The Producers (2005) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
415 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
My Review
bschneid7628 December 2005
The Producers (2005) **** Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick, Uma Thurman, Will Farrell, Gary Beach, Roger Bart Dir. Susan Stroman

I don't think the critics know what they are talking about. This movie rocked! It took me back to the old days of movie musicals. You know, the Bugsby Berkley years, big and flashy with hum able songs. Based on the 1968 film starring Zero Maestel and Gene Wilder, and the smash hit on Broadway, the story of a failing Producer named Max Bialystock who has just had the worst show in town close called Funny Boy, a musical version of Hamlet. Distraught he runs into accountant Leo Bloom who comes up with the notion that you can make more money with a flop than with a hit. Max overjoyed to hear such wonderful news lays it all out. Step 1. They find the worst play ever written, the "mother lode" as Max calls it when he comes across Springtime for Hitler, written by neo-nazi Franz Liebkind. Step 2. Hire the worst director, a prime and proper gay man named Roger Debris who wants to keep everything gay! Step 3. Raise 2 million dollars from Max's backers: harmless little old ladies looking for a last roll in the hay. Step 4 Open on Broadway and before you can say step 5 they close and run off to Rio. All goes well until Springtime for Hitler becomes a success leaving Leo and Max in the dust.

People have been comparing it to the original, which sure it has some of the same lines, and the story is the same, but both shows have something different to offer. You get songs in this version that you don't get in the original. Nathan Lane tears up the screen and will have you in stitches as Max; his show stopping number "Betrayed" will have you applauding. Matthew Broderick is also very good as Leo who can't grab life by the balls and go. He sings "I Wanna Be A Producer" with such gusto and dances with Ms. Uma Thurman, who is amazing as Ulla, and their dance number has sheds of the old Astaire and Rogers's musicals of the 30s.

Also excellent, are Will Farrell as the Nazi who speaks to his birds and Gary Beach and Roger Bart as Roger De Bris and Carmen Ghia they gay "couple" who want to put Springtime for Hitler on the stage, both stand out in the cast, and both played the roles on Broadway. Other familiar faces you will see are Jon Lovitz as Leo's accounting firms boss, Michael McKean as one of the prisoners and Richard Kind as the Jury Foreman who took over in the Nathan Lane role on the stage.

Susan Stroman doesn't make the camera cuts flashy, they are simple, which makes it more enjoyable to watch the dance numbers, from the opening number to the hilarious "Along Came Bialy" when the old ladies do a dance break with walkers, to "Keep it Gay" to the uproarious Springtime for Hitler number. The best-staged number was probably "I Wanna Be A Producer" as it has shades from the 30s mixed with modern day. It was wonderful! If you listen to some critics who choose to say "this film show inexperience" or "not as good as the original" you are missing a terrific movie musical that is just as good as Chicago! Plus Mel Brooks was also standing there at the helm with Ms. Stroman. Be advised to stay until the very end of the credits to view something special! Bravo!
101 out of 149 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Springtime is delightful, in Germany (and for the audience)
philip-ct19 March 2006
What a fantastic surprise. I've seen Luke-warm reviews about this film, largely saying that the theatrical basis (the Broadway show) is oh-so-evident. Well, in my opinion, this is one of the film's strengths. It's a well-intentioned performance and is close enough to the original Producers, and so unlike it, that the musical remake is justified.

I love musicals, especially musical comedy. This film is a sop to the musical comedy, with good performances from the leads, and Uma Thurman and Will Ferrell, who all appear to be enjoying themselves.

The central (staged) number "Springtime for Hitler" is brilliantly choreographed, with suitably outrageous costumes. Gary Beach as a brilliantly camp Hitler completes this excellent scene. And the bratwurst!! The editing in this sequence - camera panning to the gob-smacked audience is brilliant. This is a film that salutes and spoofs musicals. It's an absolute delight
39 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Felt like being on Broadway
pbc47479 December 2005
What an Excellent film! I went to an advance screening and left with my jaw aching from all the laughing and grinning.

At first, it felt the film was just the play in front of the camera, but the style eventually worked, turning the movie audience into a Broadway audience. At times, the director took the actors outside almost as a fun way of saying "see? with a camera, we can now move around!" Nonetheless, by the time we get to the most famous musical number, the audience was applauding and cheering after each song. During the credits, it felt like a curtain call with applauds for each actor.

