Not only was this movie just awful, it can be traced as the "jumped the shark" moment of 3 CAREERS ! Look at Chevy Chase, Martin Short and Steve Martin on imdb, all of their best work was before this movie and they have not done anything good since. Your thoughts ?
shareYou did not see Bowfinger or Shopgirl? both good steve martin movies that came after The 3 Amigos.
I actually loved the 3 amigos, up there with Trains Plains, The Jerk and Roxanne as my fav Steve martin movies (:
Three Amigos is definitely disappointing. Too bad. It seems its heart is in the right place, and it had the talent. The way I understand it, the studio interfered on in the editing stage.
And that's where the movie shows its flaws. The story isn't told very well.
For example, the movie starts okay, has a great introduction to the German villains in the bar, intercut with a great musical number, and then...
The Germans never really have any sort of point to them again worth mentioning. The movie hops on a new track with El Gaupo.
One way to fix things is get rid of the Germans since they are built up to be cool and do nothing.
The movie also sort of derails wit the singing bush and invisible swordsman. Those elements are completely unnecessary and deviate too far from the reality of the movie (I don't mind the singing horses to a degree).
Again, the singing bush and invisible swordsman severe nothing in the story. They are just there. Then the Three Amigos see the airplane and follow that.
In effect, they should have "streamlined" it a bit...
The Germans are supplying guns to El Guapo.
The movie doesn't hop on a new track. El Guapo was always the main villain. He's the reason the Three Amigos are brought to Mexico. A new track would be if we just followed the Germans for the rest of the movie. The movie is always on track with El Guapo.
The singing bush and invisible swordsman are nothing more than comedic set pieces. They're just funny scenes. Don't forget, there was also a talking turtle.
Straightedge means I'm better than you.
"The movie also sort of derails wit the singing bush and invisible swordsman. Those elements are completely unnecessary and deviate too far from the reality of the movie (I don't mind the singing horses to a degree)."
Why do you mind singing bush, but not singing horses? What's the difference? You're being wishy-washy, or at least inconsistent, without even explaining the reason. To me, singing horses are much worse than a singing bush, because a bush doesn't have a face or a mouth, and bushes don't usually make sounds or voices, so it could be thought of as something purely magical, and the voice could come from some other dimension or whatnot.
But horses ACTUALLY mouthing 'bum-bu-bu-bu-bum' just doesn't fly, because we know how those sounds are made, and we can CLEARLY see using the mouth the way the horses seem to do, would NEVER produce those sounds (you need to use your lips in a certain way - try doing it the way the horses do it, and I guarantee you won't get that sound).
If the horses were singing WITHOUT their mouths moving (this movie is saying you NEED mouth and mouth movements to sing, but then suddenly reverses this claim with the bus - it's the INCONSISTENCY I mind more than the actual singing(s)) , then it would be at least consistent with the bush, and I wouldn't mind it as much.
The turtle needs mouth to say 'Good night, Ned' (why would a turtle even know the concept of such sayings, let alone be able to say them in perfect ENGLISH in MEXICO?!)
The reality is not broken BECAUSE the animals can suddenly sing, because bushes can sing, because an invisible swordsman exists (though it's a stretch, because invisibility without interdimensional shifting is pretty difficult to make happen, and if THAT method is used, how would a bullet have any effect?), etc.
The reality is broken because the bush is singing in ENGLISH and because of the SONG CHOICES of the bush, because it's never established where and how the voice comes from for the bush, and it's shown that horses can sing IN TUNE, IN RHYTHM, forming the perfect sounds just by moving their mouths randomly, without corresponding lip movements that would really be required for those sounds, and so on, without any explanation as to how and why they are able to do so.
Now, one way of interpreting the singing scene(s) is that the amigos were accidentally drinking from some peyote cactus or something, and are having a hallucination, or a psychedelic trip, if you will.
However, this explanation doesn't work, because the next day, they face the singing bush and the invisible 'swordsman' (never saw the invisible sword, though - I guess it's also invisible, but shouldn't we have seen it hitting the dust as well?).
Of course it could've been a long 'peyote trip' that only ended when they saw the airplane, but the movie makes no indication this is what happened, so it's a little confusing and weird.
"Again, the singing bush and invisible swordsman severe nothing in the story. They are just there. Then the Three Amigos see the airplane and follow that."
Could people please stop saying 'again' as some kind of emphasis? Don't say 'again', if you haven't said that earlier.
Also, you probably mean 'serve' instead of 'severe' - research the meaning to know just how big a mistake you make.
Your post is a bit odd, as you try to review the movie and explain why it doesn't work, then you suddenly simply iterate what happens in the movie and not explain what you mean by such sudden departure.
In any case, let me make an effort to clarify why this movie sucks.
By the way, anyone even thinking of comparing this favorably to 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles' has NO sense of what's good and what's bad, they're like a bum that thinks the most delicious gourmet meal tastes about as good as some cheap, quickly made burger, and can't even tell them apart, because 'both are food'.
This movie has its funny and charming moments, but this definitely can't be compared to an actually well-made movie like that. Compare this to 'Jerk' or 'Dirty Rotten Scoundriles' as much as you want, but never to 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles'.
