"The Producers" Movie Reviews Thread

[JasonM12480]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 11:43pm

Thought I'd be the first to launch this, since some early reviews have just come out. *Please forgive me if there is already a thread on this - I could not find one.*

This one is positive:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454368/

We already know it has garnered several Golden Globe nominations, and that Ebert & Ropert give it two thumbs up. Hope it does well at the box office upon its official release!

More reviews to be posted at a later date.

[Fan2]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 6:55am

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/374870p-318548c.html

New York Daily News

What the heil went wrong?

Thursday, December 15th, 2005

THE PRODUCERS With Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick, Uma Thurman, Will Ferrell. Director: Susan Stroman (2:14). PG-13: Sexual humor. Opens at the Ziegfeld tomorrow at midnight.
In reviewing the movie version of Mel Brooks' Broadway musical "The Producers," and considering the $12.50 ticket price established for it at the Ziegfeld, it seems best to make specific recommendations right at the start.

If you haven't seen the play, by all means, take a look. You might be amused.

But 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.

For the uninitiated, "The Producers" began as a small and wonderful 1968 movie comedy written and directed by Brooks. It starred Zero Mostel as a shady Broadway producer and Gene Wilder as a timid accountant who becomes his partner in crime.

Their scheme: Sell 1,000% of shares in a play that is so bad it will close in one night, allowing them to keep the investors' money (since nobody is likely to check the finances of a flop).

Brooks and co-writer Thomas Meehan adapted it as a Broadway musical that took home more Tonys than Elizabeth Taylor at an Italian spa.

I was lucky enough to see the stage show when it opened in April 2001, and it was the most exhilarating experience I've ever had in a theater - any theater, including those showing movies. But the film, less an adaptation than a gigantic blowup, is - in all but its musical numbers - nearly unbearable.

And some of those numbers aren't so hot.

The movie, which I heartily endorsed on hearing the news of it, fails because no one involved - not Brooks, and certainly not theater-turned-film director Susan Stroman - thought it needed anything more than a camera and a few outdoor sets to bring it to screen life.

Watching the movie is like watching the play through a pair of binoculars from the front row. Suddenly, the lovable cartoon figures of Max Bialystock (Nathan Lane) and Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick) are so close, we can see their minds racing through the script.

I worried that the theatrical voices, especially that of Foghorn Lane, would be too loud in a movie theater. But no, it's their faces that are too loud.

Stage performances simply cannot be done in closeups. But there they are, a pair of 20-foot-high mugs showing every crease and dot of spittle as Lane and Broderick run through the broad gestures that were so delightful from a distance.

The movie offers a reversal of the play's fortunes: The characters have become huge and the choreography small.

I don't know if there's ever been a more awe-inspiring moment in theater than the "Springtime for Hitler" number in the play, when a mirrored ceiling tilts down and exposes the swastika created below - Busby Berkeley-like - by the dancing storm troopers.

Stroman gives us one overhead of that swastika, then returns us to our seats to watch the original staging, and its lack of dimension on the screen makes it seem so . . . small.

Another number, where Bialystock's herd of elderly lady investors hobble into Central Park to tap-dance with their walkers, has none of the magic of what became a surprise show-stopper in the play.

With two major exceptions, the key roles are reprised by the original cast members, among whom Gary Beach - as flamboyant stage director Roger De Bris - is the lone sensation. Every moment with De Bris in the movie is an enriched version of those moments in the play.

But Lane and Broderick, as contrasted with their stage performances in my now-tainted memory, are awful. And I don't think newcomers Uma Thurman, as Swedish Amazon receptionist Ulla, and Will Ferrell, as nutty Nazi playwright Franz Liebkind, add anything special.

A final but important note: In this era of computer magic, Franz's squadron of saluting pigeons is a disgrace. They are no more realistic than the prop birds giving him the "heil Hitler" on stage, and, alas, they now fill the screen.

[ShuQ]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 7:47am

Entertainment Weekly
The Producers (C)

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/review/movie/0,6115,1140759_1_0_,00.html

Flop sweat from Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick? Impossible! Aren't these two the Laurel and Hardy, the Oscar and Felix, the Lewis and Clark of Broadway? Yet here they are in The Producers, re-creating the signature roles with which the pair first dazzled New York City almost five years ago in the award-laden musical, and I could swear the boys look damp with desperation. They strain, they bellow, they all but resort to spit takes for laughs. Is it my imagination, or can I see beads of anxious shvitzing on their cheeks as they go through the motions of their polished buddy act?

