'THE PRODUCERS' - Critics Hate It, HFP Hate It, Fans Love It- Page 2

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 7:56am

Nothing "inappropriate" at all.
It's as sweet and harmless as a Hostess snack cake.

[paradox_error]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 8:02am

I'm not very keen on RottenTomatoes anymore.

They don't seem to be very unbiased in their calcualtions. MetaCritic is far more reliable.

Just think, Memoirs of A Geisha is at 29% on RT, but at 57% at MC. From what I can see, the RT team just simply don't like the film, and are attributing much worse scores for the reviews than can be justified.

And MC hasn't even started calculating for The Producers yet. I'll be very interested to see what sort of difference there is between the two.

But I have a feeling the reviews will only get better from here!

[pab]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 9:20am

"CapnHook, which song could be nominated for Best Song? I thought one could only be nominated if it was written for the movie..."

There is a song that was written for the movie and it's called:

"There's Nothing Like A Show on Broadway"

[enjolrasissex]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 9:43am

Ok, thanks Pab. I don't have the movie soundtrack yet, so I wasn't sure.

[RuprechtJr.]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 11:17am

what about "You'll Find Your Happiness in Rio"...sure I'm not expecting that one to get a nom. but:
"All day long the winds are blowing, and from what we hear so do the girls!" is one of the funniest lines that caught me off guard, along with:
"It needs glamour, and glitz, it needs *something*, and TITS!!"
especially the way "Shirley" siad it! lol!

[worrell4077]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 11:23am

I really don't care if a critic hates it or not, I believe that this will be a big box office hit. I believe that because of the fact that most of the audience going to see the film are people like me who never got a chance to see Nathan and Matthew on stage.
________________________________________________________________
"Heil myself, Heil to me. I'm the kraut who's out to change our history."
-The Producers

[sweeneyfan]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 11:40am

I hate to bring this up, but maybe the movie magnifies (literally and figuratively) that The Producers really isn't the greatest musical...

I have to agree though, that the whole "people singing in movies is odd" thing is just ridiculous... 1)The beloved young demographic has grown up on MTV...which, let's face it, nusic videos are just short musicals a lot of the time, and 2) the older generation grew up when movie musicals are the norm. So what's the big deal?

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 11:58am

I've got to make this comment. If I'm expected to sit in a movie theatre and buy Tom Cruise fighting aliens and hanging off cliffs with no doubt in my mind. Then why the hell can't we be expected to accept a movie character bursting into song.....same difference!

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 12:22pm

"Producers" gets two thumbs up this week on ebert and roeper. Just listened to the podcast on itunes. So that means a positive review from Ebert, an actual nationally accredited reviewer. Things are not as bad as tomatoes make them seem, I'm sure.

[Fiyero2]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 12:34pm

The same thing happened w/ Rent
critics hated it ...fans loved it

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 12:35pm

producers has bigger names than rent did, but do they have the fan base?

or will those 2 things balance out in the end?

[ShuQ]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 12:38pm

The fanbase is not as large as that of RENT, but the appeal is larger.

[pab]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 12:59pm

"producers has bigger names than rent did, but do they have the fan base?"

I don't think that it's as cut and dry as that. You must remember that The Producers was originally a movie and a movie that has been around since 1968. The fan base for the musical might not be as big as the fan base was for RENT but you can't dismiss the cult following that the movie has had for almost forty years. There will probably be a lot of people going to see the movie based on the original film and not on the Broadway show. There will also be people going to see the movie because all they have heard about it is that it won the most Tony Awards on Broadway.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 1:10pm

Critics hate it...from the time I posted. Only a couple majors published reviews so far. Ebert's is on the way. More are coming in. We'll see.

Apparently the Hollywood Foreign Press hates it mainly to do with the humour - and the making fun of Hitler. This is just speculation, however.

It's not really fair to compare RENT to THE PRODUCERS in certain aspects. Yes, they are both musicals which won a lot of Tonys and were record-breaking in their own ways. Yes, the major original Broadway stars reprised their roles on screen. Yes, two Hollywood names were added for PRODUCERS and one for RENT. Yes, critics aren't liking them too much, but the fans still love them and flock to see them.

However, one is a Chris Columbus adapted and directed dramatic musical which is at times laughable for the wrong reasons. The other is a fresh director film by Susan Stroman of a Mel Brooks comedy which is at times laughable for the right reasons.

I enjoyed RENT, but was highly disappointed in its adaptation. A potential blockbuster and Columbus doesn't deliver. I love this man. I love ALL of the movies he has directed. Including RENT. But RENT was the first "bad" movie I have seen of his. I agree with whatever user above said it was one of the best movie musicals in recent years. A different style than CHICAGO, it had the potential to work well. But there were script issues that destroyed it. What would have been a brilliant piece of artwork was turned into cheesy, choppy, badly melodramatic crap. (Not all of the film, I am referring to specific moments which are noted in my review at MovieMusicals.net.)

Now there is THE PRODUCERS. So much more Oscar buzz for this one. I hope that the majority of critics at the moment are wrong about the "tries too hard" criticism. I am sure I will love it and it will make a pot load of bucks. But the important issue right now is for the movie musical to redeem itself. CHICAGO brought high stakes. PHANTOM killed it. RENT was a small improvement. Movie studios have to see that the movie musical can still rake in the moolah. Otherwise, forget about the many planned adaptations and original works being planned.

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 1:56pm

I think it's a little early to say that critics hate it.