So much fun and very deserving of the name Mel Brooks this film is great for the holidays (with the more adult jokes being concealed in song, and only minor swearing) older children and teenagers should get a kick out of this fast paced, fun, and very memorable film.

Also, just a bit of advice: stay until the end of the credits.
153 out of 245 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Total disaster on toast
nataloff-114 June 2009
Nothing is more arrogant than a film that assumes it's going to be a hit before it even goes into production. Such a disaster is this musical remake of "The Producers." Stagebound, presentational instead of reactive, and more leaden than an Iron Cross, it betrays everything about the 1968 classic -- not to mention raising questions how anything this klunky could ever work, must less be a hit, on the Broadway stage. Reportedly, Mel Brooks was distracted during filming by his wife's illness and death, and that director Susan Stroman didn't have the clout to override his in absentia presence. Never mind that the new third act ending betrays the first two. Never mind that Lane and Broderick never develop the father-son relationship that Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder did, and which drove the story. Never mind that the musical numbers are not only forgettable, but extraneous. Never mind that the 11 o'clock number is over by 10:59. Never mind that Nathan Lane is made up to look like a Hirschfeld drawing. Never mind that Matthew Broderick is a human marshmallow. Mever mind that Uma Thurman sucks the energy out of movies that she's not even in. Never mind that -- oh, never mind. Like a dumb horror movie where the girl heads up to the attic and you know the monster's there waiting for her but she goes up anyway, "The Producers" is its own train wreck, devoid of any sense of self-awareness, let alone the major one: that it needs an audience.
19 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Sparkling Surprises
marcosaguado22 December 2005
Much better than anyone had the right to expect. Lane and Broderick are superb. Even moving. Look what I'm saying, moving. I mean it. Their commitment is contagious. The comedy in itself is shamelessly anachronistic. The gay jokes belong to the period in which the original Producers were conceived. The tone is consistent with that period, the film happens at an incredible pace and you smile from beginning to end. How marvelous to see Matthew Broderick dance. This is an actor who never had an Academy Award nomination and his performances have always been top notch and his range runs the famous gamut from A to Z. What a courageous actor. I couldn't believe he could get away with the "I'm in pain! I'm wet and I'm still hysterical" scene without making me miss Gene Wilder but he did. Nathan Lane is a force of nature. His Max is very much a tribute to Zero Mostel, especially to his hair but this Max is Nathan Lane through and through. Uma Thurman is a delight and I had a great time at the movies. What else do you want out of life.
117 out of 192 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A pleasant surprise
mcolburn1 January 2006
After reading critics' reviews I thought twice about seeing this film. But I needn't have worried as this was fantastic entertainment. I don't seem to care that the director has kept the stagy sets and took a literal approach to adapting a stage musical for the big screen. It was a fun time from beginning to end.

While his portrayal of Leo Bloom was too much like Gene Wilder's, Matthew Broderick was simply divine when dancing. Indeed it was an interesting to see the top half of his body so still and rigid while his legs and feet were moving with such poise and grace. Nathan Lane never seems to disappoint, he is simply brilliant. His physical resemblance to Zero Mostel is obvious but the mannerisms are all his own. Uma Thurman is good as Ula and Will Ferrell rediscovers his funny.

I didn't even mind the over-the-stop stereotypes. Gary Beach and Roger Bart are screamingly funny. Springtime for Hitler is the best part of the show and nice to see John Barrowman giving it his all as the blond Nazi.

If you want to be entertained for a few hours then this is the movie to go see, don't let the critics put you off!
52 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It's Springtime For Hitler Again!
EmperorNortonII17 January 2006
First, there was Mel Brooks' clever movie "The Producers." That got adapted into a Tony-winning stage musical. Then the musical became adapted into a movie. This hilarious spectacle is sure to please! Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick return as Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom, the same roles they made famous on Broadway. Lane is a riot, channeling Zero Mostel's bombastic character. Meanwhile, Broderick surprises as he does a decent take on Gene Wilder's original hysterical act. Will Ferrell scores laughs as Nazi playwright Franz Liebkind, and Uma Thurman puts in a good song and dance as Swedish sexpot Ulla. The movie perfectly catches the style of the old-fashioned musical, with a large serving of slapstick. This snappy production is sure to be a hit with everyone!
63 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Surprisingly Disappointing
misterphilco14 October 2006
I am a huge fan of the original movie and had the pleasure of seeing the wonderful Broadway show in 2003, so I was more than expecting to love this remake. Unfortunately it didn't live-up to my expectations on a number of fronts.

