Cool News
BeeGee is there to witness the first curtain call of the new adaptation of Mel Brooks' THE PRODUCERS!!!
Hey Folks, Harry here and YES! This can not get here soon enough. Last time I was in New York I desperately tried to get tickets to the stage version, yet it was sold out. Curses! Foiled again! So, I've taken a degree of solace that at least I will see a film version which should be freakin amazing - especially since this was one time that they actually brought talent over in the translation. If you don't know the story, and what the hell is wrong with you - check out the original film now! But there are spoilers below - for those that have no frame of reference for this coming bit of brilliance. Here ya go...
Harry, I’m finally settling down from the screening of The Producers tonight up in the Valley. Let me start off with one word … scrumtulecent.
First off, for those of you who made it to the screening, I hope you too had the chance to congratulate Mel Brooks on his newly produced version for the screen. He was in the back and the moment the film was over all the executive stood up to hug him and congratulate him.
Getting into it, the film starts with a kick and doesn’t let up. If this is your first musical, you’re gonna love it. If you’ve seen many before, then you’ll be able to enjoy this for all it’s worth. I can’t compare it to the stage, unfortunately, I never had the chance to see it.
Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane are simply hysterical together. Matthew plays an uptight accountant with a security blanket who wants to be a powerful producer. He is jux-a-posed to Nathan Lane, the washed up old Broadway producer looking to make a quick buck. Once together, they realize they can make more money on a flop than on a hit if they raise far more money than they need to actually put the play on.
Broderick, being a bit of a goody goody, refused the offer. After returning ot his job and imagining his life in lights, he realizes the only way he’s going to get it is to sieze the day. He returns to Nathan Lane and they shake on it. Finding the first flop was easy, convincing Mr. Liebskind (Ferrel), the author of the worst play ever written, “Springtime For Hitler”, was a riot. Ferrel lives on the roof of a building and is still convinced the war is going on. He speaks with the thickest German accent, which is maybe the funniest accent he’s had on screen. They convince him to sign over the rights after taking an oath and doing a dance. A very funny dance. Nay, a very very funny dance.
Maybe the funniest part of the movie followed. They need to convince the worst director to sign on. It proves hard in the beginning. He’s a cross-dressing homosexual surrounded by many other gay men. HE doesn’t want to do it, until the producers (Broderick and Lane) let him “make it gay”. And boy do they. In a romp around the house they sing and dance and tell exactly how the director, and his team, plan to make ‘Spring Time for Hitler” very gay.
They hold auditions, and after a number of failed hitlers, Will Ferrel hops up on states to make a mockery of those portraying his “Furher”. Everyone agrees he should play the part.
It’s opening night, and the sure fire flop is about to begin. Ferrel breaks his leg, and the cross dressing is forced to take the part of Hitler. He does, and again, it sent the audience into hysterics “don’t be stupid be a smarty, come and join the Nazi party!”. The screen crowd is so offended, they get up to leave, until Hitler comes out. Then they see how good it actually is (it really isn’t) and they love it! It becomes the next hit. This is bad, because now they will make more than the needed to produce the play, but not enough to pay back the investors (the little old women Lane has to sleep with to get money from them).
The ending from here on out is just hysterical, and I’ll leave it to you to see it. But the chemistry on film hasn’t been seen like it’s seen here. I wish I could say something bad about this film. But the audience I saw it with agreed. At the end they stood up and cheered, along with clapping after every musical number. The energy in the theater really made the experience awesome. I think this film is going to be a hit, and I think you all should see it come this X Mas. .
I hope you can use this …. BeeGee
-
+ Expand All
-
i wanna know more about the staging. can we have a review that doesn't simply rehash the plot? i mean, seriously, what film fan doesn't know the plot of The Producers??
-
well, anyway, how was Uma? how stagey was it? how were the NON musical scenes? how hot were the chorusboys? what are seamonkeys? should women have to fake their orgasms? what's the fastest animal on earth?
-
Oct 02, 2005 3:28:00 AM CDT
Somebody Should Do Max Brooks' "ZOMBIE SURVIVAL GUIDE"
by osamabinplayah8a
TOP 10 LESSONS FOR SURVIVING ZOMBIE ATTACK: 1) Get Organized Before They Rise! 2) They Feel No Fear, Why Should You? 3) Use Your Head: Cut Off Theirs 4) Ideal Protection = Tight Clothes, Short Hair 5) No Place Is Safe, Only Safer!
