Criterion ready to release IT’S A MAD MAD MAD MAD WORLD (1 Viewer)

[Tino]

Probably $27.99 at Amazon on release day.

 

[Angelo Colombus]

Speaking of missing and restoring film it was in the news recently that Orson Welles's long lost film Too Much Johnson was discovered in Italy so i still have some hope that the missing footage of The Magnificent Ambersons might be found one day even if it is a very slim chance.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

Joe - we all know the secret, it's 42

And it's not a coincidence that 42 is the number of minutes cut when MAD WORLD went from 210 to 168.

When I find out the secret of the Universe, I fully expect to hear the "Big W" music.

But this is only page 41 of this thread, so we're out of synch now.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

Same here. You all leave me no choice in the matter.

How could I possibly not hold this one in my hands and load the disc at the first possible minute?

Well, since I've waited 50 years for a restoration of the original version -- if that's what this is going to be, which hasn't been verified yet -- I can surely wait a while longer.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

I'll be the odd man out here: since I find much of the film painfully unfunny, I'll be waiting for the B&N sale. I am anxious to see if I like the film any better in this upcoming version.

You won't. I don't understand how any fan of comedy movies can even find this unfunny, much less painfully unfunny. But by what logic would you think having more of something you don't like would make it better? That's like saying, "I don't like cleaning the bathroom, but maybe if I clean a bigger one I'll like it."

 

[Mike Frezon]

I don't think I'd want to be the guy working in the cubicle next to Joe...

"Joe was always a quiet fella. Real nice guy. Kept to himself mostly. But one day he started muttering under his breath a series of numbers. They seemed to be in a repeating sequence: 192, 154, 210, 192, 154, 210...

These numbers...it was as if they agitated him for some reason. I couldn't really say why"

 

[JohnMor]

You won't. I don't understand how any fan of comedy movies can even find this unfunny, much less painfully unfunny. But by what logic would you think having more of something you don't like would make it better? That's like saying, "I don't like cleaning the bathroom, but maybe if I clean a bigger one I'll like it."

Well, only parts of it, Joe, not the whole film. I'm hoping it will flow better to me with a different cut. I just find a lot of scenes (painfully) forced, which, to me, kills humor dead. I just saw about 30 minutes of a film on TV the other night that I hadn't seen since it came out theatrically, Clue, and it reminded me of a lot of IAMMMMW. Lots of famous talented people running around trying to be funny. Simply running faster and shouting louder doesn't necessarily make something funny to me. Bombast doesn't always equate to wit. Comedy is a very subjective genre. What tickles one's funny bone doesn't always tickle another's. I like portions of IAMMMMW a lot, and I love seeing the all-star cast and locations. But other portions, like Dick Shawn's dancing scene or the ladder climax don't even get a smile from me. It reminds me sometimes of a long Here's Lucy episode.And hey, if I don't like it any better, I don't. But I'll have given it a try. I recognize that I am in the vast minority with my opinion of the bulk of it.

 

[Dick]

When I was 13, I saw this at the Boston Cinerama theater and couldn't stop laughing. Back in my home state of New York a few months later, I insisted that my older brother, whose job it was to take me to the city on my birthday with my best friend and basically do whatever I wanted, bring us to the Warner Cinerama theater, where I could see this film again and impress my friend, who could barely catch his breath he was laughing so hard.

Flash forward to the 90's, when I owned this film on laser disc (yes, the MGM box set with the extended cut). While I certainly loved having this film in a lengthier edition that that which I remember having seen 30 years earlier, it was not the same as having been among fellow Cinerama viewers, watching the events transpire on a huge screen, and the infectious laughter that kept us all in stitches. No, viewing it at home alone or with one or two other people who just couldn't "get" the slapstick or who found it appallingly sadistic, the humor seems to collapse some. Yes, a few of the sequences (almost any with Jonathan Winters, Sid Caeser, or Buddy Hackett) still seemed pretty funny, but the Spencer Tracy police dept. scenes felt forced and unfunny, and Ethel Merman suddenly seemed insufferable. The roadside argument at the beginning when "shares" are discussed seemed interminable. Dick Shawn was way too over-the-top. Things just weren't the same.

Still, I credit IAMMMMW for having given me two of the best comedy film sittings of my life in theaters. Those two shows provided me with the kind of continuous laughter I find just about absent from current films.

But I think this movie depends quite heavily upon the contagion of audience response. Watching it alone, I chuckle a few times, but I never break into full belly-laugh mode. That, I think comes with having a receptive group of people who find the (let's admit it) rather infantile banter and humor of the film hilarious in a primitive sort of way. I've always loved good slapstick (yes, I am a Three Stooges fan), and this movie has a number of sequences that satisfy my hunger for it (the destruction of the service station, the fire escape finale). But without at least a few other people getting into it along with me, this all seems to fall a bit flat.

The issue about whether or not we should have a complete Roadshow edition or one that includes sequences deleted prior to public showings is not so much the one that concerns me. I want to be entertained by this film and I do not wish for it to wear out its welcome. I do not want to feel that characters or events are included beyond their ability to make me laugh. Period. This is not a film that delves into character arcs or social issues. This movie was made with but one purpose: to provide audiences with a quintessential slapstick comedy that would supersede all prior slapstick comedies. I think it succeeds in this to a large degree. But it is also reliant upon mutual audience reaction for its effect, and that is something that, except for the relatively few home theater owners who can throw together a reasonably-sized and like-minded group of viewers, is not so easily attained these days.

