User Reviews

I am a huge fan of the original movie and had the pleasure of seeing the wonderful Broadway show in 2003, so I was more than expecting to love this remake. Unfortunately it didn't live-up to my expectations on a number of fronts.

Most fundamentally, it seemed more of a cinematic rendering of the stage show than a remake of the movie - the problem is that it utterly lacks the charm of the 1968 film, and fails to capture the excitement and energy of the show. This is not to do with the actors, who all put in great performances and do the best job possible with their roles. Though, I wonder if it was a good idea to keep the leads from Broadway - playing a part on stage is very different from doing the same thing in a movie. This is at the heart of what is wrong with this movie - it is trying to be cinematic and theatrical at the same time.

Also, they have cut some of the funniest scenes and changed some of the best lines from the original. Why, I wonder? For example, the first encounter between Max and Leo in the original movie is hilarious and dramatic - a magnificent opening set-piece, with drama, humour and conflict. In this version, Leo just knocks on the door and introduces himself. Bit of a damp squib, really.

Overall, I am not sure what to make of this movie. I would probably have enjoyed it more if I had not seen the original. But not much.

A little more music and embellishing of several plot points that were passed over in the original film are what distinguishes this musical version of The Producers. It's a musical version about a film that had a plot about two men who try to create the biggest flop in the history of Broadway and a musical.

Taking the places of Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder as the producing partners Bialystock&Bloom are Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick. Both these guys are given an impossible task of repeating two classically congruent performances that Mostel and Wilder created. Even the additional bits of business just can't make me forget the original.

Will Ferrall did not come over from Broadway to do the role of the hermit like Nazi living in Greenwich Village and caring for his carrier pigeons. He had to do double duty because he also took the place of beatnik method actor Dick Shawn from the original. I'm not sure that combining the roles was the best thing, I'm also not sure Ferrall did real justice to either try as he might on both. Kenneth Mars was the reclusive Nazi author of Springtime For Hitler. in the original. Both he and Shawn were almost as memorable as Mostel and Wilder.

I do love the Mel Brooks humor, but I think he laid it on a bit thick with the gay stereotyping of Gary Beach and Roger Bart. It came this close to the good side of being offensive, but not quite.

There's a lot to like in this version of The Producers, but I think Mel should not have touched his masterpiece.

Much better than anyone had the right to expect. Lane and Broderick are superb. Even moving. Look what I'm saying, moving. I mean it. Their commitment is contagious. The comedy in itself is shamelessly anachronistic. The gay jokes belong to the period in which the original Producers were conceived. The tone is consistent with that period, the film happens at an incredible pace and you smile from beginning to end. How marvelous to see Matthew Broderick dance. This is an actor who never had an Academy Award nomination and his performances have always been top notch and his range runs the famous gamut from A to Z. What a courageous actor. I couldn't believe he could get away with the "I'm in pain! I'm wet and I'm still hysterical" scene without making me miss Gene Wilder but he did. Nathan Lane is a force of nature. His Max is very much a tribute to Zero Mostel, especially to his hair but this Max is Nathan Lane through and through. Uma Thurman is a delight and I had a great time at the movies. What else do you want out of life.

One has to compare this with the original and it just does not cut it. Lane is pretty good in this but have seen him much, much better. I like Broderick usually but this performance is embarrassing. Will Ferrell is his usual overrated self-there is not a funny bone in his body!! Uma Thurman is wasted in this .I have been told that the stage play is great, so perhaps a straight filming of the Broadway production might have been a better idea (after all Into the Woods worked brilliantly as a simple filming of the stage). Incidentally I love musicals so that was not my problem. The original film was just so great and the performances by Mostel,Wilder and Mars were incredible and incredibly funny that any remake just had to suffer by comparison. The only way in which the new version might have shaded it were the stage numbers which looked great. A nice try but they shot and they missed.

This is the third incarnation of the story of The Producers, where two producers attempt to put a giant flop on Broadway then take all the money and run away, and this one is the one that works least well. That doesn't mean it's bad, it's like saying that someone is the dumbest of the Nobel Prize winning Physicists. The story is VERY good, and a great set up for some incredibly entertaining characters and situations.