Tricky thing, the art of moving from one medium to another. In 2001, Mel Brooks adapted his own 1968 comedy classic (starring Zero Mostel of blessed memory and Gene Wilder) into a live song-and-dance circus, and now here's a movie of the musical of the movie that, like a game of telephone, doesn't convey any of Brooks' innate breezy mania. The broad busyness with which he and director Susan Stroman made the original transition from screen to stage looks positively garish now crammed back onto film. Gestures that were designed to play to an upper balcony jammed with tourists look overeager on the big screen, and despite the inclusion of a few new outdoor location shots, the ripped-from-the-stage aesthetic induces claustrophobia. Worst of all, stuff that's built for huge laughs and applause dies a thousand deaths when concluded in silence without the response of a live audience. A director at ease with the movie medium might have known how to overcome this. But the unceasingly inventive choreographer and stage maestra Stroman, so wizardly at putting on a really boffo live show, flounders as a newbie unfamiliar with the medium.

Once again, Lane plays schlock impresario Max Bialystock and Broderick is the nebbish accountant Leo Bloom, who shows up to check the books and ends up signing on as a producing partner in what he calculates ought to be a no-fail way to pocket investors' money from a surefire flop. The 'mother lode' of a bad script the two unearth is Springtime for Hitler, an affectionate singing-and-dancing ode to the fascist despot. The playwright, Franz Liebkind, is a nuts Nazi; Roger DeBris, the terrible director they pick for the job, is a swishing queen whose showbiz motto is 'Keep it gay!' And DeBris' 'common-law assistant,' Carmen Ghia, is an officious hysteric.

The production features many from the original Broadway cast, including Gary Beach as Roger and Desperate Housewives' Roger Bart as Carmen. But original is not necessarily better. Those purists who tut-tut the choice of Will Ferrell as Liebkind, or Uma Thurman as the cartoonishly breathy Swedish bombshell Ulla, a role made memorable on stage by Cady Huffman, might learn a thing or two from their ease under the camera lights. (Uma/Ulla, by the way, is a peach.)

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.

[The8re phan]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 7:56am

"....a Broadway musical that took home more Tonys than Elizabeth Taylor at an Italian spa."

best quote ever

[broadway86]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 9:21am

Dustin Putnam, http://www.ofcs.org

* (out of ****)

Having not seen the 1968 Mel Brooks comedy or his own 2001 Tony Award-winning Broadway musical adaptation, 2005's big-screen remake of "The Producers" doesn't exactly make the uninitiated feel like they've been missing out. Quite the contrary, "The Producers" is an absolute train wreck of a movie, and has arrived on the scene at the most inopportune time. The musical genre has been riding high as of late with the exuberant likes of 2001's "Moulin Rouge," 2002's "Chicago," 2004's "De-Lovely," 2004's "The Phantom of the Opera" and 2005's "Rent." Now here comes "The Producers," which simultaneously manages to once again give cinematic musicals a negative stigma while making those aforementioned films look greater than ever before. They showed what the musical genre was all about, alive with joy and sincerity and occasional transcendence, raised even higher by often brilliantly assembled soundtracks that strengthened and deepened the stories being told.

To be fair, "The Producers" is strictly comedic in tone and rather inconsequential whereas the others dealt with more serious topics. That does not excuse it, however, for being an excruciatingly flat, lame-brained and embarrassing romp through one desperately over-the-top, unfunny scene after the next. Watching the film, which is acted so loudly and broadly by its cast that it might as well have been shot entirely on a stage, you can hardly believe your eyes at the material passing for would-be comedy, much of it of the most cobweb-infested physical variety this side of the recent "Yours, Mine and Ours" debacle. "Rent," another Broadway-to-motion-picture adaptation, knew precisely how to reel back the performances of its ensemble so that it fit with more ease into the medium of film—and the transformation was seamless. "The Producers," meanwhile, does the exact opposite and begins grating on the nerves in the first five minutes. It doesn't help that the songs fall into two categories: marginally catchy mediocrity and nearly unlistenable.

