No doubt it's a sad movie. From the intro sequence, it sets its taste fine; a flashback story, about a once-famous, then-forgotten, movie star, told by his funny voice-over from the world of death. It's great. The thing is when the movie gave up this taste; it was where it collapsed.
The second act showcases the lead's prime. He's a successful comedian in the age of silent movies, who has problems as a husband. So far so good, especially when it enjoys us, and itself, with showing some of his silent comic shorts, mostly remakes of real ones, as a nice tribute to that movies' comedy and stars.
However, at that act something assured that the taste wasn't right, or well balanced. For clear instance, there are 2 situations. The first is about how the lead, mistakenly due to his drunkenness, bursts into the wrong home by his car. And the second is about kidnapping, mistakenly as well, the wrong son. These moments are performed with heavy amount of sorrow, through loud painful music score, as if they're cruel melodrama, not frank comedy. In fact, the movie couldn't decide which taste to choose, so it put the 2 together.
We didn't get to see the problems which these stars used to face in their line of work. Capturing evidences for pioneering is an enough honoring I believe. I couldn't understand well why that lead was a lousy husband. Was he a womanizer drunk; as we see in the second act?, or was he busy working all the time; as he says in the third act?! The movie - again - couldn't decide, so - again - put the 2 together!
Then, the disastrous third act. Yes, it's the unhappy end, but look how the things were made. Suddenly, the voice-over vanished, the comedy died, the son, played meaninglessly by Van Dyke also, is gay (??), the lead urinates in the bathroom (???), and his greatest movie ever, Forget-Me-Not, which is shown as our movie's climax, turns out to be an idiot one; where nothing is distinct about it, being way weaker than the ones that were shown earlier (I don't know why they didn't come up with more valuable material?!), and while you're not expecting, the movie ends!
The best of it is the dead lead's dream of dying while being on the top, done as another short from the silent cinema. That creativity was missed for the rest of the movie. At one moment, I imagined how it would have been better if situations, such as the meeting with the agent in the restaurant, were portrayed the same way; close to the spirit of a scene like spotting Van Dyke and Michele Lee in the bed. At least it could have been more memorable and funny.
Dick Van Dyke, who adores the silent cinema and its icons (Stan Laurel in specific), wanted to make a movie about their art, and unfair endings after the cinema had spoken. But sorrowfully, the script of Aaron Ruben and director Carl Reiner was poor, confused, and so uneven; with a third act that seemed made for another movie. So with the capacities and sincerity of Van Dyke, trying to make a sufficient elegy for a terminated age's artists, then it's a first rate disappointment. Pretty sad indeed!
The second act showcases the lead's prime. He's a successful comedian in the age of silent movies, who has problems as a husband. So far so good, especially when it enjoys us, and itself, with showing some of his silent comic shorts, mostly remakes of real ones, as a nice tribute to that movies' comedy and stars.
However, at that act something assured that the taste wasn't right, or well balanced. For clear instance, there are 2 situations. The first is about how the lead, mistakenly due to his drunkenness, bursts into the wrong home by his car. And the second is about kidnapping, mistakenly as well, the wrong son. These moments are performed with heavy amount of sorrow, through loud painful music score, as if they're cruel melodrama, not frank comedy. In fact, the movie couldn't decide which taste to choose, so it put the 2 together.
We didn't get to see the problems which these stars used to face in their line of work. Capturing evidences for pioneering is an enough honoring I believe. I couldn't understand well why that lead was a lousy husband. Was he a womanizer drunk; as we see in the second act?, or was he busy working all the time; as he says in the third act?! The movie - again - couldn't decide, so - again - put the 2 together!
Then, the disastrous third act. Yes, it's the unhappy end, but look how the things were made. Suddenly, the voice-over vanished, the comedy died, the son, played meaninglessly by Van Dyke also, is gay (??), the lead urinates in the bathroom (???), and his greatest movie ever, Forget-Me-Not, which is shown as our movie's climax, turns out to be an idiot one; where nothing is distinct about it, being way weaker than the ones that were shown earlier (I don't know why they didn't come up with more valuable material?!), and while you're not expecting, the movie ends!
The best of it is the dead lead's dream of dying while being on the top, done as another short from the silent cinema. That creativity was missed for the rest of the movie. At one moment, I imagined how it would have been better if situations, such as the meeting with the agent in the restaurant, were portrayed the same way; close to the spirit of a scene like spotting Van Dyke and Michele Lee in the bed. At least it could have been more memorable and funny.
Dick Van Dyke, who adores the silent cinema and its icons (Stan Laurel in specific), wanted to make a movie about their art, and unfair endings after the cinema had spoken. But sorrowfully, the script of Aaron Ruben and director Carl Reiner was poor, confused, and so uneven; with a third act that seemed made for another movie. So with the capacities and sincerity of Van Dyke, trying to make a sufficient elegy for a terminated age's artists, then it's a first rate disappointment. Pretty sad indeed!