MovieChat Forums > The Producers (2005) Discussion > 6.5???

6.5???

posted 15 years ago by snow_crash-3
44 replies | jump to latest

I'm pretty suprised by the imdb score, IMO this was a really good film. I decided to watch both the original and the remake one after the other, and IMO the remake was alot better. There are a couple of reasons why i say this.
Firstly i'm so glad they turned it into a musical. The songs were not only skillful and witty but also constantly incorporated bits from the original.
Secondly i think some of the actors were alot better. Matthew Broderick was much better than Gene Wilder, even though i love Gene Wilder he really did lack emphasis in many bits. Both actors playing Max Bialystock were great. Will Farrel as the neo-nazi was suprisingly funny.
Thirdly some of the characters were better. Ulla in the original was completely pointless, just dancing around without a bra, but in the reamke she actually had more of a part than just a piece of meat. The neo-nazi in the original was more believable, but in the remake Will Farrel made it feel like as though whilst he was playing a neo-nazi he was also constantly making fun of Hitler and the third reich. Most importantly the hippy character was really tacky, i don't think there was a single joke of his that i even pretended to laugh at. Really, he was a very one note character.

IMO people can tend to have a 'remakes of an old classic are never as good' mentality. I'm really quite suprised at the score. Yes this one has more eye candy and probably a far bigger budget, but that's not what it relies on. IMO this is better than the original.

[–] verbusen 15 years ago

I think a lot of people under 30 really like this version and watch it first or never bother to watch the original. People older who have seen the original like me will think this movie is pretty unfunny, IMO. Lots of reasons, I could get into (actors old and new/comedy vs comedy musical/changes in social attitudes over 40 years) but it's cool that Mel is making money off of a new set of younger fans (and cashing in more on those who were already his fans), he's probably making more in this decade then he ever made in the last 30 years combined! Good for Mel, he deserves it for the groundbreaking comedy he gave us in the 60's and 70's! I rate this version a 5, the original a 10. The original is or at least was, a top 10 movie for me to enjoy. I couldnt watch the remake after the first 15 minutes the first time, caught it recently while channel hopping and could'nt get into it at all but watched to say I saw it.

[–] BakedCarbon 15 years ago

6.5 is a pretty good score on IMDB, esp. considering all the people including the poster above me, who sit under the category you mentioned: "people who think remakes of an old classic are never as good". This musical has to fight against them and those with memories of the stage play; this unfortunately bring the score down. At least no one can complain that its overrated.

It's weird when people emphasise how much their love for the original influenced their opinion of the musical, as if it's something to be proud of. It just means they never gave the musical a fair go to begin with. At least Roger Ebert admitted that his enjoyment of the original and the stage play made it hard for him to review the film fairly.

It's also strange when people seem to think it's compulsory for everyone who watches the musical to HAVE to watch the non-musical before forming an opinion; as if their opinions are unjustified if they haven't seen the non-musical to compare. I say those who saw this musical without prior knowledge have a more justified opinion because they've seen the film for what it is.

[–] snow_crash-3 15 years ago

Thanks for the replies.

'It's weird when people emphasise how much their love for the original influenced their opinion of the musical, as if it's something to be proud of. It just means they never gave the musical a fair go to begin with. At least Roger Ebert admitted that his enjoyment of the original and the stage play made it hard for him to review the film fairly.

It's also strange when people seem to think it's compulsory for everyone who watches the musical to HAVE to watch the non-musical before forming an opinion; as if their opinions are unjustified if they haven't seen the non-musical to compare. I say those who saw this musical without prior knowledge have a more justified opinion because they've seen the film for what it is.'

Yeah i agree, i think it's odd that it's seen as compulsory to see the non-musical first, there's no particular reason why that would grant any greater judgement on the remake. I get the feeling that alot of people grew up with the original and thus have tended to lean towards it.

[–] DD-931 15 years ago

Really, OP, I understand how some musical lovers like this movie. Fine. But when you say childish things like how Broderick is so much better than Wilder, and then complain that people don't like this version because they like the original, whatever respect I had for your opinion goes down the toilet.

The original is a better FILM than the musical remake. It's that simple.

Anyone who thinks a remake of a movie shouldn't be compared to the original is an idiot. It's a REMAKE. It trades on the name and the reputation of the original by definition.

