The Producers (2005)

Sorry, this movie sucks

Purely Joyful Movie!

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

...I didn't even manage 10mins before switching this movie off. The original 1967 version is one of my favourite movies, & I consistently watch it approx six times per year. The 2005 version is terrible, forced acting, bad casting especially Matthew Broderick, he just isn't convincing nor is he funny, may be he did it for the paycheck! (for that I can't blame him). I'm sorry but 2005 was a total unwatchable mistake. For me this movie is an insult on the original! How on earth can the pairing of Zero and Gene Wilder be bettered (improved) upon... It's truly amazing how some ratings are so high with up to ten star ratings!! I must be living in a different world from these people.To conclude for utter brilliance in comedy you MUST watch the 1967 Original. (especially You younger people who often don't give 'oldie movies' a chance)p.s. when you're in the mood for a good comedy also watch 'The Twelve Chairs' of 1970 by Mel brooks....

A little more music and embellishing of several plot points that were passed over in the original film are what distinguishes this musical version of The Producers. It's a musical version about a film that had a plot about two men who try to create the biggest flop in the history of Broadway and a musical.Taking the places of Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder as the producing partners Bialystock&Bloom are Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick. Both these guys are given an impossible task of repeating two classically congruent performances that Mostel and Wilder created. Even the additional bits of business just can't make me forget the original. Will Ferrall did not come over from Broadway to do the role of the hermit like Nazi living in Greenwich Village and caring for his carrier pigeons. He had to do double duty because he also took the place of beatnik method actor Dick Shawn from the original. I'm not sure that combining the roles was the best thing, I'm also not sure Ferrall did real justice to either try as he might on both. Kenneth Mars was the reclusive Nazi author of Springtime For Hitler. in the original. Both he and Shawn were almost as memorable as Mostel and Wilder.I do love the Mel Brooks humor, but I think he laid it on a bit thick with the gay stereotyping of Gary Beach and Roger Bart. It came this close to the good side of being offensive, but not quite.There's a lot to like in this version of The Producers, but I think Mel should not have touched his masterpiece.

2 stars? I must be in a charitable mood. The original movie of 1967 (per IMDb) had comic geniuses Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder, who were well supported by Kenneth Mars and many others. The Broadway musical was, like this movie remake, aimed at people of degraded tastes. Truly wretched songs were added, for one thing, and they have been apparently transferred to this movie version of the Broadway show. Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane are garish caricatures. They do not perform and do not act; they merely mug and pose and throw themselves about clumsily and unconvincingly. (It's arguable which of the two is worse.)The role of Franz Liebkind has been greatly and badly inflated expanded from a nice little counterpoint for Mostel and Wilder to a feature role for Will Ferrell, who is not good in it: it's just more mugging. Broderick and Lane? What was the casting director thinking? Box office, I guess.

I go to the cinema regularly; so much so that I have considered that I may be addicted to popcorn, or at the very least have an unhealthy obsession with escapism, but after countless films I have only ever genuinely wanted to walk out of the cinema on perhaps two or three occasions. One such occasion was Charlie's Angels 2. Another was this film.I haven't seen the original and though I suspect Mel Brooks probably did a sounder job, I don't think I would be brave enough to take the risk. Nor have I seen the stage show but I don't think either of these thing should matter; I 'm not passing comment on either of those works but on this piece of cinema itself as it stands alone. And it stands poorly, leaning on a crutch with a slightly seedy demeanour.So great was the impact that this film had on me that now, 9 years after having seen it, I experienced an uncomfortable flashback, resulting in cold sweats and nausea. Once they had passed I thought that it may be time to work through the past trauma and that this review may be a first step forward in doing so.I won't go into the technical details about why I did not enjoy this film because I think it is still too soon for me but I will say this: a previous review was quite accurate in their description of it being produced like a stage show not a movie; I'm not sure if this was an experiment on the part of the film makers but it felt like I was part of one and I certainly had not given my consent.I did not enjoy this film. I thought it was bad.