in alphabetical order
definitely not a complete list
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…
Mel Brooks' 1968 original film is my favorite comedy of all time. So it shouldn't be surprising that I found this film incredibly hard to watch without comparing to the original. Especially since it contained most of the exact same dialogue from the original film. There's nothing new here, it's just got new actors and more musical numbers, which somehow made it even worse.
The Producers consists of a strict style of comedy that doesn't fit at all in the 21st century. All of the overdone comedy dialogue and the Broadway-style music sensationalism just doesn't hold over well in a Hollywood film. The decadent musical numbers are really eye-popping, but Broderick and Lane were absolutely terrible. I could see…
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…
Notice: this is not a review of this particular film, but of a local theatre I went to view the Producers Musical.
Run time: 2 hours 45 minutes
A playhouse review: letterboxd.com/zbender/list/playhouse-reviews/
Something more fun than the original film: The Producers: The Musical. In theater, the acting is trumped up a bit more which is part of what makes the musical a shit ton of fun. Leo, Max, and Roger are perhaps what stood out at this production. And of course it's Mel Brooks. Mel Brooks' screwball style is a treat. There is great fourth wall breakage. If the musical is ever in your area go grab some culture!
I didn't see part of the beginning but I had a ton of fun with the rest of the movie, it was funny, fun and had some great musical numbers.
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.
"Guten Tag clap clap" and Will Ferrell, being funny and actually brilliant for the one and only time in his life. points for that. As well as for "Springtime for Hitler, Winter for Poland and France".
And points for the fact that the show was good entertainment on Broadway and that the first film version has so many classic moments in it.
But I should have left it at that. Musical. No thanks.
Second Nathan Lane film in one day and he's a worldwide treasure. Broderick's performance was really good at some points, his comedic timing and vocal comedy were on point, but other times he was tiresome and overused. This film had fantastic set design. I need to watch the original for something to compare it with but it stands its own, even if it was a commercial flop.
I thought the stage musical adapted from Mel Brooks' classic 1968 film was terrific and if anything even more outrageous than the movie. So it's strange that this movie based on the musical should feel so tame by comparison. It doesn't have that bawdy, let's offend everyone sense of fun that Brooks projects usually have, and it all feels a little lacklustre. Still, if you like the stage version, you'll probably have fun with this movie, as it's a virtual recreation, and the music sounds great.
What I appreciate most about this movie is its willingness to be an old-fashioned movie musical. Unlike "Chicago," which felt the need to justify all of its musical numbers as fantasy sequences taking place…
Stage show was much better :-(
Why I watched this one? I like Will Ferrell and this was one of the few Ferrell movies that I had not seen. This was the 27th Ferrell movie that I have seen.
What is this one about? 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.
My thoughts on this one? A big "its ok" from me. I am not much of a musical fan...so take that into consideration. Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane make a good screen team. I did not think Ferrell was very funny in this one. Uma Thurman was probably my favorite performance in the movie.…
I would totally go see Springtime for Hitler. That looks like a fun time!
This movie is a lot worse than I remember.
However, “Heil Myself” will forever be stuck in my head (…and I kinda like it).
in alphabetical order
Excluding these because they are not in Letterboxd's library:
My Man (1928) The Battle of Paris (1929)
Footlights and Fools…
A list of films I want to watch at some point. Always evolving. In no particular order.