What a waste of my time!!!

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

If you want to know a little bit about the sorry state of American society, please scroll through some of the reviews of this film...We are a humorless people that need to analyze and meta-critic everything...High Anxiety is classic Mel Brooks...is it as good as Young Frankenstein or Blazing Saddles? No, but its high culture compared to what stands for the contemporary Hollywood comedy, and Brooks demanded a little bit from the audience, especially in terms of intelligence...anyway, it's a great flick with a variety of hilarious performances, especially from Cloris Leachman, Madeline Kahn and Harvey Korman...well worth the time.

High Anxiety is Mel Brooks answer to a spoof of Alfred Hitchcock's films. Sadly for me this film was more of a loser than a winner as far as I'm concerned...Mel Brooks is Richard Thorndyke who arrives at a new psychiatric hospital to replace the previous doctor, but through the passage of time Thorndyke starts to realise that it may be the staff that are the problem rather than the patients...High Anxiety is clearly Brooks' love letter to Hitchcock (and despite the mockery I get the feeling that Brooks has a fondness for Hitchcock). Despite this though the film is rarely funny (particularly the first half of the film which is more wacky and off the wall than funny). The film improves in the second half when the script becomes a tad more witty (the spoof of the Birds and the much broader spoof of North By Northwest did generate some chuckles). There is an obvious Psycho parody, but this has been done better in other films and really wasn't very funny.However, I did feel that High Anxiety was more of a case of Brooks' own indulgences getting in the way of what could have been a potentially funny film - the scene where he starts singing felt a little egocentric and didn't seem to add much to the story. Brooks own script lacks a lot of wit as well - there is a gag where his valet Brophy is weak and inept and continually says 'I got it, I got it Oh no I don't got it' which wasn't really funny the first time, but the joke seems to get repeated on a number of occasions.Mel Brooks wrote,directed, produced and starred in this film and one wonders if that was the right decision - far too often this felt like something of a vanity project and the only time Brooks works up any kind of workable chemistry is when he shares the screen with Madeleine Kahn (who mercifully manages to hold her head above the water throughout the chaos).In summary then this is an awful film for the first 60 minutes, but improves slightly in the second half due to Brooks' funnier parodying involving The Birds and North By Northwest. It's not a total waste of time, but not nearly as funny or clever as it thinks it is.

Alfred Hitchcock gets the Mel Brooks treatment here with rapid fire parodies of films like "Psycho", "The Birds", "North by Northwest" and "Vertigo", so if you're a Hitchcock fan there's some amusing stuff here. I thought the Mr. MacGuffin reference was clever but didn't see any other fans pick up on it in their reviews here. Charlie Callas must have been the MacGuffin in this picture, after we see him the first time he doesn't show up again. Harvey Korman makes for an interesting match as Dr. Montague for Cloris Leachman's Nurse Diesel character. Gosh, wasn't she hideous as the nurse from hell? I thought Louise Fletcher was pretty intense as Nurse Ratched in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", but Diesel would have given her a run for the money. As others have noted, Mel Brooks himself might not have been the best choice for Thorndyke, and the parodies are mostly way over the top (The Bird droppings are particularly gross), but it's what you've come to expect from the comic director. It's not his best work, but you can tell the players are having fun. It would have been very cool if Hitch had made a cameo, why didn't anyone think of that?

There's more plot here than expected from a Brooks' movie. Can he kick his aversion to high places, overturn the hospital's bad reputation, and bring the baddies to justice. That's a lot to coordinate into 90-minutes of intended laughs. Overall, it's a movie of funny moments, but lacks the consistent absudity of, say, Young Frankenstein (1974). The only really wacky character is Cloris Leachman as a nurse from heck. And, oh yes, there's an outrageous bit by Charlie Callas as a guy you might find at the local dog shelter. Meanwhile, Barry Levinson has a funny bit as a bellboy with a screeching sound and homicidal urges. Surprisingly, however, Brooks' doctor is pretty restrained except for his anxiety shakes. But then his character has to carry the plot.The satirical parts are just okay, except for the clever take-off on Psycho's celebrated shower scene. It's a hoot and a half. The other Hitchcocks I could detect are Vertigo (1958), The Birds (1963), and North by Northwest (1959). But none come off in very humorous fashion. I suspect the writers had trouble blending the satirical elements into plot requirements. Thus, the two don't combine as well as they should. Too bad, Madeleine Kahn doesn't get more screen time. She was such a funny performer and without half trying. She should have done the musical number instead of Brooks who unfortunately does it fairly straight. Still, that scene in the convention hall is pretty funny. When the little kids come in, Brooks has to use evasive words like woo-woo instead of more adult language.I guess I was somewhat disappointed, not because the movie isn't generally funny, but because it doesn't reach the wacko heights of either Blazing Saddles (1974) or Young Frankenstein. All in all, the movie's a two-base hit instead of a homerun.