Max Bialystock was once the king of Broadway, but now all his shows close on opening night. Nathan Lane was amusing, but somehow even he didn't manage to save this from the clutches of boredom. If I recall, that scene was in the musical. Mel Brookes' comedic genius at it's apogee. In this version, Leo just knocks on the door and introduces himself. I can't believe they made this load of old tat. Well, in my opinion, this is one of the film's strengths.
I've seen Luke-warm reviews about this film, largely saying that the theatrical basis the Broadway show is oh-so-evident. Matthew Broaderick, in the opening sequences, did a pretty good impersonation of Gene Wilder - line for line, that is. The musical numbers went on for just that touch too long. Finally, they hire as a lead actress the loopy Swedish bombshell Ulla whose last name has over 15 syllables. I could only go 15 minutes before turning it off in disgust. No one will be interested in it, so you can pocket the surplus. He doesn't do him well, but at least his performance is conceptually sound.
The 2005 version is terrible, forced acting, bad casting especially Matthew Broderick, he just isn't convincing nor is he funny, may be he did it for the paycheck! Such a pity, as everything else I have seen him in has been brilliant, but this. Broderick does slightly better as a neurotic nerd, but hardly great. Things turn around when he's visited by the neurotic accountant Leo Bloom, who proposes a scheme tailor-made for producers who can only make flops: raise far more money than you need, then make sure the show is despised. With a capital P, and a large number of exclamation marks. Summary for the movie New York, 1959. It's an absolute delight A movie written by Mel Brooks, starring Nathan Lane. This is one of the few films I have tossed in the trash after I finished watching it.
In short, we don't care what happens to them. Nothing is more arrogant than a film that assumes it's going to be a hit before it even goes into production. Gary Beach as a brilliantly camp Hitler completes this excellent scene. When she's not on it, it's gone. Might just do without them since most people who would be interested in this speak English anyway. What I got was disappointment.
The 2005 version, however, is gratingly awful. I didn't even mind the over-the-stop stereotypes. Indeed it was an interesting to see the top half of his body so still and rigid while his legs and feet were moving with such poise and grace. No, actually, a phone rang, once, and I think someone was playing brick on their phone. This is a terrible, unfunny film. Unfortunately I couldn't get through the first hour. The movie is way to long, after 15 minutes my brother and looked at each other and thought about leaving to watch another movie instead.
I've edited Susan Stroman's commentary to fit the extended cut with the original, non-commentary audio for the deleted scenes, of course , and I still have to do the menus. There's only so much you can do with a Swedish accent and revealing clothing. I'm sorry but 2005 was a total unwatchable mistake. People laughing out loud in the theater at first I thought it was ironic laughter. Well, there's no accounting for taste. Much better than the theatrical release. He was more over the top than Dolly Parton in a turtleneck.
Though, I wonder if it was a good idea to keep the leads from Broadway - playing a part on stage is very different from doing the same thing in a movie. How could this be a miserable, boring, snooze-fest? Most fundamentally, it seemed more of a cinematic rendering of the stage show than a remake of the movie - the problem is that it utterly lacks the charm of the 1968 film, and fails to capture the excitement and energy of the show. My brother and I saw this movie the other day. When Ulla is on the ladder painting, she's wearing an apron. Overall, I am not sure what to make of this movie.
You got me, but it was. Even the joke Lane made towards the end about someone else's life flashing before his eyes was stolen from an old Woody Allen joke. Though one scene has a big continuety error. I honestly would put this in the bottom 10 films I've ever seen in my life, and that's not an easy task to pull off. I watch the original periodically and still laugh a lot, but this thing is ridiculous. This movie doesn't work and its existence in the theaters hopefully not for too long is a masochistic slap in the face at the very best film that Mel Brooks ever crafted.
Then we get to Will Ferrell - who generally overacts so I was used to it. I have it downloaded to about 6%. Finally, they hire as a lead actress the loopy Swedish bombshell Ulla whose last name has over 15 syllables. When I first saw Mel Brooks 'The Producers' I thought it was a stage play adapted into a movie not the other way round that it became. Nathan Lane steals the show with his wonderful performance. Much better than the theatrical release. Never mind that Matthew Broderick is a human marshmallow.