The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part
The Walking Dead
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We want to hear what you have to say but need to verify your account. Just leave us a message here and we will work on getting you verified.
Please reference “Error Code 2121” when contacting customer service.
Despite the rich source material, The Producers has a stale, stagy feel more suited to the theater than the big screen.
All Critics (152)
| Top Critics (41)
| Fresh (76)
| Rotten (76)
| DVD (6)
This is extraneous for anyone who's seen the original film or show, presumably leaving everyone else to wonder what all the fuss has been about.
Not so much a film as an awkwardly framed souvenir of the Broadway hit musical, The Producers needs a live audience like a candle needs oxygen.
... an unabashedly old-fashioned musical filled with song, dance, and shtick so shticky you could hang wallpaper with it.
The jokes are in its tackiness, and gauchery, and raspberry-inducing send-up of Broadway traditions. On that level, the movie works fine -- and is a whole lot cheaper for the ticket buyer.
Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick and Gary Beach have their singing, dancing and kvetching in the Broadway smash The Producers immortalized on film.
The Producers is a wonderful elegy for a certain kind of comic sensibility.
The original was far funnier and somehow managed to cut to the chase with less of a song and dance.
Be prepared to laugh from the opening credits through the closing credits.
The play is everything in this uneven movie, which is alternately groan-inducing and side-splitting.
Confirmed my original opinion that the musical version of The Producers was a flash-in-the-pan success that won't be remembered ten years from now.
Director Stroman (who also choreographed the film) has also paid tribute to the theatre by casting such stage stars as Brent Barrett, Debra Monk, Karen Ziemba and Andrea Martin.
Hmmmmmm so very very tricky to decide here, what can I say...I enjoyed this as a stand alone film on its own, and when not compared to the original. As a stand alone farce its a great piece of comedy but of course it so difficult not to think and look back to the original material.
To be honest this is a classic example of a remake that, in terms of the movie, didn't succeed in doing anything other than show you should never try to remake a classic. Of course because of the flick there was a big renewed interest in the forgotten classic and a very popular theatre show, which is all good as its perfect for the theatre in every sense but the actual film is a poor imitation.
There are certain parts in this film I loved, mainly anything to do with Nathan Lane who is a superb comedic actor with fantastic skills in facial and physical comedy. Some of his leers and chubby prat falls are brilliant and really compete with Mostel's first performance. On the other hand there are some truly awful moments of...plagiarism basically where the same funny line or sequence has been attempted from the original and it just bombs hard. Some scenes simply cannot be replicated from the genius of Wilder and Mostel.
A huge issue with me was the casting of Broderick who is so so so so weak an actor I just don't understand how he gets work. Is it all simply down to 'Ferris Bueller'!!?. Terrible actor and he really shows it here with a dreadful performance that lets the whole film down badly. Sure he can sing a little, move well and he does look the part but he just isn't a strong enough character for comedy, he's too shy and reserved and a bad partner to Lanes terrific greasy comb over sleaze.
To be honest some of the casting is poor in this film accept for Lane, Beach and Bart all of which were inspired choices. Thurman and Ferrell were totally out of place and show why it can be a bad decision to cast big names when lesser known folk would work so much better. Also Lovitz could of been used in a better role instead of the extra unnecessary sequence he was in. Where was Dom Deluise that's what I wanna know, the perfect film for him.
The film looks fantastic I gotta say, well it basically looks like a stage performance that's just been filmed really. Not a bad thing as the colour and razzle dazzle is all very well directed and comes up peachy on your screen. Lots of musical numbers and extra padding to fill out the length which is again nice but also loses some of the originals charm. The old adage of less is more and this new film really does go overboard when it didn't have to. Obviously the film was meant to be a precursor to the real theatre production (a prequel of sorts to see how it would fare) which is fine but I don't know why they went down the musical route with the film instead of sticking to the better farcical comedic angle. I just felt a lot of the source materials essence was lost trying to craft the film into something else when they still could of done the theatre show and kept this film like the original.
Last thoughts are positive for the film as its nice to see musicals back on the big screen looking as lush as this but as a remake its nowhere near as good as its forebearer. Quite a poor copy in places but it does have its highlights which can make you forgive. If your seeing this for the first time then I strongly recommend the original first of course.
I knew going in I probably wasn't going to love this. After all, I find Mel Brooks "comedies" to be the lamest, lowest-common-denominator style of comedy, full of unfunny puns and slapstick overacting. But I like musicals, so I thought I might at least get some enjoyment out of it. I should give it a shot.
It's even worse than I thought.
The first scene with Lane and Broderick, which seems to go on for about half an hour, is agonizing and interminable, I almost turned it off (again - I started watching it once LONG ago and never made it through that scene), but I powered through and kept watching. The movie never got much better. The songs themselves are slightly less awful, but the rest of the film is just too rooted in bad Mel Brooks style. The performances are equally painful, even from some of the otherwise-decent actors. (What the hell happened to you, Matthew Broderick?!?) It's so overdone and exaggerated - fine if you're playing to a large live theater, but in a movie that kind of exaggeration is not needed and just comes across as dumb.
One of the worst movies I have ever seen.
Excellent adaptation of the Broadway show. All the characters are very funny. Shouldn't laugh at the play but just can't help it!
A Broadway producer and his accountant team up to make a flop as part of a get-rich-quick scheme ... set to music.
All the problems - the over-acting, the kitsch - that plagued the original production are on full display here, and added to those is some really bad music. I highly doubt that the discerning viewer will be singing "Unhappy" and "We Can Do It" in the shower the next day, even though some of the original music is kinda catchy.
There are moments when it seems like Matthew Broderick is doing a Gene Wilder impersonation, but I was impressed by his voice; I knew he was on Broadway and could sing, but he's much better than an actor who can act through a song. He's actually got some pipes.
I also liked the changes in the third act, which give the story a more cohesive structure.
Overall, this is a poor effort, a film that should not have been made.
View All Quotes