This version is based on the multi-award-winning Broadway musical, which was based on the original movie starring Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder. Replacing them in the roles of Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom are Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick, who are reprising their roles on stage. Also in the cast are Uma Thurman as Ulla, Will Ferrell as Nazi playwright Franz Lebkind, and Gary Beach and Roger Bart as "common-law partners" Rodger DeBris and Carmen Ghia. There are also several cameos peppering the movie, including Deborah Monk, Andrea Martin, John Lovitz, Michael McKean, Thomas Meehan, and even Mel Brooks. All the performances are very good overall, despite some snags here and there. Thurman seems to pop in and out of accent and Broderick takes some time to warm up to what turns out to be his best performance since "Ferris Buller's Day Off". The standout performance was Roger Bart, who is having a banner year now that he has finished his role of the insane pharmacist on TV's Desperate Housewives. Bart easily steals every scene that he's in, which is no small feat considering the list of talent in this film. Lane, as usual, proves that he is a dynamo of energy that, fortunately, can be guided and utilized to produce amazing things. He easily carries this film.

The entire look of the film is very stylized. And that stylization is, unfortunately, very stagey. This is director Susan Strohman's first film, and it shows that up until now she has worked exclusively in theatre. Much of the movie lacks interesting camera work--the characters are in the center, framed nicely, while they perform their play. There is also a good deal of talking directly to the camera. This is certainly not the first movie that has done this. It's not even the first time that Matthew Broderick has done this (see "Ferris Buller's Day Off"). At first it is a little distracting, but Strohman is smart in that she realizes that this is the style of the piece, and she sticks to it throughout the entire film. Indeed, the first and last people we see are talking directly to the camera (Stick around after the credits, by the way). The way that the film is staged also makes it seem stagey. There are many jokes and bits of scenery moving that are more fitting for a stage than a screen.

I don't mean to make this sound like a bad thing, after all, who says that movies must follow such strict guidelines? I enjoyed the film greatly, and there were many things about it that I think other directors could learn from (especially directors of movie-musicals). The main thing that this movie achieves over other musicals, "Chicago" or "Rent" for example, is that Strohman allows us to watch the performers perform the musical numbers. They're NOT over-edited like the other two musicals I mentioned. It was a remembrance of the golden days of movie musicals where shots lasted forever, and we actually got to see the actors dance. Make no mistake about it, Strohman is an AMAZING choreographer. The numbers "I Wanna Be A Producer" and "That Face" show that she really does rank up there with the great choreographers of movie and Broadway history.

Many people ask why film this version? It's not as good as the original, and it works better on stage than on film. The answer seems to be that a $10 movie ticket is cheaper than a $100 theatre ticket, and now a wider audience gets to see the great performances. And they should. Despite the movie's flaws, it is incredibly funny.

Not having been able to afford to pay the exorbitant prices being asked by the producers of "The Producers", now running for a few years at the St. James theater on Broadway, we waited for the release of the film based on the musical that is based on the original 1968 film written and directed by Mel Brooks. In fact, we paid about one tenth of what it would have cost seeing it in the theater and we thought we were in for a treat, especially, if that genius Mel Brooks, was involved in the screen play. Wrong! The film, while not a total failure, could have used a different treatment as it plays flat at times.

In theory, "The Producers" was the right candidate for making the transfer to the screen since it involved the same director, Susan Stroman, and the two principals, Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick, who were paid a cool million each to come back to the show, last winter, when sales were lagging because the substitute actors weren't pulling in the crowds the original stars did. The film looks as though it's a poor imitation of what might have been in the theater.

The music is the first thing that is wrong with the film. The musical score by Mr. Brooks leaves a lot to be desired. In fact, the whole film could be considered a vulgar attempt at the musical genre. But alas, that's another problem with the New York Broadway theater that prefers to revive third rate musicals with people that have no talent for the stage and only serve to attract the tourist crowds that jam the large theaters with its theme park musicals.

Another problem are the two principals. Perhaps when the show opened on Broadway both Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick might have given the show a different flavor with their interpretation of Max Bialistock and Leo Bloom. The director doesn't seem to use them for the new medium effectively. In fact, both Mr. Lane and Mr. Broderick, left to their own instincts can be awful, as proved by their recent appearance on Broadway in "The Odd Couple", a show which we caught a preview recently. This pair of charismatic actors are seen in the film doing their own shtick.

Uma Thurman is fine as the long limbed Swedish secretary in a fun role that seems to be the only thing right in the movie. Gary Beach's flamboyant gay director is fun to watch.

"The Producers", in this reincarnation doesn't show anything new as a movie.

