MovieChat Forums > It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963) Discussion > THEATRICAL VERSION is MUCH BETTER than t...

THEATRICAL VERSION is MUCH BETTER than the EXTENDED VERSION

posted 9 years ago by cultfilmfreaksdotcom
1 reply | jump to latest

Okay, so, I went to this movie having never seen it before, only heard of it thru the years, being younger never even caught it on TV, so, they played it on the big screen as part of the Landmark Presentation series, and boy oh boy, the piece dragged on and on, scenes lasting fifteen LOOOOOOOONG minutes at a time; the primary set-up of the main characters discussing the plans of heading off on the search took about 35-minutes consisting of two long conversations; Dick Shawn dancing with a girl for at least 4 awkward minutes till a phone rang; scenes that never stopped, all playing out until they simply could not play out any longer, as if the only reason they did cease was the camera ran out of film... It was like watching ROPE but with 20 minutes at every turn as opposed to 8...

So my review wasn't a good one. Wasn't terrible, but not knowing what they showed in the theater was the extended cut (which they should NEVER do in theaters... they did the same thing with GOOD BAD UGLY including the terrible bonus footage of Tuco with the chickens, etc)...

Anyhow, long post short, I bought the beautiful CRITERION BLU RAY/DVD, and like the light from the sun my eyes widened upon seeing ORIGINAL THEATRICAL RELEASE...

And so, watching this version, the one and only shown in theaters during the time it was a CLASSIC in the first place, I was amazed on how incredible it flowed... IT took 6 minutes as opposed to 30 for the guys to get on that long, hard road for the loot... Dick Shawn is seen dancing right as the phone is ringing... Jonathan Winters doesn't spend 10 minutes bashing the gas station but it's cut to make his rancor more solid and strong by having it edited in a creative manner; and the characters that were annoying in the LONG version are less annoying, like Ethel Merman (who is annoying on purpose)...

So people, I just have to say... While the CRITERION is a bit pricey, it's well worth the money for the ORIGINAL THEATRICAL VERSION... Editors are all looked down upon because once upon a time they followed the Hays Code henchman and ruined movies ala Orson Welles, but at this point, the 1960's, editors... like the editors for Amadeus, the original Star Wars, and other movies ruined by Director's Cuts... knew their job JUST LIKE THE DIRECTORS and the actors. Imagine if the director felt the actor wasn't doing a good job. So the director puts on a, say, Milton Berle or Spencer Tracy (whose part is shorter, and way more cohesive) mask to play their parts... This is the same thing as directors going back and doing a job that professional editors are good at...

I beg you all to read my review of the DIRECTOR'S CUT of Amadeus, and how the director RUINED the movie with one scene in particular, extending it when it was cut perfectly the first time:

AMADEUS: http://www.cultfilmfreaks.com/2016/03/directors-NUT.html

And I reviewed MAD MAD MAD MAD after seeing what I didn't know was the extended version, and gave it three weak stars, and now it has FOUR! That's the difference. Editors are professionals too. They, whether it be for movies or books, know how to flow while authors and directors just want everything to be shown for themselves, forgetting there's an audience to consider. Being too close to the material at hand, some auteurs have no realization that what's left out is, in fact, shown even more clearly by not having it there at all. For this is where Imagination comes in. And that's what makes a motion picture worth watching again and again.

MAD WORLD REVIEW: http://www.cultfilmfreaks.com/2016/04/MMMMWORLD.html

Anyhow, I know many of the hardcore MAD WORLD fans will disagree, but I bet the only people who disagree are the ones who saw the original SO MANY TIMES that they enjoyed seeing more and more and more. I just wish that when they play these oldies in the theater for the sake of art, and for the sake of people seeing it for the first time, who should see the original BEFORE seeing what's been added on to the original, that they play the oldies, not the newbie version of the old.

All Movie Reviews www.cultfilmfreaks.com

[–] ddburnett 8 years ago

Well, there's actually three "theatrical" versions from 1963, and the shorter version you like is actually the third cut seen in theaters.

The first cut was the 210 minute original cut seen only at the preview showing.

The second is the 192 minute roadshow version.

And finally there's the 161 minute general release cut, which is what was seen by the majority of people who ever viewed this film.

The longer version you saw is essentially a restoration of the roadshow version. "Essentially" because it's not identical to the roadshow version, but it's pretty similar. Elements from the roadshow version degraded over the decades and while most were restored, a few are still lost. Some footage was also taken from a portion of the original cut that was found, giving us the 197 minute restoration that's more or less the roadshow cut with a few minutes of extra footage.

You're basically correct that no one saw this cut in a theater, though ALL of the footage was seen by audiences among the three versions, and it's pretty close to the roadshow version. Although, considering that very, very few people saw the roadshow cut, compared to everyone who has ever seen the general version, you essentially right anyway.

If there isn't one already, someone should start a discussion about extended versions of films and whether they're good or bad and why. It would interesting to see different opinions on this topic.