|
Directed by: Susan Stroman Starring: Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick, Uma Thurman, Will Ferrell When I saw the original Producers with Wilder and Zero Mostel I thought it was one of the best comedies of its time. The movie has been so influential to comedy writers for years. I didn't know what I was in for when I walked into the 2005 movie version of the Broadway muscial version of this funny film. I was blown away. Let's talk about the actors. Nathan Lane can carry a tune. He's a funny guy, but boy can he sing too. His voice is so powerful. As Max he does his job and he does it well. Broderick plays the part of Leo Bloom. I could swear he was channeling Gene Wilder's timing. It was so perfect and I personally think he stole the show. Will Ferrell seemed a bit out of place, but there's no possible way he could mess this up. Possibly the best thing about Ferrell being in the movie is he'll bring in the younger crowd and a whole new generation will be exposed to the wit and artistry of Mel Brooks. The songs, OH the songs! All the songs from the original movie are here, plus the songs from the musical. Every single song is well made and has a least a couple laughs in it. It's so hard to choose a favorite, all the songs are excellent. "Springtime For Hitler" is given its proper treatment. No one could do a better version. Bloom's dream sequence was hilarious and the accountants "unhappy" chant was catchy. Turning the boring public accounting office into an exciting musical stage was flawless. Will Ferrell even made me laugh during his musical numbers. Mel Brooks even has a line (as a voice) in one of the songs, and you'll know it's him when you hear it (he did the same line in the original movie and pre-recorded it for the play!) You're sure to find yourself humming "Springtime For Hitler" as you walk out of the theater. Of course the comedy was perfect. This was comedy perfection. If someone asks you "is comedy art?" show them this movie. Many scenes are really over-the-top, but you cannot do it any other way. I was trying to hold in my laughter but I couldn't. I don't want to give ANYTHING away, but I just want to let you know all the famous scenes are still there. Not just the best comedy of the year, the best film of this year. Here's hoping it gets the Oscar! RATING: 5.5 PROS: Tony-Award winning music, hilarious performances, lives up to the original and then some. Mel Brooks' best work. CONS: Will Ferrell might be jarring for some ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://imdb.com/title/tt0395251/
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2005 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
I went into this REALLY wanting top like it, and thought it was terrible. Boring and horribly unfunny. .5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2005 05:27
|
|
|
From the two above reviews, I'm gonna agree with Shmorky. The acting was seemed incredibly over the top in the first scene or two, but once I got used to it the movie really took off. The songs are catchy and wonderfully done, with witty lyrics a little different that I'm used to hearing in musicals. I didn't find Ferrell's character out of place any more than Broderick's, except that he may be a bit more recognizable than many of the other actors. The only complaint that I really have was the movie was longer than I expected (2 hours and 14 minutes) but still very enjoyable. 5/5 and I still have "Springtime for Hitler" stuck in my head.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2005 08:36
|
|
Better hit that spellcheck sonny cause I will report you for making spelling errors!