The Producers (2005) **** Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick, Uma Thurman, Will Farrell, Gary Beach, Roger Bart Dir. Susan Stroman

I don't think the critics know what they are talking about. This movie rocked! It took me back to the old days of movie musicals. You know, the Bugsby Berkley years, big and flashy with hum able songs. Based on the 1968 film starring Zero Maestel and Gene Wilder, and the smash hit on Broadway, the story of a failing Producer named Max Bialystock who has just had the worst show in town close called Funny Boy, a musical version of Hamlet. Distraught he runs into accountant Leo Bloom who comes up with the notion that you can make more money with a flop than with a hit. Max overjoyed to hear such wonderful news lays it all out. Step 1. They find the worst play ever written, the "mother lode" as Max calls it when he comes across Springtime for Hitler, written by neo-nazi Franz Liebkind. Step 2. Hire the worst director, a prime and proper gay man named Roger Debris who wants to keep everything gay! Step 3. Raise 2 million dollars from Max's backers: harmless little old ladies looking for a last roll in the hay. Step 4 Open on Broadway and before you can say step 5 they close and run off to Rio. All goes well until Springtime for Hitler becomes a success leaving Leo and Max in the dust.

People have been comparing it to the original, which sure it has some of the same lines, and the story is the same, but both shows have something different to offer. You get songs in this version that you don't get in the original. Nathan Lane tears up the screen and will have you in stitches as Max; his show stopping number "Betrayed" will have you applauding. Matthew Broderick is also very good as Leo who can't grab life by the balls and go. He sings "I Wanna Be A Producer" with such gusto and dances with Ms. Uma Thurman, who is amazing as Ulla, and their dance number has sheds of the old Astaire and Rogers's musicals of the 30s.

Also excellent, are Will Farrell as the Nazi who speaks to his birds and Gary Beach and Roger Bart as Roger De Bris and Carmen Ghia they gay "couple" who want to put Springtime for Hitler on the stage, both stand out in the cast, and both played the roles on Broadway. Other familiar faces you will see are Jon Lovitz as Leo's accounting firms boss, Michael McKean as one of the prisoners and Richard Kind as the Jury Foreman who took over in the Nathan Lane role on the stage.

Susan Stroman doesn't make the camera cuts flashy, they are simple, which makes it more enjoyable to watch the dance numbers, from the opening number to the hilarious "Along Came Bialy" when the old ladies do a dance break with walkers, to "Keep it Gay" to the uproarious Springtime for Hitler number. The best-staged number was probably "I Wanna Be A Producer" as it has shades from the 30s mixed with modern day. It was wonderful! If you listen to some critics who choose to say "this film show inexperience" or "not as good as the original" you are missing a terrific movie musical that is just as good as Chicago! Plus Mel Brooks was also standing there at the helm with Ms. Stroman. Be advised to stay until the very end of the credits to view something special! Bravo!

What's the deal with directors who remake movies and get angry when anyone calls it a remake? ("It's not a remake, it's a re-IMAGINING!") Whatever. Not here. "The Producers" (2005) is a hands-down, unapologetic, knock-down, dragout REMAKE. And a fine one at that. Not just scenes, but sets, costumes, actors' intonations, and the overall feeling is just like watching the 1968 classic. I can picture both Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane intently studying the reels of Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel to get pinpoint accuracy.

If it's so true to the original then why, you ask, would anyone bother watching the remake?

For the same reason we rush out to buy the digitally remastered versions of our favorites. We want to see them shiny and new, the way we've never seen them before but without destroying the original charm. Here we have writer/director Mel Brooks after 40 more years of experience and maturity, doing it again for a new generation, yet having the humility to keep it the same as it was for the old generation. Imagine going to your favorite band's reunion tour and having the thrill of seeing/hearing them sound exactly the way they did decades ago but now with a stage 5x the size and all the fun stuff that they never had the chance to do before.

What's that? Never saw the original "Producers"? Even better. Here you have the opportunity to see a classic, but with crisp, modern production standards. And with some crazy showtunes that were never there the first time around. My guess is that Mel always wanted this to have more music, like his later classics, "Blazing Saddles""History of the World", "High Anxiety", etc. But with "The Producers" being his directoral debut in '68 he toned it down a bit. Here we get the absurdly flamboyant musical he always wanted.

