criterionforum.org

Moe Dickstein wrote:You should have went with Turrell - Becker is the one that got this film in the collection.

So basically, you're confessing.

Yeah but you won't take me in until you figure out who my accomplices were.

I know who they weren't: Good Taste

a film with a hot fudge sundae with a cherry on top can't taste all bad.

Honestly that 3 Reasons video, which was very effective in hilariously communicating I have no fucking idea, was worth having IAMMW in the collection.

captveg wrote:You know, I get all the criticisms. Then I watch that Three Reasons video and I laugh at the film, several times. Sometimes one just enjoys a comedy even knowing it has major issues and is stupid. That's why I love Hot Rod, for instance. With some comedies, I almost find myself in three phases: 1) Laughing at the jokes instinctively, 2) Questioning why I'm laughing because of all the critical views that have been pointed out to me and are, basically, accurate, 3) Laughing anyway because despite #2 I still find it funny. Sue me.

How funny would Hot Rod have been if it was two and a half times longer?

If you still find yourself laughing at the 3 hour mark, what does it matter how long it is?

domino harvey wrote:

captveg wrote:You know, I get all the criticisms. Then I watch that Three Reasons video and I laugh at the film, several times. Sometimes one just enjoys a comedy even knowing it has major issues and is stupid. That's why I love Hot Rod, for instance. With some comedies, I almost find myself in three phases: 1) Laughing at the jokes instinctively, 2) Questioning why I'm laughing because of all the critical views that have been pointed out to me and are, basically, accurate, 3) Laughing anyway because despite #2 I still find it funny. Sue me.

How funny would Hot Rod have been if it was two and a half times longer?

No idea. It was never planned for that length. But I generally like longer stories, from epic films to mini-series. I can also watch multiple Marx Bros. films back-to-back and laugh consistently even though they are all basically the exact same story.

If a comedy is not funny to me it's the worst experience, no matter the length, so I get that inclination. I watched Used Cars the other week for the first time and it wasn't funny to me at all. Felt like an eternity. I'll let those who enjoy it watch it again and I'll simply move on to other films.

Moe Dickstein wrote:1 and 2 are almost the same thing. Guess they had to strain for that third reason.

In the vein of those 3 reasons, I'm sure they could have easily come up with a lot more:
The Mad, Mad Hijinks
The Mad, Mad Capers
The Mad, Mad Chases and Collisions
The Mad, Mad Repetition
The Mad, Mad Extravagance
The Mad, Mad Social Commentary about Our Culture's Obsession with Greed and Getting Rich Quickly

After the first day or two of Moe's hot tip of this release I haven't kept up with this thread but is it accurate to say that Moe is the only person on the board who likes IAMMMMW?

I think CaptVeg is not against it....

I don't hate it, just find it long and not that funny. But it's nowhere near as bad as Solo con tu pareja. Or fucking Border Radio.

I actually laughed a hell of a lot more during the special features, which were all well done. I even enjoyed the commentary. The extended version was interesting, though redundant in places (and I was surprised to see that the fans on the commentary track seemed to agree, or a few of them did anyways.) I took it more as just a historical document of sorts. My only disappointment is that there wasn't more on the restoration. The demonstration was interesting but it was obviously such a large task I was thinking there'd be more on editing in the material and tracking it down.

Moe, there was mention (I think in the commentary) that this extended edit only placed in material that would have been in the Roadshow cut. Anything that would have been cut out before that premiere was not put in. That seemed to suggest that there was more material that was found but left out. Is that the case?

That is true - There are some brief pieces that were on the Laserdisc reconstruction that weren't included in this version, they amount to maybe 30 seconds or so.

I suggested when I met the producer that they include a "deleted scenes" section but I know they were so far behind their deadlines that it wasn't possible - I was flat out told that there wouldn't be a restoration demonstration even due to lack of time, but thankfully they managed to get what they did on there.

One of the biggest revelations for me was seeing the extra lines at the end of restored scenes go back in. If you ever look at the LD version, it was manipulated to be as seamless as possible, that meant that all those lines were edited out, shots were rearranged to avoid jumpcuts in quality, and even shots were zoomed in to avoid jumpcuts.

