So I saw the Producers last night..- Page 2

[Danielm]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 4:41pm

I guess we'll have to disagree on this. Rent felt shallow to me and seemed to take itself soooo seriously. It felt like a really long U2 video. I enjoyed it but I think Producers is a better--or at least more enjoyable movie, and my experience with the audience backs up my feeling. The audience when I saw Rent, other than a few rent-heads who were crying and reacting to things before they happened, the audience when I saw Rent was pretty quiet.

Updated On: 12/29/05 at 04:41 PM

[Mamie]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 5:02pm

I just got back from "The Producers". My experience was very much comparable to Danielm's. There were probably 75-100 people there (in a fairly large theatre) and none left. I commented to someone before going to the show that I was sure I was going to miss the audience reactions to the jokes and the songs. I didn't - because they were there. The audience was laughing out loud and applauding all through the show. Overall, I loved it and can't wait for the DVD. I get the VERY strong impression by a lot of posters here that they're a little miffed that RENT is no longer playing in any of the theatres and that "THE PRODUCERS" has taken it's place. Well, get over it. I have nothing against RENT, the play, but RENT the movie just wasn't good.

Some PRODUCERS pros and cons:

- "I Wanna Be a Producer" was incredible. I started to get a little concerned when a few too many showgirls showed up, but it all worked together beautifully. Great production, Stro!

- "Keep it Gay" and "Along Came Bialy" were a little bit of a disappointment. They both felt a little deflated when compared with the stage show.

- "Springtime For Hitler" was another home run. I LOVED it! Apparently everybody else in the theatre did too. Lots of laughter all through it (thank you Gary B.!) and a big applause at the end. The only negative for me was John Barrowman instead of Eric Gunhus. His voice isn't half as good and whoever decided to make this change should be fined.

- "That Face",..... I just had a hard time getting used to Matthew's singing to the camera. I understand why they did it - I just don't care for it.

- "Betrayed" - BRILLIANT! Numbers like that make me think that Nathan Lane can do no wrong.

- Will Farrell was good but when he sang, he made me miss Brad Oscar. I wanted that cab driver to come back!

- Uma T. - was a major disappointment. I wanted Cady back so much. Or anybody who could sing and dance. Uma couldn't.

It was great seeing so many familiar faces. I got excited when Karen Ziemba showed up and I wish I were faster at recognizing others. Like I said, I can't wait for the DVD!

[sanda]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 6:18pm

It amuzes me that people like to assume "special reason" when you don't agree with them. What this "rent fans" thing to do with my disliking about another movie? I don't like "the producers" movie simply because I don't like it. It is nothing to do with I wish it bad, or I hate its success (which I doubt at this point) over rent movie.

I am not a rent fan. I prefer "the producers" the show more than "rent" the show. But for the movie, I think "rent" did a better job, same as "POTO" better than "Producers", "Chicago" better than "Producers".

I wish every musical movie succeed. I spend my own money to watch every one of them no matter how bad the critic said. Why should my itention be doubted simply because I think the movie is bad?

[Tag]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 6:18pm

The only thing I was thinking when I left the movie theatre is why didn't they just film the musical on stage? It was exactly the same!
Updated On: 12/29/05 at 06:18 PM

[sanda]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 6:20pm

It wasn't the same. If they only film the show on stage, it will be a lot funnier and less lamer.

[YankeeGal#24]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 7:14pm

Just came from seeing it for the second time this week. Still love it. Still laughed. And the audience, again, was completely into it, laughing, applauding, and staying till the very end.

[Mamie]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 8:09pm

"It amuzes me that people like to assume "special reason" when you don't agree with them."

Sorry Sanda - but perhaps it was due to the fact that you saw the show with only a handful of people, most of whom walked out of the theater before the show was over.

When I posted my response I had just walked in the door from seeing it with about a hundred people, all of them laughing and clapping throughout the film and NONE of whom walked out. Incredible difference, isn't it?

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 8:32pm

I don't think THE PRODUCERS is lame, it's suppose to be over top top and wild. Now, RENT that had some incredibly lame moments. People laughed many times when they shouldn't have during RENT.

When I saw TP no one left! The audience was roaring with laugther. It does make a huge difference.

THE PRODUCERS is done in the style of the classic movie musicals, and pays much homage to great musicals and stage talents of the old days - the same can't be said about RENT.

Anyway, PRODUCERS received 4 Major Golden Globe Nominations. The same can't be said about RENT. Many consider RENT to be a travesty, and is making some "worst of 05 lists." I'm not saying RENT deserved all the blacklash etc. The truth is Columbus isn't considered a great director and isn' well respected.

[gymman]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 9:47pm

FYI--GG noms are meaningless
Pia Zadora?

Posted: 12/29/05 at 10:01pm

It can't be helped if The Producers movie is showing in some theatres in neighborhoods where most of the people have no taste or sophistication. Then I suppose you could see some people walking out. As for me, I've now seen the film twice, the theatres have been full, no one walked out, and people applauded after various scenes and during the credits. The movie is joyous.

[YankeeGal#24]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 10:11pm

Same here Glinda. Saw it twice, two different theaters and (obviously) two different audiences. The response was incredibly positive and amazing--nothing but laughter and applause!

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 9:33am

I'm curious to know where everyone has seen the film with a packed theater. It seems that the "premium price" of $12.50 at the Ziegfeld in NYC has been a MAJOR miscalculation on Universals part. Someone on another board noted:

"For a 7:00 show, the house was no more than 15% full. Given the discussion on this board only this morning about every theater in NYC being SRO, I was quite surprised to see the vast expanse of the Ziegfeld sitting nearly empty.

