the never ending NYC movie list.
feel free to add more if i missed any.
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 Lane…
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…
can't believe i just watched Women Are Objects: The Musical just to see only like 20 minutes of mother uma
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.
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 was talked into watching this by the wife. I was bored to tears and the movie is laughably overacted, but if musicals are your bag then you might find parts of this movie a lot of fun. I don't know hardly anything about the musical genre aside from Disney movies and Rocky Horror, but i even caught myself humming a few of the songs. I'm looking forward to watching the 1967 original, i've been told it's a lot better.
This remake did a very good job of stitching up every place the 1967 version ran thin. It was peculiar how the original film introduced the accountant's strange dependency on his little blue blanket, then never brought it up again. I like how this film made more out of that, going so far as to dress up Ula (Uma Thurman) in a blue dress and figuratively replacing the blanket by entering into a romance with this film's version of the accountant (Matthew Broderick.) The Ula/Accountant relationship, absent from the original, was a really intelligent way of expanding the depth and arcs of both characters. The addition of the accounting office scene and Broderick's running desire to wear a producer's hat…
Will Ferrell's character and the 'unhappy song' are my favorite parts.
Fastuosa, una producción esplendida y todos los involucrados en el elenco funcionan de maravilla, el problema es que esta no parece ser una obra teatral transportada al lenguaje cinematográfico, lo que parece es una obra de teatro grabada, por eso carece de un verdadero impacto, simplemente carece de lenguaje cinematográfico.
Ostentatious, a splendid production and everyone involved in the cast work great, the problem is that this does not appear to be a play transported to film, no, it seems like play recorded, so there's no real impact, simply lacks cinematic language.
Yes, it's the film based on the stage musical based on the original film, which gives you an extra excuse or two if you start experiencing some major deja vu.
Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick take over the lead roles, Uma Thurman and Will Ferrell are the two biggest names lending support, and everyone should be happy to hear that you still get a wonderful rendition of "Springtime For Hitler".
It's just a shame that, as good as everyone involved is, and as much fun as some of the musical numbers are, nobody can quite match the original performers. And I can't help feeling that it's all been packaged so nice and comfortably that a layer of wonderful outrageousness has been worn away from the final product.
Good Lord, this is waaaay too broad for my tastes. I was really expecting to enjoy it and maybe it works better on a live stage, but this is so ridiculous. I didn't even crack a smile once. I thought this was supposed to be funny?!?
This review may contain spoilers. I can handle the truth.
Here is the film version of the musical The Producers. It won a bevy of Tony Awards for its Broadway production, and the movie not only stars the mega-talents from the stage, Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane, but it is also directed by Susan Stroman, the woman behind the successful stage production. With all the same elements in place, why does this movie flop?
The plot of this incarnation of The Producers is the same as the plot in Mel Brooks's immortal 1968 original film. We have a couple of Broadway producers who discover they can defraud investors and make a killing by purposefully putting on a show that is so awful and offensive that it bombs. That show, "Springtime…
I really enjoy this movie. The music, the comedy, and just the general Brookyness of it all. That being said this movie also really has no purpose existing.
My reasoning for this is the fact that this movie feel so much like a Broadway musical that it might as well have just been one that they decided to film a showing of. And if we live in a world where we have the original classic and an incredibly successful Broadway show, witch we do, do we really need this movie.
My answer would be no. But I do enjoy the final product at the end of the day.
the never ending NYC movie list.
feel free to add more if i missed any.
Excluding these because they are not in Letterboxd's library:
My Man (1928) The Battle of Paris (1929)
Footlights and Fools…
100 films from the first decade of the 21st century (and yes, I am counting 2000 because of the celebrations…