Airplane! (Review)


Yes, I’ve never seen that film, and I almost wish I kept it that way. This movie gets a 2 out fo 10 for me. At first, I fkept groaning at the jokes and found myself thinking, “I’d love to see Marc watch this film (He’d be a heck of a lot more entertaining than this film!). ” It was cute…at first. Then it just got really boring. I mean, it was crass, and it wasn’t funny.

I thought of the Farrelly brothers, but, I laugh at their films and give them points for going as close t the edge between acceptability and grossness (sometimes crossing it, but, hey, that’s the risk you take). Yet, couldn’t we say that Airplane! is a precurser to the Farrelly brother’s films? Is it the first of it’s kind? Well, no, I think we would have to go look to Mel Brooks.

(Btw, does anyone know what was the first spoof movie?)

So if Mel Brooks has them beat, then I don’t think there’s anything to recomend in this film. OK, change the 2 to a 1.

Well, the other redeeming value of the film could be the way the film reflects the times of when the film was made. For example, there are several scenes where characters just starting punching out Hare-Krishna’s giving flowers out at the airport. The final scene of this sort has Robert Stack punching out all sorts of people from various religious pamphleteers to political activists. This is the sort of gag that would work to people in that time–which says something (I don’t know how significant)–about that particular time period.

The other thing about that time period was it was pre-political correctness. You had male chaunistic gags and even racist ones.
(I was a bit surprised by racist undertones of one of the scene where Robert Hayes recounts his days in the peace corps. He teaches these African’s basketball, and, of course, they pick up really quickly.)

If there’s anything redeeming about the film, it may lie in what the film reveals about the cultural and political climate of the times. OK, I’ll go back to giving it a 2. (“You softie, you.”)

4 Responses to “Airplane! (Review)”

  1. Marc

    I’d be more entertaining than the movie? Come on now, any movie that can combine William Shatner and Kareem Abdul Jabbar has gotta rock. Then again if you’re talking about my sparkling wit…

  2. Reid

    First of all, Shatner is not in this movie. (Perhaps, he was in Airplane! II? Second, of all, your “wit” wasn’t the reason I thought you’d be more entertaining, unless you call wall-to-wall Chewbacca groans, wit. (Guaranteed, you’d be doing that.) Finally, while that would be funnier than the film, that’s just a backhanded compliment because, really, my comment was to underscore how unfunny I thought the film was. Yes, you’re constant Chewie groanings would actually be more entertaining. Lovely.

  3. kevin

    Aww, c’mon. June Cleaver speaking jive? and such classic lines as “surely you’re not serious?” ” I am serious. And don’t call me Shirley.” Or “This woman has to be gotten to a hospital!’ “A hospital? What is it?” It’s a big building with doctors in it, but that’s not important right now.” That format of humor has engrained itself into mainstream use; it’s got to have at least humor historic value.

    I would admit that since I was just out of grade school when I saw it that type of slapstick & sophomoric humor endears itself to my sensibility more than it would ordinarily.

    Favorite random humor: “The fog’s getting thicker!” (Johnny:) ” And Leon’s getting laaarrrrggger!” (as he jiggles waistline of coworker.)

  4. Reid

    Well, I suggested the film may have some historical value, but then I gave more of the credit to Mel Brooks. Still, I think the humor in Airplane! may be different, so you may have a point.

    Those lines were pretty good, but I had heard those scenes before, so I guess the effect was lessened.

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.