After his latest Broadway musical, an awful version of "Hamlet" called "Funny Boy," instantly flops, once-great producer Max Bialystock (Nathan Lane) is at a loss for how he can see a profit like he did in his glory days. Enter astute accountant Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick), who exposes a plan so crazy it just might work: raise two million dollars for the Broadway show, make the worst, most offensive garbage imaginable, and pocket the unused money themselves when the play closes on premiere night. The source material they finally choose for their intentionally bad production is "Springtime for Hitler," written by the oddball Franz Liebkind (Will Ferrell) and billed as "a new neo-Nazi musical" concerning Adolf Hitler's rise to power and his romance with Eva Braun. Max and Leo hire people who are the most awkward fits, including swishy, effeminate director Roger De Bris (Gary Beach) and drop dead gorgeous Swedish aspiring-actress-turned-personal-secretary Ulla (Uma Thurman), and eagerly await for it to bomb as premiere night draws closer. What happens instead is a twist neither Max nor Leo could possibly predict.

"The Producers" might work okay on stage, where the experience of a live performance feeding off the audience's participation and audible reactions creates a sort of fleeting magic, but it collapses the second the same material and songs get in front of a camera. The musical numbers, unevenly sprinkled throughout (two may immediately follow each other, or be spread twenty minutes apart), are deadly dull and spiritless, and that's even with award-winning choreographer Susan Stroman sitting in the director's chair. The two exceptions are "Keep It Gay," a hilariously off-the-wall song that takes place at the home of director Roger De Bris and his "common-law assistant" Carmen Ghia (Roger Bart), and the bouncy Uma Thurman solo, "When You Got It, Flaunt It." The rest of the numbers, which are clearly trying to emulate the look and style of glitzy movie musicals from fifty years ago, are statically filmed, overlong chores to sit through, hammering home asinine information through lyrics that aren't even one-eighth as clever and amusing as they think they are.

Like "Rent," all but two of the main cast members from the original Broadway production have carried over to the film edition. Matthew Broderick (2004's "The Last Shot") and Nathan Lane (2004's "Win a Date with Tad Hamilton!") share a breezy camaraderie with each other as producer Max and accountant Leo, but their performances feel stilted and overly rehearsed. Neither has a memorable role even though they are in practically every frame. Also returning from the stage are Gary Beach and Roger Bart (2004's "The Stepford Wives") as lovers Roger and Carmen, written as such archaic stereotypes that they surpass offensive and become silly again. Save for their introductory scene (featuring one of the only funny moments as Carmen's pronunciation of the "s" sound lingers for a ludicrous amount of time), Beach and Bart are wasted. The two actors new to the world of "The Producers" are Uma Thurman (2005's "Prime"), having fun with a one-note character as Ulla, and Will Ferrell (2005's "Bewitched"), as Nazi playwright Franz Liebkin. Any picture that can make even Ferrell's appearance forgettable is in serious trouble.

"The Producers" is a dreary musical, a nearly laughless comedy, and 134 minutes that are made up of 134 minutes of padding. In the place of substance and energy is a vacuous, threadbare black hole. The production design by Mark Friedberg (2005's "Broken Flowers") and art direction by Peter Rogness (2002's "Far From Heaven") uneasily switch between obscenely fake studio backdrops and on-location New York City shooting, the abrupt change jarring in the extreme for the viewer. The cinematography by John Bailey (2005's "The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants") and Charles Minsky (2004's "Raising Helen") is unoriginal when it comes to shooting the song-and-dance numbers, but does hold a certain nostalgic attractiveness in its aesthetic mimicry of a Fred Astaire or Gene Kelly musical. This one compliment cannot save the day of "The Producers," easily the least dynamic and empty of all the screen musicals of the last decade. The dearth of genre inspiration would be downright insulting if the film as a whole wasn't such a trivial bust. Updated On: 12/15/05 at 09:21 AM

[tkts]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 9:49am

Has anyone noticed that the positive reviews seem to be from the critics that have a fondness for the old Hollywood movie musicals of the 1940's and most of the negatives seem to be from the new age group of critics who like the "Chicago" brand of musicals?

I try to avoid the "online" critics that just throw up a web site and think they are Roger Ebert. They seem to be mostly negative. Look at the major "real" critics, more positive reviews from them than negative.

