Why is this considered a classic? It's truly idiotic. I understand comic violence, but the scenes with violence were as idiotic and unfunny as the rest of this movie.
This may be the worst movie I've ever seen.
1/10 and that's only because 0 out of 10 isn't an option.
You have no idea what you're talking about. This is comedy gold.
shareI have no idea how old you are, but if you saw the movie back in 1963, you would understand the movie better and it's comedy better. You would see the comedians of the day and former days and they would be remembered fondly. If you didn't know most of the cast, didn't see them on TV or the movies, then I can see how you might not like the movie.
Yes there is violence and some of it is unfunny. But nobody is killed, nobody is totally bloody, nobody is even seriously hurt. There have been many many movies in the past 40 years which contain much more violence. Do you consider those movies with much worse violence as bad, all of them?
I love the movie; it is not a "classic" like Some Like It Hot (which BTW showed lots of violence and people killed), but it has many funny moments. I can watch this over and over again. I love seeing all the actors and the scenery and screwy car chases. You didn't like the movie and that's fine. I'd be happy to know what movies you do consider funny.
This movie certainly does qualify as a classic, and rightly so.
_____
"Sometimes we all wanna be someone that we're not like Billy down in Soddy Daisy."
I have no problem with violence in dramas or dark comedies where the violence is appropriate or in genuinely funny scenes in genuinely funny movies. I would consider Pulp Fiction to be an example of a very violent movie where the violence is completely appropriate and I would consider Monty Python and the Holy Grail to be an example of a comedic violence scene where it is done right. I would also consider the T.V show Batman as an effective use of comedic violence, the first two seasons anyway.
I was not alive at the time, however, I am familiar with a number of the actors and with actors of that era and earlier because I like listening to old time radio shows. Duffy's Tavern and Life of Riley are two of my favorite radio comedies and Our Miss Brooks and Halls of Ivy are quite good. Hancock's Half Hour is my top comedy of that era, though it is British.
In regards to comedies I like. I like a lot of the late 1970s/early 1980s comedic era including Airplane, Used Cars, The Jerk and the British film Being There.
I haven't seen as many older comedies but I recently saw both the Danny Kaye version of The Secret Life of Walter Mitty and the old Irish film Whisky Galore and enjoyed both.
I don't want to make too much out of this stupid film, but my own view is is that most people who like this film have a cynical view of humanity, and think the way the characters behaved in this film is pretty much how most people would behave, though without the buffoonery of course, and most people who have a more positive view of humanity will regard the film in the way that I did.
So, people who find this film confirming their world view will be more likely to enjoy it, even though there really is nothing funny in it.
"Funny" is completely subjective and, therefore, functionally non-debatable. What's funny to one person simply is, what's not to another simply isn't and there's little chance of convincing either one otherwise.
IAMMMMW is indeed noisy and occasionally violent, although the violence is of an exaggerated, cartoonish nature, and I can think of only three of the film's set pieces that involve it: Lennie's battles at the service station with both Otto and the attendants, Hawthorne and Finch's largely ineffectual roadside scuffle and the flinging-from-the-ladder finale. And only the first two portray it as intentionally inflicted by one person upon another, consuming probably no more than 15 minutes of the film's 2 1/1 - 3 hour running time (depending on the version).
All the rest of the instances of physical calamity, from which the characters emerge pretty much unscathed until that finale, are the unintended results of situational circumstances. In a word, slapstick.
Kramer's purpose was to craft a throwback to the slapstick traditions of earlier eras on an epic scale with the benefit of a huge cast and budget. I'm not sure, however, that "a cynical view of humanity" is necessarily a requirement for enjoyment of the film, any more than "a more positive view" of it disqualifies one from that enjoyment.
Most comedy, from either earlier or contemporary eras, is derived from exploiting the foibles and less-noble aspects of humanity. So one might say that a measure of cynicism is present in the basis of much of comedy, but one could as easily say it's merely honest observance, exaggerated subtly or grandly to enable viewers to laugh at the faults they recognize in themselves. We can all embody greed, mistrust, combativeness, deception, impulsiveness and all of the other shortcomings portrayed. Does that constitute a "world view?" If you like, but I'd submit it constitutes merely acknowledgement of human nature(s) whose worldwide existence one would be hard-pressed to credibly deny.
I was 10 when I first saw IAMMMMW in its original release and, naturally enough, responded most to its elaborate physical spectacle (and how much cynicism, after all, can a 10-year-old possess?). In subsequent viewings over succeeding decades, I've derived the most humor from character and attendant dialogue and behavior: Crump's repeatedly frustrated attempts to assert intellectual or physical capability; Finch's long-suffering exasperation with in-laws; Hawthorne's gradual transformation from jovial courtliness to venality and hostility; Otto's larcenous and glib duplicity and so forth.
Despite the commonality of the competitive "every man for himself" desperation to which they succumb, those characters are quite sharply drawn, and each deals with his or her respective situations in manners peculiar to their personalities. And each displays qualities that are comedically, if not personally, appealing (I wouldn't want to spend a minute with a real-life Mrs. Marcus, but Merman gets every bit of onscreen comic mileage possible from her volatility and interminable harangues).
