The Producers - SOOOOOO BAD!

Mr.Applepie

I should point out before my rant that I like Mel Brooks movies

This movie was absolutely atrocious! I normally don't write reviews but I felt it was my duty to warn people off paying good money to watch this. The laughs were rare(most of them coming when Will Ferrel was around) and the musical numbers were a bit dull. Sounds ok so far? Well thats because I haven't mentioned Mr. Matthew Broderick.

He really made this movie terrible. I have never seen such horrifyingly bad, wooden, shameful acting in a film(and I've seen Alexander). There are just not enough adjectives to describe his appalling performance. In total 32 people left during the movie - and all of them left while he was "singing". The only emotion he appeared to be able to show was surprise, which he used sparingly! He can't act! He can't sing and he most certainly can't dance!

The only upside is that Uma Thurman looked pretty:)

I repeat SOOOOOO BAD!

Dodge

Just out of interest, what was your opinion on the original film?

Mr.Applepie

I actually haven't seen the original. The cast actually did a good job except for matthew broderick. He was bad enough to cancel out any good acting or jokes. grrr to him

marshmallow

Ah no, I was looking forward to seeing it!

Dodge

Bit wary of it myself but then I think the original is one of the greatest films ever. I was asking just for a frame of reference. Here's IMDB's user ratings

cashback

Well I've never liked Matthew Broderick. There's just something very annoying about him. So his presence would be enough to put me off.

TT&TO

ya, i would have to agree with you there about m. brod.'s acting - if you can't sing, why are you in a MUSICAL?

i thought the film was very funny, esp. in the 'make it gay' set pieces...the guy from the bird cage was excellent; i think you prob. not pay to much to see this; maybe a afternoon show during the week or something; or wait for dvd. anyone who enjoys the difference between tacky and kitsch will enjoy this...

ixoy

TT&TO wrote:

ya, i would have to agree with you there about m. brod.'s acting - if you can't sing, why are you in a MUSICAL?

Thing is Matthew Broderick is in the Broadway version of "The Producers". It was his performance, along with Nathan Lanes, that convinced Mel Brooks to film "The Producers" again - Uma Thurman and Will Ferrell, are the only ones not in the original and there as box-office draws.

Oh and Broderick was nominated for Broadway's Oscars - a Tony Award - for his performance in the Broadway version, which he lost to co-star Nathan Lane. I didn't see it personally, but assuming they don't have low standards, maybe it lost something in translation to the big screen?

TT&TO

ya, you may have a point there. bec. i know he can act; he was excellent in election for eg.

ixoy

Amusingly enough, TG4 just showed, an hour or so ago, the S4 finale of "Curb Your Enthusiasm". The season had Larry preparing for his role in the Broadway version of "The Producers" only for it to be revealed, in the finale, that Mel Brooks (starring as himself) only cast Larry David because he thought he'd be so awful in the role that it would end the Broadway-run of "The Producers" and allow Brooks to live in peace again. Maybe he's ironically done it with this movie

monkeyfudge

I can never put out of my mind the fact that Broderick mowed down a mother and child in his BMW in Ireland because he didn't know what lane he was supposed to be driving in and he got off with a small fine.

I loved the original film... I won't be going near this monstosity. I think I saw enough of the musical numbers in Curb Your Enthusiasm and they really weren't that great... although David Schwimmer made a very good Leo in that.

Nevyn

I loved the orginal the was skeptical to say the least as to if anyone could replace Gene Wilder in the role of Leo Bloom.

This is a wonderful film production of the musical that ran on broadway and
was son wonderful even ran in Berlin with a specail dispensation for use the use
of the swazitka and other nazi symbols.

A lot of people didnt expect it to be a musical, as a film genre they are dying out and there are people who have no idea of the format of one or what to expect.
Hell the person I went to see it with had no idea who Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers was.

Broderick did well in the part and more then held his own beside Nathan Lane.
Very enjoyible film.

Chong

Having loved the original , I was kinda looking forward to the new one. But now I am very skeptical especially because of the mixed reviews.

