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

[Tim_C]

Mercy I love the foreign classics and own a lot of them on Blu and DVD from Criterion but I also love I MARRIED A WITCH, TO BE OR NOT TO BE, LA CAGE AUX FOLLIS, THE UNINVITED and IAMMMMW. Reading those guys posts none of those films are up to their standards.

Uh... As a long time lurker on both this site and the Criterionforum, I don't think this is quite accurate. While it's true that IAMMMMW and La Cage Aux Folles are rather unpopular over there, there's been a lot of enthusiam about the other three. The thread for I Married a Witch, for example, contains such statements (from long-time posters) as "this is a great movie" and "one of the best films of the era."

There are a lot of extremely knowledgeable (and experienced) film lovers that hang out at both places, and I've learned a lot from members both here and there. But it's true that the two forums have VERY different termperaments, and if negativity really bothers you then the CF definitely isn't a good place to spend time.

 

[ahollis]

I like how they think were all geezers, now I can't speak for eveyone on here, but aren't some off us in our mid 20s to early 30's?

And some of us older "geezers" actually saw many of the Criterion releases in Theatres, either first run or in repertory and on 35 or 70mm. Something that does give a special meaning to a title. As much as I enjoy my home set up, it will never get the thrill of a full 400 or 500 seat theatre enjoying the film with you.

 

[ahollis]

Uh... As a long time lurker on both this site and the Criterionforum, I don't think this is quite accurate. While it's true that IAMMMMW and La Cage Aux Folles are rather unpopular over there, there's been a lot of enthusiam about the other three. The thread for I Married a Witch, for example, contains such statements (from long-time posters) as "this is a great movie" and "one of the best films of its era.

.

But they say same statement of any film that has Preston Sturges is attached to. And they were all from the same era.

I just see more positive remarks here and I mean both dissent and love have been positive. IMHO I rather talk about why we don't like a film or like it, than try to attack the person making a statement pro or con. There is a big difference in giving people courtesy for their thoughts.

 

[Angelo Colombus]

I use to post on the Criterion forum but not any more. Recieved some rude and nasty comments and all my posts were all postive and i even said nice things about Stanley Kramer and how i liked On The Beach, Oklahoma Crude, and Inherit The Wind. But there are a few at that forum that got nasty about that...like little bratty children.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I like how they think were all geezers, now I can't speak for eveyone on here, but aren't some off us in our mid 20s to early 30's?

Whippersnappers!

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I like how they think were all geezers, now I can't speak for eveyone on here, but aren't some off us in our mid 20s to early 30's?

Yeah, I'm 33 so I fit that.It's almost pathological the way they hate this film over there, not least because it's a Stanley Kramer film. The tone over there is very much black/white in that x movies are acceptable and worthy and y movies are not, and if you don't "get" that then wow are you a dumbass. There are a lot of smart and accomplished people over there who share some wonderful and enlightening thoughts, but there also seems to be a sport of who can be the wittiest algonquin round table champion of attack and put-downs to prove one's worth and superiority. It's a lot like the cool kids in high school hating on everyone else. But I carry on my Quixotic participation nonetheless.

 

[Charles Smith]

Trouble?

Having any trouble?

 

[ahollis]

Trouble?Having any trouble?

"YES and we don't need any help from you!"

 

[ROclockCK]

"Well!"

 

[darkrock17]

"Well!"

Jack looks different in Mad World movie then he did on his show. I guess TV really did make him look 39.

 

[dana martin]

If you're talking about that forum that uses Criterion's name, I don't believe it actually has anything to do with Criterion, and yes, it's the second sorriest Blu-ray forum on the Internet - maybe even at times the first. I went there briefly in the old Doug Sirk brouhaha days and it was so offensive and peopled by such idiots I could not return.

have to agree with you Bruce; have checked it out a few times, like the talkback threads on ACIN.

and not to throw an analogy in here, but if that forum thinks it's Ivy League, well then I am happy to be B10, really who has the better record!

 

[Mark Cappelletty]

One of my fondest memories in the theater was watching the 40th anniversary screening of this at the Cinerama Dome... sitting next to the late Vincent Schiavelli. I got to tell him after the screening how much I liked his cookbooks (which are great) and he was taken aback.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

And some of us older "geezers" actually saw many of the Criterion releases in Theatres, either first run or in repertory and on 35 or 70mm. Something that does give a special meaning to a title. As much as I enjoy my home set up, it will never get the thrill of a full 400 or 500 seat theatre enjoying the film with you.

400 or 500 seats?!

You must be a 40- or 50- something geezer. As a 60-something geezer, I remember when seating capacity was in the thousands, not the hundreds.

The Radio City Music Hall had 6,200 seats. The Fox in my hometown of St. Louis had 5,000. The Chicago (in Chicago, obviously) had 3,900.

I saw movies at the Fox where all 5,000 seats were taken!

Now, having said that, I saw MAD WORLD at the Martin Cinerama, which had 913 seats. But that was considered a rather small firstrun theater in 1964.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

I use to post on the Criterion forum but not any more. Recieved some rude and nasty comments and all my posts were all postive and i even said nice things about Stanley Kramer and how i liked On The Beach, Oklahoma Crude, and Inherit The Wind. But there are a few at that forum that got nasty about that...like little bratty children.

I defended Stanley Kramer over there, too, and they called me a $%# idiotic, moronic, imbecilic, know-nothing loser who wouldn't know a good movie if it came up and kissed his $%#@.

Speaking of Kramer, something occurred to me the other day when TCM had a Kramer festival.

I watched most of Ship of Fools the other day, for the first time, and was impressed that everyone in it was giving a good performance.

And then it occurred to me that that was Kramer's great ability -- he was good with actors.

The seven movies he directed from The Defiant Ones (1958) through Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967) -- four of which received Best Picture nominations -- resulted in 16 acting nominations (and two wins).

There were four acting nominations each for The Defiant Ones, Judgment at Nuremberg and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (in all four acting categories for the last one.) Ship of Fools got three, and Inherit the Wind one.

This to me shows he was a good director, regardless of any other considerations. Mad World shows just as much as the others that he was good with actors. I think everyone in it gives a good performance, no exceptions.

 

[Robert Harris]

Stanley Kubrick, in our first discussion about Spartacus, asked me if I thought it was one of the greatest films ever made, and I had to tell him that in my opinion it was not. However I loved the film. It was on that basis, that he agreed to work with me. It was the first point on which we agreed.Neither is Mad World.But one of the things that makes MW work, are its excesses - all of which were a part of its master plan. It's a huge film, filled with over-the-top performances, that generally work within its framework. There are no subtle, layered performances in MW. Everything is right there in front of you.Possibly the most important factor, one one that makes the film both memorable, and for many, inclusive of yours truly, a not so guilty pleasure, is its sheer gargantuan size. And part of that size is its technical format of Ultra-Panavision 70 coupled with rectified projection, on a huge 50-70 foot curved screen in a huge venue, while being shared with anywhere from 750-5000 other patrons.I've seen the MGM/Fox Blu-ray on my home theater screen, and it's a wonderful reminder of the true visceral experience of seeing it in UP70, but that very specific experience may be what separates the mind sets of people, and the way that some react to the film.MW is one of those unique film experiences that is ultimately greater than the sums of its parts, which draws fans together half a century later.RAH

 

[BarryR]

I feel blessed to have seen MMMMW in a theater in 1964 and when reissued 1969 with a responsive audience. Alas, not on the largest of screens but still impressive. However, what impresses me most now is how it sustains comedy momentum with its characters over a long running time. What a brilliantly structured script! Not just that, but what movie has so many cherished quoted lines as seen here?!

 

[Robert Harris]

"I think we're going to need a bigger boat.""Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.""I think maybe he went out, for a paper or something."RAH

 

[AdrianTurner]

A lot of thinking there, Robert, I think.

 

[Robert Harris]

A lot of thinking there, Robert, I think.

"Say, where did you get that funny accent? Are you from Harvard, or something?"

 

[cineMANIAC]

In a way, I'm glad 5,000-seat megatheaters don't exist anymore. Can you imagine thousands of bright cell phone/iPad screens flickering throughout the auditorium? And people talking, getting up and walking around, babies crying. It would be like attending a sporting event at a stadium. No thanks.