[–] BakedCarbon 15 years ago

Not really. The new film is more than a remake, it's a musical adaptation, so to compare the two is a bit difficult. I don't think Mel Brooks would have dared to remake the original film because there wouldn't be a point, but the musical numbers make the new film a horse of an entirely different colour. There are melodies and lyrics that stick in people's minds, while with the original non-musical, it's the straight comedy that is memorable. The movie musical trades on the name and reputation of the Broadway show, not the original non-musical directly.

[–] DD-931 15 years ago

Look. No matter how much you try to dance around it in convoluted fits of denial, this film is a REMAKE. A remake by the very person who created the original. It has the same characters, the same story, even some of the same songs. It only made it to Broadway in the first place by trading on the reputation of the original movie. Even one clown who is in denial about the fact that it's a remake still compared the performance of one actor (Broderick) to the performance of another actor (Wilder) IN THE SAME ROLE in the original movie.

As a musical comedy on Broadway, it is both high quality and successful. As a FILM, it cannot match up with the original. The fact that some of you can't tell the difference between film and stage is your problem, and audience-wise makes you part of the minority in this case.

[–] BakedCarbon 15 years ago

Before you jump down my throat again, let me explain.

I didn't say it's not a remake, I just said it's more than that. I think you simply misunderstood, but it has more to offer than your typical remake, don't you think? It has been adapted into a musical, turning it into an adaptation (which implies that it's also a remake anyway. "Remake" and "adaptation" are not mutually exclusive, so calm down). You can hardly disagree with that.

It only made it to Broadway in the first place by trading on the reputation of the original movie.

Agreed. But you misunderstood what I said about that as well. The movie musical was not made because of the success of the original film, it was a result of the success of the Broadway show. When people anticipated this film, they were more eager to see how it would compare with the Broadway show. Of course the original non-musical is also in everyone's minds, but that's why I said "The movie musical trades on the name and reputation of the Broadway show, not the original non-musical directly." Indirectly it does, but the film was riding the coattails of the play's success, not the original film's.

People will always compare the original to the musical because like you said, with the same characters, story (sort of), and songs, how can you not? Those who are willing to give the musical a go, regardless of whether they've seen the original, can compare to their hearts' content. But there are people who go in to watch the movie musical already determined to hate it, because it's not the original. Their arguments aren't exactly reasonable.

Just read the first response of this thread:

People older who have seen the original like me will think this movie is pretty unfunny, IMO.

What if they hadn't seen the original? Does that mean they would've found it funnier? It's like saying: "You'll like this film if you haven't seen the original, but if you've seen the original, you'll think this is unfunny. Therefore this movie is unfunny."

[–] DD-931 15 years ago

My point is that to think that it is somehow "unfair" to compare this FILM to the original FILM is utterly absurd. If you don't want to watch the 1968 film, fine. Don't. But they're both out there, they were both written by the same man, and sticking songs onto the same story, no matter how much you want to dance around the issue by saying it's not EXACTLY the same story, doesn't change the fact that it actually is the same story written with the same sensibilities by the same person.

It makes more sense to argue the different approaches to the story due to telling the story on film and telling it on a Broadway musical stage. But we're talking about the FILM of the Broadway musical, and the film medium is simply a different medium than live Broadway musical theatre. Acting that works well on stage looks forced, phony, and yes, relatively unfunny in front of film cameras. Especially when the woman directing the picture only knows how to direct on stage, and so has no real understanding of how to translate the piece from the stage to film.

Bottom line, this film is a failure AS A FILM. As a Broadway musical, it is unquestionably a success. But I repeat, film and stage are two different mediums.

By the way, if you would subsequently like to argue the opposite point: that the 1968 film as it was originally written and directed would fail as a stage production...I would be perfectly willing to agree with you.

[–] BakedCarbon 15 years ago

If you'd just read the first response to this thread, you'll see who I've been responding to. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm disagreeing with them. They don't hold the same opinion as you.

They were suggesting that you have to have watched the original to understand that this film is crap. But who cares if you've seen the original or not? You said "If you don't want to watch the 1968 film, fine. Don't." That is great. Good for you. But that's not what the person I was responding to was saying, and that's what I was disagreeing with.