[stylinbohemian]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 1:58pm

critics and myself have never got a long...so naturally Im probably going to love the movie

[twotrey]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 2:32pm

>>>the RT team just simply don't like the film<<<

Just to clarify... Rotten Tomatoes isn't a "team." It's a sampling of reviews from various sources across the Web. There's no groupthink involved. It's individual people. And I say this as a critic who does count toward the Tomatometer (and will have a fresh tomato for THE PRODUCERS).

[VivaBohemia]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 2:46pm

I never got the huge appeal with Ebert. Alot of the time, Ebert doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, I prefer Roeper, but to be honest both of them annoy me. Hollywood often looks to them as the word of god when it comes to the make or break of films, and I just don't see why.

[pab]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 3:13pm

Maybe it's because he is the only motion picture critic to have won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism (1975). Or, maybe it's because for 24 years, he co-hosted "Siskel & Ebert" with the late Gene Siskel and since Siskel's death, he has hosted a show with Richard Roeper. I'm not saying that this makes him a great critic but the statement was about his huge appeal.

[chasgoose]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 3:27pm

There is absolutely no way in hell The Producers is getting a Best Picture Nomination (and just about as small of a chance of it getting any nominations besides Best Original Song), especially if it can't even get a Best Comedy/Musical nomination at the Golden Globes, which even gave a nomination to Phantom of the Opera. There are just too many other movies that are ahead of it in the race to Best Picture (Brokeback Mountain, Walk the Line, King Kong, Good Night, and Good Luck, Munich, Crash, Pride and Prejudice, Memoirs of a Geisha, The New World, A History of Violence, Capote, Cinderella Man, etc.). The Producers had to be great to even have a chance of getting a nomination, and even if there are better reviews, chances are it is not going to be able to overcome its terrible direction by Susan Stroman (she did a great job in the theater, but the movie at times feels like a taped performance, and in the movie all of the flaws that you could ignore with the Broadway production are magnified) and the love that the Academy and film buffs have for the original non-musical film.

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 4:09pm

what would the best original song be for?
and thats too bad that it prob wont get awards nominations, it doesnt seem like rent will either
too bad for this years movie musicals oh well, we still love em!

[SamIAm]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 6:05pm

Just a couple of comments about this thread. First of all, NO major reviews are out yet so I'm not sure how anyone can say that critics hated it...Rotten Tomatoes reviews are not considered major publications...sorry.

Some of the reviews that are out from the international press reviews are very good.

Secondly, the only song that is eligible for Oscar nod is 'there's nothing like a show on Broadway'. Rio was written for the stage show and cut, so it isn't eligible.

Lastly, most of the buzz has been for Best Actor nod for Lane, best supporting for Beach, possibly Bart and possibly best supporting for Uma. Universal says they will promote all of those categories and MAYBE Broderick...not a firm decision on that yet.

I don't see Lane winning against the the dramatic competition since comedies and musicals rarely do and there are some best actor noms this year that are likely to be way too stiff as competition...but a nomination would be nice.

And, yes all the screenings with the public have been very positive, so we should probably just wait for the movie to open before we decide whether it will bomb, take off or do reasonably well.

All predictions aside, I've seen it and it is a really fun movie with good performances.

[broadwaygal3]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 3:02am

A question was asked about whether the new movie of "The Producers" is like the original. Not exactly. Many more full scale musical numbers, and parts of the story were changed.
Also, it's bigger, broader and even more outrageous than the
original film. The poster also asked if there was "inappropriate
material". You bet there is! After all, has there ever been a
Mel Brooks film that didn't have what some would consider
"inappropriate material?"

I know some people thought that the show was offensive.
For me, the show was the funniest show I've ever seen.
If certain critics didn't like the movie, I think it's either
because it's too theatrical for them, or they don't like musicals.

That being said, I don't think it will get any nominations at all because unlike Chicago, which was satirical with an edge to it, this is more of an old-fashioned musical farce.

[wickedkiwi]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 3:52am

i personally think we're looking at this from the wrong angle. yes, it's important that musicals get oscars so that they continue to be made, but i think that's not the angle or audience this movie is going for. come on, will ferrel? uma thurman? these aren't exactly oscar greats, but they rake in millions (or more?) at the box office! why? because a LOT of america isn't interested in seeing artsy oscar-winning films.

i think the angle the producers is going for is to make an "epic" meet the parents/american pie/old school/austin powers type comedy (the kind that people STILL quote years later) that is, well, a musical. if they make a movie that is interesting to the general public, particularly those who often have trouble with musicals anyway (i find it hard to believe that people who actually went to go see pseudomusicals such as dancer in the dark are the people complaining about dialogue-song transitions), i think they may end up scoring that important audience people need. plus, with this kind of comedy, i'm expecting it to be as ridiculous as when the characters from family guy break into song, making fun of itself (which the original show does anyway) may smooth that movie-musical bump more.

personally i think THIS is the way to score big bucks which, in the end, is what they want.

plus, once/if the producers gets the mass audience back, it could pave the way for more major musical comedies like hairspray, avenue q, etc. to be made into movies AND generate a bigger interest in those artsy RENT-ish films that can get oscar nods.

i dunno. i'm probably crazy.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 4:00am

From what I've heard, Broderick and Uma Thurman are the ones more likely to receive an Oscar nod, especially if Broderick is considered for the Best Supporting Actor category instead of Best Leading Actor. Thurman is likely to get a nod. because as it has been stated in all the Oscar Nod Predictions so far, there's not many strong supporting actress candidates this year, which is probably why Rosario Dawson also has a slight chance of getting an Oscar nod. for Rent and I really really really hope she does.