The original was far funnier and somehow managed to cut to the chase with less of a song and dance.
how can the original be more funnier if both movies have the same screenplay. Thats just a silly comment.
Jul 12 - 04:58 PM
Greg N.It's quite easy, the actors are different, so is the camera work, so is everything, not to mention that there are some differences between the two. besides, we all remember how Psycho was re-shot with the camera at the exact same angle and the result was empty. There is more to words than letters, your trouser
Mar 8 - 05:41 AM
I honestly don't understand any of the negativity with this film. If you look past any bias (predominantely a love for the original or the show on broadway), Nathan Lane was immesurably the better Bialistock, Will Ferrel was the immesurably better Liebkind (and that's not even arguable), Thurman was the better Ula (if that's how you spell it), and (i want to cry saying this because I don't like Broderick and I love Wilder) but Matthew Broderick was probably the better Bloom. And it is not ironic that I laughed more watching the remake. I can understand if people think its worse (everyone is entitled to their opinion), but not 40% worse. No way.
Jul 22 - 10:15 PM
True, while watching I caught myself screaming at the screen "Those are Mostel's lines!". kept thinking, why would Brooks do such a thing to his own creation?
Mar 8 - 04:54 AM