|
Post by Vits on Mar 1, 2018 10:09:53 GMT
THE PRODUCERS 1967 8/10 Visually, THE PRODUCERS 2005 feels like the filmed version of a stage musical rather than a movie. Luckily, the performances are great. A lot of the jokes are the same ones that Mel Brooks put in the original movie's script, but he and Thomas Meehan also add new jokes and expand the old jokes. Also, this remake has 2 improvements: 1) There's more emphasis on the friendship of MAX BIALYSTOCK & LEO BLOOM (the title characters), which makes the movie touching without ruining the satirical tone. 2) ULLA is a more developed character. In the original, we were supposed to laugh at how shallow MAX was by hiring a secretary just because she was hot and also laugh at the fact that all she did for him was dance in her underwear or a bikini. It felt hypocritical, because Lee Meredith was a hot woman hired just to dance. It's weird to see LEO singing about wanting to be a producer in a sequence that doesn't reflect that visually. Not to mention that the dancers somehow appear in his workplace and his boss and co-workers can clearly see them. That makes no sense! You know what else makes no sense? During ALONG CAME BIALY, the old ladies are obviously aware that MAX sleeps with all of them so he can get their money. Why are they O.K. with that if they're under the impression that he's in love with them? 8/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog (in English, in Spanish or in Italian).
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 13, 2018 1:02:53 GMT
I liked the original movie but haven't seen the remake yet.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 13, 2018 2:19:38 GMT
Ironically, I like the play/musical version better than either of the films. Not sure about why exactly… I’m not all that fond of the original—way too frenetic for my tastes—and I don’t like the way Broderick plays Bloom in the remake (both Bialystocks are great, though Lane doesn’t look right for the part). Yet I saw the play at a local (but professional) theater, with Broadway-quality direction, set, actors, etc., and laughed up a storm. Can’t quite explain it.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Mar 13, 2018 3:09:15 GMT
Not to be a NAG .. ok I am nagging... this is NOT a "Franchise" ... it is TWO VERSIONS of the same story. Vits FRANCHISES :Indiana Jones Pirates of the Caribbean Batman Star Wars Star Trek NOT FRANCHISESThe Producers Chinatown and The Two Jakes Carrie Hamlet A Christmas Carol
ok then... returning to the regularly scheduled: The Producers (1967/2005)
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Mar 13, 2018 21:05:57 GMT
Lane doesn’t look right for the part Why not?
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 14, 2018 21:48:06 GMT
Lane doesn’t look right for the part Why not? Great question, and if I’m not exactly clear on it, I apologize. My attempt at an answer… Lane always came across to me as a fast-talking conman sort—OK. Now, Bialystock is that, but he’s also rather disgusting; Wikipedia describes the character as “willing to do anything to make money (including ‘shtupping every little old lady in New York’)…” Lane looks like a conman but not like an aging, greedy slob; Mostrel makes him into a real nasty piece of work, while Lane looks like he just came out of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. Now, is that Lane’s fault? Probably not, and it’s no real surprise that Brooks didn’t direct the remake. Yet I do feel that it causes a disjunction between actor and character.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Mar 15, 2018 21:54:12 GMT
I never thought of that. Now that you mention it... Isn't Nathan a better choice than Zero? I mean, he's supposed to seduce so many old women.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 15, 2018 22:19:10 GMT
I never thought of that. Now that you mention it... Isn't Nathan a better choice than Zero? I mean, he's supposed to seduce so many old women. The seduction and the con-artistry, yes. But the character’s also supposed to be (as I wrote) a dirty, greasy slob—no redeeming virtues. Lane gets the first two characteristics down but not the latter two, and I think that’s because they’re trying too hard to make him look like a convincing con-artist. And he’s not really supposed to be a conman in the style of The Sting or House of Games (or Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, which I mentioned above)
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 10, 2019 19:17:49 GMT
Not to be a NAG .. ok I am nagging... this is NOT a "Franchise" ... it is TWO VERSIONS of the same story. Vits FRANCHISES :Indiana Jones Pirates of the Caribbean Batman Star Wars Star Trek NOT FRANCHISESThe Producers Chinatown and The Two Jakes Carrie Hamlet A Christmas Carol
ok then... returning to the regularly scheduled: The Producers (1967/2005) Personally I don't think a set of only two movies is ever a "franchise" even if they consist of an original film and a sequel with a different story, it really takes more entries. For instance I don't think "Funny Girl" and "Funny Lady" or "Love Story" and "Oliver's Story" constitute franchises.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Mar 10, 2019 19:28:40 GMT
NOR does anyone else I have EVER encountered. This seems to be a thought pattern of only one person on the planet who has refused in several threads to accept any view but his own on the matter. He has called films that were made in the silent era and then made and remade several times "franchises". Ex: The Three Musketeers, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Robin Hood … all to the OP are "franchises" …
|
|