Two Plus Two Older Archives

Two Plus Two Older Archives (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/index.php)
-   Other Other Topics (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=32)
-   -   why "The Producers" sucks balls (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=407582)

TheBlueMonster 12-30-2005 02:53 AM

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?

Lloyd 12-30-2005 03:12 AM

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.

TheBlueMonster 12-30-2005 03:46 AM

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.

Iron Tigran 12-30-2005 03:50 AM

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!!

Duke 12-30-2005 04:10 AM

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

diebitter 12-30-2005 04:15 AM

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?

Duke 12-30-2005 04:18 AM

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

Blarg 12-30-2005 04:33 AM

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.

tomdemaine 12-30-2005 04:38 AM

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.

GuyOnTilt 12-30-2005 04:40 AM

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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.