I've been waiting for a new Mel Brooks comedy for decades and, as likely the youngest age one could be and still be directly influenced by Mel Brooks 90's material when it first ran, I feel like I'm coming from an interesting old world-new world cross. The good news is the show doesn't feel like it's letting down the good name of Mel Brooks or History of the World Part 1 (I event rewatched the film just to be sure). I fully believe that Mel Brooks spent quite a bit of time not only approving but even directly shaping the content here. I can also see that through all the casting choices and filming quality that the younger generations tasked with living up to Mel Brooks amazing casts of characters are trying, some harder than I've seen try in a while, just because of the name behind what they are doing. A lot of jokes zing just the same way Mel Brooks always has & hit at a higher brow of humor, with more effort put into the subtext and double entendres. Now for the bad news: whether it comes from Mel Brooks or not, is unclear, but there are also a lot of jokes and even whole sketches that fall very flat for which Brooks in his prime would have trimmed out and tried again I think (or more classic stars would have talked him out of in the moment). Though I believe I heard be butted heads with Gene Wilder, it's clear Wilder's instincts enriched Brooks ideas more than harmed. Now, though the cast has the potential to do something similar (and maybe did resulting in the good that is here) likely the lesser involvement of Brooks, the faster filming speed of tv verses 1980's film and possibly some bad give and take with other collaborators means that sometimes an idea gets through that really bombs. In between smart social commentary & clever sexual humor you also have entire sequences of vomiting that is meant to carry the comedy for an entire scene much like Family Guy would have done. Sometimes the sketch is barely getting going and stops short to make a cheap joke more like it was on a sketch show on Comedy Central, not the grandiose genius that Brooks should always push forward. Granted, I also recently rewatched Dracula: Dead & Loving It, Brooks last major project he was majorly involved in (director, writer & producer of a screenplay concept, not remaking his own work) & I realized it did show signs of a slightly out of touch comedic touch. Most filmmakers would have just kept going and found their groove once again such as Woody Allen did or Steven Spielberg, reinventing themselves... but Brooks seemed less interested if he couldn't work with his cadre of talent that he obviously loved and appreciated. I want to like History of the World: Part 2 and, don't get me wrong it is occasionally getting me to giggle, but 4 episodes in I have yet to have a single moment where I've lost my air laughing. Even Dracula had a couple moments that did so & most Brooks films had several. One problem is that the show seems unconfident in its own material, rushing to the next joke or cutting the next scene before you can realize it wasn't funny or something. This does soften jokes that don't land but it also dulls sharp jokes that could really be milked for its comedic potential. I keep thinking even Marty Feldman would only be amusing here at this this speed, rather it needs a director like Brooks who would actually slow it down when the gag really really lands. I'd much rather have one memorable moment than 100 mediocre ones. The format of the show switching back and forth to the same concept multiple times gets a little annoying. Could they just have had 3 sketches per show and really got them to their natural conclusion. The show is always taking you out of the universe by reminding you there's more to come, keep watching, here's what happened last time... guys it's Hulu, if you didn't slow release the shows I'd have already watched the whole season by now. Previews and repeats are unnecessary. Plus, the plots are rarely deep enough to need reminding anyway. I think back to the muppets repeated sketches, which went at a similar pace, and they just assumed the audience was in on the joke and wasted no time explaining why they were suddenly in the civil war era... if it's funny it shouldn't need much more explanation or backstory. Anyway, I'm glad Mel Brooks got the new Hollywood pull of talented young people such as Nick Kroll & the always great Wanda Sykes, because sadly otherwise the appreciation of Brooks alone might not have been enough to get the show greenlit. There is a lot to like here and I hope it leads to a resurgence of Brooks wit on new projects for years to come. Maybe one more witty comedic foil, Mr Brooks? You're obviously up for it & a lot of people have missed your voice. Comedy needs picking up now more than ever.
Review of History of the World: Part II
