"Belushi" new Showtime Documentary

He was never my favorite, so...

 

Priceless! Danny Akroyd really does have webbed toes by he way.

 

I liked neighbors

 

I liked the line, "He made people laugh just by walking onstage."

 

why would they wait 38 years after his death to do a movie?

 

I was a little surprised there wasn't any interviews/commentary from the other original SNL people (Garret Morris, etc).

 

Seth Meyers talking w/ Dan Ackroyd about The Blues Brothers and Belushi

​

 

Actually, interviews with just about every writer and cast member from the original show are included *except* for Garrett.

 

I didn't recall anything by Lorraine either.

 

You and me both. I also liked Continental Divide a lot as well. To be honest, as much as I recognize they're "classics", and I loved films like Animal House and The Blues Brothers when I was a youngster, to me they haven't aged well, and I don't think I'd sit down and watch either of them today.

 

To be a real outlier, I love Spielberg's 1941. I think it's hilarious, and gets better and better every time I re-watch it. Not just because of Belushi (my favorite scene is Murray Hamilton and Eddie Deezen on the Ferris Wheel). My only minor suggestion is that keeping Akroyd and Belushi apart may have been a mistake (they have one brief scene together).

 

I thought 1941 was great, and I love the dancehall scene. I don't get why people don't like this movie.

 

I saw it the other night. It was pretty decent and did a good job of touching on various times in Belushi's life.

What stuck with me was learning that his introduction to blues music happened during his time filming Animal House. Also, hearing that later on he supposedly gave all of his blues albums to an acquaintance, telling them that he wasn't interested in listening to that music anymore.

 

I haven't seen it since I saw it in the theatre when it was released. I remember I didn't like it, but I was 10 years old at the time; I'll have to check it out again.

 

I haven’t seen Neighbors in decades but really enjoyed it as a kid at least in part because Belushi played the more “normal” guy and Akroyd played the a-hole. I thought that was the whole point of the movie being made in the first place.

I also like 1941 but that has nothing to do with Belushi. His role is so small it could have been entirely left on the floor and it would have made little difference.

 

Actually, you're right. Laraine wasn't included in the documentary, but her commentary is included in the book several times (in which Garrett's not interviewed and only mentioned once).

The book, BTW, goes into a lot more detail than the documentary (unsurprising) and is well worth a read.

 

Because it's full of anachronisms maybe? It's not convincing as a period piece, even if it is a far-out comedy. A little authenticity can go a long way.

Back on topic, I need to catch this documentary, but I need to catch Zappa first.

 

I think there are certain films that are sometimes too confident, and 1941 is one of them. You get the feeling that EVERYONE involved just KNOWS this is going to be a BIG HIT and we'd better start deciding what shape and size of swimming pool you want to add to your property because the money is just gonna come rolling in from ticket sales, brother! Who cares about a script or even a coherent general story people wanna see! Just LOOK at who's in this thing and LOOK who's directing it!

Scott Pilgrim vs The World was a recent film that felt too confident, to me. The Monuments Men is another.

(cue the "I liked Scott Pilgrim!" comments in three-two-one)

 

It's too bad Belushi wasn't given a chance to become a great actor. With a great script he could have been another George C. Scott or Spencer Tracey.

Your thoughts?

 

Definitely. You can see it in Don’t Look Back in Anger (the SNL short).

 

I’ll toss in a short defense of 1941. Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale wrote the script, and it’s sensibility fits right in with their other collaborations, which peaked with Back to the Future. Nancy Allen is even basically playing a variation of her role in I Wanna Hold Your Hand.

The difference is that Spielberg directed, not Zemeckis, and there’s a bunch of over-the-top set pieces that probably wouldn’t have been there if Zemeckis had directed. The Zemeckis/Gale humor is totally there, and as a fan of their films, I love it. To his credit, Spielberg continued to support the two even after 1941 flopped.

 

He could’ve been a great actor, but I wouldn’t say he wasn’t given a chance. He kinda ruined it for himself.

 

Is the anecdote from the book about Lorne Michaels seeing Belushi in the casket in the documentary? I still think about it often.

FWIW Belushi's grave on Marthas Vineyard is very accessible to the public. I paid my respects a few years back.

 

Yeah, don't get that at all. It's a comedy from 1979, it's not high art. I couldn't care who directed it, and the cast is nearly immaterial. It makes me laugh, and has a ton of quotable lines.

So I'm assuming you didn't like Airplane! because of the historical inaccuracies? And the "s*itload of dimes" scene in Blazing Saddles must have driven you nuts.

 

Airplane! is modern day 1979/80 isn't it? With Blazing Saddles I think it was obvious that they were breaking the 4th wall from the moment it started. I can get with that. But with 1941 we're talking 38 year-old history in 1979. It proports itself to be a historical piece, if not by anything else, it's title, alone, gives a date in time, pigeonholing itself right off the bat. I find this odd, especially considering that Spielberg's father was in WWII - and actually, Spielberg's attention to detail seems to have gone out the window. It's an anomaly in Spielberg's career, not just because it's his sole comedy (Hook is more of a fantasy flick), but it also kind of sucks. It's not near as clever as Airplane! and Blazing Saddles - two of the funniest films ever.