|
I don't like musicals, but I loved this movie. The movie was gold and I could not stop laughing during the play sequence of the movie. If I hadn't just gone pee, I would have soiled myself something feirce! 5.5 out of 5
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2005 07:12
|
|
|
Really funny, and witty. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2005 09:19
|
|
|
I see why people like it: there is a lot of good humor there. But the gay jokes got rather overabundant, the slapstick stuff became predictable, and the climax was weak at best. Nathan Lane kicked rear end, he's great to watch. I can tell that this would have been a lot more entertaining to see live, but the movie just isn't my sort of thing. On the upside, though, Uma Thurman's performance forced me to finally understand why anyone would consider her to be hot, and now I want to ravage her repeatedly. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2005 23:36
|
|
|
I thought it was the funniest thing I'd seen in a long time. It made me hate Will Ferrell just a little bit less. The last thing I'd seen Uma Therman in was Kill Bill, and it was bizarre seeing her singing and dancing, although she was beautiful and did a great job. I've been in love with Matthew Broderick since Ferris, and he was amazing in this too. The man can cut a rug! Dancing. He's a good dancer. There were a few continuity errors but who the hell cares! I laughed till I cried and I applauded after almost every song. Beautiful girls wearing nothing but pearls..lalala.. 5/5!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2005 08:01
|
|
|
Let me start this by saying I'm an unabashed Mel Brooks-aholic. I grew up on his movies, and I own every single one, sometimes twice because if I thought I had lost a Mel Brooks video I had to go out and buy it again. The original Producers is one of my favorite movies of his, coming in second maybe only to Young Frankenstein. When you love the original as much as I do, it's hard to imagine anyone filling the shoes of Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder. I saw the show on Broadway, though not original cast, and I thought it was great. Being a total theater fag, I tend to hold ridiculously high hopes for Broadway-to-cinema adaptations that are often disappointed. Between this and my love for the original, I had crazy high expectations. I was not disappointed in the least. This movie is as close to seeing this show on Broadway as you can get in a movie, and all the parts that stood to benefit from the transition to the movies did. The best part is the movie, as a musical, is different enough from the original that you don't find yourself constantly comparing Lane and Broderick to Mostel and Wilder, a comparison that no one could possibly live up to. Basically this movie is great and everyone should see it; anyone who doesn't already appreciate the genius that is Mel Brooks needs to see it even more. PROS: all the performances are great, Nathan Lane is absolutely amazing. If your face doesn't hurt from laughing after this movie, you're not human. CONS: Avg. moviegoers might not be able to tell, but Uma Thurman's voice is pretty weak; she does her best, though. And everything else about her performance is spot-on. Rating: 5.5/5 -- Mel Brooks does it again 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2005 08:34
|
|
|
This movie is laugh out loud funny, but not in a 40 Year Old Virgin gross sort of way but it has intelligent funny gags and scenes although most of them are gay, come on this is theatre. Mathew Broderick is a good singer, but isn't quite the actor that Nathan Lane is. Another thing about Lane, although he was great, his eyebrows assume this slant whenever he shows emotion, kind of like / \, that bugged me after a while. This is the best movie Ferrel has been in to datem, and he did a comendable job though not as nutty as the Hans in the original Producers so it wasn't quite as funny. All in all very entertaining, anybody who can not laugh at a singing dancing gay Hitler and a SS kick line needs to have their pulse checked. 5/5 because it is a good movie and better than anything else in theatres right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2005 20:41
|
|
|
I'm not overly into musicals, and I found myself losing intrest during some songs during the movie. Other than that, I thought it was a pretty funny and entertaining movie, even though I was pretty eager to leave by the time the credits finally rolled. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2005 21:12
|
|
|
I feel bad, but this movie ultimately suffered from being a musical since I don't like the genre. Anyways, it does everything musicals throughout the ages have done (lighting etc.). I really liked some of the comedy (King Leer, Funny Boy) but some of the slapstick and histrionics really just got to me. The singing was actually pretty good and Will Ferrel didn't make me hate him. Plus, the whole concept of a musical based on the life of Hitler is funny to me in general. Overall, not a terrible movie, but not something I'd pay to see again. I'm sure if you like musicals/theatre you'll enjoy this. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2006 08:23
|
|
|
I think what might ruin this movie for a lot of people is what ruins lots of movies for people, not understanding what is intentional and what's not. The super over extremely gayness for longer than would make you comfortable, yes that's intentional, the overacting? It's a musical of course it's intentional. I mean it has matthew broderick in it, he is the under-actingest man I've ever seen. Also most people have an immediate disposition toward this film because OH MY GOD Will Ferrell is in it !I highly recommend this movie if you can take it as it is, brilliant, very well done in almost all aspects, and terribly funny. Hell, even Uma Thurman whom I've never thought of as anything but a stick with hands was hot in this movie. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2006 13:00
|
|
|
Saw this last night, and really enjoyed it. I was very worried in the first couple of scenes. It really is a fairly direct translation of the Broadway show, and as part of that, the acting can seem incredibly hamfisted for the first couple of scenes. However, laying it on thick in the beginning, while making the first bit uncomfortable for a second, really set the tone of the movie, and got you in the mood for the slapstick and Broadway-esque comedy to follow. Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick were cast perfectly, and do an excellent job. I was worried that Will Ferrell wouldn't work in the part, but he does an excellent job. I was a little lukewarm on Uma, but she doesn't have a massive part anyway, so it didn't detract from the movie anyway. My advice to anyone seeing this is just accept the first act. From the accounting room scene onwards it picks up a lot. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2006 21:37
|
|
|
I liked the movie and all, but the music just went on, and on, and on... I realize it's a musical, but... I couldnt get over it. I'd much rather just watch the original. That said, it was still pretty drat funny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2006 04:29
|
|
|
.