As I suggested at the outset, if you find IAMMMMW "stupid and not funny," then you do and that's that. Many others find it neither, still others find it stupid and funny. I won't comment on any stupidity, but I've found it funny in varying ways for over 50 years, yet can't say it confirms any world view I hold; rather, it - again, like much comedy - satirizes and ridicules basic aspects of human behavior and, in its extreme examples thereof (and their consequences), imparts humorous commentary from which both entertainment and self-awareness can be derived. Describing that as "a cynical view of humanity" sounds both harsh and unrealistic to me.
Incidentally and just for the record, Being There is not a British film but an American one, produced and filmed in the U.S. by an American company and director.
Poe! You are...avenged!
While I disagree with your view on the film, I applaud you for backing up your claims and opinions with evidence far better than I did.
I can't reply to anything you wrote because in the roughly three weeks since I've seen the film I have largely expunged it from my memory.
I would point out though that as far as I can tell, there is very little slapstick humor in American films anymore except for films aimed at children and for films aimed largely at mostly younger teenagers like the Jim Carrey and Adam Sandler films , though the British do still seem to like some purely slapstick comedy, as evidenced by the likes of Mr Bean. So, it seems that at least to the people who decide what films will be made, they feel that most people would not enjoy this type of comedy anymore. As you say, that means nothing to you if you enjoy this film, but it shows to me that at least they seem to think that most more mature audiences these days want films that offer more than just slapstick.
Of course the British also seem to like humor that has an element of slapstick comedy, but much more, like Fawlty Towers for instance.
I did see Treasure of the Sierra Madre today, a film with a very similar theme to IAMMMMW and I thought it was more realistic in terms of its portrayal of humanity and, although it wasn't meant as a comedy, I also found it far more humorous and far more entertaining than IAMMMMW.
There is also an excellent radio show on the same theme that starred Vincent Price called "Blood Bath."
http://www.escape-suspense.com/2007/09/escape---bloodb.html
BTW, in case you were wondering why I saw the film to the end since I hated it so much,
1.I was watching it with a friend (same friend I saw Treasure of the Sierra Madre With) and I didn't want to stop the film on him
2.He told me Peter Falk was in the film and as I'm a big fan of Columbo I stuck around to see him.
I do have a couple comments to your reply
Satirizing the human condition is one thing, using two and a half hours to make the same point over and over again is quite another. Also, 15 minutes of violence in a two and a half hour or so film is roughly 10% of the film. Again, I suppose it's a matter of opinion whether that is a long time or not. I just saw an early episode of the Batman t.v show yesterday, and I did not know that in the first episodes the fight scenes did not contain any 'fight music theme.' So, even back in the 1960s when attention spans were supposedly longer than they are now, it seems the producers of that show soon got worried that the audience might get tired of the fighting after only around two minutes of it, and this was even though they did put the 'bash' and 'pow' in the first episodes.
Thanks for the correction on "Being There." I am surprised at this as I can't think of too many American comedies that came out around the same time that are similar comedies. Maybe Network would be the closest that I can think of.
Thanks for taking the time for a thoughtful, comprehensive and considerate post. I've come to regard agreement as not so important in this realm; shared tastes are often less stimulating than sharing differing perspectives.
I can't reply to anything you wrote because in the roughly three weeks since I've seen the film I have largely expunged it from my memory.I sure know how that goes, and in the last ten or so years, I find I have trouble remembering even the ones I liked.
I did see Treasure of the Sierra Madre today, a film with a very similar theme to IAMMMMW and I thought it was more realistic in terms of its portrayal of humanity and, although it wasn't meant as a comedy, I also found it far more humorous and far more entertaining than IAMMMMW.I imagine that even most fans of IAMMMMW would agree that TOTSM is the superior film.
There is also an excellent radio show on the same theme that starred Vincent Price called "Blood Bath."Thanks for that link; I've saved it and will be giving that show a listen soon.
BTW, in case you were wondering why I saw the film to the end since I hated it so much,For decades, I made it a point of personal principle to give every film I saw, even those I wasn't liking, a full viewing. I've abandoned that lately, bailing if it hasn't managed to engage me within the first half hour. Probably has something to do with the realization that I now have less time ahead of me than behind.
1.I was watching it with a friend (same friend I saw Treasure of the Sierra Madre With) and I didn't want to stop the film on him
...using two and a half hours to make the same point over and over again is quite another.Although you don't care for the film, you've articulated one of the hallmarks of the late silent and early talkie slapstick era Kramer intended to evoke: establish a single simple premise - installing a rooftop radio antenna as in Laurel and Hardy's Hog Wild, for instance - around which a series of gags could be constructed, filling two or three reels. IAMMMMW is very much like a half dozen single-premise two-or-three-reelers - locked in a basement, stuck on a pilotless plane in flight or what have you - strung together but doled out in shorter episodes, jumping from one to the next for pacing and variety, and unified by the treasure hunt theme.
IAMMMMW is very much like a half dozen single-premise two-or-three-reelers - locked in a basement, stuck on a pilotless plane in flight or what have you - strung together but doled out in shorter episodes, jumping from one to the next for pacing and variety, and unified by the treasure hunt theme.
...each one has characters we all knew from TV or other movies.That's an aspect of the casting that I've always found interesting. Of the principal players, only Tracy and Rooney were bona fide "movie names." Merman, Berle, Adams, Caesar, Provine and even Shawn and Hackett had made limited film appearances, Silvers had done much supporting work primarily in the '40s but was by then a sitcom name, Terry-Thomas wasn't widely known in the U.S. and Winters was a film newcomer.
[deleted]
One of my favorite movies of all time. 9/10
share