The Producers

After reading critics' reviews I thought twice about seeing this film. But I needn't have worried as this was fantastic entertainment. I don't seem to care that the director has kept the stagy sets and took a literal approach to adapting a stage musical for the big screen. It was a fun time from beginning to end.

While his portrayal of Leo Bloom was too much like Gene Wilder's, Matthew Broderick was simply divine when dancing. Indeed it was an interesting to see the top half of his body so still and rigid while his legs and feet were moving with such poise and grace. Nathan Lane never seems to disappoint, he is simply brilliant. His physical resemblance to Zero Mostel is obvious but the mannerisms are all his own. Uma Thurman is good as Ula and Will Ferrell rediscovers his funny.

I didn't even mind the over-the-stop stereotypes. Gary Beach and Roger Bart are screamingly funny. Springtime for Hitler is the best part of the show and nice to see John Barrowman giving it his all as the blond Nazi.

If you want to be entertained for a few hours then this is the movie to go see, don't let the critics put you off!

Much better than anyone had the right to expect. Lane and Broderick are superb. Even moving. Look what I'm saying, moving. I mean it. Their commitment is contagious. The comedy in itself is shamelessly anachronistic. The gay jokes belong to the period in which the original Producers were conceived. The tone is consistent with that period, the film happens at an incredible pace and you smile from beginning to end. How marvelous to see Matthew Broderick dance. This is an actor who never had an Academy Award nomination and his performances have always been top notch and his range runs the famous gamut from A to Z. What a courageous actor. I couldn't believe he could get away with the "I'm in pain! I'm wet and I'm still hysterical" scene without making me miss Gene Wilder but he did. Nathan Lane is a force of nature. His Max is very much a tribute to Zero Mostel, especially to his hair but this Max is Nathan Lane through and through. Uma Thurman is a delight and I had a great time at the movies. What else do you want out of life.

What's the deal with directors who remake movies and get angry when anyone calls it a remake? ("It's not a remake, it's a re-IMAGINING!") Whatever. Not here. "The Producers" (2005) is a hands-down, unapologetic, knock-down, dragout REMAKE. And a fine one at that. Not just scenes, but sets, costumes, actors' intonations, and the overall feeling is just like watching the 1968 classic. I can picture both Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane intently studying the reels of Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel to get pinpoint accuracy.

If it's so true to the original then why, you ask, would anyone bother watching the remake?

For the same reason we rush out to buy the digitally remastered versions of our favorites. We want to see them shiny and new, the way we've never seen them before but without destroying the original charm. Here we have writer/director Mel Brooks after 40 more years of experience and maturity, doing it again for a new generation, yet having the humility to keep it the same as it was for the old generation. Imagine going to your favorite band's reunion tour and having the thrill of seeing/hearing them sound exactly the way they did decades ago but now with a stage 5x the size and all the fun stuff that they never had the chance to do before.

What's that? Never saw the original "Producers"? Even better. Here you have the opportunity to see a classic, but with crisp, modern production standards. And with some crazy showtunes that were never there the first time around. My guess is that Mel always wanted this to have more music, like his later classics, "Blazing Saddles""History of the World", "High Anxiety", etc. But with "The Producers" being his directoral debut in '68 he toned it down a bit. Here we get the absurdly flamboyant musical he always wanted.

Actually there are 2 big changes to the original, both of which are so perfect I can't believe I went all these years not missing them. The first is the expanded role of "Ulla" (played by Uma Thurman) who is perfect as the ditzy Swedish bombshell. The second is Will Ferrell as the Franz the closet Nazi. In both of these cases, the characters pop right out of the screen. Will's song "Der Guten Tag Hop Clop," complete with choreographed pigeons, had me howling.

And that brings me to the biggest reason why you'd want to see this remake, aside from the songs, the dancing and choreography is EXCELLENT. Folks, this isn't just a movie with some crazy songs and actors flailing for laughs. It has some great dance numbers with nice moves had by all.

All of this has the effect of making "The Producers" (2005) more like the extravagant musical comedies that made Mel famous in the 70s. This remake got everything right. I have to say, compared to other successful directors who now sit in their ivory towers disparaging their early work and swearing they'll never do that again, Mel's still the same as he ever was, but even more so. Keep em coming, sir!

