Howlin Wolf It's like a deeply unsettling version of Scrooged, based upon the life of a real person. I can understand why his friends and family were outraged, however, to an interested bystander it emerges as an oddly fascinating - albeit imperfect - movie.It's character assassination, which doesn't in itself mean this is a bad movie, just a distasteful one. I thought it was a really good film. Perhaps one that should never have been made, but maybe that's why it's so powerful.Every film has an agenda, so this one is no different... but just because it stays fixated on one angle doesn't mean that there's no insight at all to be gained from it.

bkboiler I saw this in high school with some friends. Having seen many of the 70's Saturday Night skits in reruns, and read the book earlier, I knew what to expect. The lead actor did a better job than the critics at the time said, and the other actors as well. The bottom line though, is that the movie is anything but funny overall, unlike John's work, so not necessarily something fans of his might enjoy. An earlier commenter here suggested a film more like like Man in the Moon would have been a better way to draw the person in to John's comedic vision, instead of only the almost surreal, drug-centered view. Most important for me to state here, is that I think since it was based on a best-selling book, which was about the tragedy of John's drug problem, the story was just a downer. The book left me wondering how Bob Woodward (who along with Carl Bernstein exposed President Nixon's Watergate cover-up) could have bashed the people of Saturday Night so harshly, almost as though he felt there was nothing but dark tales to give his readers. I think in retrospect, it shows that a person who paints a picture people want/feel compelled or drawn to see can be as slanted as he/she likes as long as they push the right buttons. Or... who cares as long as it sells. Ironically, this movie was bashed by probably many of the same newspapers and media outlets who said great things about the book. For different reasons of course, ie. bad acting, bad script, but I urge anyone who sees the book at the library etc. to flip through the book and judge for yourself what this well praised piece of work does to the characters of everyone on the Saturday Night cast, as well as Carrie Fisher, it really could have been written by Albert Goldman (the guy who trashed John Lennon after his death in really bizarre ways). Bob Woodward might have gotten some criticism over this unkind portrayal, but I don't remember hearing any of it from the well-known media critics and newspapers. So whatever, I give the movie 5 out of ten, for its content, acting and message, and I give the book 0 out of ten for ruining the image I had of all my childhood heroes. I don't hate drugs, but they were all shown to be like weirdos, sexual deviants etc. I mean, if you want character assassination, it's like doing a book or film on a president and showing them getting a blow job, or snorting coke or something, rather than what people praised or already largely know. The purpose is to change people's view of that person, which this film and book were meant to do. Both film and book were an ugly expose, much like the old shows, Geraldo, A Current Affair, and all their offspring (you know who you are). I mean, I know he had a drug problem, but it was a f*ckin' tragedy, a huge loss to North American culture, and the guy dissected his life like it was an autopsy, nothing else, like he was doing a report to someone only concerned with alleviating someone else's guilt. Like, how could such a comedic talent die in such a strange way? So they get the authority on expose, Woodward (where was Bernstein?) to find out What_Went_Wrong. Maybe the film wasn't off base then, for having this whole surreal morgue Naked Lunch-style theme to it in parts. I think people should try and do an expose on Woodward. I saw him last year on Larry King, and he looks like a wrinkled fish, (nothing like redford who played him in All The President's Men). Who is this guy anyway? A Reptoid? CIA? Freakish Gaylord? Perhaps we'll never know...

Patrik_Lemberg I haven't seen this, but have read everything about it (trivia, reviews, comments...) on IMDb and understand that it is not a biography worthy of an Academy Award. I understand that Aykroyd was upset about the way the film displayed Belushi (if not all content) and assume I wouldn't rely on this as a source of biographical information. However, many of those expressing themselves similarly who have seen this film suggest for people to watch "Animal House," "Blues Brothers" and "Continental Divide" in order to experience Belushi properly, as if watching him act is watching him in real life, which is VERY misleading...a fantasy for many fans, I assume. Don't kid yourselves assuming he was a sweet lovable guy just because he might have played various characters of such qualities. This goes for Chris Farley as well (or actually any actor - stage or screen - famous or unknown.) Belushi and Farley had many things in common; they were both made famous on SNL; they both had problems with overweight and drugs; they both acted in a similar amount of movies after having left SNL; they both died at the age of 33 from an overdose of heroin and cocaine. With all of the above in mind, what people love about the two (including myself) is their talents, abilities to make others laugh, acting skills and characters, but as I never met any of the two entertainers (Belushi died 4 months prior to my birth) I have no idea (other than what I've read or heard from their close ones) what they were like in real life. Not having seen this movie I shouldn't comment too much, but judging on its rating, trivia, reviews etc. I doubt that the movie is meant to high-light Belushi's career peaks. From what I understand it seems to be a pretty avant-garde picture, which is something one should keep in mind while watching. ...my message here is mainly a reminder that "Animal House" does not display who the person John Belushi was remotely accurately (even though you may want to draw parallels between Belushi and his scripted characters all you like.) Just admit it - he was a great performer/entertainer/actor/comedian (all of the above or whatever sounds good to you,) but if you weren't one of his close friends you didn't know him.

jesserides2000 I disagree 100% with the previous review of this film. I saw this movie when It came out and it was not only an incredible film, but also an incredible acting debut from the soon to be famous "Shield" star Michael Chiklis. Rumour has it that he was said to be blackballed by the "Belushi" camp for doing this film because of the too true for comfort portrayal of Mr. Belushi. I don't know if there is any truth too that, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if it were true.Calling this an anti-drug propaganda movie like it's a bad thing is absurd! I would define it as a true to life view of the rise and fall of a entertainment icon due to addiction. Not that unbelievable of a storyline now is it?If you like good movies that deal with real subjects, you will like this film. If you are a die-hard John Belushi fan who can't face a glimpse of a highly probable truth about the man, go ahead and watch "Animal House" again.