mark.waltz This film version of the biggest Broadway musical in decades couldn't be filmed and kept for posterity any other way. The team of Mel Brooks and Susan Stroman kept the remake of Mel's 1968 classic totally a camp riot, as pretty and witty and gay as they could possibly be. For those like me who couldn't score a decently priced ticket with original stars Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick got a chance with the film version. I was lucky in getting a ticket to the Los Angeles production with Jason Alexander and Martin Short, but the legendary team of Lane and Broderick was the dream of many a theatrical fan's impossible dream.Who'd think that anybody could rival the stars of the original, Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder, but Lane and Broderick are their equals. Most of the original Broadway cast got to repeat their roles as well with Gary Beach and Roger Bart deliciously stereotypically gay as a lousy director and his "common law" assistant. Brad Oscar and Cady Huffman weren't as lucky, replaced though by two fine substitutes, Will Farrell and Uma Thurman. I normally can't stomach Farrell, but he's delightfully obnoxious as the playwright of the deliciously tacky "Springtime For Hitler". Thurman fills out the part of Ulla, the Swedish chorus girl who has the need for sex every day at 11, and us told by Lane and Broderick to report to work at that time. (Something tells me that they'd be done "rehearsing" by 11:05.)The chorus is mainly filled by mainly Broadway notables, including Brent Barrett, Peter Bartlett, Karen Ziemba, Andrea Martin and Debra Monk, although for some it's a blink and you'll miss them situation. Even the aging Mel Brooks gets in on the action, utilizing his voice for several parts.I've read reviews which claim that thus was "too theatrical", but how else should a musical comedy be filmed? I love the fact that this is also not afraid of going down dangerous paths with parodies of certain races and the gay lifestyle that are stereotypical and obviously true in some cases. It was nice to see all that laughed with rather than scorned. This is exactly what a big movie version of a smash hit Broadway show should look like, big and brassy in the 1950's and 1960's way, but with modern sensibilities.

laversj 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.

brianjmichaels I knew going in I probably wasn't going to love this. After all, I find Mel Brooks "comedies" to be the lamest, lowest-common-denominator style of comedy, full of unfunny puns and slapstick overacting. But I like musicals, so I thought I might at least get some enjoyment out of it. I should give it a shot.It's even worse than I thought.The first scene with Lane and Broderick, which seems to go on for about half an hour, is agonizing and interminable, I almost turned it off (again - I started watching it once LONG ago and never made it through that scene), but I powered through and kept watching. The movie never got much better. The songs themselves are slightly less awful, but the rest of the film is just too rooted in bad, laughless Mel Brooks style. The performances are equally painful, even from some of the otherwise-decent actors. It's so overdone and exaggerated - fine if you're playing to a large live theater, but in a movie that kind of exaggeration is not needed and just comes across as dumb.

Charlie Ralph I'm a big believer in judging movies on what they want to be. A lot of the criticisms of The Producers seem to be forgetting that this is an intentionally OTT, gaudy, camp and ridiculous musical, which puts it's strength in the audience's ability to play along and enjoy the bizarre ride accompanied by some fantastically elaborate musical numbers. So yes, Broderick, Lane and everyone else in the cast completely overacts to a cringeworthy degree, and there isn't much of an adaptation from the stage to the screen. In addition to this, the film is also pretty stupid and zany. But for all these reasons and many more I absolutely love the musical adaptation of The Producers.I think Nathan Lane plays his role perfectly, and I couldn't see anyone else in his role (in terms of musicality. I'm well aware of how good a job the original Max played his role). Matthew Broderick is slightly more replaceable, but he has a good voice and he does the sweet bits in his songs really well. Uma Thurman is the only person who I would say is actively miscast, but she was a big star at the time. Not to mention, as I said in my reviews of Chicago and Les Miserables (both of which I also love), that my appreciation of these films hinges entirely on the songs, and everything else is just extras. There's a number of standout songs in The Producers, especially in the first half. Then obviously there's Springtime For Hitler, and Betrayed, and yeah, there's only really two stinkers and they're the two slow ones (That Face and 'Til Him).So add to that the fact that I laughed out loud at a lot of the jokes in The Producers, more so than usual for either a comedy or a musical, and the fact that there was barely a minute I wasn't enjoying myself watching a movie that's over two hours long. Yeah, I love The Producers. It's a proper old school musical with a sense of fun, great jokes, a great cast and great songs. I really don't see what everyone's problem is.