtick that gets quickly annoying. Sure Brooks never hid his penchant for distastefulness with his infamous 'rising below vulgarity' limit but there's a limit to which a gimmick can be used. Maybe the weakness of the Roman part is that the main characters Comicus (Brooks) and Josephus are entertainers and making laugh is part of their job; they're funny by status, not through their reactions to what befalls on them.
Take a film like "Life of Brian", the comedy works because everyone plays the part seriously and thus become unintentionally funny; even Brooks' previous films had funny situations happening to straight persons, but when the person is "funny" by plot requirement, it doesn't work. This is why Madeline Kahn as the Impress IS funny and grabs some of the rare laughs from the first part and this is why I laughed more at Dom DeLuise when he didn't utter a word (belches and farts don't count) than Brooks when he was playing his stand-up comic. I gather he didn't intend Comicus to be a top comedian but why would anyone waste five minutes with tiresome jokes to make a point when you can have one minute of sheer nonsense to make us laugh.
The Roman part left me with a frustrating impression that Brooks had the Emperor, the Eunuch and Chase scene in mind and asked the best of his inspiration to connect them all, which results in some scenes of relative emptiness: the trio tries to escape the Romans and sometimes, nothing much happens, during the Vestal sequence, they're all pretty to look at but there's no pay-off to that part, take the Anthrax Castle sequence in "Holy Grail" and you'll see the difference. That said, the Roman part ends with one terrific joke involving a cameo from Moses (his breaking-the-tablet bit was so good it's almost the film's signature) and a little nod to the last supper with Da Vinci making an unexpected cameo. I think it serves my point that Comicus was the funniest when he didn't even try.
After the 'Last Supper' gag, the film takes a new level of energy reaching its culminating point with the infamous 'Inquisition' song, a homage to Hollywood corny musicals with the horrific Torquemada pulling a Fred Astaire. That was the part to remind us that the creator of "Springtime for Hitler" and re-creator of "Puttin' on the Ritz" still had it. The song is catchy, the nun part irreverent and graciously inventive, and here you have less than ten minutes more worthy of your attention than the previous part. And after the musical interlude, we get to the last chapter: "The French Revolution".
The beginning struck me as one of these erotic dreams where you can fulfill any fantasy, "It's good to be the king" works so much a line it was almost self-referential, Brooks is the king of his own film and can do whatever he wants, for worse; the urination part (one joke was enough) or the chess part and for better: the peasant trapshooting and the poor Parisian sequences with Dickensian undertones. The part concludes with the kind of chaotic Deus Ex Machina that worked interestingly better than in "Blazing Saddles" (but that's my opinion) and it was fun having the main characters all joining at the end before the finale and the previews announcing a sequel that would never happen.
For all its flaws, the film is an interesting on an educational level for it picks the most pivotal times of history: the dawn of humanity, the Biblical Law, Antiquity, Medieval Ages that ended with the Inquisition and Modern times that ended with the French Revolution, and Brooks manages to squeeze the comedic juice from each pivotal period... though some gags turn rapidly acid. He still had his "Spaceballs" coming and the film worked better with a consistent plot, a linear narrative and character who didn't try to be funny but let the fun come to them.
I wouldn't call the film end-of-era for Brooks but obviously his best work was already history.
Mel Brooks however can see the comedic subtext of the prehistoric world and with Sid Caesar as the star of the chapter, he provides a nice little series of sketches retelling the invention of fire, the first artist, the first critic ... some jokes inspired smiles, the first marriage bit was mildly funny when Tex Avery used it in "The First Bad Man", but that's Mel Brooks you know, he throws you one gag after another and the one that doesn't work is only a little low spot before a higher bump.
Now the film opened with a big joke, Mel Brooks wanted to make a big film, one so big that it would deal about the History of the World, and it would be a two-parter... I reckon his merit to have created the only film whose title is a joke itself. But I wish the film could hold up to that premise, "History of the World Part I" isn't exactly the comedic odyssey Orson Welles' voice-over prepares us to, in fact it's one epic cinematic muddle out of which some genuinely hilarious moments emerge and keep the joke-o-meter on a good track, which allows Mel Brooks to arrive safely at 'The End' without compromising his reputation as one of the most inventive and outrageous comics of his generation.
The problem is that the most inspired moments can be compacted in a half-hour format. The Roman part drags on for too long and Gregory Hines, as Josephus, does his best to prove how valuable he was but he's not given good material and can only indulge to the kind of token black man's shtick that gets quickly annoying. Sure Brooks never hid his penchant for distastefulness with his infamous 'rising below vulgarity' limit but there's a limit to which a gimmick can be used. Maybe the weakness of the Roman part is that the main characters Comicus (Brooks) and Josephus are entertainers and making laugh is part of their job; they're funny by status, not through their reactions to what befalls on them.
Take a film like "Life of Brian", the comedy works because everyone plays the part seriously and thus become unintentionally funny; even Brooks' previous films had funny situations happening to straight persons, but when the person is "funny" by plot requirement, it doesn't work. This is why Madeline Kahn as the Impress IS funny and grabs some of the rare laughs from the first part and this is why I laughed more at Dom DeLuise when he didn't utter a word (belches and farts don't count) than Brooks when he was playing his stand-up comic. I gather he didn't intend Comicus to be a top comedian but why would anyone waste five minutes with tiresome jokes to make a point when you can have one minute of sheer nonsense to make us laugh.
The Roman part left me with a frustrating impression that Brooks had the Emperor, the Eunuch and Chase scene in mind and asked the best of his inspiration to connect them all, which results in some scenes of relative emptiness: the trio tries to escape the Romans and sometimes, nothing much happens, during the Vestal sequence, they're all pretty to look at but there's no pay-off to that part, take the Anthrax Castle sequence in "Holy Grail" and you'll see the difference. That said, the Roman part ends with one terrific joke involving a cameo from Moses (his breaking-the-tablet bit was so good it's almost the film's signature) and a little nod to the last supper with Da Vinci making an unexpected cameo. I think it serves my point that Comicus was the funniest when he didn't even try.
After the 'Last Supper' gag, the film takes a new level of energy reaching its culminating point with the infamous 'Inquisition' song, a homage to Hollywood corny musicals with the horrific Torquemada pulling a Fred Astaire. That was the part to remind us that the creator of "Springtime for Hitler" and re-creator of "Puttin' on the Ritz" still had it. The song is catchy, the nun part irreverent and graciously inventive, and here you have less than ten minutes more worthy of your attention than the previous part. And after the musical interlude, we get to the last chapter: "The French Revolution".
The beginning struck me as one of these erotic dreams where you can fulfill any fantasy, "It's good to be the king" works so much a line it was almost self-referential, Brooks is the king of his own film and can do whatever he wants, for worse; the urination part (one joke was enough) or the chess part and for better: the peasant trapshooting and the poor Parisian sequences with Dickensian undertones. The part concludes with the kind of chaotic Deus Ex Machina that worked interestingly better than in "Blazing Saddles" (but that's my opinion) and it was fun having the main characters all joining at the end before the finale and the previews announcing a sequel that would never happen.
For all its flaws, the film is an interesting on an educational level for it picks the most pivotal times of history: the dawn of humanity, the Biblical Law, Antiquity, Medieval Ages that ended with the Inquisition and Modern times that ended with the French Revolution, and Brooks manages to squeeze the comedic juice from each pivotal period... though some gags turn rapidly acid. He still had his "Spaceballs" coming and the film worked better with a consistent plot, a linear narrative and character who didn't try to be funny but let the fun come to them.
I wouldn't call the film end-of-era for Brooks but obviously his best work was already history.