dizzywhip fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Sep 8, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2006 23:33
|
|
|
Grossly over-acted, but it's a broadway musical, and so it's to be expected. If you don't go in expecting that you might be turned off immediately. My only complaint was how long some of the dance numbers went on. The songs were great, funny and catchy, but some of the dance numbers really bored me, and seemed like they could easily be cut from the theatrical version (though I've never seen the play, maybe they are already cut down?). I went in thinking Will Ferrel was going to be horrible, but he fit the role really well and I laughed more at him than anyone else. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2006 05:19
|
|
|
I didn't have a problem with the overacting by itself, but the bland staging and flat cinematography made it feel like nothing more than a filmed play. A lot of hamminess that I wished I could find funny, with a handful of moments that made me laugh so hard my face hurt. Will Ferrel was actually good in this, and I usually can't stand him. Springtime for Hitler was excellent, but the film dragged afterwards for another half an hour. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2006 05:57
|
|
|
I guess it was okay. I had the soundtrack memorized before going to see it, and I was probably spoiled by having seen the stage version twice. That being said, all the jokes that are in there to get an audience groan, or a small chuckle all died in the movie theater I was in. I mean, hell I laughed, but most people seemed to not get the quick, goofy pace that Brooks' jokes take. Lane and Broderick were excellent, as usual, and even Will Ferrell did a better job than I thought he would. Uma as Ula just did not do it for me. She looked the part, but she was missing the belty voice that is necessary for the part. It really, really felt like somebody just snuck their camera into the theater production and filmed it, then mixed it with a few shots of New York City. I wish they could have done it more like Chicago was done. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2006 11:21
|
|
|
Beautiful. I was not aware that Uma Thurman could look this good. Broderick's neuroticism was perfect, and Lane was a professional as always. And I guess I'm young enough that Will Ferrell got me, but I have to admit, he got me. Again, though, Uma shined physically, if not anything else, in this movie. She hasn't had a chance to be that elegant... well, not ever to my recollection. As a person who always found her attractive yet strange looking (like the nerdy/hot girl in high school band) I was absolutely shocked. She cleans up very very well. Loved every minute. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2006 06:28
|
|
|
Broderick channeled Gene Wilder, Lane was incredible (as always in these musical roles), Ferrell was better than expected, and Uma Thurman . . . well, she fit in the costumes. I love the original and Mel Brooks in general and saw the play last year at about this time. I thought this was a great production and some of the things others have complained about (the staging, for instance) helped it "feel" like a nice mix of Broadway and Hollywood to me, so they enhanced my experience. 5/5 (another .5 if they had cast someone other than Uma Thurman)
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2006 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
I never saw the broadway play but I have seen the original 1968 movie, and I feel the musical movie was better than the previous version. Nathan Lane was simply awesome; his facial expressions made all the humor in his character and he did it wonderfully. Matthew Broderick didn't say his lines with quite the comic delivery of Gene Wilder but he did do a good job. The songs are quite well done and don't go on too long, although the movie itself does, actually. There are a few times near the end when it just feels drawn out, but it's a great movie overall. 4.5 out of 5
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2006 08:42
|
|
