|
|
|
| |
Bored??
|
|
| |
Check out the new Whyzzat Swagspot, for the latest
in cool, frank, and terribly wearable fashion statements!
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
Wayne
Site Admin
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 825
Location: Huntsville, AL
|
I spent the night with Mel Brooks.
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:32 pm
|
|
|
I spent the night with Mel Brooks.
(Heh... I thought that would get your attention. It is however a very true statement.)
I have been "in love" with Mel Brooks from long before I was allowed by my parents to watch his films. The exceptions being 1986's "The Fly" (which his company produced) and 1991's "Life Stinks" which simply wasn't my cup of tea.
Since I had no parties to attend this New Year's Eve, and having failed in my initial quest to locate then test all 18 different brews of Samuel Adams (a brand of beer/ale/lager here in the states), I thought I'd do what I do best, and attend the local cinema, followed by an extended stint in the parking lot waiting for the fireworks being traditionally launched from the stadium next door to the theater..
Having been a fan of Brooks' work most of my life, I had of course seen the original "The Producers" staring Zero Mostel and the ever talented Gene Wilder. I should also state up front that I am somewhat a closet fan of big-screen musicals, owning "Annie", "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers", "The King and I", and several others. As such, the newest adaptation of "The Producers" starring Nathan Lane (Max Bialystock) and Matthew Broderick (Leo Bloom) very much appealed to me.
Regarding casting:
Let me also say this. I am a huge fan of Nathan Lane. Of Matthew Broderick, not so much, but he can be a great actor given the right role (Ferris Bueller). The film also co-starred Uma Thurman who fit the role of "Ulla, Swedish Sex Goddess" to a proverbial "T", and Will Ferrell who -- as you may remember from my review of the recent "Bewitched" -- is only hitting about 50/50 on my good side. Here, Ferrell hits it out of the park as the truly idiosyncratic author of "Springtime for Hitler", Franz Liebkind.
I really feel that every almost single person was quite possibly perfectly cast for this film. Lane was enchanting. Uma Thurman was stunning, and even Ferrell was captivating. Toss in actors like Roger Bart (Desperate Housewives, The Stepford Wives) and veteran stage actor Gary Beach (reprising his role as Roger De Bris from the Broadway musical adaptation) and it's one hell of an ensemble.
Then we get to Matthew Broderick.
Anyone who's ever seen the original film, or perhaps even the musical in a local rendition (or if you're lucky, on Broadway) knows that the character of Leo Bloom is very much a neurotic, timid little mouse of a man, stuck in his own life that he is afraid to even admit that he hates. It's incredibly hard to describe, but Broderick's interpretation on the big screen just... lacked... something.
Watching this movie, it's very obvious that Broderick can sing, and he can dance, and we know he can act. The problem here is that (IMHO), he couldn't get past the ideal of playing a character on stage, versus being a character on the screen. That being said, I honestly believe he did a very good job, he was just completely overshadowed (upstaged, I believe is the proper term) by every other character on the screen, including the "Village People".
A lot of my problem with Broderick (and I do like him as an actor), could easily be attributed to the director and filmography who essentially tried to "set the camera in front of the actors and let the musical happen". This is another hard to explain thing, but unlike most movies with intricate camera angles and setup, you really do feel as though you're watching a stage musical and not a movie. This, in my opinion, works both for, and against the film.
Regarding the Movie:
Before you rush right out and buy a ticket, let's get this straight. This... is... a... musical... If you're like some of the audience at the theater I went to, and you expect this to be a typical Mel Brooks comedy, or even a movie, you're in for severe culture shock which will probably send you running from the theater about 20 minutes in, as it did to about 5 couples from the audience who obviously knew nothing of this movie beforehand. I hope to save you that embarrassment. You have been warned.
As for the rest of you, this "movie" rocked. It was, the most gut-busting, "laugh until you're blue" movie I remember seeing in the cinema this year (taking care not to misuse the term theater in this case). The success of the movie is in large part to Nathan Lane's sheer perfect portrayal of the seedy Max Bialystock. For sheer laughs alone it's worth the price of a full admission, however, nothing is perfect.
So what's not to like?
As I had mentioned, the history of this particular piece of film lore is that "The Producers" was written by Brooks and released in 1968 as a feature film which met with a great deal of success. It is critically considered one of Brooks' masterpieces. Lemme put it this way, if they ever do a "Mel Brooks Box Set" on DVD, it's definitely going to be included.
Somewhere along the line -- and forgive me because my dates fail me here -- "The Producers" was adapted from screenplay, into a raucous Musical that has been playing on Broadway pretty much ever since. This movie is an adaptation of the musical, not a remake of the original film. Sorry if I sound redundant, but I want to be perfectly, if not painstakingly clear on this. I like musicals. You may or may not.
As a big-screen musical, this version is about 80% pure cheese (that's a good thing). Again, not pointing fingers, but something was simply missing and I didn't find it -- strictly as a musical -- as enjoyable as other contemporaries such as "The King and I". Brooks however has my undying admiration for doing the unheard of and bringing a musical to the big screen in the 21st century...
In the end:
In the end, this big-screen adaptation of the musical was a lot of fun to watch -- if you're into big-screen musicals. If you're a fan of Nathan Lane, Uma Thurman, or Will Ferrell, go see it. You'll laugh your ass off so hard you'll wish you hadn't have bought the traditional "55 gallon drum" theater-sized soda. Just accept that it is, in fact, a musical, and not a "straight" movie (you won't get that pun until you see it) and you'll do just fine.
4.5 out of 5 stars from me. As always, your mileage may vary.
Wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
Robert
Open-Minded
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 920
Location: Glasgow
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:40 pm
|
|
|
| I'll probably wait and rent the DVD, mainly because I loved the original so much that I don't see how they could improve upon it and didn't see the point in a remake for anything other than money grabbing reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
PMC
Out of towner
Joined: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 9
|
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:35 am
|
|
|
I find Mel Brooks a little hit-and-miss but I too loved the original "The Producers". What a wonderful piece of non-PC satire! Only Brooks could get away with it, although he went one better in 1974 with Blazing Saddles. The Yiddish speaking native American had me in fits.
I'll withold judgement on the new film until I rent the DVD, as I'm no fan of musicals as a genre, but I've been whistling "Springtime for Hitler" at work all week. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums Home
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
P.M.
Log in