"The Producers" Movie Reviews Thread- Page 4

[jasonf]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 8:44pm

That friend who I wrote about above just called and told me he saw the movie - and LOVED it. He saw it in Boston and said "I can't remember the last time, if ever, I've heard that much laughter in a movie theater."

[lamentingenvelope]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 8:59pm

jasonf - LOVED your review.

[Jilani]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 11:15pm

I just came back from seeing the movie with my family in the DC area, and I completely agree with jasonf's review. I did not like the original movie all that much, and I thought the touring production of the stage show that I saw in Boston a couple of years ago was just okay, but I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Even my parents, who love the original movie, but haven't seen the stage musical (and don't really go to stage musicals much in general), also loved this movie. My father did comment that he initially had to adjust to the fact that this was clearly a play on film (rather than a more "cinematic" movie), but he still really enjoyed it. The theater I saw it in was almost full, and the audience was roaring with laughter. I think the film critics have missed the boat on this one, and I sincerely hope that word of mouth can overcome the negative critical reviews.

[jasonf]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 11:19pm

Thanks lamenting :) Did you love the movie too?

[Copeman63]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 4:13am

I just saw both The Producers and Brokeback Mountain, talk about different movies! I really liked how faithful the movie was to the stage show, down to the costumes! It was sad because I saw it in a suburb of Denver and no kidding over 15 people walked out during the movie! Good ole' red states! Gary Beach and Roger Bart were my favorites, as always.

[Candleshoe2]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 10:08am

I saw the movie last night and ENJOYED every bit of it. I had never seen the show before, so I was new to the story and characters. Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane were TERRIFIC together, and the audience couldn't get enough of their great comic timing and wittiness. Uma Thurman's Ulla was very nice, as well as Will Ferrell's Franz. My favorites would have to be Roger Bart and Gary Beach, who stole the show for me. All the music and comedy of this works very well on screen, and it makes me want to see it on stage.

[lamentingenvelope]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 11:02am

jasonf: I saw it yesterday and loved it - I agree with your review 100%, especially the last bit about this being the blending of stage shows turned into movies and movies of stage shows. My thoughts exactly, but I couldn't ever put it that eloquently.


My ONLY big qualm in the whole thing was with Will Ferrel - he annoyed me every time he was on screen and I can't entirely put my finger on the reason. He just seemed out of place. Matthew Broderick, who I normally can't stand, I found to be fine, Nathan Lane was hilarious, and Gary Beach was an absolute riot.

I love theatre that makes you think. I enjoy dark shows that don't necessarily have a happy ending. I like shows with a punch.

Yet, I love The Producers.

The music isn't all that memorable. The lyrics aren't exactly Stephen Sondheim. But in the world of The Producers, you don't care - and if you do, then you're not letting the show do its job.

I have been guilty of turning my nose up at (to borrow a phrase from the show) "frivolous musicals" - The Lion King, Wicked, etc (and I know I'm going to get a PM from SOMEONE for calling Wicked frivolous - if it's the same person who told me die after I said that Wicked was overrated, please, don't bother) - those musicals who's only purpose seems to be spectacle. All bark, no bite. In short, I have been guilty of being an elitist theatre b*tch.

Well, The Producers has no bite and a WHOLE lotta bark. So what's the difference?

I think, for me at least, The Producers doesn't try to mask its silliness with some thinly-veiled "message." The audience knows there's no message here. The cast knows there's no message. The creators know there's no message - and they're not going to try to throw one in awkwardly at the last minute (think what they parody at the end of nearly every episode of South Park.)

It's sheer entertainment, and you know what? That's okay. And I thank The Producers for teaching me that.

Broadway fans should go see it because it IS a love-letter to the Broadway musical - you can almost see them wink to the two or three patrons in the theater who got the 'Stop the world - I want to get on!' line. Non-theatre fans (believe it or not, they exist) should go see it because it's not what you expect. It's theatrical, yes, HIGHLY theatrical, but the theatrical-ness I think comes not from the movie having captured a Broadway show but from the movie having captured the heart of a Broadway show.