Actually there are 2 big changes to the original, both of which are so perfect I can't believe I went all these years not missing them. The first is the expanded role of "Ulla" (played by Uma Thurman) who is perfect as the ditzy Swedish bombshell. The second is Will Ferrell as the Franz the closet Nazi. In both of these cases, the characters pop right out of the screen. Will's song "Der Guten Tag Hop Clop," complete with choreographed pigeons, had me howling.

And that brings me to the biggest reason why you'd want to see this remake, aside from the songs, the dancing and choreography is EXCELLENT. Folks, this isn't just a movie with some crazy songs and actors flailing for laughs. It has some great dance numbers with nice moves had by all.

All of this has the effect of making "The Producers" (2005) more like the extravagant musical comedies that made Mel famous in the 70s. This remake got everything right. I have to say, compared to other successful directors who now sit in their ivory towers disparaging their early work and swearing they'll never do that again, Mel's still the same as he ever was, but even more so. Keep em coming, sir!

A movie written by Mel Brooks, starring Nathan Lane. How could this be a miserable, boring, snooze-fest? You got me, but it was.

I rarely go to see movies. I just got back from this one, literally walked in the house ten minutes ago. It wasn't a good movie. It wasn't an especially bad movie. If I had hated it, I would have given it a higher score. If a movie can evoke an emotion like hatred in you, they've done something special. This just left me bored.

There have been perhaps half a dozen movies in the last twelve months that I have wanted to see. This was one of them. Mel Brooks and Nathan Lane would have been more than enough to get me there. What I got was disappointment. My entire family went to see it, and we got about three chuckles each. It wasn't the Hitler thing, indeed, that was one of my three chuckles. It was just... flat.

Matthew Broderick was the wrong choice. His singing voice is quite good, which was a pleasant surprise, but still... just not the right choice. His facial expressions were a constant source of aggravation, wide-eyed and simply not fitting the scene, and his acting was overdone. Yes, that was likely the point, but he couldn't do it well. Someone like Jim Carrey or Adam Sandler makes overdoing it an art form, but Broderick couldn't do that (Please note that I'm not saying Jim Carrey or Adam Sandler could have done better in this role, merely that they do that style of acting well, whereas Matthew Broderick didn't). And the scene where he is going hysterical? Painful. With a capital P, and a large number of exclamation marks.

Nathan Lane was amusing, but somehow even he didn't manage to save this from the clutches of boredom. Such a pity, as everything else I have seen him in has been brilliant, but this... Just unfortunate.

Uma Thurman was as good as her role would allow. There's only so much you can do with a Swedish accent and revealing clothing.

Will Ferrel as Franz Liebkind the neo-Nazi playwright was probably the most amusing, possibly rivalled only by Gary Beach as Roger DeBris and Roger Bart as his "Common law assistant". These three where probably the only consistent source of laughter, and the cause of the other two times I cracked a smile.

The musical numbers went on for just that touch too long. If each had been a verse or two shorter, they would have been perfect.

The Hitler thing didn't offend me in the least. Actually, I lied when I said I chuckled three times. I did chuckle a few times during their opening night, but I didn't laugh once.

The theatre was silent, save for the movie itself. No, actually, a phone rang, once, and I think someone was playing brick on their phone. Oh, and the door squeaked as someone came in with popcorn.

We came out distinctly disappointed. The phrase that came to mind was "Waste of money". It may well have been better on the stage, but... this was just a flat, boring, unfunny mess.

If you're considering seeing it, don't. Wait a few years until you can rent it for a week for $3. That way, you'll lessen the money you waste.

I saw the trailer for this movie and thought, this looks hilarious. I loved Mel Brooks and thought, how could you go wrong with Springtime for Hitler? Boy was I wrong. The songs lasted forever, then another song would be sung, and then the same song from twenty minutes ago would be sung again. I didn't smile once at this poor excuse for a movie. I don't think this could have been worse if they had tried. I absolutely hated this film so much that after two incredibly long hours in the theater, I left a movie for the first time in my life. I love all movies, yet I hate this one with a passion. I would have rather flushed five bucks down the toilet then watch this film for three reasons, 1: It would have cost less 2: It would have been more entertaining 3: It would only take about thirty seconds. Nobody should ever have to sit through this terrible excuse for a movie, if you buy a copy of this, feed it to the dog, eat it yourself, or burn it, no matter what, DON"T WATCH THIS MOVIE.