Most fundamentally, it seemed more of a cinematic rendering of the stage show than a remake of the movie - the problem is that it utterly lacks the charm of the 1968 film, and fails to capture the excitement and energy of the show. This is not to do with the actors, who all put in great performances and do the best job possible with their roles. Though, I wonder if it was a good idea to keep the leads from Broadway - playing a part on stage is very different from doing the same thing in a movie. This is at the heart of what is wrong with this movie - it is trying to be cinematic and theatrical at the same time.

Also, they have cut some of the funniest scenes and changed some of the best lines from the original. Why, I wonder? For example, the first encounter between Max and Leo in the original movie is hilarious and dramatic - a magnificent opening set-piece, with drama, humour and conflict. In this version, Leo just knocks on the door and introduces himself. Bit of a damp squib, really.

Overall, I am not sure what to make of this movie. I would probably have enjoyed it more if I had not seen the original. But not much.
22 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
joel9344225 May 2006
I just watched the remake of THE PRODUCERS. I am left speechless. Who, in their right mind would even attempt such a silly idea? I watch the original periodically and still laugh a lot, but this thing is ridiculous. I saw the play in London this year and found it wonderful. The acting superb, staging brilliant etc. I am a fan of both Nathan Lane and Mathew Broderick and can't understand how they allowed themselves to be so miscast. As far as Will Ferrell trying to do Kenneth Mars' part, it's laughable(and not in a good way). Anyway, if you want to see how funny something can be go get the original because it's arguably the funniest film ever made.
15 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
just fantastic
frank3807 January 2006
If i could give it an 11 out of a possible 10 I would give it that... the entire production was wonderful.. i would watch it again...and that is something i do only with very few movies. Nathan Lane steals the show with his wonderful performance. The performance by the actor portraying the gay director is a model of what a supporting actor should be.

The scene showing the actual production of the play was a masterpiece and only Mel Brooks could do it justice.

Uma Thurman gives a stellar performance and almost steals the show.

I can not say enough good things about this movie.
56 out of 103 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
not for everyone
toadwriter22 April 2011
This is one of the few films I have tossed in the trash after I finished watching it.

If you like over-acting, flamboyance, Broadway on the silver screen, and people trying hard to be funny, but coming off as obnoxious, desperate, and overall plain stupid, then you will like this.

I honestly do not see what humor people are finding in this, and it's not that I don't get it. I loved Broderick in Ferris Bueller's Day off, that's a classic, but he is excruciating to watch in this.

Between the cross-dressing, ridiculous costumes, terrible over-the-top acting, horrible singing, and terrible songs, I found this film incredibly offensive and a complete waste of time.

