1941

[Guest]

I bought the movie on DVD a month or two ago and I've been taken in by it.

I saw it for the first time when I was really young on the Disney channel (imagine THAT!) and I just liked it because there were a lot of familliar faces in it. Then later on, I liked it because I was really into Slim Pickens at one point. Now, I just like it because it's a fun movie to watch, even though it's a really bad movie. I don't think it's Spielberg's worst, but it's far from best. The script is pretty entertaining, as are all of the gags, but it just doesn't really leave you with a warm, toasty feeling inside.

I think I heard it was intended as a musical, but didn't turn into that, even though the only thing holding it back from that is the singing. It's whimsical and light-hearted like a musical. It's definitely got the feel of one. Maybe that's why it's so bad. I think since the project started on the premise of being a musical, rather than a typical movie, it was never translated into anything else, and what we got was a really dysfunctional movie. But the content is excellent, even though grossly politically incorrect.

My favorite characters are the supporting ones. It seems like that's where Bob and Bob (Gale and Zemeckis) wrote the strongest. They make tons of unforgettable characters like Wild Bill Kelso, Hollis P. "Holly" Wood, Col. Maddox, Ward Douglas and his sons, Angelo, Claude and Herb, the Japanese spies dressed as Christmas trees...the list goes on. However, I wasn't really impressed with the main characters. With the exception of the "I'm a bug!" scene and giving instructions to Ward on the AA gun, Dan Aykroyd really didn't add anything. "If there's one thing I can't stand, it's Americans fighting Americans." Well, I say if there's one thing I can't stand, it's cheesy cracks like that one. Wally, Betty, Stretch (Treat Williams), Birkhead (Tim Matheson), and Donna (Nancy Allen) are just outright annoying. Their scenes nearly make the movie unbearable. But then you stick it through once your favorites are back on the screen. However, with the DVD, you have the advent of the fast forward function, where you can cut to the chase.

I definitely detect a similarity between the kind of writing Bob and Bob did with 1941 in all the Back to the Future trilogies. Sure, they're style is a little more profane than I prefer, but it is far from being dull and boring.

As for the score, it's a gem. The score is better than the movie. There's so much I could say about it, but it wouldn't make any sense. So what I will say is that this just shows off JW's talent quite a bit. He wrote an original big band piece for the film, created a great main theme that's makes for an awesome concert piece up there with the great patriotic marches, it makes you like the non-original themes he used because the way he used them is so terrific, and it's a great score for the usual reasons JW scores are great: they just are.

(Note: There's an odd coincidence to the movie. The opening scene was shot near near an old US army fort (not really a base) on the mainland that a Japanese sub actually attacked in WWII. The only difference between history and the plot of the movie is:

1) The attack was made off the coast of northern Oregon (the Seaside area), not Hollywood

2) The Japanese were striking a military target (Fort Stevens), rather than a civilian target

But another similarity between life and art is that the Japanese used a twenty year-old map to find the fort, which could be construed as possible inspiration for the broken compass in the movie. But things had changed in the 20 years since they'd obtained the map and plans to build the base at Ft Stevens fell through.)

[CYPHER 1]

I first watched 1941 a couple of years ago on TV. Obviously not one of Spielberg's best (or the best medium to watch it on), but I didn't think it was that much of a turkey. Sure it probably wasn't as funny or as exciting or as entertaining or as witty as it thought it was or as it could have been. But I enjoyed myself throughout and was impressed by the sheer scale of it all: the stunts, the plot, the characters and best of all the destruction! LOL

CYPHER

[A24 4,346]

It's the other side of Spielberg really. His noisy, nervous and over the top style. He kinda did that also with Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. The epic atmosphere was lost and couldn't be found. It was the eve of the mindless popcorn rides they call movies today. It's the Spielberg I couldn't care less about.

The score was quite another caliber though. There was a time that I enjoyed this tremendously. Play it loud!

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Trumpeteer 302]

I think I heard it was intended as a musical, but didn't turn into that, even though the only thing holding it back from that is the singing.  It's whimsical and light-hearted like a musical.  It's definitely got the feel of one.  Maybe that's why it's so bad.  I think since the project started on the premise of being a musical, rather than a typical movie, it was never translated into anything else, and what we got was a really dysfunctional movie.