[JasonM12480]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 9:53am

From "The Edge", Boston
By David Foucher

Grade: A

Link to review:

http://ofcs.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1154167/reviews.php?critic=movies&sortby=default&page=1&rid=1456130

The eminent durability of Mel Brooks' unique brand of comedy is startling - and that's an understatement of "Spaceball" proportions. As perhaps his most well-loved motion picture, "The Producers" brought together an unlikely quartet: a disreputable Broadway producer (Zero Mostel), an anxiety-ridden accountant (Gene Wilder), a buxom Swedish secretary, and a Hitler-loving playwright. The result was an instant classic whose enduring appeal led to an award-winning translation onto the Broadway stage starring Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick. In a blissful bout of perfect irony, the musical now returns to the big screen, where the two stars are joined by Uma Thurman, Will Ferrell and more stage-and-screen cameos than you can shake a four-legged walker at; the result is a whimsical, wonderful romp that's a sure-fire hit.

For fans of the film, the plot hasn't changed: producer Max Bialystock (Lane) and accountant Leo Bloom (Broderick) hatach a plan to reap the losses of a Broadway flop by overselling its investment - to succeed, they need to find the worst show ever written and stage it with the worst director ever born. They find theatrical disaster nirvana in "Springtime for Hitler," the most politically incorrect show imaginable, written by a Nazi zealot who lives on a Manhattan rooftop and talks to birds (Ferrell), and they hire the world's biggest flaming queen (Gary Beach) to direct the show. Unfortunately for the would-be Broadway rejects, the would-be disaster is hailed as a comic masterpiece, and suddenly, the promise of riches sours into the imminent prospect of prison. Can they produce their way out of that?

Who cares? It's totally hysterical either way. Nathan Lane is mreely getting better with time; with his facial expressions delivering more laughs than the rest of the cast combined, he's fast approaching the comic equivalent of a national treasure. He and Broderick are capable singers, and their chemistry together is electric; it's easy to understand the Broadway attraction that persisted for so many months as they partially channel their celluloid progenitors yet kick up the comedy a notch. Uma Thurman is clearly less comfortable with the role of Ula, but her good-natured silliness wins over the part. And Ferrelll completely shadows the earlier performances of Kenneth Mars, injecting all-new zany hilarity into "zieg heil!"

Yet - believe it or not - the runaway performances belongs to Gary Beach and Roger Bart in the role of the flamboyant director, Roger De Bris and his gay, even more flamboyant lover, Carmen Ghia. When the show's lead actor is struck down moments before th eopening curtain, Roger goes on as Hitler - and the next twenty minutes will have you howling.

That the piece works so well on film shouldn't be a shock, and yet Susan Stroman's visionary direction, particularly with musical numbers that under other circumstances might have dragged the pace of the film, reinvents the story and manages to deliver - shy of "Chicago" - the best movie musical in years. Her secret? Courage. She was not afraid of developing new visual language for the film, and of charmingly replicating sensibilities from the glorified film era of the 40's and 50's - most notable in the dancing of Broderick and Thurman in "That Face." In fact, wily aficionados of film and theatre will recognize significant homage to a multitude of period pices, along with a few unexpected faces: Debra Monk, Andrea Martin, and Jon Lovitz make priceless cameos.

In th end, of course, it's quintessential Mel Brooks. As author, composer, and lyricist of the piece, we all know who the real "Producer" is - and now, with a Broadway success to his name, Brooks has earned the title so coveted by Broderick's timid accountant. But even as the oddball comedy of this one man comes full circle and again overtakes the medium in which it was born (because it will no doubt tickle audiences anew), "The Producers" proves itself a serious contender for the hearts - and accolades - of a new generation.

[Mamie]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 10:54am

I am really chomping at the bit to see this film. Even the negative critics are making me curious about how some of the scenes have been staged. I was concerned about Stro's being picked to direct this - but there was a bigger risk that another director might take it in a completely different direction that fans of the staged musical wouldn't recognize.

I am mostly concerned about the loss of the musical's biggest cast member - the live audience. On the other hand, what's to keep the movie audience from laughing as loudly as the theatre's?

My greatest thrill is the almost universal praise of Gary's and Roger's performances. Dig deep enough in these posts and you'll find mine after seeing the previews at the St. James. I said then that the supporting actors were the real stars - with Gary Beach leading the pack. It looks like that hasn't changed!

[broadway86]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 10:59am

tkts-

Not sure who you're referring to, but I know that the critic whose review I posted is not biased towards any specific type of musical.

I also think it's unfair to assume that all online film critics are "trying to be Roger Ebert" (who, recently, gave Van Helsing *** out of four). Many of them are knowledgable film buffs/students, who would like to share their thoughts.

Posted: 12/15/05 at 11:39am

I haven't seen this movie, but the idea I'm getting from the few reviews I've read is that the "critics" are disappointed that the movie seems like a filmed version of the stage musical. They gripe that everything is broad and "staged". Well, personally----I prefer it that way. I've seen the original movie and that's fine. What I am looking forward to is seeing the stage musical preserved as closely to the performance on Broadway and if the critics are correct, this movie seems to do that. (If I want a film-like comedy with complex sets, etc., I'll rent the original---this was not meant to compete with that version, IMO)

[Billboard Girl]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 1:58pm

So far, it has a 55 on Metacritic with 10 reviews in:

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/producers2005

[SamIAm]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 2:44pm

It would seem that, sadly, many of the initial reviews (though the major reviews are, for the most part, not yet released) are from people that don't get what Brooks and Stroman were trying to do in reinventing this movie musical as an old-fashioned film with BIG takes, broad technique, rich color and in-your-face cinematography.

It is MEANT to be corny, borchst belt and vaudevillian as its roots would require. It is not a technically slick, glitzy version of the story...but something that remains true to the source material.

Either these critics aren't old enough to remember the old movie musical or they have simply not done their homework and have NO idea what this movie was meant to be.

I am anxious to see what the other major film critics think. Ebert and Roeper gave it two thumbs up and seemed in sync with what the creative team meant to accomplish.

The Daily News seemed to totally miss the concept!

[Billboard Girl]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 3:05pm

What I find interesting in the reviews for both Rent and The Producers is that a good deal of the negativity stems from the idea that the films are too faithful to the musicals. It's puzzling to me, because I think that being faithful to the source material is a good thing - I typically dread hearing that one of my favorite books will be made into a movie because I can already imagine all of the ill-advised differences that will detract from my enjoyment of the film.

[colbol2005]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 3:28pm

I saw it, and although it does preserve the broadway cast, it is leaden. I am loath to say this by the way.

It needed to keep the cast and lose the director. It was truly disappointing. Stro cannot direct movies. Things that should have been exhilerating were dreary.

I am going to see it again as the sound system i saw it on was terrible(please let me know if a good one makes a difference in this case), but truly I was so dissapointed. I wanted to see a movie of the show, and I got a replica of the stage version, which, sadly doesn't work on film. Agreed, for someone like me, who loves the stage, this sounds like heaven, but, trust me, it wasn't.

Go and see it for yourselves and discuss. I was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO disappointed; i got a bigger kick out of Phantom. At least it was a movie.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 6:46pm

NY Times review is out.

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/movies/16prod.html

They hated it.

[Marquise]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 6:48pm

Oh wow The Times loved RENT and they pooh-poohed THE PRODUCERS.
In-terre-stink!

[Mamie]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 6:55pm

I don't just think the critic hated it - it reads to me like he hated the musical too. In fact, if I'm reading it correctly, he doesn't think much of musical theatre as a whole.

[Marquise]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 6:57pm

"So it may take a faithful rendering on-screen to reveal the real essence of "The Producers" in its musical incarnation - its vulgarity, its cynicism, its utter lack of taste, charm or wit."

Ouch! That hurt!


And Uma, who wasn't even in the original show walked away with the only praise:

"She, however, is the one bit of genuine radiance in this aggressively and pointlessly shiny, noisy spectacle. As Ulla, the long-stemmed receptionist, would-be actress and apple of Bloom's eye, she alone turns a tired joke into good, crazy fun.

In-terre-STINK

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 7:17pm

"So it may take a faithful rendering on-screen to reveal the real essence of "The Producers" in its musical incarnation - its vulgarity, its cynicism, its utter lack of taste, charm or wit."

True.

"Or failing that, that Mr. Broderick could dry off enough to function as an interesting foil, rather than as a flailing, hysterical ninny."

True too.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 8:34pm

Quotes from the NY News review

If you have seen the play, treasure the memory & protect it. The movie will attcak it like a virus

Another number, where Bialystocks herd of elderly lady investors hobble into central park to tap dance with their walkers has none of the magic of what became a surprise show stopper of the show

Lane & Broderick are awful.

In this era of computer magic. Franz's squadron of pigons is a disgrace.

Definitely will wait for cable

[morosco]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 9:55pm

Will it be out on DVD by the 25th?

[crzyrocket]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 10:18pm

One would think that with the Golden Globe nominations there'd be more positive reviews from the "big" guys. Not that nominations necessarily mean anything, but still. This may sound blasphemous coming from a Producers fan...but with these reviews, it seems strange that it would garner 4 nominations (tied with Good Night, and Good Luck and Match Point for second highest number of nominations) while Rent was left with none.

Posted: 12/16/05 at 9:59am

I am going to be very happy whenever I read a positive review of The Producers movie, and I'm not going to pay attention when anyone gives it a negative review. I went to a screening and loved the film. I have really missed movie musicals. The audience was laughing hysterically and everyone sat through the end credits (as instructed by Mel Brooks!) One thing I admit: Yes, the direction could have been better. But it is what it is, and it's funny and entertaining.

[crzyrocket]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:41am

Broadwayworld:
https://www.broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=6414

TheaterMania
https://www.theatermania.com/content/news.cfm/story/7318

They're both nice reviews coming from theatre people rather than movie people. I'm definitely interested in seeing what Broadway.com and Playbill think.

[JasonM12480]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 11:23am

Another favorable review, from CNN.

Link to review:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/16/review.producers/index.html

(CNN) -- It's impossible to imagine any movie getting as much advance publicity as Mel Brooks' "The Producers."

Anyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows that the original film "The Producers," written and directed by Mel Brooks in 1968, moved to Broadway in 2001 as a musical and won a record 12 Tony Awards. You couldn't turn on your TV or read a newspaper without a mention of this phenomenal production.

Susan Stroman is making her film debut as a director by returning this movie to the big screen, but this time out it's based on the Broadway musical she directed with such success.

Shot at the new state-of-the-art film facility at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, Stroman has stayed so close to her Broadway version she might as well have dragged the proscenium arch along with her across the Brooklyn Bridge.

With the exception of a scene in Central Park and a musical number on Fifth Avenue -- along with a close-up here and there -- this production is so stagy it feels like the camera was placed in the middle of the theater's third row and just turned on.

This is good, or bad, depending on how you want to look at it -- a ticket to the Broadway production (which is still running) is around 100 bucks and your average movie ticket is now about $12. What a bargain! You could also wait for the DVD, which will really be a deal.

I'm not saying the film isn't funny -- it is -- and if you love Mel Brooks -- and I do (although "Blazing Saddles" and "Young Frankenstein," not the "Producers," are my favorites) -- you'll probably enjoy this flick, which is pure Brooks from start to finish.

The comedy is extremely broad. Every joke is telegraphed so well it would make Western Union proud, and every old Borscht Belt drummer is aching to hit a rim shot after every line.

Most of the main cast remains in place, with Matthew Broderick playing the neurotic accountant Leo Bloom and Nathan Lane back as the desperate Broadway producer (who preys on little old ladies to finance his shows), Max Bialystock. Gary Beach once again dons a sequined gown as the cross-dressing director, Roger De Bris, and Roger Bart, his common-in-law assistant, Carmen Ghia, prances across the screen right on cue.

There are two main additions to the film. Uma Thurman -- a mother of two who has a body most women would kill for -- plays Ulla, the bombshell Swedish actress. She lights up the screen when singing "When You've Got It, Flaunt It." Will Ferrell is delightful as playwright Franz Liebkind, who wrote the musical as an ode to his hero, Adolph Hitler.

The basic premise, for those two or three people out there who don't know, is that Bloom -- in an offhand remark -- tells Bialystock that if he produced a play that closed on opening night, he could oversell shares to the backers of the production and make millions of dollars when the play tanked. Bialystock talks a reluctant Bloom into being his partner and soon they find the perfect bomb, "Springtime for Hitler."

Sitting in the theater watching this film almost felt like being at one of those late-night screenings of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show," where the audience sings along with their favorite songs. I almost found myself belting out a couple of the tunes, but thankfully I was able to restrain myself.

Broderick and Lane know this material so well, they could have phoned it in, but to their credit they both give it their all.

Brooks, and all the other main players in the production, decided to make this Broadway musical into a film because they wanted it on film for posterity.

They succeeded. It's now on film forever and ever, along with their purposely over-the-top performances.

There's just one little problem --- this isn't a movie. It's a Broadway musical captured on film.