The Producers
Review by Russ Breimeier | posted 12/16/2005
 1 of 4
In 1998, director Gus Van Sant released a near shot-for-shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 classic Psycho. This proved something of a challenge for film critics. How do you review a film so true to the original? On the one hand, it offers nothing new. On the other, it's skillfully made and there's no denying the strength of the source material.
Now here's an even trickier challenge: a film adaptation of a musical based on a film about the worst musical of all time: The Producers.
Nathan Lane as Max Bialystock tries to sell a scheme to Matthew Broderick as Leo Bloom
Mel Brooks wrote and directed the original 1968 movie about struggling Broadway producer Max Bialystock (originally played by Zero Mostel to comic perfection), who schemes with accountant Leo Bloom (an equally perfect Gene Wilder) to stage a musical so terrible that it's sure to flop opening night. That failure would lead to their success by allowing them to pocket the money of their investors: a long line of elderly women romanced by Bialystock. Comic hi-jinks ensue as the two producers set out to find the worst script they can find (Springtime for Hitler, written by Nazi Franz Liebkind as a love letter to the Fuhrer) and hire the worst director in town to oversee it (flamboyant cross-dresser Roger De Bris).
The film marked Brooks' directorial debut and is still considered a comedic classic—and one of his best films—to this day. Thirty years later, he teamed with composer Thomas Meehan to craft a Broadway musical based on his film. It ended up a major success in 2001, earning a total of twelve Tony awards—more than any musical before it. Directed by choreographer Susan Stroman, the show sold out regularly thanks to the inspired casting of its two leads, Nathan Lane as Bialystock and Matthew Broderick as Bloom.
Based on its successful theatrical run, not to mention a revival of movie musicals, it's not surprising that they've decided to bring The Producers to the big screen … again. But hopefully now you see the dilemma. How do you review a movie like this? Do you need to be a fan of Mel Brooks' brand of humor to appreciate it? Is a love of musicals essential to its enjoyment? Will fans of the original film mind seeing the story redone with a different cast and some changes to the story? Will non-fans even want to give this movie a chance? Not to mention that comedy is such a subjective genre. There are a lot of factors that play into a movie like this, which probably explains why critics are so evenly divided on it.
Uma Thurman is terrific as the blonde bombshell Swedish secretary Ulla
All I can say for sure is that I laughed my head off, even without the benefit of personal friends to share the experience with—though an equally amused audience also laughed along. Having seen the original film but not the stage production, there were times where I felt this new film improved on the original, and times where I preferred the comedic timing of the '68 version. But ultimately, the two movies are so similar, it does beg the question of whether or not the new movie needed to be made—especially when the original is readily available.
Browse More Movies
CT Movies Home Page | Now Showing | New on Video | All Reviews
Coming Soon | Discussion Guides | Interviews | Commentary
News & Misc. | Special Sections | About Us
Your Feedback | About Us | CT Mag Home Page
| |
|
