The Producers

The Producers is colorful, but in terms of screenwriting, it is a severely bungled musical-comedy “farce” in which the inordinately slow pace and lack of humor greatly outweigh any wit and there are a few uncool characters (particularly Will Ferrell’s SS officer). The central duo often wallow in spasms and Uma Thurman is surprisingly only a nicely dressed decoration. If someone wanted to build on the success of Chicago here, they blundered mightily. (30.01.2006)

The soundtrack alone is worth five stars, whilst the movie/musical is garbage. Maybe even worse than garbage. I love the original Mel Brooks film, and that's probably why I feel the way I do about it. I knew not to expect a remake, but rather an adaptation of the musical it was based on, and yet... I'm speechless. The result was an overstuffed, unfunny, loud, hysterical work with a mammoth runtime that almost killed me... Yes, Springtime for Hitler is staged better here than in the original film, it's more spectacular and bombastic, Uma Thurman is nice ti look at and Will Ferrell as a Nazi librettist is also quite good... But what's the use when the rest is such appalling misery. I suspect that the producers of this piece made a nice buck. (23.07.2011)

"Keep it gay!" This Neo-Nazi musical comes back to the silver screen for the second time around... And in significantly worse condition. It’s more vaudeville, more colorful and more superficially cheesy than Brooks’ original. The satire has disappeared into thin air and it virtually changed into a prime example of what the original made fun of. On the other hand it’s still pretty pleasantly loopy and in places it instils this perfect cozy feeling of well-being. It could have worked significantly better if the authors had shortened most of the songs and cut down the introduction in a way that it wouldn’t take seventy minutes for the musical "Springtime for Hitler" to finally make appearance. This way you will be exhausted even before you get to see it. The cast is pretty ok. All in all it’s pretty good. Which, given the quality of the original, is pretty damn little. If you are acquainted with the original Producers, just leave out the new ones, but if you happened to miss it, give this new version a try. You might feel tempted to get your hands on the 1968 original. And here by the way, if you have some patience, you get to see a classic singing Mel Brooks. (10.11.2007)

When I watched the film The Producers—I mean this 2005 version—a thought occurred to me. Why don’t producers simply skip making completely new films and instead take the old ones, dust them off, and re-release them? The answer is obvious. Firstly, the problem is that audiences likely wouldn’t flock to an old film. At least not in the numbers producers would hope for. After all, cinema 40 years ago was somewhat different. Actors performed differently, and it didn’t always have the necessary gloss. Secondly, what would be the point of having actors if everything was just remakes? I know there are original films, but there are just too many remakes. I’m a bit worried that now that Disney is the new owner of Lucasfilm, they might make a remake of Star Wars. That would truly be the pinnacle of greed, not to mention that the so-called 3D versions of Star Wars are already a significant parasite trying to drain the audience without adding any value. Remakes will simply continue, even if the original is great. Mel Brooks' The Producers, his directorial debut, is a legendary satire and parody that features incredibly catchy songs. But it’s been around for over 40 years. That’s why it was time for it, and in 2005 we got to enjoy a new version. It’s bigger, longer, and more colorful, yet it’s still more boring, drawn-out, and less entertaining. Matthew Broderick acts in a way that you will either love him or hate him. The same goes for Nathan Lane. I simply couldn’t handle Uma Thurman in her overacting, but that’s because I can only tolerate her in Tarantino's films. The Producers isn’t bad, but what’s the point of making an unremarkable copy of an exceptional work? (02.03.2013)