A comedy with its own overture, and an honest-to-goodness intermission? A comedy clocking in at over three hours, that isn't a Bollywood musical? A comedy with veritable legions of contemporary star power that precedes Wes Anderson's self-indulgence? A comedy in which some sequences show distinct discrepancies in the image quality, in which some audio is inserted over still images - reflecting footage that has been lost, or rediscovered and compiled from various sources - and in which curt editing of image and/or sound further indicates the latter effort, and raises some questions about the restoration? Well now, all that truly is mad. One hopes, for all that, that it's a comedy that holds up sixty years later, especially seeing as how comedies are sometimes extra susceptible to changing tastes and sensibilities over time. Some of the greatest comedies ever made hail from the silent era, and some brand new comedies exceed their expiration date before they're ever released; for the sake of filmmaker Stanley Kramer and all others involved, does 1963's 'It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world' live up to its broad reputation? For my part I think this is enjoyable to some degree, but I don't how how lastingly worthy it really is on its own merits, and personal preferences will play a big part in determining just how much one admires it.
To get to the heart of why the picture may remain worthwhile we have to first dissect those ways in which it falls short, and I'm of the mind that such issues have nothing to do with the era in which it was made. The troubles I have with 'Mad world' I can just as easily identify in other titles made over the years. First is the major mean streak coursing throughout the proceedings, a display of selfishness, greed, cruelty, and violence that is excessive, and deeply imbalanced in relation to the wit that should twist them into humor. Such traits have been firm foundation for merriment elsewhere, certainly, but the more prominent and heavy-handed they are, the less funny they are. See 'A fish called Wanda,' for example - I think it's only in the last half hour, as free-wheeling ridiculousness becomes more prevalent, that the 1988 movie comes closest to being worthwhile; on the other hand, for as outrageous as 1975's 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' is even at its most bloody and gory, the outward wickedness is easily wrapped up in the silliness. Secondly, there are many scenes throughout that consist of little more than unintelligible yelling and flailing, blustery raucousness than is supposed to be funny in and of itself. Well, sorry, but once again, divorced from cleverness to make that boisterousness count for something, the result is just boorish; every performance is thusly marked at one point or another, if not most of the time, and frankly, I could have completely done without Ethel Merman's character Mrs. Marcus. A big reason why many of Will Ferrell's comedies of the twenty-first century have no staying power is that they rely entirely on his one-note Man-Child act of being loud and oafish, a predilection that appeals primarily to the twelve year olds in the audience; in contrast, the deliciously clever situational humor of Peter Bogdanovich's 'What's up, doc?' gives meaning to the 1972 flick's unyielding madcap energy.
That's not all, though. 1933's 'Meet the baron,' incidentally starring many figures who also appear here, had some swell ideas, but was plagued with poor comedic timing; actors seemingly cared more about their delivery in any moment than the jokes they were meant to convey, and the humor was lost in the process. In a like manner, there are instances in this piece of thirty years later in which the harried delivery of lines overwhelms the wit therein; e.g., the discussion between Russell and Hawthorne about the differences between Britain and the United States. There are instances of sheer randomness that just don't provide any amusement, like the cuts in the first half to Sylvester and his lover, or to figures on the sidelines observing the primary characters and their activities; some bits are drawn out too long. The pacing irks me, a consequence in part of giving us so many characters across these 190-odd minutes; we may swerve from relatively quiet and low-key scenes to others of pure zaniness, and back again, and in so doing the intended humor also loses some cohesiveness over time. Now, a wealth of all these faults could have been resolved, or at least partially relieved, simply with the exercise of more restraint and moderation, and more mindful construction in every capacity. If the screenplay had been pared down, if the editing were tighter, and if the acting and direction weren't so routinely overcharged, then this would surely stand taller. Good comedy, like good storytelling at large, requires careful balance; there is a time to charge ahead, and there is a time to pull back on the reins, and knowing when to do one or the other can make all the difference in the success of a film. Therein lies a major overarching problem here.
Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike 'It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.' I do see what it does well, and this mostly means the substantial stunts and effects sequences that populate the runtime as a surfeit of characters get into various hijinks in pursuit of a load of cash. In most regards those behind the scenes turned in splendid work, including Ernest Laszlo with his cinematography, plus the production design, art direction, costume design, and hair and makeup. I disagree with the choices that were made to emphasize wholesale bombast over all else, but Kramer's direction is technically proficient, and I recognize the skill of the cast members even as it is subsumed within all those more tawdry factors. There are plenty of excellent ideas in William and Tania Rose's screenplay, in the scene writing above all, that should have been solid fuel for a delightful romp - or which, alternatively, could have been exercised in an earnest crime drama or thriller. With all this in mind, however, what this lacks more than anything else, or at least what gets waylaid among the remainder, is enough of a spark of ingenuity to truly provide the comedy that we're supposed to be getting for over three hours. It's not that the picture isn't entertaining; it's that I think I laughed once throughout the full runtime, and that was all the way back before even thirty-five minutes had elapsed. There are shrewd kernels of writing all throughout, yet except for at the very beginning these are generally drowned out by near-constant cacophony, an overabundance of characters and frequent cuts from one scene to another, a steady stream of stunt, effect, or gag after stunt, effect, or gag, and overall immoderation. It really doesn't take long before the level of fun derived hence is no more robust or remarkable than what we can get passively from just about anything at all, and we can "watch" without actively engaging. I've watched films of equal or greater length that kept me raptly absorbed and absolutely attentive; this just doesn't particularly inspire the excitement it is meant to. And at over three hours long, that translates to a feature that feels overly long and overdone.
'It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world' is still a good time. It's still worth checking out, more or less. This might have the biggest enduring draw for those who are specifically keen on flicks with huge sequences of one nature or another, like 'The Blues Brothers' with its car chases, that provide the preponderance of the entertainment to be had. Considering its reputation and especially its runtime, however, I'm just kind of taken aback that I don't nearly find this to be everything it's cracked up to be. I'm glad that I took the time to watch, but having done so I will never feel the need to do so again, and the viewing experience is a commitment with less of a payoff than I would have ever anticipated. In my estimation this needed a far more measured, judicious approach, in too many ways, for the whole to meet with success, and as it is, I'm rather underwhelmed. I'm glad for those who get more out of this than I do, and they're welcome to it; I can't muster enough enthusiasm for a particular recommendation, and I have other things to watch.
To get to the heart of why the picture may remain worthwhile we have to first dissect those ways in which it falls short, and I'm of the mind that such issues have nothing to do with the era in which it was made. The troubles I have with 'Mad world' I can just as easily identify in other titles made over the years. First is the major mean streak coursing throughout the proceedings, a display of selfishness, greed, cruelty, and violence that is excessive, and deeply imbalanced in relation to the wit that should twist them into humor. Such traits have been firm foundation for merriment elsewhere, certainly, but the more prominent and heavy-handed they are, the less funny they are. See 'A fish called Wanda,' for example - I think it's only in the last half hour, as free-wheeling ridiculousness becomes more prevalent, that the 1988 movie comes closest to being worthwhile; on the other hand, for as outrageous as 1975's 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' is even at its most bloody and gory, the outward wickedness is easily wrapped up in the silliness. Secondly, there are many scenes throughout that consist of little more than unintelligible yelling and flailing, blustery raucousness than is supposed to be funny in and of itself. Well, sorry, but once again, divorced from cleverness to make that boisterousness count for something, the result is just boorish; every performance is thusly marked at one point or another, if not most of the time, and frankly, I could have completely done without Ethel Merman's character Mrs. Marcus. A big reason why many of Will Ferrell's comedies of the twenty-first century have no staying power is that they rely entirely on his one-note Man-Child act of being loud and oafish, a predilection that appeals primarily to the twelve year olds in the audience; in contrast, the deliciously clever situational humor of Peter Bogdanovich's 'What's up, doc?' gives meaning to the 1972 flick's unyielding madcap energy.
That's not all, though. 1933's 'Meet the baron,' incidentally starring many figures who also appear here, had some swell ideas, but was plagued with poor comedic timing; actors seemingly cared more about their delivery in any moment than the jokes they were meant to convey, and the humor was lost in the process. In a like manner, there are instances in this piece of thirty years later in which the harried delivery of lines overwhelms the wit therein; e.g., the discussion between Russell and Hawthorne about the differences between Britain and the United States. There are instances of sheer randomness that just don't provide any amusement, like the cuts in the first half to Sylvester and his lover, or to figures on the sidelines observing the primary characters and their activities; some bits are drawn out too long. The pacing irks me, a consequence in part of giving us so many characters across these 190-odd minutes; we may swerve from relatively quiet and low-key scenes to others of pure zaniness, and back again, and in so doing the intended humor also loses some cohesiveness over time. Now, a wealth of all these faults could have been resolved, or at least partially relieved, simply with the exercise of more restraint and moderation, and more mindful construction in every capacity. If the screenplay had been pared down, if the editing were tighter, and if the acting and direction weren't so routinely overcharged, then this would surely stand taller. Good comedy, like good storytelling at large, requires careful balance; there is a time to charge ahead, and there is a time to pull back on the reins, and knowing when to do one or the other can make all the difference in the success of a film. Therein lies a major overarching problem here.
Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike 'It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.' I do see what it does well, and this mostly means the substantial stunts and effects sequences that populate the runtime as a surfeit of characters get into various hijinks in pursuit of a load of cash. In most regards those behind the scenes turned in splendid work, including Ernest Laszlo with his cinematography, plus the production design, art direction, costume design, and hair and makeup. I disagree with the choices that were made to emphasize wholesale bombast over all else, but Kramer's direction is technically proficient, and I recognize the skill of the cast members even as it is subsumed within all those more tawdry factors. There are plenty of excellent ideas in William and Tania Rose's screenplay, in the scene writing above all, that should have been solid fuel for a delightful romp - or which, alternatively, could have been exercised in an earnest crime drama or thriller. With all this in mind, however, what this lacks more than anything else, or at least what gets waylaid among the remainder, is enough of a spark of ingenuity to truly provide the comedy that we're supposed to be getting for over three hours. It's not that the picture isn't entertaining; it's that I think I laughed once throughout the full runtime, and that was all the way back before even thirty-five minutes had elapsed. There are shrewd kernels of writing all throughout, yet except for at the very beginning these are generally drowned out by near-constant cacophony, an overabundance of characters and frequent cuts from one scene to another, a steady stream of stunt, effect, or gag after stunt, effect, or gag, and overall immoderation. It really doesn't take long before the level of fun derived hence is no more robust or remarkable than what we can get passively from just about anything at all, and we can "watch" without actively engaging. I've watched films of equal or greater length that kept me raptly absorbed and absolutely attentive; this just doesn't particularly inspire the excitement it is meant to. And at over three hours long, that translates to a feature that feels overly long and overdone.
'It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world' is still a good time. It's still worth checking out, more or less. This might have the biggest enduring draw for those who are specifically keen on flicks with huge sequences of one nature or another, like 'The Blues Brothers' with its car chases, that provide the preponderance of the entertainment to be had. Considering its reputation and especially its runtime, however, I'm just kind of taken aback that I don't nearly find this to be everything it's cracked up to be. I'm glad that I took the time to watch, but having done so I will never feel the need to do so again, and the viewing experience is a commitment with less of a payoff than I would have ever anticipated. In my estimation this needed a far more measured, judicious approach, in too many ways, for the whole to meet with success, and as it is, I'm rather underwhelmed. I'm glad for those who get more out of this than I do, and they're welcome to it; I can't muster enough enthusiasm for a particular recommendation, and I have other things to watch.