www.filmbrats.com

hotline
reviews
shorts
interviews
home

Please select a letter from the list below to see the reviews.

a / b / c / d / e / f / g / h / i / j / k / l / m / n / o / p / q / r / s / t / u / v / w / x / y / z


Behind The Screens

by Jon Waterman
Volume 1, Issue 2
Volume 1, Issue 1
Special Features
D-VHS
Digital Projectction vs. 35mm
Multiple DVD Releases

FILMBRATS - REVIEWS

The Producers (2005) (1/2 star)
review by Jon Waterman

Struggling Broadway producer Max Bialystock is becoming increasingly desperate. Mostly he’s relying on his ability to charm little old horny ladies out of their retirement checks in order to keep his slumping entertainment career afloat. That is, until he comes across accountant Leo Bloom. Leo comes by and inadvertently tells Max of a moneymaking scheme. All they have to do is put on a play that’s guaranteed to flop. The two eventually partner up and find the perfect script: “Springtime for Hitler.” How can they miss?

Well, if we’re talking about the movie, it misses on several major elements. As many of you are well aware, this is a movie based on a Broadway musical based on a movie (about a Broadway musical). Having not only the critically acclaimed original film and musical as points of comparison certainly works against it. And how do you keep the same amount of story while giving the audience unfunny, flow-killing musical numbers? Why, you have to add time, of course! The 1967 version clocks in at 88 minutes. Even after cutting three songs from the Broadway show (which I haven’t seen, and no longer want to), the 2005 movie is a staggering 134 minutes. That’s nearly an hour of mind-numbing song.

Now, Matthew Broderick (Bloom) and Nathan Lane (Bialystock) may have had good chemistry in “The Lion King” and maybe even in the stage play, but I didn’t really feel it here. I felt like they were trying too hard to do impressions of the characters originated by Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel, respectively. However, neither has the comedic aptitude of their counterparts and thus can’t quite capture the subtleties of the part. Sure they can yell, but I don’t see the slime dripping off of Lane. I don’t see the nervous teddy bear in Broderick. Instead I see thick lined cartoons. The same goes for the supporting cast. For some reason it seems like they have to overcompensate by being more outrageous than what came before them. The worst is how outlandish the whole gay director scene plays out now. They fill it up with prolonged hisses and an entourage of Village People. It doesn’t seem out of place, necessarily, because every supporting character is completely out there and overly stereotypical. But it’s much easier to laugh at a crazy Nazi supporting pigeon-raising playwright than a fleet of gay Broadway workers. Well, I guess it would be easier if the Nazi were funny.

The film does a relatively good job of incorporating the musical element into a theatrical picture. I’d much rather see it done this way than in “Chicago” where it felt like I was watching a straight-up stage production. But even though the scenes transitioned nicely and the set pieces were appropriately extravagant, the lack of anything else to get excited about let me looking at my watch waiting for the story to advance. I also wish they would have done a better job of explaining how a flop would make them more money than a hit. I guess you should watch the original for that. Actually, you should just watch the original for any of it. It’s much better. And shorter.

respond to jon@filmbrats.com