You think I'm dancing around it because you don't understand what I've been saying. You've just been forcing your opinion on me without responding to what I've said specifically. I don't think it's unfair to compare. I said it is difficult. I do think it's absurd to think it's unfair. Because it is a remake. But it is also a musical, which makes it an adaptation. Even more so since like you said, Mel Brooks was behind both. He would not remake such a successful film unless there was something he could add to it. A remake would only make sense if the new film was made by a different person with different sensibilities.

That's all I was pointing out to you before you started holding me responsible for everything the OP has been saying as well. We're different bloody people.

I mainly like the musical because of the songs and choreography. That doesn't mean I don't like the original because it doesn't have any. I don't have to point out all the shortcomings of both movies in relation to each other to choose which one I love and which one I hate.

If you don't like it that's fine. It's a failure to you. It's a failure to everyone who didn't enjoy it. But it's a success to those who did enjoy it. So buck up and accept that not everyone has the same taste in films as you.

[–] DD-931 15 years ago

Not everyone has the same taste as me? WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

I also wasn't just responding to you, I was responding to others like the OP. The trick is to not take any of this too personally.

[–] BakedCarbon 15 years ago

Indeed! Judging from your sarcasm, you need to listen to your own advice, lol.

It's a shame you still didn't respond to anything I said though. What a waste of time.

[–] DD-931 15 years ago

"That's all I was pointing out to you before you started holding me responsible for everything the OP has been saying as well."

That's totally in your head, as I already pointed out. Seriously, before you start lecturing people, take a look at your own hypocrisy. You're just wound up because you're convinced I was talking ONLY to you and you want an apology because I won't acknowledge that you're some kind of "wronged" person. But your sense of martyrdom is best exemplified by this:

"You've just been forcing your opinion on me".

You have some real paranoia issues. Can you show me where I called you out by name on every point I made? And you're in real trouble on these boards if every time someone disagrees with you, they're "forcing their opinions on you". Do we need your permission from here on out before we express an opinion that in your mind somehow steps on your toes?

Dream on.

Why should I repeat everyone I've already said to somehow appease your sensitive needs? Where I disagree with you, I still disagree with you. It's a FILM issue, not a musical theatre issue. It's that simple. If people want to compare this version of THE PRODUCERS with the original, they have every rational right to do so, just like you have the freedom not to.

What a waste of time indeed! I'm done here. Knock yourself out.

[–] BakedCarbon 15 years ago

And once again, you've responded to nothing I've actually said about the subject of this thread...? All you've quoted from my post are the few bits where I've somehow managed to offend you. Your last paragraph is just a rehash of everything you've already said, which I already agreed with numerous times xD This has been extremely silly.

[–] super-staff 13 years ago

But when you say childish things like how Broderick is so much better than Wilder, and then complain that people don't like this version because they like the original, whatever respect I had for your opinion goes down the toilet.

Because people have different opinion and old doesn't always equal better.

[–] DD-931 13 years ago

The point is how ridiculous it is to compare something from the original (Wilder) with something from the remake (Broderick) and then complain about people who compare the original with the remake.

It's called hypocrisy. In case you don't know.

[–] super-staff 10 years ago

Old post is old. And no, that's not hypocrisy. Like I said, the original isn't automatically better than a remake just because 'it came first'.

[–] DD-931 10 years ago

Who said it was?

[–] djagoon 15 years ago

Remake better? I have to agree. Regardless of the canonization of Mostel in the original, Lane was just as good in his own way. Broderick was adequate. The hippie LSD is gone, and good riddance. Lame in the original, and goes downhill with repeated viewing. The rest of the remake cast held their own - and in some cases outperformed the originals.

What gives the remake the edge is: the music really opened up the show into another dimension of entertainment. The "Springtime" number is far superior in the remake. Throughout,we are lucky to see Stroman's Broadway choreography virtually intact.

I have the original Mostel disc, and have seen the touring company, the remake DVD, and a local Civic Theater production. All are in their own way excellent; this story is "performance-proof". Seemingly, you can't screw it up!

Speaking of Stroman: she instinctively wanted to preserve her Broadway baby as intact as posible on the screen. So her conservative film style has given us all a marvelous gift: on widescreen DVD the original show is presented practically "as-is", but with an expansion that only film can provide. Compare DVD cost with schlepping to NYC: airfare, hotel, taxis, food - to say nothing of the ticket costs at a king's ransom. A STONE BARGAIN.

