Do any of his movies hold up? Are they actually still funny? Debating watching Blazing Saddles. Only ever saw Spaceballs, thought it was pretty meh.
>>67123270
they're shit
Blazing Saddles is funny, still a relevant subject so it's held up well. Young Frankenstein is funny too but in a goofier way. May not be to your taste.
>>67123270
they're funny
His movies are from a better time when America didn't give a fuck about political correctness.
>>67123270
Blazing Saddles is one of the funniest movies ever made. The Producers, To Be or Not To Be, and Young Frankenstein also give good keks. High Anxiety is alright.
>>67123313
Here's your (You)
Mel Brooks is a typical jew degenerate looking to stir up shit and make a quick buck. Low brow humor for the masses which inspired other unfunny hacks like Seth MacFarlane.
Fuck him.
>>67123393
>>67123340
Alright, sounds like I owe it a chance.
>>67123313
this
typical nerd humor
>>67123270
Blazing Saddles and The Producers definitely hold up. Young Frankenstein I'm a bit lukewarm on.
>Mel Brooks is a typical jew degenerate looking to stir up shit and make a quick buck. Low brow humor for the masses which inspired other unfunny hacks like Seth MacFarlane.
Here's your (You)
>>67123431
i fuckin hate nerds
Blazing Saddles has held up due to the timeless nature of its racist humor. It's actually still quite funny.
>>67123393
>Blazing Saddles is one of the funniest movies ever made.
are you trying to ruse me? why do you have such shitty opinion here? I refuse to believe that you're for real. you for real? here's your (You).
He has more misses than hits, but the good stuff (Frankenstein, Saddles) is really great.
Besides, he produced and fought for The Elephant Man to be the film it is, so he has my respect.
>>67123462
doesn't everyone?
How does Men in Tights hold up?
>>67123527
This b8 is HARRIBLE
>>67123270
plebbest of plebs
dont even consider harakiri just do it
>>67123270
>Only ever saw Spaceballs, thought it was pretty meh.
You might prefer some Adam Sandler.
>>67123624
I still like it. But I got a pretty shit taste.
>>67123431
>>67123462
>>67123575
>samefagging this hard
>>67123270
Young Frankenstein holds up the best. Not only is it funny, it's also atmospheric, visually beautiful and one of the better film versions of Frankenstein overall.
They're still funny, one of the weirdest things is that they make me realize how comedic timing changed since he made movies, now everything must be either quicker on delivery or with a clear explanation on what just happened or what the joke was about.
>>67123270
I saw Spaceballs and Young Frankenstein. I liked Spaceballs more because I knew about Star War beforehand, didn't ever see Frankenstein to appreciate whatever (if there were) references
>>67123575
yeah nerds are fuckin lame
>>67123624
It's really funny, but a bit too cartoony and unsubtle (when it comes to spoofing its targets) at times, which are some of the same problems as History of the World Part 1 has.
Personally, I'd say even Dracula: Dead And Loving It isn't awful, but it's kind of weird in that it keeps almost too close to the material it's spoofing. Really bad parodies tend to suffer from the major problem that they're unbelievably superficial, like the Seltzer & Friedberg shit, which usually just consists of someone in a terrible costume going "Hi, I'm [character's/celebrities name], from [movie's/reality show's title].", whereas stretches of Mel Brooks' Dracula are essentially just remaking scenes from the 1931 Dracula movie, line for line, sometimes with barely a joke thrown in. It's kind of bizarre to see, really.
It has really good and very funny bits in it and you can clearly see the love Brooks seems to have for the Universal classic, but the product as a whole doesn't really work too well.
>>67123707
It's possible not to like either. Space Balls was filled with cringy poop humor.
>>67124087
>Space Balls was filled with cringy poop humor.
Such as?
>>67124282
they called one of the main characters barf
