Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Producers (2005)
7/10
A noble attempt for a first-time filmmaker
16 December 2005
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.
27 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Delightfully horrible!
29 December 2001
I had never seen a Troma film before this. I had no idea what to expect. My best friend recommended it, so the two of us and another friend rented it one night and watched it. The results were as follows: My best friend and I laughed the entire time. My other friend became violent. Don't worry, he didn't hurt anyone. The bottom line is, this is NOT a horror movie! The creators may have attempted to make a horror movie, but what they made was a hilarious comedy! The actors in this movie are absolutely horrible! Click on any of their bios, very few of them have been in over three or four movies! THERE'S A REASON FOR THIS!!!!!!! But you know what? They're all trying really hard to do a good job, and I'm certain that they thought that they were making Hollywood gold. Now let's look at other aspects of production. I have a feeling that this is what Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom were looking for when they found "Springtime for Hitler" in "The Producers"! There is no aspect of this movie that is particularly good, which makes everything GREAT! Especially if you are a theatre student, like me. I refer to such cinematic techniques as introducing a character (A psychic medium in this instance) and NEVER closing up on her face! I refer to a man who is getting a crowd incensed, but they never respond with more than a dull "EERRRRR". I refer to a monologue by a Bible salesman (And won't most people in a religious community ALREADY own a Bible?) where in the middle of the monologue the shot changes to a Speed Limit sign for no apparent reason. Then there's the end of the film. I won't give it away, but you have GOT to stomach this movie to see the ending! It's worth it! Trust me!!!!!!
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not a great movie. Not even a good movie. In fact, this movie ranks below poor!
29 December 2001
Anyone who says that this movie is better than RHPS obviously hasn't seen RHPS, or has only seen in in a midnight matinee and was distracted by flying hot dogs and the like. I bought this video because I had heard about it and because I LOVE RHPS. I was incredibly disappointed. I knew that the three major stars wouldn't be there, but I decided to give it a chance. They were sorely missed. Jessica Harper's Janet was a travesty, I absolutely despised her singing, and her acting was even worse. Cliff DeYoung as Brad and Farley Flavors left no impression on me. This movie is a spoof, a satire, and because of that the characters are required to be "Over-the-top" while FIRMLY rooted in reality. Spoofs work because the characters are so intense, but we firmly believe them. As a reference, I site the TV program "3rd Rock From the Sun". Harper and DeYoung did not have this quality. The rest of the cast worked very hard at this, and came close to rescuing the movie, but they could not save this sinking ship. Now onto other aspects of the movie. The music. It was pretty horrible. It could have easily been taken out of the movie and it would have made no difference. It lacked melody. I wanted to leave this movie humming a "Time Warp"-ish tune. But there was none. Songs in musicals should advance the plot or reveal character or create mood and atmosphere, or have SOME KIND OF PURPOSE! These songs did not. Now, onto the script! I sensed a skeleton of satire reflecting the country's attitude towards television, but it was too thin to be important (Pretty much confined to one horrible song where Brad and Janet "pray" to appliances). The rest of the plot was insipid and built up to an ending that flopped. In conclusion, I strongly DON'T recommend this movie!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed