Search

Search only in certain items:

40x40

Nick Kroll recommended The Producers (1967) in Movies (curated)

 
The Producers (1967)
The Producers (1967)
1967 | Classics, Comedy

"The first movie that I ever said was my favorite movie and I’ve said for the longest is The Producers, Mel Brooks’ original Producers. The two lead performances from Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder are both unstoppable performances and then supported by amazing supporting characters throughout. I love the premise of the movie, I love the pacing of that — the opening scene in the office which also serves as the credit sequence is so funny and just such an amazing one — when Gene Wilder walks in and discovers Zero Mostel with one of his little old ladies who wants to do role-play with him, then getting caught by Zero Mostel snooping, then being brought in and negotiating through his various tax schemes… To me, it’s a great premise for a story and it’s so funny."

Source
  
40x40

Adam Pally recommended The Producers (1967) in Movies (curated)

 
The Producers (1967)
The Producers (1967)
1967 | Classics, Comedy

"Number four, I would say is Mel Brooks’ The Producers. It’s a toss up between The Producers and Young Frankenstein. It’s so hard to pick one, but I just feel like the first production of The Producers with Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel is like … I feel like that raised me. That’s my daddy. Probably in the womb that was shown to me."

Source
  
40x40

Joe Mantegna recommended The Producers (1967) in Movies (curated)

 
The Producers (1967)
The Producers (1967)
1967 | Classics, Comedy

"The Producers is one of my favorite movies, and I don’t mean the musical. I mean the original one that Mel Brooks directed, with Zero Mostel. I saw it when it first came out. I saw it in the movie theaters, back in the ’60s. I just think as a comedy, and also being in the business as I am, and coming from theater, it just had that much more impact for me. That’s a movie I like very much."

Source
  
The Producers (2005)
The Producers (2005)
2005 | Comedy, Musical
If I had never seen the original, this may have been decent
No question that the original 1968 film is one of the greatest comedies of all time. Anyone who's seen the original is going to have a hard time not comparing this film to the original. As soon as this movie started, I knew I was in trouble. Let's just say that Nathan Lane & Matthew Broderick don't even come close to Zero Mostel & Gene Wilder. But it doesn't stop there. There is nobody in this film that is better than anyone in the original film. I realize they needed people that could not only act, but sing & in some cases, dance. But one cannot look at the first 10 minutes of the film & think, "Those are the worst impressions of Mostel & Wilder I've ever seen." Broderick is the hardest to look at. He just doesn't come off as natural when he becomes hysterical or when he's explaining things to Bialystock. Nathan Lane fares better, but somehow the jokes come out very stale & unfunny.

Some of my favorite jokes from the original are just awful in this film. For example, in the original, Max says, "Well, you know what they say; smile & the world smiles with you." He then turns & looks into the camera & says, "This man should be in a straight-jacket." Crossing the 4th wall works so well. Yet, in this film, Lane says the line to a statue. During the out-takes on the DVD, we see Lane deliver the line to the camera, ala Mostel. But he stops, realizing that he's not supposed to do it the same way as Zero, but the new, lamer version. The Hitler tryouts are also ruined in comparison to the original. In the original, the man singing "Have You Ever Heard the German Band", points to the piano player & orders, "You Vill Play It!" Hilarious. In this one the same character turns & say, "Play the song, please." or something weak like that. And finally, when the man (who has become a mentally challenged man for this film) goes to sing "The Little Wooden Boy", he goes into a stupid little dance, & when he is just about to start, the director yells, "Next!" Nowhere near as funny as the original, where we see a man so sure of himself & so confident get ready to sing & then is cut off with the much funnier, "Thank you!" More problems arise with the changing of the story from the original. The main change is the omission of LSD (Dick Shawn's character). I heard they removed him as a hippie wouldn't work today. So, instead of just making him something other than a hippie, let's get rid of him & throw the character of Franz in there. Doesn't work. Then, when the play is finally put on, the director, a very homosexual Roger DeBris, comes out & sings, creating an obviously gay Hitler. And the audience then loves the show. How weak. There are other changes too, none of them good.

Now, let's get to the good points of this film. Some of the original songs are pretty good. Broderick redeems his bad acting for some good singing & dancing. Even Will Ferrel does a pretty good job. I can't say the same for Uma Thurman though, as her song is annoying & screechy! There are some funny parts in the movie, & they are all new to the story as all the original jokes fall flat (even without comparison). But there are not enough of the funny parts to save this film.

I can see how some may like the Broadway aspect of this film & I myself might have if the film itself didn't stink on the whole. So, I'll stick to the original film, this film had no reason to be made & now that I have seen it, it had no reason to be watched either.
  
40x40

John Bradley recommended The Producers (1967) in Movies (curated)

 
The Producers (1967)
The Producers (1967)
1967 | Classics, Comedy

"In terms of the first film that I remember having a real visceral connection with me, it’d be The Producers, the original Producers, with Mel Brooks. There was something about such a rich movie, in terms of the richness of the ideas and the power of the quality. If you take the two central performances of Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel, they’re such powerful performances. And you think that they’d both be almost too much for the screen because they both put in so much detail and they both bring so much energy. And they’re both such ballsy and powerful performances, you’d think that the screen wouldn’t be able to contain it. Especially because I was watching it on a TV screen, you think no screen is big enough to contain these two’s performance. But there’s something about the way they work together and the way their styles complement each other and the suitedness of those characterizations, the detail that they both put in. There was something about that. When you get two performers that are so beautifully in sync with each other, it’s like a jigsaw. Whatever one of them’s missing, the other kind of fills in with a perfectly compatible performance. It’s like listening to an opera, listening to those two perform with each other. I feel that way a lot about Mel Brooks in general, in terms of the way he writes and directs. There’s such musicality to that comedy. It’s so specific, and it reads like a musical score. You have to be able to play that absolutely precisely. There’s almost not enough room for interpretation on it. And for actors, they have to be able to say the lines. But the thing about Zero and Gene Wilder is they nail the musicality of it so perfectly and yet manage to layer all of this beautiful character on top of it as well. And they really attacked it. The chemistry and the musicality between them was something that really made me sit up and take notice when I was a young kid. It was very powerful, I remember it very vividly, seeing that for the first time."

Source