Who knew that Year One and 10,000 BC were the same year? As I sat there, laughing at the screen antics in the dark the realization struck me — the two movies are the same! Whether or not this was noticed during the production or not, I do not know. What I do know is that this must be what Roland Emmerich was aiming for when he made that ancient epic. It is a shame he landed so wide of the mark — watching 10,000 BC you can see the comedic elements fighting to peek their way through the thick melodrama and bad acting.
On the other hand, Year One knows how to mine the material for all it's worth, inject some Biblical notes, and fill the supporting cast with familiar faces and let them do their thing. It doesn't even try to play the realism card. All of this adds up up to a surprisingly enjoyable film; it is by no means a classic, but it will give you a reason to chuckle.
Despite being a comedy, Year One had drama swirling around it. When it was initially screened by the MPAA for ratings purposes, it was slapped with an R rating, which came as something of a surprise to director Harold Ramis, who had his eyes set on an PG-13. Ramis and producer Judd Apatow (no stranger to the R rating) appealed the ruling, promptly losing. Since their target was the PG-13, the team went reluctantly back to the editing room and made the requisite trims. I am not a big fan of this process. It almost sounds like they shot with the express purpose of marketing an "unrated extended cut" when the DVD arrives. Meaning they always intended it to fail the MPAA test. While I can't verify this, I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case.
Now, having seen the movie and basked in the rosy afterglow of its comedic effect on my psyche, I can see where they got the R rating from. If there is such a thing, this is a "hard" PG-13, meaning if I had kids around this age, I am not sure I would want to expose them to the rather raunchy comedy. The movie is laced with sexual innuendo, explicit and implicit.
Year One is not the sort of movie that is going to be remembered for years to come. It is no classic, and it does not try to be. This is simply a vehicle for Jack Black and Michael Cera to ply their trade. The two essentially play the same sort of characters that have made up the bulk of their careers; they do not stretch beyond their range, remaining in their comfort zone. This works to great effect as they make a pretty good team (could we see more pairings from this duo? I wouldn't mind it). Of course, their ability to make you laugh will be directly tied to how much you like them in the first place. This will particularly apply to Black, as there seems to be a strong undercurrent of love/hate with regard to his comedy.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
1 - charmer1
Saw the movie myself.I think you still gave it too much credit.Ramis was trying to make a Mel Brooks movie.Think History of the World: Part 1.Ramis tried too hard on this one.
2 - DW
Ah interesting, I was going to reject this film out of hand but you might've changed my mind.