I honestly would put this in the bottom 10 films I've ever seen in my life, and that's not an easy task to pull off.
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Am I missing Something?
cousincreep10 June 2006
My father adored the original Zero Mostel/Gene Wilder version of The Producers, he used to watch it regularly when I was growing up and that rubbed off on me. When I first saw Mel Brooks 'The Producers' I thought it was a stage play adapted into a movie not the other way round that it became. While I never saw the Broadway revival of 'The Producers' I did 'try' to watch the 2005 version of the 'Producers' on DVD. If you have never seen the original 1968 version and have only seen the 2005 version then of course the 2005 version is going to be funny. If you have seen the original, then you notice just how little effort the actors made other than giving pale imitation of the Zero Mostel/Gene Wilder blue print that makes the 2005 version look like an overacted summer pantomime. I could only go 15 minutes before turning it off in disgust.
29 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Zero Would Be Proud
phillipstephenso19 December 2005
Mel Brooks, the comic genius of the late twentieth century, comes off great with this new production of his classic musical. Nathan Lane is a wonderful and wacky producer who rescues Matthew Broderick from a life of accounting boredom and makes him his understudy. They scheme to put on the biggest flop ever so they can close after one day and flee to Rio with the sponsors' $2 million. Of course, things don't turn out as they plan. Along the way, Uma Thurman displays her considerable charms along with a host of fine dancers and singers, from Neo-Nazis to Sing Sing prisoners to drag queens in full costume. Mel Brooks really knew how to brighten the day among the gloomy tedium of more sober folks who were trying to save the world or just merely trying to make a living. So here is another tipsy triumph of the master, beautifully realized and sung and danced by this splendid cast of multi-talented actors and actresses.
49 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Noisy Mess
qormi1 January 2007
The 1968 version of "The Producers" with Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder was hilarious. It was one of the all-time funniest comedies to hit the big screen. The 2005 version, however, is gratingly awful. The idea to set this comedy to a musical format was obviously very successful on Broadway. It certainly failed to transition to film. All of the songs seemed annoyingly unoriginal; as if someone put dumb rhymes and monotonous tunes together. Each song was painful to watch and hear and they were all completely forgettable. Matthew Broaderick, in the opening sequences, did a pretty good impersonation of Gene Wilder - line for line, that is. Remakes should show a little more originality and, anyway, Gene Wilder he's not. The same can be said for Nathan Lane - a pretty good impression of Zero Mostel - as if these actors viewed the tape of this movie a hundred times until they got it down. Big deal. Will Ferrell was atrocious as the crazed Nazi. It was as if he did a workshop on overacting. He was more over the top than Dolly Parton in a turtleneck. Uma Thurmon's character was unnecessary and should have been left out. The happy ending lacked the humor of the original. The whole movie seemed like a loud, amateurish wreck. Even the joke Lane made towards the end about someone else's life flashing before his eyes was stolen from an old Woody Allen joke. El Stinkeroo.
17 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Scratching my head
Rolo Tomassi29 December 2005
Maybe it's because I'm European. That must be it. It's a cultural thing. Only genuine Americans can really appreciate this movie to the fullest extent. Or maybe it's an age thing. Grandpas and grandmas seemed to be laughing the loudest in this Texan theater. I don't know. I'm honestly having trouble understanding it. This movie stinks. From beginning to end. Fresh and exciting? Try dull and outdated. Hilarious? Nope: old folks humor. Maybe smart and full of twists? I'd wish. And yet, a score of 7.3 on this site? People laughing out loud in the theater (at first I thought it was ironic in "jeez this movie sucks" (I joined them a few times), but it lasted for the full hour and a half)? Life is full of surprises.
16 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This definitely was one of the worse movies to date
jreinhardt-15 January 2007
I had always heard great things about this movie & tried to watch it for myself. Unfortunately I couldn't get through the first hour. My husband and I sat for the night to watch a great comedy & instead looked at each other after the first 1/2 hour & said "This was critically acclaimed on Broadway?" But let me digress for a minute. Nathan Lane is a brilliant comedian, I've always liked his performances. He does do a good job here but some of the scenes just fall short. Maybe it works on the stage but not on the big screen. Matthew Broderick totally overacts - his performance is only irritating. I believe he forgot he wasn't on stage. His huge musical number in the Accounting office was way too long - we turned the channel & watched another show when it went on & on. I wanted to be able to reach into the television & slap him. Then we get to Will Ferrell - who generally overacts so I was used to it. This was the reason we kept watching because we are Will Ferrell fans. However, there was no chemistry between the characters. Stick to Broadway & the stage - please don't do this again.
19 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Oh My God!!!
niteman-327 March 2006
My brother and I saw this movie the other day. The only reason we laughed was because it is the worst movie we have ever seen!

There was one scene when Nathan Lane (Max Bialystock) told the history that had happened in the movie. This scene should have been the first one of the movie and everyone who watches the movie can saved about an hour of their life. The movie is way to long, after 15 minutes my brother and looked at each other and thought about leaving to watch another movie instead.

Afterwards we understood why there were only six people in the movie theater, including me and my brother!

Mel Brooks has really disappointed me this time, he used to make great movies!

I'm never going to look at the rating movies get on IMDb anymore!
12 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not good, not bad, just... boring.
ticattacka31 January 2006
A movie written by Mel Brooks, starring Nathan Lane. How could this be a miserable, boring, snooze-fest? You got me, but it was.

I rarely go to see movies. I just got back from this one, literally walked in the house ten minutes ago. It wasn't a good movie. It wasn't an especially bad movie. If I had hated it, I would have given it a higher score. If a movie can evoke an emotion like hatred in you, they've done something special. This just left me bored.

There have been perhaps half a dozen movies in the last twelve months that I have wanted to see. This was one of them. Mel Brooks and Nathan Lane would have been more than enough to get me there. What I got was disappointment. My entire family went to see it, and we got about three chuckles each. It wasn't the Hitler thing, indeed, that was one of my three chuckles. It was just... flat.