I thought the stage musical adapted from Mel Brooks' classic 1968 film was terrific and if anything even more outrageous than the movie. So it's strange that this movie based on the musical should feel so tame by comparison. It doesn't have that bawdy, let's offend everyone sense of fun that Brooks projects usually have, and it all feels a little lacklustre. Still, if you like the stage version, you'll probably have fun with this movie, as it's a virtual recreation, and the music sounds great.

What I appreciate most about this movie is its willingness to be an old-fashioned movie musical. Unlike "Chicago," which felt the need to justify all of its musical numbers as fantasy sequences taking place in the mind of a principal character, "The Producers" has people just breaking spontaneously into song, no apologies. If you're going to watch it, you have to accept that people are going to sing and dance and get on with it. And since most of the people in the film performed in the original Broadway cast, the songs are sung and danced well. Will Ferrell is new to the material, but he equips himself nicely as neo-Nazi Franz Liebkind and brings a lot of energy to his scenes. I would love to report that Uma Thurman stops the show as Ulla, the Swedish bombshell, but she doesn't. Uma, God love her, doesn't have the chops or the dancing skills to put over Ulla's big number, though the film makers do use her height to humorous advantage.

I love the original film, but I don't worship it like some others, so I'm not as averse to playing with the material, and I didn't feel the need to compare Nathan Lane's and Matthew Broderick's performances to those of Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder. They don't really reinterpret the material as much as recreate it, but that's o.k. We're not talking about doing a Eugene O'Neill revival here, and Brooks's material has only so much depth to mine. This movie is a fun way to pass a couple of hours. It's never boring, and it was wringing plenty of laughs from the audience I saw it with.

Grade: B+

My father adored the original Zero Mostel/Gene Wilder version of The Producers, he used to watch it regularly when I was growing up and that rubbed off on me. When I first saw Mel Brooks 'The Producers' I thought it was a stage play adapted into a movie not the other way round that it became. While I never saw the Broadway revival of 'The Producers' I did 'try' to watch the 2005 version of the 'Producers' on DVD. If you have never seen the original 1968 version and have only seen the 2005 version then of course the 2005 version is going to be funny. If you have seen the original, then you notice just how little effort the actors made other than giving pale imitation of the Zero Mostel/Gene Wilder blue print that makes the 2005 version look like an overacted summer pantomime. I could only go 15 minutes before turning it off in disgust.

Imagine watching a play, but the over-the-top acting that gives an audience 50 feet away a connection to a play's actors, is painfully irritating when watching it 6 feet away on TV, or blown up on a movie screen. Bad. Bad. Very very bad , in a movie format. At least the songs, while novel, had music that was entirely forgettable. While this may have been a fine musical play (though I doubt it, and I enjoy musicals) it was irritating as a movie. The characters dialogue was not comical- simply over the top (like the acting) and bizarre - intended to be funny simply for the crude, crass degree of bizarreness.

Unless you get into watching mediocre musicals on film, I'd pass this one by.

This movie is tepid compared to the original (Mostel/Wilder) version.

This was a successful Broadway show. Why didn't Mel Brooks just re-release the original movie, which after-all was original.

I do not see the necessity of re-producing what was to some of us a classic movie.

Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick are fine and talented actors. I found that there talents were wasted on this movie. Their efforts no doubt scored well on the stage, but did not translate too well to the big screen.

The only saving grace in this edition were the quirky performances of Uma Thurman and Will Ferrell.

I hope that we will not be treated to a newer edition of "Blazing Saddles" .

Well, my first question must be "When did Matthew Broderick become a comedian?" Sure he's done Ferris Bueller, Cable Guy and such - but there he plays fairly straight characters in a comedic story. The closest he's gotten to play a comical character as far as I know, was Inspector Gadjet.

In this movie he and Uma Thurman (and believe me, I have nothing against either him or Uma) seem to suffer from lack of confidence in their singing/dancing and partly comedic talent. Watching extra material on DVD you can find some remarks by Matthew indicating a slight distrust in his abilities. When it comes to Uma I think you best see it when she steps in in front of the German army during the big springtime-for-Hitler-act. If you look at her face it lacks the comfort so readily found in Nathan Lane.

It feels like Uma and Matthew got thrown in there to get some household names on the posters. Apart from them the casting is brilliant. Nathan Lane never disappoints, Gary Beach and Roger Bart are tremendous, and Will Ferrell surprises at least me with his singing performances.

All in all it's OK movie with some charm, but more appropriate casting for the parts of Leo Bloom and Ulla would have brought it up a couple of extra notches!