To top it off Susan Stroman herself is still pretty dishy.

[–] Alamviva25 15 years ago

For those of you who think that the remake is inferior to the original, what do you think are the flaws of the remake? How could the remake have possibly been improved?

I love both versions, but I think that the film is even funnier as a musical. Ula's role is expanded, and the gay characters are even more over-the-top than they were in the original.

In a way, it is amusingly ironic that The Producers was turned into a musical. On one level, the story is a parody of Nazi Germany, while on another level, the story is a parody of frivolous musical comedies. The remake actually is what the story is poking fun at: a frivolous musical comedy.

[–] on3gin 15 years ago

Lindoro asks "How could the remake have possibly been improved?"

1. By shortening, or even eliminating, most of the musical numbers. Lane and Broderick don't have trained voices, and letting them warble their little songs on and on was annoying. The story builds up to the big "Springtime for Hitler" number and the songs sounded weak by comparison, especially the ones that came after it.

2. Much of the dialogue came verbatim from the original, but at times the actors sounded like they were reciting them.

2. I admire Uma Thurman, but she and Broderick are no Fred and Ginger, and their dance number went on too long.

3. I'd have been happier if Bloom's panic attacks and the gay characters were a little less over-the-top, brought down to the level of the original. But I did like Roger de Bris' Chrysler Building ensemble. And who under 40 would remember that a Karman Ghia was a 1950s attempt to make the VW Beetle a sporty little convertible?

4. This was just another remake that did not have to be made.

[–] Dr_Tortoise 13 years ago

"Lane and Broderick don't have trained voices"
You're an idiot for thinking Nathan Lane's voice is not trained.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dr_Tortoise 13 years ago

"Do you have to call the guy/girl an idiot because they don't know that Nathan Lane is voice trained? Grow up."

Well, first of all, Nathan Lane's voice is quite obviously trained. His voice is practically Broadway itself.

Second of all, if I were to read what I wrote aloud, it would be clear to you (and anyone who is actually not an idiot) that I was not being serious.

So is it partially my fault? Yes, it is. I forgot to assume that people might take my text the wrong way because you cannot sense inflections or body language over the Internet.
Is it partially your fault? For assuming I was intentionally being mean, yes. You could have considered the fact that you cannot sense inflections or body language over the Internet.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dr_Tortoise 13 years ago

"Yeah, well it's you that wrote it. Maybe you should have considered that before you wrote it."

Did you read the rest of my post? I also said it was partially my fault for the same thing.

[–] toddbradley 15 years ago

What are the biggest flaws of the remake?

1) Casting - Bloom and Bialystock looked so obviously Jewish in the original as to really emphasize the absurdity of the Nazi stuff. In the remake, the actors look (and act) like they could be Jewish, or maybe not, it's hard to say. The humor was less. And for my money, paying Uma Thurmann twelve million dollars for this role was a waste of money. I could think of a dozen actresses who could've done it better, looked better, and cost less than 1/10 of that. She just doesn't have the bimbo appeal of the original.

2) Musical Numbers - I agree there were too many, and they went WAY too long. By the time the DVD was 3/4 of the way through, my wife and I had both lost interest. Knowing that it was a film adaptation of a musical softens my criticism some, but there was too much singing and not enough acting for the film medium.

3) Direction - The opening scene of the original, where Bloom is trying to get in to see Bialystock but he's indisposed with a financier was a great scene. But the genius of Brooks' original direction was that it plays out like it was written for the stage. The remake throws all that out, includes a useless musical number BEFORE that scene, and then does that scene like a modern day film scene (camera reversals, etc.) instead of a stage scene.

Just so you don't think I hated the whole thing, there were a couple redeeming qualities about the remake. It was a delight to see Nathan Lane play the straight man in the scene with Gary Beach. Will Farrell was ALMOST as good in the role of Franz Liebkind as Kenneth Mars. And there were a few more risque jokes in the remake that I don't remember hearing in the original.

[–] Valeen_the_II 15 years ago

Matthew Broderick IS Jewish & looks like it to me...Nathan Lane is Irish Catholic but many people have mistaken him for being Jewish.