This version on the other hand is geared towards completeness at the expense of seamlessness. The scene where Demarest first enters is a good example of one that was totally re-edited on the LD to hide several jump cuts, and I think certain short pieces weren't restored again to avoid jumpcuts.

Moe Dickstein wrote:I think CaptVeg is not against it....

I do like the film. I do not love the film. I plan on picking it up along with several other 2014 releases at the next Barnes & Noble sale this summer.

What I find a bit disconcerting is the idea that only people with poor taste can find this film funny. As much as we want to quantify quality in filmmaking there will always be the factor of subjective taste, and while I agree it's a cop out to say that only subjectivity applies for humor, it certainly seems to play a larger role than other emotive/reflexive responses to cinema.

Case in point: Most people here probably find The Great Dictator and Some Like It Hot quite funny. Certainly these films are considered classic comedies with more prestige than IAMMMMW. You know who doesn't find them funny? Woody Allen. Ultimately this is an inexact art form.

Moe Dickstein wrote: This version on the other hand is geared towards completeness at the expense of seamlessness. The scene where Demarest first enters is a good example of one that was totally re-edited on the LD to hide several jump cuts, and I think certain short pieces weren't restored again to avoid jumpcuts.

Thanks. I was wondering if that was the case and I'm they wanted to get this out as soon as possible, as I can only imagine how expensive it was (and by the looks of it it's selling well since it's in the top 10 on Amazon.) Despite the possible last minute rush it's an impressive release.

Although I found the extended version a little much there were some things I found to work better. For some reason the bits with Tracy at the map early on never felt to flow right for me in terms of cutting to them, but the extended version reinserted some short sequences that seemed to lead into them a little better.

I'm glad they went the route to create as complete a version as possible as opposed to seamlessness, as you said, but I noticed on other forums (that I won't name) that there are people pissed that this isn't a complete seamless edit, and wonder why anyone would bother to go the route that was done here (because, you know, they can obviously round up all of that missing footage.) I think I even saw someone call this a "hack job" which is completely ridiculous. I still think at 197-minutes it's borderline torture, but the reconstruction is an impressive and obvious labour of love that I can't fault it at all and have to admit I'm in awe at what was accomplished.

From what I understand this was one of the most expensive projects Criterion has ever undertaken, and the sales figures seem to show the wisdom in that financial gamble.

For me it was always a bit torturous watching the short version because I was constantly missing things having been used to the LD edit for 16 years. This new version finally feels "right" and as a director and editor I can certainly see a lot of places to trim, I think they took out stuff they shouldn't have as well. The phone call between keaton and tracy is essential.

I love new lines like "What is that - a new freeway?"

When you see the manner of restorations in this reconstruction, many of them are mere seconds of the heads or tail end of scenes, so to me that shows they were just desperate to take out time nipping and tucking in addition to removing entire scenes. I think to me the pace of the film feels more "right" in the longer version - it's an epic film it was made at that setting so to speak and it plays better long in my opinion.

Black Hat wrote:After the first day or two of Moe's hot tip of this release I haven't kept up with this thread but is it accurate to say that Moe is the only person on the board who likes IAMMMMW?

I'm absolutely not interested in revisiting the film to find out if I dislike it as much or more than the first and only time I saw it, BUT I am very glad that the people who like the film are pleased with Criterion's presentation. We like to think that they put as much care and attention into all their releases, so it's been a real shock to have such huge disappointments as Madame de and Les Enfants du Paradis in the past couple of years.

It's hard for us to remember (or even believe) that the people who post on this forum are not the sole audience for Criterion releases, and I imagine this will be a huge seller for Criterion, allowing them to continue to release the esoteric releases that many of us here seem to prefer (judging by the high placement of Marketa Lazarová and Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion in our year-end poll. I was surprised to see the release featured in Parade magazine this past weekend, but it makes sense to pitch this release at their older readership, which I imagine has a lot of affection for the film just as many younger people have affection for madcap '80s comedies like Ghostbusters and Caddyshack. How many of you would not hesitate to buy a Criterion release of one of those films and defend it as Criterion-worthy?