A little more music and embellishing of several plot points that were passed over in the original film are what distinguishes this musical version of The Producers. It's a musical version about a film that had a plot about two men who try to create the biggest flop in the history of Broadway and a musical.

Taking the places of Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder as the producing partners Bialystock&Bloom are Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick. Both these guys are given an impossible task of repeating two classically congruent performances that Mostel and Wilder created. Even the additional bits of business just can't make me forget the original.

Will Ferrall did not come over from Broadway to do the role of the hermit like Nazi living in Greenwich Village and caring for his carrier pigeons. He had to do double duty because he also took the place of beatnik method actor Dick Shawn from the original. I'm not sure that combining the roles was the best thing, I'm also not sure Ferrall did real justice to either try as he might on both. Kenneth Mars was the reclusive Nazi author of Springtime For Hitler. in the original. Both he and Shawn were almost as memorable as Mostel and Wilder.

I do love the Mel Brooks humor, but I think he laid it on a bit thick with the gay stereotyping of Gary Beach and Roger Bart. It came this close to the good side of being offensive, but not quite.

There's a lot to like in this version of The Producers, but I think Mel should not have touched his masterpiece.

This is the third incarnation of the story of The Producers, where two producers attempt to put a giant flop on Broadway then take all the money and run away, and this one is the one that works least well. That doesn't mean it's bad, it's like saying that someone is the dumbest of the Nobel Prize winning Physicists. The story is VERY good, and a great set up for some incredibly entertaining characters and situations.

This version is based on the multi-award-winning Broadway musical, which was based on the original movie starring Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder. Replacing them in the roles of Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom are Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick, who are reprising their roles on stage. Also in the cast are Uma Thurman as Ulla, Will Ferrell as Nazi playwright Franz Lebkind, and Gary Beach and Roger Bart as "common-law partners" Rodger DeBris and Carmen Ghia. There are also several cameos peppering the movie, including Deborah Monk, Andrea Martin, John Lovitz, Michael McKean, Thomas Meehan, and even Mel Brooks. All the performances are very good overall, despite some snags here and there. Thurman seems to pop in and out of accent and Broderick takes some time to warm up to what turns out to be his best performance since "Ferris Buller's Day Off". The standout performance was Roger Bart, who is having a banner year now that he has finished his role of the insane pharmacist on TV's Desperate Housewives. Bart easily steals every scene that he's in, which is no small feat considering the list of talent in this film. Lane, as usual, proves that he is a dynamo of energy that, fortunately, can be guided and utilized to produce amazing things. He easily carries this film.

The entire look of the film is very stylized. And that stylization is, unfortunately, very stagey. This is director Susan Strohman's first film, and it shows that up until now she has worked exclusively in theatre. Much of the movie lacks interesting camera work--the characters are in the center, framed nicely, while they perform their play. There is also a good deal of talking directly to the camera. This is certainly not the first movie that has done this. It's not even the first time that Matthew Broderick has done this (see "Ferris Buller's Day Off"). At first it is a little distracting, but Strohman is smart in that she realizes that this is the style of the piece, and she sticks to it throughout the entire film. Indeed, the first and last people we see are talking directly to the camera (Stick around after the credits, by the way). The way that the film is staged also makes it seem stagey. There are many jokes and bits of scenery moving that are more fitting for a stage than a screen.

I don't mean to make this sound like a bad thing, after all, who says that movies must follow such strict guidelines? I enjoyed the film greatly, and there were many things about it that I think other directors could learn from (especially directors of movie-musicals). The main thing that this movie achieves over other musicals, "Chicago" or "Rent" for example, is that Strohman allows us to watch the performers perform the musical numbers. They're NOT over-edited like the other two musicals I mentioned. It was a remembrance of the golden days of movie musicals where shots lasted forever, and we actually got to see the actors dance. Make no mistake about it, Strohman is an AMAZING choreographer. The numbers "I Wanna Be A Producer" and "That Face" show that she really does rank up there with the great choreographers of movie and Broadway history.

Many people ask why film this version? It's not as good as the original, and it works better on stage than on film. The answer seems to be that a $10 movie ticket is cheaper than a $100 theatre ticket, and now a wider audience gets to see the great performances. And they should. Despite the movie's flaws, it is incredibly funny.