(2005)

Critic Reviews

52

Metascore

Based on 37 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com
75
It was fun, it was funny, it was alive.
75
Susan Stroman directed the show on Broadway and what she has done here is photograph that show -- no more, no less. This is good news for anyone who couldn't afford a trip to New York and $100 tickets, but it's a fairly odd approach to cinema.
75
Premiere
Once you drink The Producers' Kool-Aid, it's a thoroughly enjoyable descent into madness.
63
Enough is enough. Somebody should just stop remaking The Producers.
50
Entertainment Weekly
The accountant in Bloom would probably approve of the new Producers: It's an efficient extension of a popular brand. In theory, what's not to like? In reality, the whole schmear.
50
Stroman should have studied the original Producers that Brooks directed in 1968, with Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder. It answers the question "Where did they go right?"
50
Most of the bits and performances have a hard time making the transition from stage to screen.
50
New York Daily News
If you have seen the play, especially if you've seen it with the original cast, treasure the memory and protect it. The movie will attack it like a virus.
50
The Hollywood Reporter
The best two performances belong to Uma Thurman and Will Ferrell. For the film to work, though, the two best roles should belong to Tony-winning Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick in the title roles.
50
Miami Herald
The chemistry is intact, but performances that were reaching-for-the-balcony big on Broadway haven't been scaled back a bit for a more intimate, up-close medium.
20
Wall Street Journal
The Producers is nightmarish, in its febrile way, a head-bangingly primitive version of an overrated Broadway show that grew out of a clumsy 1968 movie with an inflated reputation.

More Critic Reviews

See all external reviews for The Producers (2005) »

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Reviews | User Ratings | External Reviews | Message Board