A different kind of "disaster movie" for Spielberg

Rating: 5/10 (26 May 2005)

Forget "Jurassic Park." This was Steven Spielberg's first true "disaster movie," albeit it a more literal one. Yes, "1941" is a pretty bad film and probably deserves its reputation. It was such a flop in 1979 that advance teasers for "Raiders of the Lost Ark" boasted "from the director of..." and listed all of Spielberg's previous films -- except this one.
Keep in mind Stevey was new to the game. "JAWS" had been a breakthrough in '75 and grossed more than a Columbian drug dealer would make at a party with Robert Downey Jr., Edward Furlong and Scott Weiland.
"Close Encounters" came next in 1977 and broke more records. The critics were just waiting for Spielberg to bomb; he wasn't solidified as the world's most popular director of all-time yet, and much like today's M. Night Shyamalan, he had a large enough reputation that was fresh enough to fall apart.
"1941" almost ended it. The movie went phenomenally over budget, ended up being some three hours long, the editors hacked it apart and as a result no one could follow it. The DVD features a 2 and a half hour director's cut that is, surprisingly, no better than the original version. "Once Upon a Time in America" this is not -- Spielberg's editors didn't destroy the movie. BOTH versions sucked! The cast, at the time, was another reason it was hyped up so much. Get this: John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd, Lorraine Gary, Murray Hamilton, Ned Beatty, John Candy, Mickey Rourke, Christopher Lee, Tim Matheson, Warren Oates, Robert Stack, Treat Williams, Slim Pickens, Joe Flaherty, Michael McKean, Dick Miller, Penny Marshall and James Caan.
Nowadays only a few really stand out but back then Gary, Hamilton, Beatty, and Matheson were very popular. Belushi and Matheson had both starred in the smash hit "Animal House" a year before so considering this too was a slapstick comedy, obviously people were expecting a sequel of sorts.
The film is split up so each story has at least one famous face. That's part of the reason it fails I think -- too many celebs can wreck a movie sometimes because it's just way too showy and over-packed, trying to make equal room for each person. Sacrificing names for story might have been a better idea.
This doesn't seem like a Spielberg film and yet at the same time it represents everything he is known for. It tries to come across as a low-key silly comedy like "Animal House" (which it was very much cashing in on) but the problem is Spielberg was so high at this point (not literally, of course, but maybe that too) he couldn't handle anything mildly. Every scene plays like a silly slapstick comedy a la "Airplane!" but it's glamorous, expensive and over-the-top -- betraying slapstick's roots. It's too choreographed and glossy to be a stupid movie. It doesn't click together at any point.
Belushi is pretty much wasted and doesn't get many funny scenes. Aykroyd gets a better dealing but his team (mainly the hilarious John Candy) all get underplayed and I didn't even understand what the point of Candy's character actually was, generally speaking.
This movie is frantic, wild and all over the place. It's surprisingly raunchy and slapstick for a Spielberg film but maybe that's just because he's avoided making another disaster like this ever since. It's not a terrible movie and it's not as bad as "Pearl Harbor" but as a war movie it's just so-so, and as a comedy it really misses its mark because it's too big, bloated and spectacular to find funny -- always aiming for the big stuff instead of the genuine laughs. I think that's a problem Spielberg has had to face his entire career, and even his greatest films can be accused of similar errors in judgment.
It's worth seeing just for its reputation's sake, but it's not underrated by any means and certainly a struggle to sit through at times. Spielberg says on the DVD (which I unfortunately purchased as a blind buy) that Americans just don't get the film, but it's always greeted with warm welcome in Europe, and they seem to "get it" there. I don't know if that's true, though, because every European I've talked to who's seen this seems to hate it more than Americans I know!