Irishchatter I honestly didn't think Mel Brooks would have anything to do with history. After watching this, I found it interesting the way he created from taking a mick out of the stone age era to the French revolution years. When he did the Roman year, I thought himself and the characters he made friends with, it was all going to be about them. However it's like next chapter as we go along with the story. I found it very amusing but very confused at the same time. Who are a meant to be concentrating on again?It's very good I have to say, it really reflects the timelines of different eras, the funny way. I wonder how would our ancestors and our great- great-great grandparents would think if they saw this movie??

mark.waltz Parodying creation, the caveman film, the biblical epic, the crusades and the French Revolution, Mel Brooks got most of it right. There are only a few groaners, a few eye raisers and many genuine laughs, a few of them worthy of a Danny Thomas spit take.Utilizing humor styles perfected the year earlier with "Airplane!" while utilizing his familiar style of delicious bad taste, Brooks uses much of his regular crew of funny people. With dry narration by Orson Welles, Brooks goes all out to satirize the genre of phony Hollywood history. The highlights are the Roman Empire sequence with a delightfully hysterical performance by Madeline Kahn as an unnamed Roman empress, with a deliberately grotesque performance by Dom De Luise as the Emperor. Historical timing would show it as Tiberius as the scene moved to Judea on the night of the last supper. Ironically, John Hurt who played Caligula in TV's "I Claudius" plays Jesus in a cameo.The inquisition sequence is a parody just like "Springtime For Hitler" to show the atrocities against the Jewish population. It is semi- successful as long as you realize the point Brooks was making and the real history behind it.Some great art direction makes the French Revolution sequence better than it actually is although the cameos by several familiar faces is also of help. With Cloris Leachman standing out as the Dickens character Madam De Farce, that segment is raised a notch, just as the Roman Empire sequence was with its cameo by Bea Arthur.As for the coming attractions at the end, it now seems pointless, not only because there never was a sequel, but because it really isn't funny. So a in all a mixed bag, but middle of the road Brooks is certainly better than no Brooks.

SnoopyStyle Mel Brooks hams it up big time. He's starring, writing, and directing this crazy Brooks version of history. It's a big hit and miss constant stream of broad jokes. At a lot of times, this feels dated like a vaudeville act from an age long gone.The biggest and best laughs have to be Madeline Kahn as Empress Nympho during Roman times. No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes. You've gotta love it.Although Gregory Hines is fine, I can't help but wonder what if Richard Pryor could be in this. It's a disappointment. And that's a big part of the disappointment in this movie. There is a lack of up and comer new comedians. This is mostly a reunion of old timers. With the rise of SNL and that comedic scene, the times are passing it by.

rahul_discsmart I'll say this is one of my favorite comedies from the 80's, it hilarious but racial at some point of time but just relax and do not be skeptical, the story is not true, it's for you to have fun.Don't complicate things, just go with the flow.What is the most wonderful property about this film, well - it is the only epic movie ever to be made for the comedy genre, besides meet the Spartans, which was crap. Believe me you, if you wanna enjoy a good, pure and humorous comedy, u need to watch this movie & laugh your guts out.Adios amigos.