Os Produtores

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!

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.

I am a huge fan of the original movie and had the pleasure of seeing the wonderful Broadway show in 2003, so I was more than expecting to love this remake. Unfortunately it didn't live-up to my expectations on a number of fronts.

Most fundamentally, it seemed more of a cinematic rendering of the stage show than a remake of the movie - the problem is that it utterly lacks the charm of the 1968 film, and fails to capture the excitement and energy of the show. This is not to do with the actors, who all put in great performances and do the best job possible with their roles. Though, I wonder if it was a good idea to keep the leads from Broadway - playing a part on stage is very different from doing the same thing in a movie. This is at the heart of what is wrong with this movie - it is trying to be cinematic and theatrical at the same time.

Also, they have cut some of the funniest scenes and changed some of the best lines from the original. Why, I wonder? For example, the first encounter between Max and Leo in the original movie is hilarious and dramatic - a magnificent opening set-piece, with drama, humour and conflict. In this version, Leo just knocks on the door and introduces himself. Bit of a damp squib, really.

Overall, I am not sure what to make of this movie. I would probably have enjoyed it more if I had not seen the original. But not much.

What a fantastic surprise. I've seen Luke-warm reviews about this film, largely saying that the theatrical basis (the Broadway show) is oh-so-evident. Well, in my opinion, this is one of the film's strengths. It's a well-intentioned performance and is close enough to the original Producers, and so unlike it, that the musical remake is justified.

I love musicals, especially musical comedy. This film is a sop to the musical comedy, with good performances from the leads, and Uma Thurman and Will Ferrell, who all appear to be enjoying themselves.

The central (staged) number "Springtime for Hitler" is brilliantly choreographed, with suitably outrageous costumes. Gary Beach as a brilliantly camp Hitler completes this excellent scene. And the bratwurst!! The editing in this sequence - camera panning to the gob-smacked audience is brilliant. This is a film that salutes and spoofs musicals. It's an absolute delight

One has to compare this with the original and it just does not cut it. Lane is pretty good in this but have seen him much, much better. I like Broderick usually but this performance is embarrassing. Will Ferrell is his usual overrated self-there is not a funny bone in his body!! Uma Thurman is wasted in this .I have been told that the stage play is great, so perhaps a straight filming of the Broadway production might have been a better idea (after all Into the Woods worked brilliantly as a simple filming of the stage). Incidentally I love musicals so that was not my problem. The original film was just so great and the performances by Mostel,Wilder and Mars were incredible and incredibly funny that any remake just had to suffer by comparison. The only way in which the new version might have shaded it were the stage numbers which looked great. A nice try but they shot and they missed.