So I saw the Producers last night..- Page 3

[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.

[sanda]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 4:06pm

"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...."

Well, if someone using a GG nod as evidence, I don't see why critics's opinion should not count.

[roquat]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 4:50pm

Yes, it was a stagey throwback to 1940s musicals, where improbably pretty people assemble on color-coordinated sets to sing directly into the camera.

So. Freakin'. WHAT???!!!!

I don't know of any movie this year that hit such a sustained high and made me laugh so often. It never pretended NOT to be theatrical. so you could take that for granted and enjoy it. Is that approach really less sensible than "Rent"'s "realistic" singing-while-bicycling, etc. style? (Scratch that, I don't want to get drawn into that idiotic "compare/contrast" game).

Posted: 12/30/05 at 6:54pm

Roquat, I agree completely.

[Danielm]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 7:52pm

"Unlike theatre, a movie should be enjoyable on its own. A large crowd should NOT be required."

I don't know that this statement is actually true, but I also don't know that this movie wouldn't be enjoyable without a crowd. I don't go see movies repeatedly at the theatre and I probably won't see this one again till it's on cable or dvd. But, cutielyricist I think you're just being perverse now--first it was a bad movie because you saw it with a small audience and you were bored, now it's a bad movie because other people saw it with larger audiences who enjoyed it. YOU DIDN'T LIKE THE MOVIE--it's not to your taste, whatever. You may be right, you may be wrong--I happened to enjoy it and will certainly reccommend it to my friends. I saw Rent with a small crowd and thought it was dull in long stretches, I saw Chicago with a small crowd and loved it. I think Death Becomes Her has brilliant moments but think the end kind of slacks off. But I also don't watch movies repeatedly and expect to have the same reaction to them over and over. Maybe you were a little tired the night you saw Producers, maybe you were a little grumpy. Maybe neither of the above--maybe it's just not your thing. That's okay but it doesn't have to be true for everyone. I still think Producers is a far, far better movie than Rent although it's like apples and oranges. I think Chicago and Hedwig are better than both Producers and Rent--my partner didn't like Chicago, that's just a matter of taste.

[lovinlovett]

Posted: 1/2/06 at 10:03pm

Well, I wasn't sure where to put my review so this will have to do I guess.

I saw the Producers this afternoon. I went to a noon showing and there were probably 30 people in the small theater. Almost all were in there 50's and up other than me. I'm 35 and the girls sitting next to me were around 30.

I've never seen the Producers on Broadway or anywhere else. I had seen the previews and listened to the soundtrack to the film but honestly I wasn't really sure if I'd like it or not. I was fully prepared to walk out and go shopping.

That being said....I just loved it! I've never laughed so hard in my life. My cheeks hurt from smiling so much! Fortunately for me, everyone in the theater felt the same way. We were all just dying laughing and broke into applause at the end. Okay, yes, it was over the top, flamboyant and theatrical. The actors did prat falls and spoke/sang to the camera. So what??? Nathan Lane is purely a comedic genius. I enjoyed everyone elso too with special nods to Will Ferrill and the guy who played the director (sorry! what's his name?!).

I'm so glad that in a world where most of the films are coarse, crude, and brutally realistic someone can still create an old-fashioned, fun musical that just let you relax and laugh at the silliness of it all. I, for one, get plenty of realism and drudgery every day.

And as for box office earnings and critics reviews...well, this film is certainly not for everyone. It's for Broadway and musical film fans. It will never be a blockbuster. But I'd also like to point out that quite a lot of "blockbusters" stink. How many films out there have made tons of money luring in the masses when they are really, really bad films. I don't think this was about money or critics for Susan Stroman or Mel Brooks. They did it for the love of the genre. And I have to send them a great big thank you.

I am rather sad that they felt the need to cut "The King of Broadway" which is certainly my favorite number off the CD. I can't wait for the DVD to get a chance it enjoy it.

I'm taking my husband back to see it on Friday, can't wait!
Updated On: 1/2/06 at 10:03 PM

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 1/2/06 at 11:08pm

i saw TP New years Day nite in NYC. Large audience, no one left, and many many many laughs but being New Yorkers we knew it was a Movie and no one clapped (we knew the performers couldn't hear it, unless they were sitting next to us, one was))but that did leave holes, just bad editing idea.
I left having enjoyed it and being a Theatre buff, saw what i thought were the problems.
it is a thin like between reality and satire, and though no one thinks this is real I felt Stroman couldn;t really pull this aspect off, it had that 50's musicak style some times and others not.
I thought Nathan was great, comic genius and great singing, Matthew on the other hand seemed strained and though his singing and fun dancing were fine, he got better as the movie went along.
I thought Uma was just wrong, she was tryin hard and i kinda liked her dancin but her singing was a big problem, turning up the volume is not "belting".
I don't like Will Farell and i continue not to, but his second song was better than the first and the gun scene was very funny, would have rather seen Ron Orbach.
`Roger Bart scared me and the close ups just made him look like a freak!
Gary Beach is WONDERFUL, his SRINGTIME was the highlight of the movie!
I was very disapointed that much was made of using New York actors and original cast members, and then they mostly just walked by,were used as old ladies or cab drivers i never even saw.
Some of the numbers were fun but i felt Opening Night needed much more first nighters. The Old lady number was the worst cause it was mostly the stage jokes and made no sense that they were all wearing the same costume, i felt this was a chance to Open the Movie up and doing something different from the show and Sto blew it.
SPRINGTIME was a let down for me (except for Beach) if u saw the original or the play the "Joke" is lost cause we know it and makin the dancing better and the costumes more extravagant really ruins it, Bialy would never hire that many dancers or spend the money on those costumes (i know it's not real but tackier is funnier).
But i did enjoy it and it's just my opinion.

[OasisBroadway]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 10:04am

I saw this yesterday and thought it was terrible. I was in a small theater (probably holds about 125 people) which was mostly full. And I have never seen more people walk out of a film in my life. Even before "We Can Do It" about 10 people had left. By the end of it, close to 20 had. I can't say I blame them. Actually I felt bad for the people who I drug with me to see this when they wanted to see something else.

The cinematography is horrendous. Susan Stroman may be a good Broadway director, but it is clear she does not know how to direct a movie. And Uma as Ulla, I am not even going to comment on that.