Remember all the cool movies Brooksfilms made? Cronenberg's FLY, Lynch ELEPHANT MAN. I'm no fan of nepotism, but Max Brooks' Zombie Guide is just plain funny. And it may save your life. -
Harry. You really have stooped to the bottom this time. Are we supposed to read this shit without getting...well....ANGRY! Goddam this site is turning into shit. Boy, I thought I didn't want to see this film before, but now I'm actually angry. Matthew Broderick & Nathan Lane can go to hell! Uma should just go away. And Will Ferrill (someone I used to like).....Will should try not to be in everything being made. He makes Garafalo look picky! Seriously, I'm sick of this shit. Either get a real review in or just shut down the website. Fuckin' waste of everyones time....motherfuckin' shit asshole motherfucker.
-
Umm......OK.
-
Oct 02, 2005 5:53:00 AM CDT
Am I missing th epoint here? Isn't this just a remake of bri
by darth_billy
I mean, the origianl producers is absolutely hysterical. With some of the most inspired characters ever, played by the perfect cast (for their parts).
I've seen the trailer... and this is just a retread of the old film.. What's the point... other than to make Mr Brookes some more money. I mean, can somebdoy please explain to me where is the artistic credibility in this at all.
And sure, it might be funny, but so was the first one. Very much so.. -
Now I'm going to try not to sound like snivelling fan-boy in this post, but in essence that's what I'm being. The original movie is one of those rare slices of celuloid that just haven't dated. At all. Not even L.S.D's Break on Through to the other side style shtick. I'm not saying that there should be no remakes ever at all (they're just something you've got to learn to expect...like bad blood pressure when you drink twenty cups of coffee a day, and three days of torturous come-down when you swallow fifteen tablets of speed)it's just, why remake a movie that you can watch today as if it were made yesterday? Chances are they'll justify this back-slapping affair by saying, "But it's based on the stage-show!" The stage-show that I assume just suddenly appeared out of thin air, that owes no debt to the original other than the same name. This just seems like some piece of self-congratulatory back-slapping, "Nath, Brode...Boys, pack up your bags we're going to tinsel-town!". It'll still make its money in the box-office no doubt (unlike many of Brooks' movies), but fortunately not my money. Also, the one real big problem this is gonna have, is that it's physically impossible to find someone as sexy as Olga, that's something that just wont happen.
-
that
-
If you wanted to get heated about the remake, five years ago was the time; not now. With the new musical having broken every Broadway box-office record, a film version featuring Brooks' new tunes was an inevitability. The orginal is a comedy miracle; grossly offensive and yet uplifting, gleefully homophobic but filled with camp tenderness. This looks like it will piss off quite a few right-wing Christians anyway, and I live for that. Nobody's arguing that the remake is that necessary, but it's financially inevitable. Nobody's can bring Zero Mostel back from the grave and, as far as I'm concerned, the original begins and ends with Mostel's incredible face; all those little billows of flesh rippling with greed and his eyes bulging with lust or deceit. Magic.
-
But I wonder what the remake will add to this old classic version? The actors all seem solid enough and I'd love to see Ferrell doing a Hitler. Still, I think the world wouldn't have missed a thing if this remake was never made.
-
I bet Will Farrell (who is brilliant) is gunno imitate that joke....What's the point?
-
That's an interesting review because of one word: scrumtulecent, which I think means yummy hard, like a dick should be.
But seriously folks, I checked the dictionaries, MerriamWebster, MSN, Dictionary.com and they all replied, "What the fu-?". Only Urban Dictionary had a definition, and apparently BeeGee misspelled it, it's scrumtrulecent, with an extra 'r'. Whatever this term is, it's too new to be established yet, but the scrumtrulecent with an extra 'r' seems to be more favored.
-
Gene Wilder can never be replaced. I saw the broadway show. It was funny, and I"m sure this film will be funny, but it can never be better than the original classic that is Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel.
-
Will Farrell made this word up on saturday night live during an inside the actors studio sketch. I believe it was during tobey maguire's appearance as skreetch but I can't remember.
-
coming summer 2007 with will smith, adam sandler and chris collins.
-
"The Producers" is one of my top five favorite films of all time so naturally I was eagerly looking forward to the musical when it came out on Broadway. When I saw it I was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't a total rehash of the movie. There are some significant changes in the musical, and while I wouldn't go so far as to say that they're for the better, they are at least different and amusing enough to surprise and hold the interest of even the fans who know the original by heart. And to those who ask "Why remake this?", I'd like to add that I'd much rather Mel Brooks get behind a remake of his own film than have us wait 10 years for a crappy updating remake starring Horatio Sanz and Jimmy Fallon. Give it time and every great movie will be remade into a terrible one. This at least has a chance.
-
That's where I gave up.
-
...is there anyone else who wishes Mel Brooks had playied the Mostel part? I mean, Zero's great and all, but I love Brooks as a performer, and he and Wilder would have been perfect. I know, it's blasphemy. Whatever.
