Awful and overrated. Mel Brooks's worst!

Rating: 3/10 (12 April 2001)

Why was this voted as one of the funniest comedies of all time in AFI's Hall of Fame? Who cares? I sure as heck didn't think it was that funny. There was an occasional giggle here and there, but I found it frequently annoying and stupid. The comic timing is perfect, Zero and Gene have a great chemistry. Too bad there's no good material to work with. What we're basically watching is the two of them fumbling around like a bunch of idiots for a mindless hour and thirty minutes. Now, Mel had some good ideas. "Springtime for Hitler" could've been hilarious, but even that fell flat. Come on, a drug-induced sixties, flower-power stoner playing Hitler is supposed to be funny? Maybe I missed something. Maybe I should give another look. On second thought...no. There's a whole bunch of weird bits of comedy that are definitely original--but that's all they are. That originality has no zest or appeal. Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder stumble through each scene like Abbott and Costello with crappy material. Did I have to be born in the late sixties to get the humor? Is this a dated comedy? There has to be some reason why one of the "supposedly" funniest comedies of all time only sparked a few giggles and a bunch of groans and snores out of me. And I'm a fan of Mel. He's definitely a comic genius like no other. But I'm sure even the greatest of writers--if you look back in time--wrote a really bad essay in sophomore year of high school. This is like that essay. Loved all his other movies. This one should be thrown in the trash.