Franky Boy

I didn't like it at all.Although I havent seen the original.
The films humour was infantile,I left after 40 mins!

starn

I caught this earlier today, and it's absolutly diabolical. I enjoyed the originall. But this monstocity is unbearable. Brodrick is unbelivable miscast in the role of Leo Bloom. I dont know why his performance went down so well on Brodway. He hms it up to the nines. Personally I despise Nathan Lane. But Brodrick is soooo bad he actually makes makes Lane performance bearable . Does anyone else find it ironic at all that Mel Brooks brodway musical. Is was a hit musical about a play that should of flopped, which has now been made in to a movie of a brodway musical, which should be a success, but which ultimatly will flop. AVOID THIS FILM AT ALL COSTS


On a slightly more positive note. They have extended the "Springtime for Hitler" Sequence and retainted the Mel Brooks Classic line "Don't be stupid, be a smarty. Come and join the Nazi party"

Spider_Baby!

The guy (not Matthew Broderick) in the film, i dont know his name... He was really good, and along with will ferrel making me laugh, and Uma thurman being hot i found it made it more enjoyable. Not brilliant, but still worth a watch.

Now, must watch me the original!

maquiladora

I'll be honest, I heard how bad it was, but I still want to see it.....just for Uma!

TerrorFirmer

monkeyfudge wrote:

I can never put out of my mind the fact that Broderick mowed down a mother and child in his BMW in Ireland because he didn't know what lane he was supposed to be driving in and he got off with a small fine.

Hang on.....what?

About the film, was looking forward to it, until most of my friends told me it was the most painful thing to hit the screen in a long time.

Don't think I will see this myself - it's funny because whilst the trailer makes it look entertaining, word of mouth seems to really be destroying the film....

daiixi

I went along to see this last night. The theatre was packed and everyone was laughing the whole way through. I thought it was fab. And I loved the original as well.

monkeyfudge

MobileInfantry wrote:

Hang on.....what?

Yep.. it's true... Have a look at the wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Broderick#Collision_in_Ireland

He has a pretty ****ty attitude about it too.

Moe79

I went to see it yesterday and would count it as one of the most bizarre films I've ever seen. But yet, it was really, really funny.. and I thought Matthew Broderick was hilarious in it.. especially in his early scenes with his blue blanket.

If anyone's performance was bad, I think it was Will Ferrells.. he started to get on my nerves after a while.

Fmicrochip

If only I had read this thread before I went to see it.. the acting was really, really bad.

Nevyn

no it wasn't it, it was preformed as it should have been over the top and teatherical.

LundiMardi

monkeyfudge wrote:

Yep.. it's true... Have a look at the wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Broderick#Collision_in_Ireland

He has a pretty ****ty attitude about it too.

holy ****!! Killing two people and you get a 100 pound fine:eek:

Draupnir

Didnt himself and SJP also knock an old man down and kill him a few years back in Donegal? Anyway, thats beside the point.

Saw The Producers and it is excellent. The acting is spot on for what it is and I believe anyone who thinks its bad and the acting is bad, misunderstood how the film should be. Its over the top and the actors ham it up as they should.

Saying the acting is bad is a bit like saying Rick Moranis didnt come across as evil enough in SpaceBalls.

monkeyfudge

I think the problem is that the director doesn't really have any experience in working with cinema. And the actors are too used to playing those parts on the stage.

OFDM

ixoy wrote:

Amusingly enough, TG4 just showed, an hour or so ago, the S4 finale of "Curb Your Enthusiasm". The season had Larry preparing for his role in the Broadway version of "The Producers" only for it to be revealed, in the finale, that Mel Brooks (starring as himself) only cast Larry David because he thought he'd be so awful in the role that it would end the Broadway-run of "The Producers" and allow Brooks to live in peace again. Maybe he's ironically done it with this movie

He did it already with "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" and "Dracula: Dead and Loving It".

LundiMardi wrote:

holy ****!! Killing two people and you get a 100 pound fine:eek:

What a bastard.

Bam Bam

The original is a very funny film and I don't think a remake could ever live up to it.

If anyone wants to see the producers first see the original and you'll not be disappointed.

" I lieb ya baby I lieb ya. Now lieb me alone"

Thrasher

Moe79 wrote:

If anyone's performance was bad, I think it was Will Ferrells.. he started to get on my nerves after a while.

Why am I not surprised. He has a habit of doing that.....

nachos

I was a huge fan of the original film. So much so that I trekked over to London to see the West End production of it! Although I thought the musical was great, I don't think it transferred too well onto the screen. Nathan Lane was fantastic in it, really made the part his own. I have to agree with most of the people here in saying that Matthew Broderick was woeful. He seemed to be trying to match the intensity of Gene Wilder's performance but it came out as being embarrassing. The "blue blanket" scene was awful if comparing it to the original... Ulla was a bit unnecessary, the romance between Leo and her was very rushed. Will Ferrell was a bit meh. I've liked his previous films but this just seemed like an opportunity for him to act the prat and he didn't do much more. I would have liked a bit more of "Springtime for Hitler" though. There's more in the original musical where hitler has a dance-off with Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt:D

I would say that it's an entertaining film if you weren't a big fan of the original film but dissapointing otherwise....

Fmicrochip

I believe anyone who thinks its bad and the acting is bad, misunderstood how the film should be. Its over the top and the actors ham it up as they should.

Oh come on! You cannot justify bad acting no matter what type of film it is.
Uma Thurman and Matt Broderick were way off the mark..
The rest were ok.

LundiMardi

nachos wrote:

I was a huge fan of the original film. So much so that I trekked over to London to see the West End production of it! Although I thought the musical was great, I don't think it transferred too well onto the screen. Nathan Lane was fantastic in it, really made the part his own. I have to agree with most of the people here in saying that Matthew Broderick was woeful. He seemed to be trying to match the intensity of Gene Wilder's performance but it came out as being embarrassing. The "blue blanket" scene was awful if comparing it to the original... Ulla was a bit unnecessary, the romance between Leo and her was very rushed. Will Ferrell was a bit meh. I've liked his previous films but this just seemed like an opportunity for him to act the prat and he didn't do much more. I would have liked a bit more of "Springtime for Hitler" though. There's more in the original musical where hitler has a dance-off with Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt:D

I would say that it's an entertaining film if you weren't a big fan of the original film but dissapointing otherwise....

how was the westend version? who is in that one? I'm heading over and may go and see it.

Elmo

Why all the remakes?

Ilovelucy

Saw this and thought it excellent. I think you have to be of a certain ilk to enjoy it. Some people did walk out of the cinema but the majority were laughing. After some of the musical numbers I felt like clapping. Thought the use of the office for Ula's and Leo's number was well done in that it looked like they were on stage. I really enjoyed it but then I am of a musical background myself so enjoy these type of films\shows anyway.

monkeyfudge

LundiMardi wrote:

how was the westend version? who is in that one? I'm heading over and may go and see it.

I think Richard Dreyfus is in it.

dimerocks

i agree, there are too many remakes gonig on at the moment. there has been nothing original and good come out of hollywood recently. not that i can think of off the top of my head.
I keep hearing that Uma Thurman is being tipped for an Oscar for her role in this movie. I'll probably go to see it after a few drinks because of what you guys are saying.

Omnipresence

Yeah I thought this was terrible too..

I must confess though I hate musicals... with a passion...

BUT there were some moments, Matthew and the blanket at the beginning (yet all I could picture was Gene Wilder) and of course Will farell... other than that nothing else...

All I will say is how can you beat Gene Wilder.. ???!?

Original is brilliant... this version did not need to be made...

-A

shuushh

i dunno i think alot people went to the cinema maybe thinking they were going to see a remake of the original film and not the hammed up over the top musical instead, seeing a 30 second clip on TV3 of Matthew Broderick's face twitching around was enough to keep me away from it.

chrislad

I was looking forward to this. Went to see it on the 27th. 30 minutes after show time, myself and my girlfriend walked out. It has the honour of being the only film where I would have preferred to cut my losses rather than waste another hour of my life. At least I got a cool King Kong coke cup.

