There are some parallels between the two films that I noticed while watching Anchorman again recently.
*CS was one of the most popular and frequently quoted comedy films of it’s time, Anchorman is one of the most frequently quoted and popular comedy films of the last 5 years.
*Both were traileblazer films for the players involved who would become house hold names (house holds who never watched SNL or the like that is)
*Both were mere excuses for the cast to be funny in a movie with little reliance on story, plot or competent film making. Both CS and AM are sloppily made films that aren’t funny because of plot but because of the people in them.
*Both featured a cult comic actor who stole the movie and quickly became a superstar afterwards.(Bill Murray, Steve Carrell)
*Caddyshack isn’t funny anymore, and in 20 years neither will Anchorman there I said it!
Let me explain that last point, I love Caddyshack because I love Murray, Dangerfield, Chase etc. But as funny as the cast is the film is a dated mess. Like I said above the movie was just a vehicle for the talent and while it was a great vehicle that helped bring the Second City/National Lampoon/SNL (not to mention the brilliant Rodney Dangerfield) brand of comedy into the hollywood mainstream the film is now only worthwhile to the people that grew up with it.
And you know what the exact same can be said for Anchorman. This film was a great vehicle for bringing all of today’s big comedy names into the lime light but the next generation ain’t gonna get it. The film will date as badly as CS has because like CS the people involved in AM were new to the movie game and essentially crafted a sketch comedy idea and stretched it out to feature length.
Well I guess I’m the only one who knows people who quote and recite whole scenes of Anchorman on a regular basis. Aw shucks ya got me.
My point is they weren’t movie stars yet. Just like Murray, Chase weren’t. Please read my OP more carefully.
Yes if you’ve grown up with it, watched it many times, quoted scenes with your friends endlessly and have a general affinity for it. If you’ve never seen it and are under a certain age than that might be a different story.
I love Caddyshack as much as the next guy and yes I may still find it funny but if you seriously think it still holds up as a movie you’re kidding yourself.
why does everything has to rely on story, plot or “competent film making”? They knew what they were making. I think if somethings funny, it’s just that…funny.
If it entertains to me, it delivers. Why worry about what makes a movie and just enjoy it at face value for what it is? I guess it all depends on what people grow up with what kind of humor is funny to them. Sadly people today and in future generations won’t pick up on the subtleties of Ghostbusters even :lol: A time when not everything had to try to be laugh out loud funny. :whatever:
I’ll reply to this topic in 20 years. Eh I enjoy the movies so that’s enough for me I guess.
I guess everybody wants to see the movies they remember in most cases. That can be said for any generation of people. I haven’t watched Caddyshack in awhile but once in awhile need some senseless entertainment with those guys.
Ah yeah, I have been hearing about the Anchorman 2. I guess we’ll see. To me it’s one that feels like it should be a stand alone. Meh If they can do something worthwhile with it I guess. :whatever:
I dunno, Caddyshack despite it’s very loose nature, I still laugh for what it is, or it’s moments. Ask me again about Anchorman in 20 years :lol: Even without a serious story or plot, I can accept characters doing or saying random things if they make me laugh I guess/
It doesn’t. This isn’t the point I’m trying to make or the point of this thread.
What I’m trying to do is look at 2 seminal comedy films from 2 different eras and outline what I think are similarities in both their pop-cultural impact and the effect they had on the people involved.
The latter one I think is pretty valid. Bill Murray was that guy from SNL who did Nick the lounge singer and geek sketches. He does Caddyshack, steals it, a year later he headlines Stripes. Steve Carrell was that guy from the Daily Show and some failed sketch show with Dana Carvey. He steals Anchorman and a year later The 40 Year Old Virgin is released rest is history.
In making these comparisons yes I’m afraid I have to put my own personal affection for the films aside and look at them objectively as films. Sue me!
There will always be a place in the world for mindless, silly comedy but most of these films become products of their time and it’s how they are made which usually determines how well they’ll age.
I stayed away from Anchorman for a looong time, because Ron Burgandy looked like someone who needed his face bashed in (even though I love Will Ferrel).
But I finally watched it like…a year ago? And its awesome.
Anchorman was a funny film, but I don’t see it having as good of a shelf life as Caddyshack has had. It also won’t have a large audience appeal. I can only see certain types of people liking Anchorman, while Caddyshack seems to have fans of all ages, personalities, etc…
Eh I enjoy the movies so that’s enough for me I guess.