Give The Producers a chance - but don't go expecting to be "moved" and don't plan an after-show discussion of the "issues" over coffee. Go expecting to be entertained and you'll certainly come out satisfied.

[sanda]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 11:28am

My review:

In "the Producers" Broadway production, Max asked, "We found the worst play, the worst director, the worst cast, where did we go right?"

In "the Producers" movie, I asked, "they chose the most awards-winning musical, the original director, the best cast, where did they go wrong?"

I still remembered the day when I saw the Producers on stage. My first show in Hippodrome, a house I loved so much. The two leading men were no way to match with Lane and Broderick. The score is mediocre. However, the show was the most hilarious experience I ever had in theatre. "Springtime for Hitler" brought the whole house into a huge roar. "Flaunt it", "Little old lady land", those magical chereograph is Susan Stroman's work. You could see how much a director's gift can achieve in theatre.

However, when I saw the movie, they are gone. The movie looks so dated, like a 60's cheesy musical movie. The splendid scene is not splendid anymore. The flaw of the show, such as the cheesy joke, the mediocre score ,is more apparent. The glamour of the role, when you watched it from distance, looks terrible when the big screen put every detail of the closeup in front of you.

The show is based on a successful movie itself. Movie-show-Movie, this sounds so natural. There is so much to borrow.

The cast is unbeatable. Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick became legends because of it. Uma Thurman's Ulla is gorgeous. And we have the lovely original Roger and Carmen.

The reason is Susan Stroman, although a brilliant theatre director, has no idea how to transfer a stage work into big screen. The acting, the change of the scene, the dancing, everything is so stagy. It is like shooting every scene with a single camera then put them together. There is no transfer, no multi-shooting, no special effect. The only difference is that we got one and another huge closeup of the actors. Comparing to the Producers, Rent and POTO are so much better in the transferring of the stage work to movie.

Lane's comedy talent looks more like overacting. His magnificent "Betrayed" now seems so long and boring. Broderick is not lovely but annoying. Roger Bart's Carmen freaks me out. Will Farrell's Franz, well, is nothing special.

It isn't all bad. Broderick's "I wanna be a producer" is still gentle and beautifully done. Uma is beautiful. And the lovely Roger, Gary Beach, is still my favorite. Most important, the almost whole stage version of "Springtime for Hitler", the diamond of Stroman's crown, is preserved forever, although it looks much smaller and blander than live.

[H.Higgins]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 12:39pm

Really appreciate and agree with your review, jasonf.

We loved the movie, absolutely loved it!

I thought the performances were simply fantastic, especially the always-wonderful Gary Beach.

Wishing this film the best of luck!

[thez914]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 5:44pm

Um...am I missing something? I thought the movie was AWFUL. And believe me, I wanted to like it more than anything having never seen the show live (I can only hope and pray that the stage show translates the material in a more appealing manner). Maybe my mistake was going into it just assuming I would be blown away. I was appalled at how BORING the movie was! I thought the performances were par, but they were all kind of shot in the foot by the direction. Before reading on, please know and trust that I am NOT the kind of person that waits to eagerly tear apart any piece of anything unless is impresses me. I'm actually quite easy to please. I was just so dissappointed by this movie that I feel compelled to post my feelings and see if I'm the only one who would feel extremely embarrassed dragging friends to see this "Broadway" show - a mistake I made having not previously viewed the movie.

Let's start at the top. The opening did not appeal to me at all. Poorly shot (more variety than panning along rows of audience members would have been nice), and did not capture my attention at all. Move on to the first scene between Bialystock and Bloom. I was numb by the end. This scene seemed like it would never end, and as much as I love the guy, Matthew Broderick annoyed the hell out of me (although I'm positive I would have loved this performance on stage - a dilemma that occurs with many aspects of this movie). Nathan Lane fares a bit better, but so many of their actions and interpretation came off as BAD ACTING. The Entertainment Weekly review made a potent point of this: "Gestures that were designed to play to an upper balcony jammed with tourists look overeager on the big screen."