-
A remake is not going to spoil my appreciation of the original and Brooks is not going to debase his own legacy. Its a quality cast. I think Matthew Broderick is greatly underappreciated as a film actor -- not just wonderful in Ferris Bueller but also Biloxi Blues, Glory, Election and The Good Girl. He deserves to be in a big movie again and he's made this character as much his own on Broadway as Wilder did in the original film. Uma Thurman is smoking hot and Will Ferrell is note perfect casting for Hitler (Jack Black, Sam whatshisface from a Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and Dave Chappelle would all have been interesting choices, but none of them match as perfectly as Ferrell). Only real question mark is Nathan Lane, who thus far hasn't translated well to the big screen, but how could they not cast him opposite Broderick? The original is hilarious but its 40 years old and not exactly as precious as Citizen Kane -- its a wacky comedy. Nothing horrible in bringing it back to the screen for a new generation in need of real comic genius like Brooks.
-
Love the guy, but he goes off on the remake of Chocolate Factory and Johnny Depp, something he later recanted. Yet he remains very quiet about this exploitation.
-
fart joke jew joke fart joke jew joke. perhaps he should collaborate with mad tv.
-
C'mon, that review had everything but a virtual handjob. (Still plenty of gushing, though.) Guys, I work in marketing; I can tell when I'm being SOLD something. Once upon a time this site was more discriminating...
-
Blazing Saddles isn't funny? Young Frankenstein? He may not have hit them all out of the park, and the verdict is still out on this upcoming one, but I'd stack Brook's best up against anyone elses.
-
no. it's not funny at all. and considering that came out of a 48 year old mel brooks, it's even more embarassing. the man had almost 5 decades to hone his craft and the best he could come up with is farting horses.
-
I fail to see how people will think this will be awful, with Mel Brooks using his own material which as we all know, is a cinema comedy classic and a broadway show which plays to universal acclaim and box office records, with the same director of the stage show and (essentially) the same broadway cast, I just can't see how this can possibly fail and how you fanboys will think it will stink. You can't go wrong with material like the producers. History has shown us that. Nothing will change. Even more so this film "remake" (more of a re-telling using a camera, as the stage show is a "remake", or even more so, a "re-imagining") will even encourage film goers to check out the original. And for those thinking this is only being made to make Mel Brooks more money...this will probably be his last film, why not have it be made using his most successful and popular material?
-
Oct 03, 2005 2:30:29 AM CDT
Look, I've got no problem with Mel Brooks making more money.
by darth_billy
But why pretend that there is any artistic credibility in it? Mel did well. When he was good, he was the best in his field. He is an old man now, and his last few films are utterly best forgotten. However the truth still remains that there was absolutely no (non-financial) reason to remake the producers, because the original is still as fresh as it was when it came out.
-
But after the trailer showed that it looks like the movie i attempting to visually ape the original version a little too close for comfort, I'm not sure...
-
If Brooks would have written young frankenstein, there would have been more gay farting jokes.
-
Why would this be posted on AICN as a review? It's simply a plot review. If you havn't seen the original or the show and don't know the plot by now, you're an idiot anyway. Is there no other review, an actual review?
-
Happy, seppukudkurosawa?
-
Flawed but beautiful. You can let the hate flow as much as you want, I still love it.
-
I'll see it. Missed the stage version.
-
...now lets get a film of a Spamalot performance out there.
-
i bring nothing to the table with this post.
-
Fuck The Producers.. Fuck them up their stupid asses..
PS. Please don't ban me, that was obviously a Jay & Silent Bob reference. Not a troll post.. -
Oct 03, 2005 4:14:27 PM CDT
I admit it, Kevin and I are in the middle of a 14-karat love aff
by seppukudkurosawa
And it was my idea for him to have all that romantic and "mature" crap in Jersey Girl. Sorry about that one, I figured it would work. Maybe my brain was clouded from all that Kevin Smith dick I'd been sucking... He said, "Next time, Sepp baby, I'm gonna take my own advice. And I'm going back to basics. Give the fans what they want, give them clerks: part deux". So there you have it. Kev, there's no use hiding it anymore, we've been outed.
-
The broadway play was a remake of the original. This is the broadway play transferred into celluloid. If you're going to criticize the trailer, criticize the play first, because there looks to be no difference between them. And I for one, think this will be absolutely brilliant, just like the original and just like the "remake" on broadway. You can't lose with such successful material like The Producers. This movie is in good hands.
-
Are you crazy??? Man, Richard Pryor helped make this one of the funniest movies of all frigging time. "Buck, is it you? We heard you was hung!" "You heard right."
-
I laughed all the way through it. Just not interested in this new version at all.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts