An absolutely fantastic film. Really it was a lot of fun to watch. Not as spectacular as Chicago, but it held its own. It has a lot of the glitz of Chicago but not all the glamour. The musical numbers were overall fairly good, with several that really stood out. Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick have amazing chemistry on-screen, truly spectacular in fact. The film does run a bit long, at a little over two hours. Perhaps a slightly better edit would have helped, especially at the end where it lags a bit.

Still, one of the most enjoyable films of the year, probably tied with Casanova for that title. A-

A-/A

Rumors of THE PRODUCERS suckitude have been greatly exaggerated.

Charming and hilarious from start to finish, THE PRODUCERS is as much fun as I've had in a long time. The critical complaints all focus on Stroman; her 'stagey' and far-too-broad direction. To which I say: so what? THE PRODUCERS brilliantly evokes the feelings of a classic 50's Musical; the kind Stanley Donen (Singin' In The Rain, Seven Brides For Seven Brothers) would have directed. Yes, the camera just plants itself down and lets the actors perform as if on a stage. Yes, the actors look at the camera when performing. JUST LIKE THE CLASSIC MUSICALS. The critics should know better. What did they expect, exactly?

No, Stroman's direction isn't great. It's awfully flat. But it doesn't cripple the film.

Uma Thurman and Will Ferrell (especially, suprisingly, the latter) both do nicely. Matthew Broderick pulls off the Gene Wilder-esque freakouts well, and its nice to see him with a decent role again. (One of the teenage girls in the audience said - "Who knew Ferris Bueller could do that?") Nathan Lane chews the scenery like he's trying to gain 50 pounds, and fast. So yes, everybody is over the top. And the critics, whom I usually defend, bitch about it. I know these guys have seen the original film. Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder are every bit as over-the-top. So again, what the fuck, guys?

Have we become so jaded, cynical, and ironic that we can't enjoy a classically filmed musical with old-school, broad as a barn performances? We love it when Gene Kelly and his ilk do it.

The critics have had a bone to pick with this one for a while. Consider it picked, and thoroughly. All I can say is go see it, and you'll have a great time. I plan on going again.

I felt the exact same way about this I did with the musical, it's occasionally gut-bustingly hilarious but just as often has total dead spots. The movie also has the bigger problem of feeling 939845856476 hours long because of no intermission and I was getting kind of restless by the end. Broderick and Lane are just as they were in the musical, but Uma Thurman and Will Ferrell both do well here. Amusing but just an average effort. C+

What the hell did I watch? That's one of the most random efforts at filmmaking (at story-telling in general) I've ever seen. And I love every minute of it. Off the wall performances and musical numbers. It was definitely 20 minutes or so longer than it should have been. A-

Yow - this one's so over the top, that it almost comes all the way around again to kick itself in the butt...

The performances were Broadway BIG, too dang broad for the silver screen. The screenplay, compared to the 1968 original, is so watered down that Mel Brooks' classic trashy absurdity has all the laughter steamrolled out of it. While I couldn't help loving some of the big musical numbers, especially when they go to sign the flaming director, the whole thing is a disappointment after some of the outstanding film musicals in recent years.

2 out of 5.

I'm kind of surprised at how much I liked the film. Would I guess I would've been saying that after the first 20 minutes? Not a chance. This film takes it's sweet ass time to get going (And to finish might I add). However, once we are introduced to Will Ferrell, the film absolutely takes off. He was absolutely perfect.

I never got a chance to see the musical on broadway, so I can only base their performances in the film, but Matthew Broderick is no Gene Wilder, and Nathan Lane is no Zero Mostel. However, they are both very good.

As for Uma, stunning as usual.

Here is the thing though that surprised me the most, and pleased me the most about the film; Mel Brooks' involvement. I would've figured, even though he contributed heavily to the broadway production, he would just have an executive producer's credit. But no, he is "the producer" and screenwriter, not to mention the writer of all of the songs (That were on broadway as well). For a man his age, that is mighty impressive.

Note** - If anyone was looking out for a Mel Brooks cameo, you won't get one, except for one in the "Springtime for Hitler" song, just like in the original. That's if you do not stay for the credits. If you do stay for the credits, you'll see some singing from everyone in the cast, including the master of comedy himself, Mel Brooks. It was a real treat to see him in the film. However, if you are or were kind of put off by the 126 minute running time (Not including credits), you might want to wait for the DVD to see it.

Very brief for now, i enjoyed this more than i expected to, but it could have done with losing 20 minutes or so. Uma was fantastic.

B+

The first film I've ever walked out of due to it's quality. What I saw I'd give a D+, although to be fair it was getting better. Still, it's shockingly inept direction, although I was the most surprised at how awful the two leads were. I may rent this to try and sit through it the whole way through, but at least the first hour was truly wretched.

I think this works better for those who have seen the musical. I've seen the musical twice and to me, it was like seeing the it all over again...

I just love the story. "Springtime for Hitler"...my god. Mel Brooks is insane.

My only problem is with the cinematography. If you're making something into a film, take advantage of the medium! Don't take straight shots, use angles! Film around the sets and the city! The Producers' cinematography screams CSPAN. One shot, one set.

BTW, jmart007, Mel Brooks does some voicing work (a pigeon?) I think. Not a cameo, but...

Mel Brooks does the "Don't Be Stupid, be a Smarty, Come and Join The Nazi Party!" line in Springtime For Hitler, just like he did in the original. We see an older actor, but it's clearly Books doing the voice.

He also shows up if you wait around until after the credits, when Brooks and the cast do the "Goodbye" song from the show.

Speaking of which, please stay through the credits. Will Ferrell does a hilarious, slowed-down version of the "Hop Clop," wherein he implores us to "buy Mein Kampf...available at Borders...Barnes & Noble...and Amazon.com!" Made me laugh.

Yes that's what I meant. He doesn't actually show up during the film itself, but only after the credits.

I loved it.

Comon guys, this is Mel Brooks, of course it's not going to be a quality movie. Classic Brooks. The performances were excellent, the laughs were really big (even though I saw the play, I still cracked up at this). The end credits was hilarious too. And the music was delightful and very old fashioned (which for me, that is a plus).

Grade: A.

My brother, sister, and my parents all loved it too.

Scott, I don't understand. What do you mean "quality"?

Because I consider Brooks' Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles to be two of the greatest comedies ever.

I mean, the fact that his movies don't follow traditional formula's of filmmaking. A rulebreaker in other words. Some people are still not accustomed to this uncoventional way of making a movie. Being a film student, I know about this stuff.

Strangely, I find myself agreeing with Libs...

"Unconventional" and "rulebreaker" were certainly descriptions that could be applied to Brooks' earlier films, but they applied to his subversive sense of humor, not to shoddy camera work and direction...

Maybe I should have looked more closer on how you used the word "quality"

And that didn't sound condescending...

- As I have seen it twice, I know that both times the theater was enjoying it. Though as it is usually an older crowd that probably has seen and liked the older movie/Broadway show.

- Lots of great songs and funny scenes in this and Uma and Will added to this greatly.

- For me, Nathan Lane was good in the role but Matthew B was alittle bit of a problem for me. Mainly because how good Gene Wilder was in the original.

***********************

On MB, the early scenes with Uma, in the Accountant office, in Max's office, etc > he looked so dewbish, small and not imposing at all.

But I will say that his dancing scenes made up for the negatives of the above > I thought the dancing scenes were done pretty well.

any favorite scenes

- really liked most of Will Ferrall screen time.

- liked the finger during the Hilter oath
- liked the painting of the room white
- liked the first gay scene at the director's house
- liked the opening scene about how bad the first play was
- liked the birds

- as these were some quick ones off the top of my head, maybe some more later

The Producers

The Producers gave me quite mixed feelings. The beginning of the movie was quite slow. The middle which began with their meeting of Will Ferrell, Uma Thurman and the scene at the director's house were hilariously funny and were filled with non stop laughs. Then the movie kind of died from there onwards, to the point that I left during the singing scene with Matthew Broderick in the courtroom. They could've ended the movie right there.

Will Ferrell and Uma Thurman, Gary Beach (the director) and Roger Bartthe (director's partner and George on Desperate Housewives) steal the movie. Matthew Broderick killed it; to me he gave me the creeps. It was like he was playing a pedophile.

Good movie. No where near Oscar Calibre.

7.3/10

Just got back from seeing this, and I definitely want to see it again!

I have to give this movie an A+.... I've been going through some tough times, and no movie has made me laugh this hard in a long, LONG time. I didn't even laugh this hard at 40-Year-Old Virgin.

This movie was HILARIOUS! My friends and I were laughing to *tears* for quite a bit of it. And the funniest part was the courtroom scene/song at the end... we were the only people laughing, but I think that's 'cause we were the only ones picking up on how freaking OBVIOUS that song was. Of course, we've got very, uh... strange mindsets, so we were of course going into the movie expecting to pick up on homo-erotic vibes between Max and Leo... And we definitely picked those up! LOL

Anyway. I honestly don't think there's anything bad I could say about this movie. I think perhaps I'd change it just a tad; I'd get rid of that betrayal song as all it is is mainly a recap of the whole movie (or whittle out the recap part). Then with the time saved from that, we could possibly get "Where Did We Go Right?" put back in; I really love that song.

I have never seen the Broadway show, and I've never seen the Wilder film (except one or two scenes while channel surfing), so aside from hearing a couple of the songs, this was my first real exposure to The Producers. And I loved every minute of it!

Joy

Yep. Often hilarious, but ultimately a patience-trier. It's up and i'm loving it, then it's down and i'm crying (tears of boredom) and back and forth. Maybe if it was 4 and a half hours long it wouldve been a little better...but as it is...um, nah.

I'm definetly seeing this tomorrow.

I thought it was okay. Nathan Lane is the best thing about it. The direction is incredibly inept and the whole film doesn't take advantage of the cinematic artform. If you want to shoot stagey dance numbers or shoot a musical in the style of a stage play then please copy Chicago.

Matthew Broderick wasn't that good in my opinion.