When exiting the theater, there were about 25 people milling about in the lobby and no line whatsoever outside. Midtown was packed with people but they weren't having anything to do with this film.

I once read that the road show release of The Sound of Music lasted 57 months before the film went into general distribution. Times have changed."

I'm hoping that the film scores big in smaller markets with audiences who have never seen the stage show...but frankly, I'm not optomistic.

[MusicAndPassion]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 9:40am

The movie is a satire, and it's not meant to be a big-musical-perfect-Broadway production.

It's a movie that is suppose to break into song randomly, not flow right and have randomness left and right.

I personally loved it!

[YankeeGal#24]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 9:44am

"I'm curious to know where everyone has seen the film with a packed theater."

I saw it twice--two different theaters, both in CT. Once was a matinee and once was an evening show (8 pm). Both times full, LOTS of applause, laughter and FUN!!

[greenegirl87]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 9:49am

I went into the movie hoping it would be like a lot of the older movie musicals, and in some ways it was like that, but I still found myself hoping it would move a little faster. It was not a terrible movie by any means, but it just wasn't the whole bang and glitz of Broadway movie that I wanted with it. I was not a big Uma fan, but I loved Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane in these parts. I definitely laughed a lot during Leo's "hysterics" and the "nazi hoedown". The movie was okay. It was fairly enjoyable, but slow at some points for me. The theatre was pretty packed too, and no one walked out. But it also had been moved to one of the smaller theatres in the complex.

[kelly0ann]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 10:19am

"I'm curious to know where everyone has seen the film with a packed theater."

Twice in a little town in FL. Yeah, it was packed...and people loved it! I am so proud of my little town, they are coming along quite nicely! Haha.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 10:31am

This is another reason why people should stop seeing movies! Don't you realize that Hollywood is out to destroy every beloved vehicle on Broadway? Film making is an evil art form. It is the work of Satan in our midst.

I HATE MOVIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mamie]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 11:51am

"I'm curious to know where everyone has seen the film with a packed theater."

Northern Virginia - just outside Washington, DC.
(It's a big country out there. It goes WAY out beyond NYC!)

[sanda]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 11:54am

When rent got no GG nod, I said it's not a big deal.
When the Producers got GG nod, I said it's not a big deal either.
It won't improve the box office or prove the success of the movie, just as POTO's nod won't improve the box office or prove the success of the movie either.

Talking about the movie, how about the critics of the yahoo movies? General rate-"C". Can I use this as evidence just like you using GG nod? Or should we just drop out those bull, only talked about our own opinion?

[wickedbway]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 12:18pm

I thought it was okay, but it was quite boring at some parts. A lot of the excitement of live theatre should have been taken into account. Its a movie! I feel sort of empty since I saw the movie before the show. I have a feeling whoever sees this movie before the show will be very disappointed. At least the Rent moviegoers who hadn't seen the show became fans and wanted to see the show. I'm pretty dissatisfied with The Producers movie.

[Cutielyricist]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 1:04pm

It seems alot of people are making the point. The audience love it and cheered. Which is awesome! I would have loved to have been in an audience with cheering and laughter. All the other movies I saw were in big crowds. Chicago, Rent, Hedwig...ect..and people didnt walk out. But the difference between them..is you can watch those movies without a crowd and still enjoy it. Unlike theatre, a movie should be enjoyable on its own. A large crowd should NOT be required. Are you always going to have a large crowd in your bedroom when you watch it on DVD?

The movie "Death Becomes Her" is still funny if I watch it alone., or in a small group. "The Exorcist" is still scary if you are watching it in I'm living room with my boyfriend. "Chicago" is still amazing when I'm just chilling after work watching it.

A movie shouldnt DEPEND on a full theatre to make it enjoyable... If you want audience reaction to influence the effect of your movie...dont make a movie, make a live show.

[worrell4077]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 2:04pm

I saw this movie on both christmas and 12/28, and I LOVED it both times. I cracked up so much during the film, and I think I was the only one who laughed when they formed the swastika at the end of Springtime. The Producers is like my favorite film now, and I just can't wait for the dvd.
________________________________________________________________
"Money back....Money Back....Money back, don't say that again!"
-The Producers

[DoogieB]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 3:14pm

I didn't notice a single person walk out when I saw it at the Ziegfeld. People applauded after every song and it was the most laughter I had ever heard in a movie theater. Many clapped at certain jokes as if it was a live comedy show. Loved it and so did the crowd. On almost every film review site, for this movie, you'll see the critics rating very low and the audience ratings are usually much higher. Hopefully most people will rise above the critics...not to say critics aren't people, too....

[YankeeGal#24]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 3:32pm

"It seems alot of people are making the point. The audience love it and cheered."

I think the reason many of us are making that point is in response to other posters who say they saw the film in half empty venues, or that people were walking out where they saw it. That clearly has not been everyone's experience, nor is it even the experience of the majority of people here.

Anyway, you're right that a film shouldn't depend on a full theatre to make it enjoyable, but that doesn't seem to be the point most of us are trying to make.

[thez914]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 3:57pm

A problem I had with the movie is that it DEMANDED audience participation by including pauses and breaks designed to be filled with laughter and applause. In my opinion, a movie should not employ this device, even in the context of a movie musical (or rather, ESPECIALLY in the context of a movie musical). Look at many other musicals with big numbers (TOMMY, Chicago, etc.) and you'll find that after big numbers, the action doesn't stop dead in its tracks. I for one felt extremely uncomfortable as a MOVIE audience member sitting in the theatre a week after the movie came out. I would have killed to see this movie on opening night, because honestly, that's probably the only time I could have enjoyed it - if any.