Matthew Broderick was the wrong choice. His singing voice is quite good, which was a pleasant surprise, but still... just not the right choice. His facial expressions were a constant source of aggravation, wide-eyed and simply not fitting the scene, and his acting was overdone. Yes, that was likely the point, but he couldn't do it well. Someone like Jim Carrey or Adam Sandler makes overdoing it an art form, but Broderick couldn't do that (Please note that I'm not saying Jim Carrey or Adam Sandler could have done better in this role, merely that they do that style of acting well, whereas Matthew Broderick didn't). And the scene where he is going hysterical? Painful. With a capital P, and a large number of exclamation marks.

Nathan Lane was amusing, but somehow even he didn't manage to save this from the clutches of boredom. Such a pity, as everything else I have seen him in has been brilliant, but this... Just unfortunate.

Uma Thurman was as good as her role would allow. There's only so much you can do with a Swedish accent and revealing clothing.

Will Ferrel as Franz Liebkind the neo-Nazi playwright was probably the most amusing, possibly rivalled only by Gary Beach as Roger DeBris and Roger Bart as his "Common law assistant". These three where probably the only consistent source of laughter, and the cause of the other two times I cracked a smile.

The musical numbers went on for just that touch too long. If each had been a verse or two shorter, they would have been perfect.

The Hitler thing didn't offend me in the least. Actually, I lied when I said I chuckled three times. I did chuckle a few times during their opening night, but I didn't laugh once.

The theatre was silent, save for the movie itself. No, actually, a phone rang, once, and I think someone was playing brick on their phone. Oh, and the door squeaked as someone came in with popcorn.

We came out distinctly disappointed. The phrase that came to mind was "Waste of money". It may well have been better on the stage, but... this was just a flat, boring, unfunny mess.

If you're considering seeing it, don't. Wait a few years until you can rent it for a week for $3. That way, you'll lessen the money you waste.
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Producers 2005 a Pale Ghost of Producers 1968
swohtz2 January 2006
Where have all the writers gone? Even the great Mel Brooks has fallen prey to the Remake Disorder that has been destroying Hollywood for the past few years. Comparing the work of Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick and Will Ferrell in this film to the brilliantly hysterical performances of Zero Mostel, Gene Wilder and Kenneth Mars in the original movie is like saying that apples are an apropos metaphor for describing elephants. This movie doesn't work and its existence in the theaters (hopefully not for too long) is a masochistic slap in the face at the very best film that Mel Brooks ever crafted. Save your money and stay home, or better yet, send it to me!
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Did I miss something?
dramatic_twist14 October 2006
I cannot understand the large number of raving-reviews regarding the Producers (2005). I sat through 3/4 of this wondering when I was going to start laughing at this "halarious" film. I couldn't get to the end of this movie.

The musical aspect of this play was perhaps the biggest spoiler, while the songs were clearly supposed to be entertaining they were instead irritating and the lyrics seemed to resemble something along the lines of particularly unoriginal.

And as someone else stated: "the Hitler scenes are, as the initial "audience" said, tasteless."
18 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A movie Must-See
Kisstina2122 May 2006
This movie will definitely make you roar with laughter. This movie proves that Nathan Lane never fails at being funny. This movie also brings out the musical talent in Broderick and Thurman. An A++ movie in my book. A movie by Mel Brooks guarantees a good chuckle. I never saw the show on Broadway and I'm sure it's just as good as the movie. The music and lyrics are great (some are really funny) There wasn't a dull moment in the whole 134 minutes. Even if you're not a fan of musicals, this movie will definitely keep you entertained. Will Ferrell is really funny, Uma shines through and Broderick and Lane make a great pair for this movie there's even 20 minutes of hilarious outtakes on the DVD.
27 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great Family Movie
jparkey30 November 2005
I attended an advance screening this week with my twelve year old son, ten year old daughter, a co-worker and her husband. I found the movie was able to keep the five of us laughing and involved. For a musical comedy to entertain such a broad spectrum of ages and interests, that has to be a pretty good movie! There were only a couple of scenes that touched on risqué topics or concepts but luckily, my ten year old was clueless and had no idea a taboo topic was introduced. Two scenes I felt could have been cut a little shorter without taking away from the message but otherwise, I spent two hours laughing and enjoying a truly great musical-comedy which was totally unexpected!
42 out of 88 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An Incredibly Fun Time!
juventino_italiano29 November 2005
I was fortunate enough to see this movie at an advance screening. What can i say?? I will try not to give a biased opinion because i am a great fan of musicals, i really enjoyed the Pahntom of the Opera. This movie is different. It is different because it is a comedy.

First of all, Mel Brooks is a very talented comedian, he is a very talented producer, writer, songwriter, etc.. He's style is very much this movie. The acting was overall good, Broderick was somewhat lacking, but his dance numbers and singing kind of made up for it. Uma Thurman did a good job, her singing was acceptable, all in all she really could be a possibility for an Oscar nomination, Will Ferrell was good also, and since he hasn't really ever had a great performance (apart from possibly elf), this is his best movie performance yet. Now on to Nathan Lane, who really really is the star of this movie and he proves it, with a great comedic performance, great singing, he too was good enough for the Oscar nomination at least i feel.

Apart from some camera problems, the music is catchy and fun, the movie is a laughing riot, everyone performed very well. And i can safely say this is a lock for Gloden Globe for best musical or comedy.

I'm still unsure of how critics will respond to this. The response to Phantom were very mixed, more bad than good, yet the public seemed to had liked it. Yet, even the Phantom stage show at first did not get critical acclaim as many thought it cheesy. While the Producers stage show did get much critical acclaim, and this could be a good sign for this great film!

After a year of pure crap, finally some light at the end of the tunnel... Highly recommended!! Go see this! Enjoy it! Laugh! Have a great time! I will be definitely seeing this again!
35 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
honestly surprised it was so bad
notapepper4 June 2006
I like musicals; I love Nathan Lane and like pretty much every other actor in this; I thought the original movie was funny but didn't remember it that well. I really thought that I was going to enjoy this version of "The Producers" but man, oh man, I didn't even crack a smile during the agonizing 2 hours of this movie. The acting is overdone, and it looks like they just filmed it on a theater stage (and not in a good way, like Chicago) which was really distracting. The songs were OK, but every new musical number just made me impatient for the movie to end already. I don't know why Matthew Broderick did such a terrible job; he's usually a good actor, but he was SO FAKE! I couldn't stand it when he pretended to be anxious. And Will Ferrell--ugh! Nothing was funny. The only reason I would give it 2 stars instead of one is that I think if I didn't already know how the story went, I might have thought the premise was interesting. But yeah... nobody needs to be watching this instead of the original.
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Don't be snobby, be a smarty, dis those critics & join the Mel Brooks party!
Brookslyn11 December 2005
I had really high expectations going into the movie. As a fan of Mel Brooks, the original film and the Chicago & NY productions, I went into the screening with the mindset of comparing/contrasting it to the other experiences that I enjoyed so much. What to expect? A feel good movie? A theater production? I couldn't classify it right away. It gave me the same feelings as other Brook's movies (yes, the extremely funny, the hooky, the grimace, the etc...) and had elements of a Broadway musical, yet something was different. Once the story got rolling I quickly stopped analyzing and started to really have a good time. Unlike the theater, movie houses usually are very impersonal... yet this movie was able to get the audience involved. It started with a chuckle here and there and then some folks started bursting out in hysterical laughter. From then on people let their defenses down and I think that's the key to enjoying the movie. If it makes you laugh, don't be afraid to just laugh out loud. Laughter is contagious and the movie experience is too... heck, be the catalyst! The performances were all very good... Nathan especially. I wonder how many people will see this and think... wow, that Nathan Lane can sing! It would have been fun to see Cady & Brad in their original roles... but Uma & Will did a good job and definitely have more Hollywood power.

After leaving the theater I realized that maybe what I just experienced was a genuinely fun musical movie, the likes of which I had never experienced growing up... a throw back to the 'ol Singing in the Rain style musicals. I'm sure that there will be many in depth comparisons/reviews of the film after its wider release.

All in all, if you're looking for a fun time this is a great movie for everyone, except pre-adolescent kids... unless you want to teach them a bit about life early on. Oh yeah, if you have a fun time, just like waiting for the curtain call in a live theater, you should sit through the credits... a lot of time and love has gone into the experience that is "The Producers," and everyone that worked on it should be recognized.

9/10 with a single star reserved for all the behind the scenes and extra features that will hopefully appear on the home release.

Here's to Mel! And always, thanks for all the laughs.

PS - If you can't get enough after seeing the movie you should check out the original Movie, The Broadway Production & Curb Your Enthusiasm Season 4. If you want to know more about Mel, a great book is "The Big Screen Comedies of Mel Brooks" by Robert Crick.
32 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews