Year One
PG-13 for crude and sexual content throughout,
brief strong language and comic violence.
Running Time: 1 hour 30 minutes
When two lazy hunter-gathers find themselves banished from their primitive village, they set off on a journey through the ancient world in Columbia Pictures’ Year One. In this Harold Ramis vanity movie which he directs, co-wrote, and co-produced, we find Jack Black and Michael Cera starring as the lazy hunter-gatherers.
This odd adventure travels through a number of different aspects, and take, of ancient history. It’s a desert wandering following the life of these two hunters as they try to discover meaning in their life.
A Predictably Stupid & Aimless Movie
Year One pretty much confirms what I’ve always said about Jack Black. His comedy is stupid and aimless and he’s pretty much a one trick pony. The only movies I’ve ever liked him in were Kung Fu Panda and The Holiday. In the first movie on my like list, Black is a cartoon character working with a well-written and funny script. In the latter, he’s a bit part with limited lines. Those two roles work well for Jack Black. Anything else, is simply rude, crude and not worth your time to view.
As for Michael Cera of Superbad, Juno and Nick & Norah’s Infinite Playlist fame, he’s pretty much a one-trick pony show too. His dead-pan humor and straight-guy motif is getting old. As a matter of fact, when Cera’s character Oh finally connects with his love interest Eema in this movie, it’s pretty much a direct steal from the love scene in Nick & Norah’s Infinite Playlist. The names are changed, the characters are different. But, the acting and lines are pretty much the same.
There’s not much good going on in this movie.
There is a sub-theme of personal destiny which is interesting. But, even that falls short as Jack Black over-acts his climax of the movie scene where he points out everyone is created equal. Year One is nothing more than a mish-mash of poorly portrayed history, linking various parts of the world together in one flick. In the old days of filmmaking, Year One would be classified as nothing more than a low-budget B-movie. If the characters wore cowboy boots and cowboy hats, it would fall into the category of a spaghetti western.
A ‘Deleted’ Scenes Movie
Year One firmly falls into our category of Deleted Scenes Movies. In other words, this movie is so bad we gave it a Lloyd rating of zero. That’s right, the big fat Goose Egg! Sometimes a movie is too long and needs to go under the editing knife. With Year One, the entire movie should have been left on the editing room floor.
Aside from the above mentioned slight destiny sub-theme, Year One is a series of random scenes strung together in a painful hour and a half of rude and crude jokes. But, even the rude and crude crosses the line as director/writer/producer-ego-driven Harold Ramis’ fascination with various bodily functions has Blacks character of Zed eating poop and Cera’s Oh character peeing all over himself!
Just how bad is this movie?
It’s been a long time since we’ve attended a screening where people walked out of the theater half-way through the flick. But, with Year One, people were walking out. While there were a few laughs along the way, for the most part, Year One is nothing more than an insult to your senses and intellect. The moans and groans of disgust far outweighed any snicker or two of laughter along the way. When the movie finished one person applauded. Not because he liked the movie, but because the movie was actually over.
In short, Year One is a sacrilegious rude, crude and disgusting nightmare. It’s far from family-friendly and may very well become a candidate for a number of Raspberry Awards in the New Year.
Avoid the show!
Dr. Rus
Dr. Rus has 30+ years experience in the field of communication. He takes this experience, and his passion to encourage others to positively effect their environment, when providing insight and movie reviews. 
And the thing that sucks is, as a reviewer, you had to sit through the entire thing! LOL The only way I’d watch this is if I happened across it on cable, but then you know I don’t watch much television, so that likely won’t happen.
Great review, Rus!
Jinx
LOL! Yes indeed, we couldn’t leave. When people say “I must be great to see all the movies.” – I mention movies like this that I can’t walk out on. Thanks for your comment!
YEAR ONE
I just watched the movie and kept asking myself throughout the movie, “Exactly how much (or little) energy did its writer/director/and co-producer Harold Ramis invest into this script to end up with such a flat, not-so-funny piece of work”. I really enjoyed “Groundhogs Day”, Ghost Busters” and even felt moderately okay with “Analyze This/That”. So, naturally, I expected more from a person who has become iconic in Hollywood for being a great scriptwriter. And, just to be fair to it’s critique, I watched the entire movie “Year One” and found it to be a painfully crude, sophomoric, mind numbing, humorless and a waste of development and distribution money. I was left feeling that I was robbed, in many respects. What I wonder, after watching this “interpretation” is if Ramis paid the source of his material the same respect. In other words, since I respected him as an author enough to watch the entire movie, did Ramis respect the author of Genesis enough to read the entire book, before making it a farce.
I agree with you Dr. Russ, on the surface, that it was poorly written, that the actors only adequately delivered their lines, and yes it’s horrifically long edit made the film drag on and on… but it was the creator’s choice to make the divine profane that truly left a bad taste in my mouth. In other words, Ramis’s flippant disrespect for the subject matter (Historical/Biblical; Jewish/Christian account of the beginning of human history) and the deliberate twisting of the context of this story, that was to me, the most disturbing aspect of the film.
I must confess that I have biases. But I have also heard it argued, that, “everyone has them” and also that, “some biases are actually good to have”. For example: Would you call it a “bias” for a person to view it as “morally wrong” for one race to actively engaged in the genocide of another? And if in reaction to these acts, I were to publish an article to the world demanding that others also advocate for the rights of the innocent would I be deemed a “biased, crazed person”? If a person were to publically protest against forced rape as an act of “Breeding Out” another’s heritage/culture would they be called a fanatic? No! To the contrary, if I were to do this, I would most likely be given a Pulitzer Prize. Not in as much as I called the act of genocide a, “grievous injustice”, but because I chose to expose it to the world, so that others would stand up with me against it and become one voice to actively stop the behavior. But if you think about it, wouldn’t I be considered “biased”. Of course I would be, and damn proud of it!
For as much as I try and remain open-minded and tolerant of others perspectives and honor the free expression of speech and see the good within every artists creation, I have to say that deliberately making fun of God and the Bible is an act of counter-productive creativity, and is the reason why it comes off as insensitive and tasteless humor. In defense of those devout Jewish and Christian followers out there, who hold the Bible as sacred, virtuous and remarkable, there was not just one, but several lines that were crossed when Ramis penned this script.
I have a unique perspective (call it a bias) within Hollywood, as being one of the few producers that has been classically trained in theology. Which, by the way, is not a brainwashing to only see the world through Biblically rose-colored glasses. It is instead a discipline by which one looks through the different colored glasses of several mainstream worldviews, before making a judgment as to which one truly enhances wearer’s vision. What I find interesting is that the Judeo-Christian worldview is amazingly accepting and tolerant of man’s free will (if truly studied within the context of it’s teaching) and chooses agape (intentional, unconditional love) as its paradigm. To mock this, by intentionally twisting the story of Genesis, is to make fun of the good inherent in “true love”; of which laughter is a resultant by-product.
Yes. Ramis did accurately depict the ridiculousness of a belief that teaches that it requires a human/virgin sacrifice as a prerequisite to reduce famine and appease the gods” but he also mocked the Jewish expression of “sacrificial love” when God tested Abraham’s commitment to Him when He asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son, his most cherished promise from God as an act of obedience. Of course, in the real story, the “Angel of the Lord” appeared and stopped him in the Biblical account, and provided a Ram, whose horns were caught up in a nearby bush as the alternative (and appropriate) sacrifice… Abraham had passed the test.
This story, according to Christian apologetics, was a foreshadowing of God’s future act of personally sacrificing His “only son” Jesus, as a sacrifice for the sin of the world, so that every man who accepts this gift, accepts the One who died in their place finds “salvation” and true purpose/meaning. Is this story difficult to believe, some 2,000 years later? Yes. Not because the event didn’t happen, but why? Why would God care so much about mankind to present His own son as the ultimate sacrifice for sin?
And this is the true travesty of the film. Yes. I know it is a comedy. But for the artist (Ramis) who is himself a created being, to mock the one who created him and gave him his gift of creative writing, and chooses to use this gift as an opportunity to mock the ultimate author of life, is what I find to be not-so- comical.
For anyone who disagrees with my assessment; I challenge you to read the entire book of Genesis and then re-watch the movie and do a simple comparative analysis. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that what Ramis is mocking is the ridiculousness of the creation account. And in essence, those devout believers like myself, who still humbly choose to believe the story’s authenticity.