In Venice Beach, naive Midwesterner JB bonds with local slacker KG and they form the rock band Tenacious D. Setting out to become the world's greatest band is no easy feat, so they set out to steal what could be the answer to their prayers -- a magical guitar pick housed in a rock-and-roll museum some 300 miles away.
Two bumbling store clerks inadvertently erase the footage from all of the tapes in their video rental store. In order to keep the business running, they re-shoot every film in the store with their own camera, with a budget of zero dollars.
When he finds out that his work superiors host a dinner celebrating the idiocy of their guests, a rising executive questions it when he's invited, just as he befriends a man who would be the perfect guest.
Zed, a prehistoric would-be hunter, eats from a tree of forbidden fruit and is banished from his tribe, accompanied by Oh, a shy gatherer. On their travels, they meet Cain and Abel on a fateful day, stop Abraham from killing Isaac, become slaves, and reach the city of Sodom where their tribe is now enslaved. Zed and Oh are determined to rescue the women they love, Maya and Eema. Standing in their way is Sodom's high priest and the omnipresent Cain. Zed tries to form an alliance with Princess Innana, which may backfire. Can an inept hunter and a smart but slender and diffident gatherer become heroes and make a difference? Written by
Firstly, let me mention that this is my first IMDb post ever and I feel compelled to make this post based on many different things. I went into this movie with no prior knowledge other than a trailer of the movie where michael cera gets berries knocked out of his hands etc. The scene made me laugh and I thought that Jack Black and Cera could be a good pairing for a comedy. I did not know that the movie was directed by Harold Ramis nor that the script was written by Ramis as well as the guys from The Office (all three of whom are comedy geniuses), nor did I know that the movie had been panned by Roger Ebert: the only movie critic whom i actually respect in that we have very similar taste in movies. If I had read the Ebert review (1 star), I probably wouldn't have gone to see the movie but nonetheless I did. There are two kinds of comedy: comedy with a moral to the story and mindless comedy for the sole purpose of making people laugh. This is the latter but it is done to perfection. I'm not going to talk about the movie itself other than to say that the scenes with Oliver Platt and Cera had me laughing as hard as the first half hour of Borat (i.e. I could barely breathe). I'm not claiming that this movie is a classic, in fact I'll admit that there was no real point to the movie and the philosophical bits fell pretty flat but all in all there were many scenes in this movie where Ramis' genius is apparent. I went to the movie to get some laughs and I definitely got my moneys worth. For a quick example of some other comedies which had me leaving a large amount of pee for theatre personnel to mop up later: A Fish Called Wanda,...The Holy Grail, Office Space, Borat, Austin Powers, Happy Gilmore. OK I didn't see most of these in the theatre but you get the point. I can't really say why so many people are panning Year One. My only thought is that they really just don't get the humor. Obviously there is a plentiful supply of people on IMDb that will not like this notion since they couldn't possibly be wrong about anything but in my opinion they are mistaken when it comes to this movie. I have a feeling that people's opinions of this movie will change in time. Is it possible that a pointless cave man comedy could be before its time? I hope this post will get a few more people to watch this movie with an open mind.
278 of 417 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?