"Hook" suffered the same fate.

Jeff -- who doesn't want Spielberg to attempt another musical, though Williams should definitely try his hand at an original song score

[Morlock 11]

I think the first 3/4 of the movie is just empty- there was not a single laugh in it for me, and it really feels like a serious guy trying to show everybody how funny he can be and failing miserably. But I fell that the last 1/4 of the movie really pcks up, and could have been the starting point for a good movie.

I still can't believe that they might've had Heston or Wayne as Stillwell. Then you'd have one of them, two of the biggest American actors, and Christopher Lee, one of the biggest English actors (in certain genres) and Toshiro Mifune, one of the greatest Japanese actors, all in the same movie. Instead they had Robert Stack, who despite being a great comic actor, wasn't as funny as a real serious movie star could've been.

One thing that really pisses me off is that a month after I bought it on DVD for $35, they lowered the price to $15!

[Lurker 5]

At least you didn't buy the laser disc for $125. But at least the isolated score on the LD is not data compressed the way it is on the DVD, so it does have better sound.

Neil

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You spend 125 $ on 1941????

Stefancos-

[Lurker 5]

It was a multi-disc box set, and that's what they sold for. LD's used to be very expensive, but usually you got a quality product for the price.

Neil

[Morlock 11]

I'm still not clear as to how a laser disk works. Iive never known anyone who had one.

[Lurker 5]

I'm still not clear as to how a laser disk works. Iive never known anyone who had one.

Go here to learn all about laser discs.

Neil

[Yoda Longbottom 0]

But at least the isolated score on the LD is not data compressed the way it is on the DVD, so it does have better sound.

I've never thought of it that way. So it means the standard 16-bit CDs still sound better than the DVD's isolated scores? If it is compressed for the DVD, could its quality be compared, say, to mini discs? I guess so. Then there is not much to worry over. Sure, home-made MDs suffer from compression affecting the depth of the recording and reverberation of instruments above all, but on mid-price stereo you won't notice any worrying difference, unless you make an cross-comparison.

[Lurker 5]

But at least the isolated score on the LD is not data compressed the way it is on the DVD, so it does have better sound.

I've never thought of it that way. So it means the standard 16-bit CDs still sound better than the DVD's isolated scores?

Yes. The isolated score on the LD of 1941 is wonderfully uncompressed full range analog sound.

Neil

[Yoda Longbottom 0]

Thank you, Indy. I love analog sound, very much. I have recently become re-bewitched by analog and I am planning on buying a gramophone, which will cause a little adjustment of my amplifier that does not have a phono input. I know of one site that has a good selection of classical music as well as film scores on vinyl records, so I'll see what I can get and how outlay-heavy it turns out to be. Vinyl records are usually comparable to that of CDs as far as prices are concerned. As I said, I already have The Phantom Menace and Stanley and Iris.

I personally know one guy who owns LD player and of the movies he has I remember The Terminator (1984), but it is a mono recording. And he has some Led Zeppelin concerts as well. I just felt a bit sorry for LDs that they haven't come in useful as same as CDs or DVDs. In the past there were media that really failed to grip people, such as DCC or video discs.

Roman AAD.-)

[Guest]

I used to hate it when I'd go to flea markets looking for good LPs (found SpaceCamp at one for $2--and in good condition) and come across a good LP-sized cover of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade or Total Recall, would look on the back, see like 20 some tracks, get excited, look more closely, and realize it was an LD, not an LP.

This talk about LDs reminds me of that gag in BTTF 2 where all the crates of LDs are in the alley "of the future".

[Lurker 5]

This talk about LDs reminds me of that gag in BTTF 2 where all the crates of LDs are in the alley "of the future".

I think the film should be revised and those crates should be the original mis-framed DVD's of Back to the Future Parts II and III that many of us exchanged and sent back to Universal. Talk about a paradox!

Neil

[A24 4,346]

Yoda Longbottom wrote:

As I said, I already have The Phantom Menace and Stanley and Iris.

This week I saw Close Encounters (several) and Jaws. I believe they were in good shape.

The things I would do if only it was worth some money.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Morn 8]

video discs

Hey, those are really neat, to make yourself