The only segments that appealed to me (although many seemed extremely contrived) were: the first big dance sequence with Broderick (although the man looked like he was in pain while dancing), the numbers on the roof and at the audition with Will Ferrell (I am exceedingly grateful he was in the movie-best performance of the whole film by far), and the entire Springtime for Hitler sequence. However, ET expresses it best again with, "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." The numbers that suffered the most would have to be the final songs, the first concerning Lane in prison (the man has talent to boot, but even he can't satisfy when left flailing around his jail cell) and the last ballad between the two men - I'm still trying to figure out whether or not I fell asleep during this number.

Overall, I was underwhelmed and a little angry that the film was so dissatisfying, especially with what I can tell was great stuff on stage.

[Danielm]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 5:52pm

"Um...am I missing something?"

You must be. I thought it was hysterical and so did the audience I saw it with. I don't know what you expected. It's a big, loud, brash musical and I loved every second of it. It's exactly what it should be and is incredibly faithful to the Broadway show.

[Danielm]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 5:55pm

I'm sorry, I'm wrong, Jeffry Denman isn't in the movie. I don't know why--maybe he was too busy with his own projects and White Christmas.

[Jilani]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 6:20pm

"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."

I had previously read that in the EW review, and thought it made no sense - what, there's no live audience in a movie theater? The audience in the theater where I saw the movie laughed loudly and frequently throughout the film.

[colbol2005]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 6:25pm

Here's an interesting one. i posted here a couple of weeks ago after seeing a preview. i was thoroughly underwhelmed, although I pointed out at the time, the sound system was crappy. Well I went to see it again yesterday with my family(through duress). They are not big musical fans but they liked the trailer and my mom didn't fancy King Kong. Well...........I LOVED IT. LOVED IT. LOVED IT. I have NEVER heard a movie audience laugh like that( a few peolpe were uncontrollable), and with a good sound system, things that seemed staid the first time were over the top hysterical and exciting.

I was fairly unkind to Stromans directing last time too, and this time I came away not being offended by it. Shes no Scorcese, but she did the job.

I live in the UK and the reviews are very positive. I really believe that word of mouth could make this a sleeper hit. Quite honestly the audience comments on leaving were SOOOOOOOOOO positive. I think I may go back tomorrow, and trust me after my first viewing I never thought I'd say that.

So, in conclusion, I have learnt that if you are going to judge a movie, make sure the sound system is good!!!!

[broadway86]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 7:37pm

Saw it last night, and I thought it was hysterical. I haven't laughed that hard since I saw The 40 Year-Old Virgin. The entire cast was absolutely wonderful (including the adorable Uma Thurman and Will Ferrell), but Gary Beach stole it.

[kates422]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 9:28pm

I just got back from seeing it. I also thought it was hysterical! The whole theater laughed non stop. I've never seen the old movie or on stage--so I was very unsure about what I would think. But, I loved it! :)

[442namffug]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 9:34pm

I thought it worked. 100% better than RENT in that it knew it was a musical and wasn't trying to be anything but that. Funny. Enjoyable. Light. Simple (well...maybe not so simple).

Recommended.

[jasonf]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 11:20pm

hmm - I'm really trying to puzzle out why some people are just coming away so unimpressed. Just for my own curiosity, could those of you who posted negative reviews list some of your favorite shows? I don't condemn anyone for disliking it - you're entitled to your opinion, but where I saw it the audience was in hysterics. It was one of the ONLY movies I can remember seeing this year (if not the only one) where I didn't notice a SINGLE person get up to go to the bathroom (and the theater was fairly full, too - probably about 100-125 people in a I'd guess 150 or so seater). When I saw King Kong and Memoirs of a Geisha recently, people were (pardon the pun) streaming out of the theaters...not so with The Producers. So, what happened with those who DIDN'T like it?

[YankeeGal#24]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 11:35pm

As I posted elsewhere, I LOVED the show and the audience I saw it with laughed hysterically and continually (wide range of ages too). I can see where the film may not appeal to everyone, but I can't imagine anyone not finding it funny!!

[corsairstw]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 11:37pm

I just got back from seeing it and whoever said "The Producers is funny in whatever form you choose to watch it" was right.

I LOVED it!