why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

I've never walked out of a movie until tonight. The original is hilarious but this new one has some problems.

1. horrible uninspired directing - the director basically hits you over the head with the "humor." She doesn't trust the audience to find the supposedly funnny parts funny and goes out of her way to call attention to them.
2. casting - besides the fact that Matthew Broderick is nowhere nearly as funny as Gene Wilder and Nathan Lane is even hammier than Zero Mostel was in the original, the other comic actors cast were not used to their potential. Jon Lovitz? Not funny. Uma Thurman? Looks good but not funny. Surely Will Ferrell can save this film! Nope.
3. it's too choreographed - I'm sure this type of crap is funny if you see it on stage, but on film nothing looks spontaneous and the slapstick is crapstick.

Ironically it's the film's only funny song that sheds some light on what went wrong-
ROGER: Shows should be more pretty
Shows should be more witty
Shows should be more...
What's the word?
LEO: Gay?

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

I really didn't understand why they remade this to begin with (of course I understand money, but besides that). The original was great. It would almost be like remaking Blazzing Saddles. Just no point. I did have pretty high hopes that this would be a good rental though. I saw it on Broadway with Brokerick/Lane and it was fantastic.

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

[ QUOTE ]
I did have pretty high hopes that this would be a good rental though.

[/ QUOTE ]
I should've waited till rental. Unfortunately my girlfriend didn't want to see King Kong tonight.

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately my girlfriend didn't want to see King Kong tonight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really, really want to. But it's almost 1 Jan. I shall refrain!!

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did have pretty high hopes that this would be a good rental though.

[/ QUOTE ]
I should've waited till rental. Unfortunately my girlfriend didn't want to see King Kong tonight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had to basically force my girlfriend to see King Kong, and she loved it.

~D

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

[ QUOTE ]

I had to basically force my girlfriend to see King Kong, and she loved it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a euphemism?

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I had to basically force my girlfriend to see King Kong, and she loved it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a euphemism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda. I'm about 100% bigger than her.

~D

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've never walked out of a movie until tonight. The original is hilarious but this new one has some problems.

1. horrible uninspired directing - the director basically hits you over the head with the "humor." She doesn't trust the audience to find the supposedly funnny parts funny and goes out of her way to call attention to them.
2. casting - besides the fact that Matthew Broderick is nowhere nearly as funny as Gene Wilder and Nathan Lane is even hammier than Zero Mostel was in the original, the other comic actors cast were not used to their potential. Jon Lovitz? Not funny. Uma Thurman? Looks good but not funny. Surely Will Ferrell can save this film! Nope.
3. it's too choreographed - I'm sure this type of crap is funny if you see it on stage, but on film nothing looks spontaneous and the slapstick is crapstick.

Ironically it's the film's only funny song that sheds some light on what went wrong-
ROGER: Shows should be more pretty
Shows should be more witty
Shows should be more...
What's the word?
LEO: Gay?

[/ QUOTE ]

Zero Mostel as a lascivious sleazeball? Please, no acting involved. I believe it UTTERLY. Nathan Lane, one of the most famous and flaming fruits in the world, as a guy hot for the chicks? Uh...oookay.

Matthew Broderick? I can take that. There will NEVER be another Gene Wilder. Any substitute will let you down, without exception. Broderick is as okay as anyone, and always tremendously likeable, and has that innocence the role requires.

Jon Lovitz never should have had a career.

Will Ferrell? A borderline talent who often makes very good indeed, but almost perfectly miscsst. Ferrell as a goofy crackpot leftover Nazi/Nazi sympathizer? He's about as German as Charles Barkley. WT holy hellacious F?

This thing sounds like a friggin total mess.

The casting choices are absolutely abysmal. Except for Broderick, truly couldn't be worse. This looks like "Hooray for Hollywood!" Broadway style, a roping in of inappropriate names to sell an overstuffed saccharine piece of crap that makes me want to spew my dinner out both ends at once.

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

they had to make it sucky cos they'd sold a 100% cut of the profits to hundreds of different people.

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I had to basically force my girlfriend to see King Kong, and she loved it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a euphemism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda. I'm about 100% bigger than her.

~D

[/ QUOTE ]
You / 2 or her x 2?

GoT

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ironically it's the film's only funny song that sheds some light on what went wrong-
ROGER: Shows should be more pretty
Shows should be more witty
Shows should be more...
What's the word?
LEO: Gay?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the movie already has Nathan Lane in it, so I'm not sure how much gayer it could get.

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've never walked out of a movie until tonight. The original is hilarious but this new one has some problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

um, wrong. The origional was utterly horrible, it was the only Brooks film to be recieved so baddly. Thats why he wanted to take another shot at it, but this time on Broadway. I never saw it, but I hear it worked very well on the stage. The remake of the film doesn't look that good however, should have kept it on a stage I guess.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

The original had some problems, but it was far from horrible. You have to do a whole lot to pass over the brilliance of Wilder, Mostel, and the rest of the cast.

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

[ QUOTE ]
The original had some problems, but it was far from horrible. You have to do a whole lot to pass over the brilliance of Wilder, Mostel, and the rest of the cast.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

[ QUOTE ]
The original had some problems, but it was far from horrible. You have to do a whole lot to pass over the brilliance of Wilder, Mostel, and the rest of the cast.

[/ QUOTE ]

The original is considered one of the best comedy films of all-time.

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

The original is a great comedy. The only people I've ever known who've seen it, but don't really get it are all girls.

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

The thought just came to me that if you don't love Zero Mostel after seeing this film, I don't like you. And if you don't love Gene Wilder, I fear you.

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

Not liking Zero Mostel in "The Producers" is like not liking Marty Feldman in "Young Frankenstein". Blasphemous.

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've never walked out of a movie until tonight. The original is hilarious but this new one has some problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

um, wrong. The origional was utterly horrible, it was the only Brooks film to be recieved so baddly. Thats why he wanted to take another shot at it, but this time on Broadway. I never saw it, but I hear it worked very well on the stage. The remake of the film doesn't look that good however, should have kept it on a stage I guess.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it was so horrible that Mel Brooks received an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay.

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really didn't understand why they remade this to begin with (of course I understand money, but besides that). The original was great. It would almost be like remaking Blazzing Saddles. Just no point. I did have pretty high hopes that this would be a good rental though. I saw it on Broadway with Brokerick/Lane and it was fantastic.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was remade because the play do so good for over 4 years now. I saw the play before it opened on Broadway in Chicago with Lane and Mr. Jessica-Parker, it was awsome. So, retards in Hollywood that have little creativity make a play a movie.

That is recipe for crap. Plays are not good movies 84% of the time. But, that is why the remade the movie.

In all, remaking any movie staring Wilder is a bad idea (Charlie and the CF, Blazing Saddles, ect.). Lane and Matty do a great job live, but I don't see this translating to a good movie. It will be in the category of the remake of the In-laws, another mother that NEVER should have been redone.

Re: why \"The Producers\" sucks balls
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The original had some problems, but it was far from horrible. You have to do a whole lot to pass over the brilliance of Wilder, Mostel, and the rest of the cast.

[/ QUOTE ]

The original is considered one of the best comedy films of all-time.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow... this is surprising to me. I always thought it was more of a cult film. I really didn't like it when I saw it, and its rare that I don't like critically acclaimed films.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]