bartmanblues

One could not be surprised that this film is this good. The original was brilliant and the musical is (I hear) also very good and has been successful. To lift many of the actors from the musical meant that they were more than accustomed to performing their roles. I thought Nathan Lane was particularly good and a more than worthy successor to Zero Mostel's original performance. Matthew Broderick was good but I think my lack of complete conviction is partly due to the unusual character that Leo Bloom is (Broderick's "eye" acting is something to behold!). Having said that, Gene Wilder's performance was very good so maybe Broderick did fall short somewhere.

Musicals generally are not one of my favourite genres but I admit being pleasantly surprised by many of the numbers (though I always knew "Springtime For Hitler" was going to delight me as much as it did - and maybe even more so than in the original version!). I also particularly enjoyed Lane's solo summisary song near the end. The physical aspect of the film (dancing and choreography) was particularly pleasing and my faithful accomplice (my girlfriend) informs me that the costumes were rather good too! She particularly enjoyed the film which itself is substantial credit to the filmmakers.

Will Ferrell and Uma Thurman provide more than ample support for the two protagonists. Since Anchorman I have been a huge Ferrell fan and he manages to capture the eccentricity (not unexpected) and...well...stereotypical German soldier-ness of Liebkind. His scenes are some of many highlights. Thurman likewise provides brilliant support as the Swedish bombshell (how short is Matthew Broderick?!).

It seems Mel Brooks has had substantial input not only into this, but the musical version too (am I mistaken in thinking he provided most if not all of the lyrics and a lot of the music, but with the help of a musician?). Being a Mel Brooks fan (Young Frankenstein is my favourite) this is only different in providing a musical comedy rather than a straight comedy but it's not as if one didn't see it coming what with the stage adaption. The comedy element is still most certainly there. The slew of under the breath comments by Lane are fabulously amusing, the eccentricity of Ferrell and other minor characters (Jason Antoon's hiss and subsequent musical-mouth-fanfare thing had me going for longer than it takes a kettle to boil!) are hilarious and the absolute absurdity of some scenes had me spontaneously cracking up for no reason other than the situation.

Admittedly it's not all success (something Bialystock and Bloom failed to avoid). I did wonder as someone who had no previous experience with The Producers (original film or stage version) whether my girlfriend would like the film. I anticipated that its music and visual splendour would please her where the humour would fly straight past. Apart from a shaky start, (she admitted to me afterwards that the initial blanket escapade seemed not a good omen), she even found herself with a broad smile for most of the time.

The only real shortfall I found was it seemed to take a long time to end and that it did so very awkwardly. Two-thirds of the way in I struggled to recall how the original had ended so was pleased to have to wait for the outcome...but it did take its time. Then again there was no real way that it could have ended satisfactorily when Lane sung and danced the summisary number. However it did smack a bit of an Adam Sandler ending (well, pre-ending).

Unusually for a remake (I guess not technically an exact remake) it equalled its predecessor. It surpassed it in some areas yet failed in others. It really depends on whether you think the songs add to the experience. I think they do. Having Brooks on board, a host of actors lifted from the stage show and a dabble of excellent others to the project certainly helped too.

My continued exploration for movie's with unusual concepts or storylines continued last night when I read about a movie whose plotline looked interesting, a man who chooses his victims at random. This reminded me of one of my favourite parts from 'The Jerk'.

However I found the movie only loosely interesting. I disliked the dream the main character has (that tells you something about the movie - I can't even remember the main character's name) right at the end, it even made me angry.

Potential wasted.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

WARNING-IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THIS MOVIE THEN DO SO OR YOU HAVE NOT LIVED.

This is easily my favourite film of all time followed closely by Star Wars, Life of Brian, Blues Brothers and The Spy Who Loved Me. Dr Strangelove is pretty good to.

This movie has just not just one or two amazingly, side-splittingly funny moments but at least 10. The rest of the film is made up of chuckles a load of funny names, a jolly song sequence and admittidly quite a bad ending (Promise you this is the only dissapointment). The Coconut sequence, the French, Castle Anthrax, Black Knight, Song, Bridge of Death, Castle on a swamp, Burn the Witch, Tim, Killer Rabbit. These are some of the funniest moments in Film History - Watch it.

Easily 10/10