This movie is somewhat interesting, because it has so much potential, yet it falls flat on its face.
I love Martin Short, I like Chevy Chase, I think Steve Martin can be funny. Innerspace and Fletch are two excellent movies, and their stars really show what they can do when it comes to acting. Hilarious and believable at the same time. Planes, Trains and Automobiles deserves a special mention as a feel-good movie you love to watch multiple times in your life. It's not that funny, but it has great scenes and it's tons of fun.
This movie, however, doesn't quite reach the goal the makers of it obviously wanted it to.
Its premise is a cliché, and yet ridiculous - just watch Kurosawa's 'Seven Samurai' to see how long ago the same plot was used. Even the name is exactly the same; first it depicts the number, then the 'original-language description' of the protagonists - the word they use even refer to a very culturally-specific thing.
How can anyone, even in the silent era, confuse movies with reality -that- much? I mean, some crazy cat-hag in New York, watching some hospital drama and then seeing the actor -might- be idiotic enough to think he's actually a doctor (I heard this actually happened), but some well brought-up, respected mexican woman - an adult - has never seen a movie before? Kind of hard to believe.
Then we get to the misandry portion of the movie; it has to be _MEN_ that defend the village. Although women can do everything men can do, and better, while wearing high heels? Suddenly they need men to be their cannon-fodder anyway. Women never seem to be able to be the disrespected gutter worker, the septic tank cleaner, taking hits from men in movies, having their brains blown out and spatter all over the place, like men can (Kill Bill is the only excemption I can think of, but even there, she doesn't DIE from that (or ANYTHING that should've killed her), so she's barely even woman anymore).
Putting all THAT aside, the whole german bit is very underdeveloped and weird.
The worst problem of this movie is that like so many movies, it doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a comedy? Terrible violence says otherwise. Is it a drama? The ridiculous singing bush bits say otherwise. Is it a romance? What movie ISN'T? Every movie HAS to be romance because women have money.
The tone keeps shifting DRASTICALLY from one place to another. At one point, someone yells at our characters so hard, they 'lean back' in a comical way, and Steve Martin is mimicking birds, while the two other stooges are stupid enough to not undrstand what's going on until he yells 'Hey, guys' or something like that (can't remember the exact phrase).
Then we get violent shootings, then things become light-hearted again, then there's a dramatic shooting where blood spurts out, but the next second we're seeing comical 'almost-crying'.
You never know what to make of anything - even the antagonist seems sympathetic and fun at some points, then he suddenly announces his plans to rape a corpse (well, at least he talks about killing her if she doesn't give her [that] to him willingly, so what else are we supposed to assume?). There's even talk about raping horses in this movie.
It's like someone wanted this movie to be EVERYTHING, so it actually just became a confusing, jumbled mess of 'what the F'.
How are you supposed to enjoy a movie where the tone jumps all over the place so much you don't even know if you should ever fear for the protagonists? They never seem to be in any danger, except that they do get shot and blood spurts out!
Lucky Day seems to be related to Beatrice Kiddo; he takes TWO gunshots, gets visibly wounded, and yet doesn't seem to need any medical attention.
This movie is basically one nonsensical thing after another until it ends. Nothing makes sense, you have a couple of almost-funny jokes, and are left to wonder what actually happened and why.
Whose idea was to include the singing bush and animals? Why would there be such an elaborate scheme to find some bandit's home? Why would the 'invisible swordsman' and 'singing bush' serve the bandits that are oppressing and bullying a village?
Why do they only bully one village, not others? Where's the sheriff?
How could bandits that dirty and badly behaved take such good care of the horses (look how well-groomed they are)?
Why would someone all the way from Germany, back in those days, want to do some kind of arms deals with these dirty, unorganized, crazy-looking bandits in Mexico? No offence, but Mexico is not exactly known for its riches, bandit or not.
HOW did they meet and arrange this arms deal? I'd watch THAT movie.
Why is there so much english in this movie, although it's supposed to take place in Mexico? How did that young kid learn such good english? Even people in Spain can't often speak english more than a couple of words even in modern times. Those are modern, metropolitan people, not some ancient, backwards-village people. And yet the kid is fluent.
So an adult in that same village doesn't know what a 'movie' is, or that it's fiction, but a kid can speak fluent english. Rrrriiiiigggghhht.
This movie is an inconsistent, incoherent mess with completely erratic and fluctuating tone that makes you just say 'meh' at the end, because nothing makes sense, and you just remember seeing 'some westernic comedy' and chuckling a couple of times, and that's it.
What a sad movie, considering how much talent and promise it has. I'd rather watch 'Modern Problems' three times in a row than try to make more sense of this mess ever again.
I think I can't decide what's sillier, your comment or the fact I'm replying five years later lol.
Anyway, some of Steve Martin's best films were made after this. Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, in particular, is a great flick.
TV: http://ihatemydvr.blogspot.com
LOST:http://eyemsick.blogspot.com
"Jump the shark" means that something that has already been on a decline attempts something outrageous to regenerate flagging interest in it.
@Twitzkrieg - Glasgow's FOREMOST authority