Glitter

At the risk of a very unpopular first post: I loved this film!

But then, I adore musicals.
I can understand if you're not a fan of that style of acting that it might have come across as hammy and rather OTT but... that's how it's meant to be!

The sequence with the blue blanket at the beginning was the only one I found really grating.
Once Broderick started with the "Unhappy / I wanna be a Producer" number I was enraptured.

Ulla's two big numbers ("When you got it, flaunt it" and the duet with Leo) were outstanding.
Although I think the girl on the OBCR possibly has a better singing voice.
But Uma's acting of the part was hysterical.

Nathan Lane was brilliant as always. Will Ferrell didn't drive me completely insane for once and the Keep It Gay crew were a panic.

Canis Lupus

Ya know I saw half of this and left, I personally hated it BUT I'm no fan of musicals. In fairness what I saw of it I can appreciate why it's done so well in broadway and I have to ask for all the people here saying the movie was terrible do you normally watch musicals?

To conclude it wasn't to my taste but I can see it being a big hit for the older audience.

BlitzKrieg

Saw it yesterday. Pretty Aweful. And i saw the original film and the broadway musical. And i love musicals, Bob Fosse creator of the original Chicago play is one of my all time favourite directors.

The acting from the leads was poor because they were acting for the most part as if they were on stage (loud clear voices projected out with a specific timing) esp Broderwick. Nathen Lane was a bit better but some of his lines were delivered as if he was on stage. Will farrell and Uma Thurman (who i thought would ruin the film) proved better because they were not acting as if they were on stage hence Farrell's jokes had better timing and suited the media better.

The musical numbers have the honour of actually being smaller then the stage version. IF anything Chicago and the disney musicals have proven to us that on film the musical numbers should be bigger and more elaborate. They took no advantage of the media, the springtime for hitler number actually looks identical to the stage version (right down to the mirror) except that its shorter. In other numbers there should have been more movement in the characters, they were not restricted by a stage. Most notable were the earlier numbers, which could have been much better.

The directing and camerawork was poor overall, characters proved static, and in some cases background characters appear more prominant then the leads during key moments, actions taken directly from the musical (the behind the couch moment) do not transfer to film and should have been either cut or changed. The all crucial first meeting between the producers has none of the frantic humour or pace of the original, the pacing and framing was all wrong, the camera was too static pointing in the same direction and at the same distance, i'm not asking for MTV shaky cam cutting. I'm asking for musical direction that Bob Fosse laid down back in the seventies.


Also the flaws of the musical are still present in the film. The audience loose interest after a specific point and dont really care about the rest of the plot as it feels tagged on for no real reason (though the original had a weak plot, it didnt disapear into a useless romance plot) 20 minutes before the end the audiance begin to squirm for the end, as all the good jokes and songs have gone.

and not the hammed up over the top musical instead

Thats a problem, it wasnt like a hammed up over the top musical, the film felt very impotent.




Very simply what the original film did great is still great, what the musical added made it a great stage musical. This film still has some of the great bits of the original, but the musical bits dont work and anything in between is a mess.

Glitter

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Also the flaws of the musical are still present in the film. The audience loose interest after a specific point and dont really care about the rest of the plot as it feels tagged on for no real reason (though the original had a weak plot, it didnt disapear into a useless romance plot) 20 minutes before the end the audiance begin to squirm for the end, as all the good jokes and songs have gone.

That's a very good point actually.. I got a bit confused at that point myself.
Although I was highly amused by the nod to Gene Kelly in the "Gotta Sing Sing" prison number and I liked the courtroom number.

I know what you're saying about the stage acting not working on film but I found it kinda interesting.
Maybe because I work on stage myself... in fact the whole thing felt like a bit of an in-joke. Perhaps they merely made it to amuse themselves?

spiderlegs

I actually quite liked the producers..I thought it was very different to most of the films out there..(besides Chicago)
I found it amusing over all really...I was laughin.
"Springtime for Hitler and Germany" :rolleyes: