This is one of those great films you can just curl up with on a rainy night and enjoy.
-
chrisjennings85 — 18 years ago(February 15, 2008 01:42 PM)
Just seen this film and i disagree. HUMOUR?? Its hilarious, perhaps it just caught me a good time, but i laughed out loud over ten times (Mark Kermode's signifier of a good comedy!)
The film had me when Sam (Falk) says to Tess (Brennan) "I'll tell you this. I'll wait for you baby!" when their car runs out of gas.
To be honest I even enjoyed the "22 Twain/Choo Choo Train" gag!
It was my first Capote film i've ever seen, going to watch the Seymor-Hoffman film now. Would have like to have seen Leslie Nielsen and Mel Brooks in there. It would have made a perfect cast!
Would love to have heard the end of Wang's (Sellers) mushroom story!
This film makes Clue? like a "television set on a honeymoon totally unnecessary!" -
cjxr — 18 years ago(March 31, 2008 03:37 AM)
Firstly, this isn't really a reply, just a post.
This film is supposed to appeal to the audience of 1976, which isn't the bunch of simple minded idiots of this time. This film is chalk full of witty humor, great acting, and a basic understanding of formal behavior. The reason why half you people don't find the movie funny is because you are so simple minded to find humor in only crack jokes or public humiliation/pain. There is more to humor than a person riding a skateboard blindfolded. Everyone is entitle to their opinion, but a simple "I didn't like it" would be sufficient instead of these big negative reviews that set people who haven't seen it off.
No extra features? The film was made in 1976, common. The commentary was the most anyone will get, and half the actors are dead.
I did like both movies (Clue and Murder By Death), and I find them both very funny, but I guess I like Murder by Death more because it is more of a mystery, and that was what I was in for when I first watched both.
Very funny movie, still watch it on VHS -
Disk-Breaker — 17 years ago(August 01, 2008 03:39 AM)
This film is supposed to appeal to the audience of 1976, which isn't the bunch
of simple minded idiots of this time. This film is chalk full of witty humor,
great acting, and a basic understanding of formal behavior. The reason why
half you people don't find the movie funny is because you are so simple minded
to find humor in only crack jokes or public humiliation/pain. There is more to
humor than a person riding a skateboard blindfolded.
It seems to me you are letting your love for the film blind you a little bit. I had a good laugh at the movie and enjoyed it, but one should be able to step back and analyze it critically.
Does this film contain fart jokes? - Yes. Does this film derive humor out of public humiliation? - Yes, when Sam Diamond is publicly revealed to be gay. Does this film derive humor out of pain? - Yes. Dora Charleston is stung by a scorpion and is about to die but she has to wait for her husband to cash in the prize money. Several people get hit by the falling gargoyle statues at the entrance, Monsieur Perrier ends up with a bent back etc. It's funny allright but don't make it out to be more sophisticated and intelligent than it is.
Most troubling of all is, as zelie417 so correctly observed, the borderline racism of some of the jokes. Half the movie's laughs are derived out of racial stereotypes but some of them, especially Lionel Twain's constant belittlement of Sidney Wang, end up simply being childish and mean-spirited for my tastes. -
chrisbedford — 17 years ago(October 19, 2008 03:55 AM)
This film is chalk full of witty humor
ummm talking of simple-minded idiots, cjxr, just what do you think the term "chalk full" means, exactly?
Would it be the same as "chock full", meaning full to the limit, crammed, probably from the same root as "choke", perhaps? Whereas chalk full wouldn't actually make any sense, actually, and would probably be a simple-minded, idiotic paroting of a simple-minded idiotic phrase -
jnic7594 — 12 years ago(July 04, 2013 09:16 AM)
Everyone is entitle to their opinion, but a simple "I didn't like it" would be sufficient instead of these big negative reviews that set people who haven't seen it off.
So you can write these long raving reviews, but anyone who didn't like the movie should just shut the hell up, right? I see. This isn't a fan board. It's a discussion board for people who did and didn't like the movie to comment. As far as setting people off who haven't seen it, if people decide not to watch a movie because a couple of complete strangers on a message board didn't like it then THEY are simple minded since they can't seem to think for themselves. I really get irritated by you haughty type people who think if someone doesn't like a movie you do that they must be inept or "simple minded." I guess it has nothing to do with the fact that we are all individuals and all have our own opinions and own tastes. Not everyone likes this type of comedy, that doesn't make them simple minded. I fully understood the moveI just didn't care for the style of comedy. Of course, according to you, I'm not allowed to have that opinion soooo
"The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that's wrong with the world." -
teethgrrrinder — 17 years ago(June 29, 2008 12:34 AM)
mindybiz (and a few others) yes, the first 30mintes is tedious and NOT FUNNY AT ALL! the blind butler jokes are terrible and i'm a big fan of racism as long as it's funny, but peter sellers ain't.
everyone else on this thread, stop being so condescending by saying you have to be a crime fan to appreciate it, because it's not true
BUT STICK WITH IT! by about 20-25minutes this film quickly becomes HILARIOUS! it's a great rival to Clue in campness. Murder by Death is far better written, where as Clue is a machine gun that fires off jokes so fast you don't realise how silly they are
Maggie Smith is amazing: oh that's tacky that's really tacky;) -
lordxur — 17 years ago(September 26, 2008 07:03 AM)
Not that I think it would matter to those who call this film 'racist', but Sellers is portraying Sidney Wang KNOWING of the stereotypes. Charlie Chan was consistently portrayed by people that weren't in any way Asian. That's part of the jokeif you ever see the early Chan films, the stereotype is AWFUL (not quite as bad as Mickey Rooney in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's', but you get the idea. Without the stereotype, you almost wouldn't know who Wang was supposed to be!
On a similar note, Coco's kinda doing the same thing with Milo Perrier. Hecule Poirot is nearly always played by an Englishman doing a French (Belgian?) accent. -
Hfuhruhurr — 17 years ago(September 28, 2008 06:16 AM)
-What is your name?
-Bensenmum.
-Thank you, Bensen.
-Bensenmum. My name is Bensenmum.
-Bensenmum?
-Yes, sir. Jamesir.
-Jamesir Bensenmum?
-Yes, sir.
-How odd.
-My father's name, sir.
-What was?
-Howard. Howard Bensenmum.
It's a classic !!!
It's silly, absurd, doesn't make any sense at all, and, as good comedy should, it takes advantage of (or rather perverts and unmasks) every clich and stereotype there is There is no comedy without "Schadenfreude", and guilty laughs CAN be quite innocent, it just depends on who you are.
So, anybody trying to get some sense out of it doesn't get it cause it's not meant to make sense. Check out bona fide comedians like Monty Python, Mel Brooks, Wilder, Feldman, ZAZ, or that one gem called "Hellzapoppin" (which actually has some racist context, historically though, not intentionally).
I mean, really, putting a blind butler against a deaf-mute cook is definitely in bad taste. That's why it is so good
I shall not judge anybody's taste. But I'm happy I'm getting "Murder by Death". And I do so because each time I watch it, I don't get it. Pure genius -
chrisbedford — 17 years ago(October 19, 2008 03:46 AM)
On a similar note, Coco's kinda doing the same thing with Milo Perrier. Hecule Poirot is nearly always played by an Englishman doing a French (Belgian?) accent.
Exactly. It always burns my butt when critics don't get that a particular spoof is mocking the exact characteristic they think it embodies - it's shallow, unthinking, and knee-jerk reactions like these that give a movie (or, on a wider scale, a lot of public debate) a bad name.
If you don't understand it, say so. If you don't like it, say so. But don't condemn it out of hand! -
wrenage — 16 years ago(May 28, 2009 10:01 AM)
I just purchased this movie after wanting to see it for a long time. I was let down. It wasn't the humor that I found lacking or the characters. The actors worked with what they had. The problem was the story. Nothing much happened. The whole movie is people showing up and then an extended revelation scene, an absurd extended relevation scene. Exposition, exposition, exposition for nothing happening. The actual crime and subsequent investigation are lacking in interest. Whatever twists are in the film are random exposition out of left field. If all this was intended to be a satire of mystery stories, it was still quite uninteresting.
So, yeah, my only problem with the movie is lacking in story. -
mam13143 — 16 years ago(July 24, 2009 05:30 PM)
This movie is boring all in caps and bold letters!!! I get the humor, I get all the parody of famous inspectors, and I love most of the actors but as you said, the humor is not enough to carry a film where nothing happens. I cannot understand why it would get great reviews except that everyone liked Neil Simon at the time. A waste of nearly two hours.
-
ParabolaofMystery — 16 years ago(December 01, 2009 01:13 PM)
'a film where nothing happens.'
Uh, something DID happen: I laughed a beep load of times. And I'm not well-versed in detective fiction, either. I'm aware of the characters being spoofed, and that was good enough for me to laugh my heiney off pretty much the whole time.
Then again, I was in disguise in disguise in disguise