 

[JohnMor]

Great post, Dick!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I've had the good fortune to see this film many times on the big screen with a large and appreciate audience. It never fails to bring down the house.

I used to program film at the Loew's Jersey, a huge movie palace in Jersey City. This was to be the main feature of our opening Classic Comedy weekend in 2001. It was the first time that 35mm film had been shown in the original auditorium since 1986. The Managing Director fought me every step of the way and said the film wouldn't draw. I insisted that it would and presented evidence of the crowds it continued to pull around the country at revival showings. He finally admitted that he didn't want to play it because the film was "mean-spirited and not funny."

Well, one hour before showtime, the lines went all the way around the block on Journal Square and we drew over 700 people. The laughter was non-stop.

Never underestimate the experience of seeing a great comedy on the big screen with a large audience. It makes all the difference in the mad, mad world.

 

[BarryR]

I'm grateful I saw MAD WORLD on its first release, then when reissued around 1969. I've seen the movie countless times on laser disc, DVD etc., but it's the memories of audiences screaming with gasps and laughter that still resonate after so many decades. Every time I watch the movie those same sounds of audience reaction replay in my mind. So many moments--when Hackett tells Merman to "drop dead" you couldn't hear the next several lines! The whole garage destruction scene. The characters dropping from the palm trees. Probably one of the most joyous examples of communal comedy experience I can recall. The only huge difference nowadays when screened is unless you're 50+ in years there won't be the "look, it's...!" murmuring that greeted the initial release and even the rerelease. It was a big deal seeing Jerry Lewis do a cameo back then! Jack Benny too. I recall one audience member having a big laugh when Don Knotts showed up, knowing he was instant prey to Phil Silvers. And the great banana peel fall at the end? I mean, c'mon. Perfection. This movie has been of the few lifetime cinematic companions that continues to fascinate.

 

[Douglas R]

"The Greatest Story Ever Told" opened at the London Casino Cinerama on Friday April 9 and I saw the film next day on the Saturday evening. Since then, I've never been sure whether that was the 221 or 194 minute version. When I went to book tickets two weeks earlier I saw the 70mm cans of film arriving in the theatre. Was it cut that early?

I can now answer my own question. I've seen a trade review of the film. It was shown to the press on 7 April with a quoted running time of 195 minutes. So it had already been cut when it opened in London.

 

[Professor Echo]

A friend of mine who didn't particularly care for the movie told me his film professor at UCLA mocked MAD WORLD, telling the students that it was so dumb it couldn't even follow all the rules of comedy, including never showing people getting hurt. I told him I was curious about all those rules and if Keaton and Chaplin ever heard of them. He never mentioned that quote again.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I think the Three Stooges, too, would occasionally be seen getting in harm's way.

I'll have to check.

Spoiler

 

[Professor Echo]

I believe many of that UCLA film professor's former students are now actively posting about MAD WORLD at the Criterion forum site.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Speaking of The Three Stooges...

I was never a big fan of them, though I do now own all
their collector DVDs.

I know Curly left the team somewhat early on.

I am trying to remember....

That shot of them in fire gear --- is Curly in it or is it
Curly Joe? I am guessing the latter knowing that Curly
had a stroke in the mid 40s.

Really, up until now, I never really thought about which
stooges were represented in the film. I guess that's
because I wasn't a big fan, and for me it was simply a
sight gag that I never closely examined.

 

[Rob_Ray]

Speaking of The Three Stooges...

I was never a big fan of them, though I do now own all
their collector DVDs.

I know Curly left the team somewhat early on.

I am trying to remember....

That shot of them in fire gear --- is Curly in it or is it
Curly Joe? I am guessing the latter knowing that Curly
had a stroke in the mid 40s.

Really, up until now, I never really thought about which
stooges were represented in the film. I guess that's
because I wasn't a big fan, and for me it was simply a
sight gag that I never closely examined.

Curly left the group after suffering a stroke in 1946. He died in 1952. That's Curly Joe in the film.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I've had the good fortune to see this film many times on the big screen with a large and appreciate audience. It never fails to bring down the house.

I used to program film at the Loew's Jersey, a huge movie palace in Jersey City. This was to be the main feature of our opening Classic Comedy weekend in 2001. It was the first time that 35mm film had been shown in the original auditorium since 1986. The Managing Director fought me every step of the way and said the film wouldn't draw. I insisted that it would and presented evidence of the crowds it continued to pull around the country at revival showings. He finally admitted that he didn't want to play it because the film was "mean-spirited and not funny."

Well, one hour before showtime, the lines went all the way around the block on Journal Square and we drew over 700 people. The laughter was non-stop.

Never underestimate the experience of seeing a great comedy on the big screen with a large audience. It makes all the difference in the mad, mad world.

I was there that night and it was amazing to see it with a huge crowd. I'd seen it countless times in 35mm, 16mm and video, usually with a small group (there was one memorable outdoor 35mm show where we set the screen up over a pool - had a visit from the police after neighbor complaints, one of the cops said "I love this movie...but can you turn it down a little."), but the large audience really sold it.

 

[Ethan Riley]

I saw it at the drive-in circa 1970...remember the banana peel thing at the end and all the people started honking their horns, which was considered a drive-in audience's mark of approval.

 

[Charles Smith]

Not to mention the original roadshow days for this film -- the reserved-seat packed houses, the audience response -- just priceless. I was 14, but I remember that as much as I remember seeing certain bits in the film itself for the first time.