"Dabblin'in water colors,Eddie?"

[–] Valeen_the_II 15 years ago

IMO, it deserves @ least an 8.5....I like this version as much as the originals but they are very VERY different movies/interpretations, that are inidividually unique & brilliant.

"Dabblin'in water colors,Eddie?"

[–] toddbradley 15 years ago

Wow, I've been a user of IMDB for approximately 13 years now, and until today I've never seen a user comment where I disagreed with every single point the OP made. snow_crash-3, I guess it's a good thing there are two versions of this film, one for me and one for you.

[–] Mengele 15 years ago

The original was better.

[–] super-staff 13 years ago

I vastly prefer this version to the old one... Mostly for the same reasons as the OP, so I won't rehash.

[–] DD-931 13 years ago

Bottom line is, people can agree or disagree about whether or not they like this movie or not. But questioning the rating (now 6.4) is foolish, since it simply reflects the overall consensus of peoples' opinion about this movie.

I certainly rated this movie lower than 6.4 (I gave it a 3). But it would certainly be ridiculous for me to complain that the overall rating is higher than my personal rating. And it was equally ridiculous for the OP to complain. People simply disagree with his opinion, for perfectly valid reasons. It doesn't invalidate his opinion, it simply means his opinion isn't fact.

[–] zappalover 12 years ago

I love them both, one for its excellence in film comedy (1968), the other as a very good film version of a very funny and entertaining Broadway musical (2005). Zero was a national treasure; Nathan is practically there as well. Wilder and Broderick stack up well in their respective roles -- I think they're a wash. Yiddish humor is clearly and appropriately in abundance with both. With the supporting roles I give a small advantage to the musical, but with one exception -- Ulla. Lee Meredith was a perfect blond goddess bimbo whereas Uma Thurman was miscast -- Uma is the only significant flaw with the movie version of the musical. Lee personified a wet dream to a Jewish (or any Mediterranean) adult male in the late 1950's. Too bad they couldn't cast someone more representative in the 2005 film (think Christina Hendricks with a blond wig, for example). I rate the 1968 film a 9; the 2005 an 8. I agree that 6.5 seems a bit low given the strong and expanded production values with the transfer from stage to film. It is probably because of changing tastes -- today's audiences do not value formal movie musicals as much as in the past. Nonetheless, well worth the price of admission for many of us who appreciate a good movie muscial.

[–] mgulev 12 years ago

I couldn´t watch more than half an hour of the movie, so I didn´t rate it or write a review. I was surprised to see a rating as "high" as 6.5, though.
The reason: Broderick ruined it for me. Wilder was pure genius in his role and - to me - Brodericks attempt was half-hearted. I just don´t think he´s got the range for that particular part.

[–] zappalover 12 years ago

Agreed, Broderick wouldn't have the range for the part in the 1968 film, but I think he fit the musical very well. His song and dance performances were surprisingly good and his chemistry with Lane excellent. No question Wilder is the better actor.

[–] Marx_Bros_Fan86 12 years ago

Count me in as another one who doesn't like Matthew Broderick. At all. He was good in Ferris Bueller, but other than that I just can't get into him in anything he does.

As for the OP's original question: I think this rating is fine, if not a little too high. Note that I saw the stage play and loved it, but I don't think it works as a movie. It is far too long- the original movie's length is perfect. The length of the play was a little long too, but at least there was an intermission. The cinematography was also very, very boring in this flick. People are praising it because it preserves the original choreography, but if they wanted a direct translation of the play they would have been better off just recording a performance of the play (then we would have gotten an intermission!). Most importantly, most of the jokes fell flat to me. This might have been colored by my love of the original, but my dad didn't laugh much either and he hasn't seen the original. People actually walked out of the film in my theater.

The Indians are coming! Quick, put your scalp in your pocket! -Groucho Marx

[–] DD-931 11 years ago

Exactly, Marx Bros Fan. What this really adds up to is that too many musical theatre fans are unwilling to tolerate how film audiences connect to the different context of the film medium. Just as some film fans may be unable to properly connect to the context of musical theatre done on stage.

And as an aside...now this film is rated 6.3.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Marx_Bros_Fan86 11 years ago

That doesn't mean the delivery or timing of the jokes was as good as the original.