This movie has the ingredients of a good movie. The acting's good, it has memorable musical numbers, and it's very funny. so where did they go wrong? The problem lies in source material. It's one thing you have one sources, but this has two: the original film and the Broadway musical. In both instances, the film seems flatly imitative. Lane's Max is a throwback to Zero Mostel and Broderick's Leo is a throwback to Gene Wilder. They want to be original, but it's hard to ignore the performances these are harking back to. Quotes and lines that made the original film so memorable are intact, suggesting imitation ala psycho than a bona-fide remake.

Well, that's fine, but this also has the Broadway musical as a source. This is where everything goes wrong. Many people did not get a chance to see the critically acclaimed sold-out shows with Lane and Broderick and I believe that's where the idea of the film came in. In an attempt to give fans the chance to see the show, the film tries to replicate it. A direct transfer from stage to screen can be a hard watch. A lesson learned from Chicago should be that some stage shows require a lot of tweaking to be watchable on the screen. This is one of them.

But lat's go back further. A director like Robert Wise can take musicals like West Side Story and the Sound of Music and transition them to screen by taking full advantage of the format. It's hard to ignore the wonderful use of scope, color, and cinematography that made these films so great to watch in theatres. They were able to separate the Broadway show from the film. You want to re-imagine the show to fit the medium. Unfortunately, the Producers never takes full advantage of the film format.

The film is still fun to watch. Broderick and Lane have wonderful chemistry, as they should by now. There are certain scenes like the one following "Springtime for Hitler" in Leo and Max's office that would have been fun to see on the stage. Most of these actors are holdovers from the stage. Will Ferrel adjusts nicely in his role and was a wonderful casting choice. The only misguided casting may be that of Uma Thurman. She does a good job, but is just believable in the role. It may be because we know her too well now.

As for replicating the stage show, I've never seen the original production, but can tell this was designed mainly for the stage. There a couple song omissions, the King of Broadway and Where did We Go Right, but at 2+ hours, it gets a little tiring, especially with the uninspired directing. It's a potentially good film that never takes full advantage of moving from stage to screen. Fun for a rental.

My brother and I saw this movie the other day. The only reason we laughed was because it is the worst movie we have ever seen!

There was one scene when Nathan Lane (Max Bialystock) told the history that had happened in the movie. This scene should have been the first one of the movie and everyone who watches the movie can saved about an hour of their life. The movie is way to long, after 15 minutes my brother and looked at each other and thought about leaving to watch another movie instead.

Afterwards we understood why there were only six people in the movie theater, including me and my brother!

Mel Brooks has really disappointed me this time, he used to make great movies!

I'm never going to look at the rating movies get on IMDb anymore!

What a fantastic surprise. I've seen Luke-warm reviews about this film, largely saying that the theatrical basis (the Broadway show) is oh-so-evident. Well, in my opinion, this is one of the film's strengths. It's a well-intentioned performance and is close enough to the original Producers, and so unlike it, that the musical remake is justified.

I love musicals, especially musical comedy. This film is a sop to the musical comedy, with good performances from the leads, and Uma Thurman and Will Ferrell, who all appear to be enjoying themselves.

The central (staged) number "Springtime for Hitler" is brilliantly choreographed, with suitably outrageous costumes. Gary Beach as a brilliantly camp Hitler completes this excellent scene. And the bratwurst!! The editing in this sequence - camera panning to the gob-smacked audience is brilliant. This is a film that salutes and spoofs musicals. It's an absolute delight

Like its stage antecedent, the movie musical of "The Producers" is an engagingly broad farce that has lots of hilariously funny moments as well as several ponderous stretches where the characters try to get on with the plot without the benefit of any real human interaction to help them along. The performers who are really adept at spinning shtick – Nathan Lane, Roger Bart, and especially Gary Beach as the outrageous director cum actor Roger De Bris (all from the original Broadway cast) perform absolute alchemy with the thin material, making you laugh so hard that you forget that you're really not watching anything more than an elaborately produced Burlesque skit.

Far less amusing are Will Ferrell and Uma Thurman. Ferrell sings and dances disarmingly well (be sure to stick around for a hilarious German ballad he sings at the end of the credits), but he lacks menace as Nazi playwright Franz Liebkind so it is difficult to buy Lane and Broderick's cowering at his presence in their scenes together. Thurman tries her best as the title characters' Swedish sex toy, but isn't a patch on the part's Tony-winning stage creator Cady Huffman. She is also a bit long in the tooth to be playing a character who is the living embodiment of sex, especially as she lacks any chemistry with love interest Mathew Broderick.

