To see what March's challenge looked like click here.
1. Participants suggest one film for the entire challenge. That…
After putting together another Broadway flop, down-on-his-luck producer Max Bialystock teams up with timid accountant Leo Bloom in a get-rich-quick scheme to put on the world's worst show.
Review In A Nutshell:
11 years of age, coming home from school with my mother and sister, we pass by a poster of The Producers; on the cover I see Uma Thurman, Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick, and Will Ferrell in their eye-catching poses, filled with such enthusiasm and fun that something immediately clicked in me, I knew I had to watch this. Sadly, this was a time in my family’s life where we were still trying to find our ground in this new country, hoping to find success and security, finding improvement in me and my sister’s life, and for our future families. This means I couldn’t go and see it at the theatre, and though the months had passed…
The Producers isn't the best film made. Not even close. Not the best musical, not the best Broadway-to-film adaptation. Not nearly the best Mel Brooks movie. It bombed at the box office and got some pretty bad reviews. It has parts that drag on and some of the songs are boring as all hell. It doesn't hold a candle to the 1968 original.
But, for reasons I can’t put words too, I love it. So much! And I don’t know why. I saw it on a whim in a full theater, maybe that did it. There’s a real difference between watching a film alone at home and with sharing with a room full of people. The jokes are funnier, the…
This was still somewhat fun on a re-watch, but not everything worked for me. Broderick was terrible as Bloom (I believe he was a lot better in the actual musical), the acting itself was too slapstick-ey, the puns and other humor was very hit or miss as well, with a runtime with over 2 hours it was way too long, and most importantly for a musical comedy the songs were very uneven. Strange enough, I thought Will Ferrell was hilarious.
I really don't enjoy musicals. So watching this was like two hours of torture. It was crass and unfunny, I felt extremely uncomfortable watching this, spontaneous song and dance makes my skin crawl. I was grimacing every time Matthew Broderick was on screen fellating his scabby blanket. I only laughed once, it was more of a half smile and that was only at two words or dialogue. ("Heil ... me.")
The story is about two producers who intentionally make a terrible play so they can cash in on the projects surplus funding. I think the producers of this film had the same idea. They succeeded in making the worst film, the making money part not so much.
"The Producers" is a film that was made with all the right intentions. It was clearly made by people who love the wonderful musical (which in turn, was an adaptation of Mel Brook's 1968 film of the same name) and Lane and Broderick maintain the same killer charm and chemistry they had on stage, Ferrell and Thurman are also welcomed additions, but the problem lays solemnly on one fact: it's still a play.
They didn't adapt the play for the big screen, they shot the play. Which would be great if the director had told her actors "act like you do on a movie, not on stage". What works for theater, specially in methods of delivery and performance, doesn't work…
This review reportedly contains spoilers. I can handle the truth.
Hmmmmmm so very very tricky to decide here, what can I say...I enjoyed this as a stand alone film on its own, and when not compared to the original. As a stand alone farce its a great piece of comedy but of course it so difficult not to think and look back to the original material.
To be honest this is a classic example of a remake that, in terms of the movie, didn't succeed in doing anything other than show you should never try to remake a classic. Of course because of the flick there was a big renewed interest in the forgotten classic and a very popular theatre show, which is all good as its perfect for the…
(aggressively sings "Springtime for Hitler")
Not as good as I remember it being. Feels way too long.
Although there are some absolutely hilarious jokes in this, almost all of them related to the gay director and his assistant/boyfriend.
It's Mel Brooks. What's there not to like?
I don't know what is so good on this movie.
Copy/Paste from stage. Fun but hardly cinema.
It's unfortunate that this is a musical based on an existing film property. I couldn't watch this for any length of time without thinking of Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel. All the flop sweat and nervous energy feels so much more natural from Wilder and Mostel than it does from Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick. Or maybe it's that Lane and Broderick feel stagey. This was a Broadway show before it became a movie again. It may play much better with an audience interrupting after every song in applause. Here it just falls flat. The overall plot of the original still keeps the remake buzzing along, but it lacks that certain something the original had that made it a film worth remaking.
I think I saw it this day... not sure. But it was a cool movie.
A totally different animal from the original and I love it and it's comic bombast all the same
Yup, still terrible.
I'm a hoarder. Deal with it.
Current number: 1094
Watched: 49% (538 out of 1094)
Every film that has ever been nominated for a Golden Globe Award in any category.