Victor Frankenstein's grandson has inherited his castle and everything in it. Although at first hesitant of embracing his controversial work, he soon changes his mind when he realizes what this would do for his career and science. But, some problems arise when trying to revive the creature...
"Young Frankenstein" is hugely popular, scoring 8 out of 10 on IMDb and considered by many to be Mel Brooks' best and one of the funniest comedies of all time. Is it good? Yes. Is it worth seeing? Yes. But I neither think it's the funniest of Mel Brooks' work ("History of the World", "The Producers" and maybe even "Silent Movie" are funnier) or one of the greatest comedies. Maybe it's not aging well or I just don't get it, but I just don't get it.
The bulk of the jokes are vaudeville and slapstick takes on the classic Universal Studios version of "Frankenstein", even going so far as to use many of the same props. And while some of the scenes stand out as funny (the "Puttin' on the Ritz" scene, for one) the bulk of the plot is very nearly the same as the classic film. I respect the homage, even the use of the black and white film, but it does not deviate enough to be unique in my mind.
In contrast, consider Brooks' "Spaceballs". Yes, it is a parody of "Star Wars". But it does not follow the plot too closely, deviates in almost every way, incorporates other plots and science fiction references... and has a whole variety of humor styles mixed in. While maybe not the best of Brooks' work, this film is a much more solid comedy and stands up better for a variety of audiences. (IMDB rates it lower, but I cannot agree on that.)
Marty Feldman (Igor) is often overshadowed by his co-stars and Brooks, but he makes a strong Igor, and his eye condition could not have been better utilized. This character is the one clear improvement from the original film, and should not be overlooked.
Gene Wilder (and Gene Hackman) were both great, of course. Many consider this to be Wilder's best role. I simply cannot accept that Frankenstein, as great a character as he is, somehow trumps Willy Wonka. As made clear when Johnny Depp -- a brilliant actor -- tried to be Wonka, there is no replacing Wilder, even by the best stars of our day.
Don't get me wrong. The film is great, the directing and cinematography are excellent. The cast is amazing, particularly some of the supporting cast (like Teri Garr as Inga). But to say this is Mel Brooks' best film, one of the best comedies of all time or Gene Wilder's best role is just not correct, in my opinion. A second viewing might change my mind, but for now I would like to be convinced that this film is more than "above average".
"Young Frankenstein" is hugely popular, scoring 8 out of 10 on IMDb and considered by many to be Mel Brooks' best and one of the funniest comedies of all time. Is it good? Yes. Is it worth seeing? Yes. But I neither think it's the funniest of Mel Brooks' work ("History of the World", "The Producers" and maybe even "Silent Movie" are funnier) or one of the greatest comedies. Maybe it's not aging well or I just don't get it, but I just don't get it.
The bulk of the jokes are vaudeville and slapstick takes on the classic Universal Studios version of "Frankenstein", even going so far as to use many of the same props. And while some of the scenes stand out as funny (the "Puttin' on the Ritz" scene, for one) the bulk of the plot is very nearly the same as the classic film. I respect the homage, even the use of the black and white film, but it does not deviate enough to be unique in my mind.
In contrast, consider Brooks' "Spaceballs". Yes, it is a parody of "Star Wars". But it does not follow the plot too closely, deviates in almost every way, incorporates other plots and science fiction references... and has a whole variety of humor styles mixed in. While maybe not the best of Brooks' work, this film is a much more solid comedy and stands up better for a variety of audiences. (IMDB rates it lower, but I cannot agree on that.)
Marty Feldman (Igor) is often overshadowed by his co-stars and Brooks, but he makes a strong Igor, and his eye condition could not have been better utilized. This character is the one clear improvement from the original film, and should not be overlooked.
Gene Wilder (and Gene Hackman) were both great, of course. Many consider this to be Wilder's best role. I simply cannot accept that Frankenstein, as great a character as he is, somehow trumps Willy Wonka. As made clear when Johnny Depp -- a brilliant actor -- tried to be Wonka, there is no replacing Wilder, even by the best stars of our day.
Don't get me wrong. The film is great, the directing and cinematography are excellent. The cast is amazing, particularly some of the supporting cast (like Teri Garr as Inga). But to say this is Mel Brooks' best film, one of the best comedies of all time or Gene Wilder's best role is just not correct, in my opinion. A second viewing might change my mind, but for now I would like to be convinced that this film is more than "above average".