Broderick proves himself once again to be a marvelously talented musical theatre performer, but his acting is forced and lacks the naturalness (and manic comic inventiveness) of Gene Wilder in the 1968 film version. And while Lane is undeniably brilliant when performing his unique brand of shtick, the celebrated Broadway pair display surprisingly little chemistry so that the friendship which emerges as their supposed bond never materializes.

But with a movie like "The Producers," it's best not to delve too deep. The film has some wonderful dance numbers (cleverly staged by Broadway original Susan Stroman), a terrific production design and a funny script by Mel Brooks and Thomas Meehan (although like in the Broadway show, Brooks' score is fairly lackluster and doesn't contain any memorable songs beyond the "Springtime for Hitler" number from the original film). If you're looking for a movie that will bring you a few belly laughs that you can then forget about an hour after you've seen it, "The Producers" delivers.

I just watched the remake of THE PRODUCERS. I am left speechless. Who, in their right mind would even attempt such a silly idea? I watch the original periodically and still laugh a lot, but this thing is ridiculous. I saw the play in London this year and found it wonderful. The acting superb, staging brilliant etc. I am a fan of both Nathan Lane and Mathew Broderick and can't understand how they allowed themselves to be so miscast. As far as Will Ferrell trying to do Kenneth Mars' part, it's laughable(and not in a good way). Anyway, if you want to see how funny something can be go get the original because it's arguably the funniest film ever made.

First, there was Mel Brooks' clever movie "The Producers." That got adapted into a Tony-winning stage musical. Then the musical became adapted into a movie. This hilarious spectacle is sure to please! Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick return as Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom, the same roles they made famous on Broadway. Lane is a riot, channeling Zero Mostel's bombastic character. Meanwhile, Broderick surprises as he does a decent take on Gene Wilder's original hysterical act. Will Ferrell scores laughs as Nazi playwright Franz Liebkind, and Uma Thurman puts in a good song and dance as Swedish sexpot Ulla. The movie perfectly catches the style of the old-fashioned musical, with a large serving of slapstick. This snappy production is sure to be a hit with everyone!

It is true that a number of problems exist in this film, as: very slow pacing - three hours long without sufficient plots or scenario; big structure gap - the arrival of Ulla has almost demarcated one film into two quite different ones; and the ever unconvincing appearance of Mr Bloom.

Yet it is the entertainment I would like to have alone in a cold and long holiday. I smiled through out the watching. If there are too much sexiness and luxuries, I just accept and enjoy it for a moment without seriousness. During the final song I didn't want to leave too soon. A companionship I would miss.

Though the songs in whole just have delivered the words quite clearly, and no more. I don't really know musical as a genre, but I find this treatment of lyric not satisfied.

I also hated it as did my husband... It was not really funny, the only part where we laughed was when we skipped the musical numbers... Well actually I didn't know if I should laugh or cry. I mean it was just horrible. I didn't like any of the men's voices so it was painful to listen to. I was just waiting for it to end and we skipped most of the movie. Made me angry to spend my time and money on this piece of crap. If I have to explain or give a good reason why it sucked well here it is "Because it just sucked" that's why, it was not funny, not entertaining, i almost fell asleep watching it. So there you have it, don't waste your money on this one...

I saw this film for the first time, not having ever seen the 1968 movie, nor ever been able to frequent theatrical shows. It was therefore an exciting experience to see the highly reputed theater piece performed by stage actors alongside screen actors; then I allow myself falling in love with motion pictures (and screen actors) again rather than lamenting a life without chance to be a theatergoer.

Dialogues are funny and "deeply" cynical, spoken just they should be; but I felt they were often upstaged as every small role is played by enough eye-catching entertainer to weaken the charm of words. The Central Park fountain eruption following the scene of the successful-fiasco-seeking "producer" calling God, "old friend", seemed quite modest, playing rather good "supporting" role.

It is hard to dislike this musical, after all. The song, "I Want to be a Producer" is sweetly sung like a touching love song; I wonder this soft singing voice existed in the original 1968 film? Also, Ulla's flaring blue dress is a delight to capture in view while she elegantly moves. Most of all, now I really wish to see the full stage of the Franz Liebkind's "Spring Time for Führer" or a furor play!