I plan to purchase this at some point down the road, just because when I was a child I thought it was hilarious. I'm not sure what I'll think of it now, but I suspect I won't be holding it up as exemplary cinema.

Regardless, its scale and the fact that it captures so many notable comics and comedic actors in the one movie makes it an interesting historical document, IMO, and a worthy inclusion in the CC.

Matt wrote:

Black Hat wrote:After the first day or two of Moe's hot tip of this release I haven't kept up with this thread but is it accurate to say that Moe is the only person on the board who likes IAMMMMW?

I'm absolutely not interested in revisiting the film to find out if I dislike it as much or more than the first and only time I saw it, BUT I am very glad that the people who like the film are pleased with Criterion's presentation. We like to think that they put as much care and attention into all their releases, so it's been a real shock to have such huge disappointments as Madame de and Les Enfants du Paradis in the past couple of years.

It's hard for us to remember (or even believe) that the people who post on this forum are not the sole audience for Criterion releases, and I imagine this will be a huge seller for Criterion, allowing them to continue to release the esoteric releases that many of us here seem to prefer (judging by the high placement of Marketa Lazarová and Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion in our year-end poll. I was surprised to see the release featured in Parade magazine this past weekend, but it makes sense to pitch this release at their older readership, which I imagine has a lot of affection for the film just as many younger people have affection for madcap '80s comedies like Ghostbusters and Caddyshack. How many of you would not hesitate to buy a Criterion release of one of those films and defend it as Criterion-worthy?

Ghostbusters was a Criterion laserdisc.

Matt wrote:I imagine this will be a huge seller for Criterion, allowing them to continue to release the esoteric releases that many of us here seem to prefer (judging by the high placement of Marketa Lazarová and Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion in our year-end poll.

I think releases like this are great for precisely this reason. If you hate the a Criterion release nobody's putting a gun to your head to buy it but if it means there will be a few more releases our crowd has been waiting years for I don't see the harm.

Matt wrote:it makes sense to pitch this release at their older readership, which I imagine has a lot of affection for the film

You're absolutely right, IAMMMW had a spot in my father's heart as it came out right in his teenage wheelhouse.

I've only seen the film once, about 7 years ago at the Paramount Theatre in Austin. It was supposed to be in 70mm, but they only received a 35mm print. I thought the film was hilarious & can't wait to revisit it & see the longer version. I hadn't bought it up to this point because I was holding out hope for a package such as this.

BTW, when I saw it, the audience essentially consisted of myself, my brother, & my friend, and then 2 rows in front of us, Quentin Tarantino with five women (possibly the cast of Death Proof, which started filming in town pretty soon afterwards; I didn't get a good look at them).

It's worth asking, because I've sat in a couple American Cinematheque screenings with him and it's pretty hard to ignore his distinctive laugh: Was Tarantino laughing, and how much?

I'm watching the Last 70 mm Film Festival feature on the release right now, and it's probably one of the sadder things I've seen recently. The poor guy who introduces Billy Crystal is a mostly dry and uninteresting speaker, he almost never looks up from his notes, and his attempts at jokes flop big time. Then Billy Crystal comes up on stage, and makes fun of the guy. It's a mini-tragedy in and of itself, watching someone completely bomb on stage and then having other, more successful people make fun of that person.

Of course, I haven't seen the movie yet, so I may be even sadder when I get to that.

That is how almost every screening with invited speakers in LA goes. It was nothing unusual >censored<.

Moe Dickstein wrote:That is how almost every screening with invited speakers in LA goes. It was nothing unusual >censored<.

I'm a native of Los Angeles and have been going to repertory screenings with guest speakers for about a decade and have no clue what you're talking about.

warren oates wrote:It's worth asking, because I've sat in a couple American Cinematheque screenings with him and it's pretty hard to ignore his distinctive laugh: Was Tarantino laughing, and how much?

He also has the tendency to look around and see how the audience is reacting. He's a lot of fun to have in the theater.