They Can['t] Do It! 'The Producers' Arrives On DVD: A Review

[CapnHook]

Posted: 5/16/06 at 3:17pm

http://moviemusicals.net/news.html#051606

***
May 16, 2006
They Can['t] Do It! 'The Producers' Arrives On DVD: A Review
By Andrew Hartman, MovieMusicals.net
Status: Review

The Mel Brooks movie musical adaptation of the stage musical adaptation of the original movie of 'The Producers' is now available to own on DVD. We'll take a look at the release, starting with a revisit review of this disappointing film followed up by comments on this rather disappointing DVD.

I have seen both the original film and the Broadway musical (with the original cast including Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick). The original film is hilarious - Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel cannot be replaced. However, I loooooovve musicals. On stage, Lane and Broderick offered a priceless experience (well, maybe not for some. After all, ticket prices did rise up to over $400 at the height of its popularity). So you have a brilliant movie and a hilarious hit musical - a good recipe for a movie musical, no?

The problem with the movie musical is in its adaptation. What Susan Stroman has done is basically take the original actors, the original score, the original choreography, the original costumes, and placed them on a studio set (which resembled in original set in some instances). The fault comes in with the adaptation from stage to film. She adds some dialogue scenes and sprinkles in some adjustments - occasional new dance steps, a new song (hardly an effort, lasting less than 30 seconds), and some new gags. Stroman makes the original stage show work for the big screen, instead of adapting it into a movie.

In one of the bonus features, it is said how Mel Brooks was going to film the actual stage show for a DVD release, but was convinced that the movie musical had to be done. Mel, your original idea was better.

The film was funny - heck, it was hilarious. Although it's enjoyable, elements of it get stale quickly. On top of that you grow uncomfortable with its many styles it tries to become. At times it is a farce, other times it wants to be real, other times it jokes about its non-serious approach. It's never clear if the characters are supposed to take themselves seriously. For example, many times the characters would look directly at the camera and speak, sing, or deliver a gag directly to the audience. At one point, Uma Thurman's character asks Broderick why he walks "so far down camera right?" This approach works well on stage in an intimate environment, however when this translates to film without being adapted for camera storytelling, it doesn't work the same.

So those are my thoughts revisiting the disappointing film. Now onto the disappointing DVD release.

All the technical elements of the film are fine: the art is decent, the menu is nice, the navigation is plain and simple, and I can hear and see everything is outstanding quality. So let's get to the heart of it and talk about the bonus features:

What's Great:

- We get to see many of the deleted scenes.
- We get to a nice outtakes reel.
- We get to see neat behind-the-scenes featurette of one musical number.

What's Not:

Transferring from brief bullet points for brief positive comments onto paragraph style points, now, for much to say about the negative aspects of the bonus features.

There's no director's commentary for the deleted scenes. In some ways, I'd rather have commentary for deleted scenes instead of the actual film - especially in the case of 'The Producers.' WOW! Is Susan Stroman BORING on this commentary, or what!? I love to listen to film's commentary tracks for insights behind-the-scenes, director's choices, and neat things to look for that we might miss watching the film. On the commentary track for 'The Producers,' Stroman spends half the time explaining what is happening as we watch the film and the other half reading from scripted comments. Ummmm....STROMAN! We have already watched the film! We're watching it right now!! We don't need you to tell us what's going on! She offers only a minimal amount of insights to the making of the film. [What's missing? Nathan Lane & Matthew Broderick.]

I do agree with most of Stroman's choices of cutting the deleted scenes. However, a huge disappointment was her decision to cut "King of Broadway." This is a number that could have increased the enjoyment of the film. It doesn't only setup Nathan Lane's character, but also the style of the movie. Perhaps this is why the film was so indecisive - the introduction was cut! And this number worked so well on camera, too.

The highlight of the disc, for me, is the behind-the-scenes look at the musical number "I Wanna Be A Producer." This is the only feature that offers a behind-the-scenes look at the film.

What's Missing:

- Director's commentary for deleted scenes.
- Nathan Lane & Matthew Broderick feature commentary.
- Cast Interviews
- Behind-the-scenes featurettes.
- "The King of Broadway" in the actual film.
- Stage-to-Screen feature including footage from the stage show.
- Mel Brooks from ANY sort of feature.

To conclude - I am disappointed. When I saw the Broadway production, it was the most I had ever laughed in any theatre, whether it be movie or Broadway. I had high hopes for this film. Don't get me wrong - it's not a total disaster and there are some highlights. It's still funny. But hardly a good film.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 5/16/06 at 3:27pm

I give Mel a complete pass on this one as his wife was dying during the making of the film. What an utter tragedy.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 5/16/06 at 3:59pm

I guess I am in the minority but I liked this film. I would say that there is too long of a stretch between songs at the start (office scene) but overall I liked it.

I'm sure that there is a "Special Edition" release that will come out with a lot more extras in a few more months. That seems to be the pattern with DVD's.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/16/06 at 7:44pm

I will wait for the special edition as I have fallen for their little ploy once too often

Once the special edition is out (with KOB back in) I will be one of the first to buy it

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/16/06 at 7:49pm

Perhaps you could sign a petition.

[Marquise]

Posted: 5/16/06 at 8:01pm

One of the worst films of 2005.

Posted: 5/16/06 at 8:17pm

Does Ulla dance more in the stage version? Because Uma Thurman looked uneasy with the dancing and in a few scenes I thought it might be a double.

[ILoveMyDictionary]

Posted: 5/16/06 at 8:28pm

"I guess I am in the minority but I liked this film. I would say that there is too long of a stretch between songs at the start (office scene) but overall I liked it."

Quoted for agreement.

[Jon]

Posted: 5/16/06 at 11:18pm

I recently watched the final episode of season 4 of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" - and the five minutes of "Producers" scenes in it was more enjoyable than the entire movie. David Schwimmer made a great Leo, and Larry David was the first Max I've seen who didn't imitate Nathsan Lane. Plus, Mel and Anne recreating the bar scene from the original movie was priceless!

On the other hand, the numerous close-ups of Cady Huffman made it clear why she could have never done the film.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 5/17/06 at 12:56am

Why, does she look old?

The film was okay, it would have been better had I not already seen the show.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 5/17/06 at 1:47am

You bet your ass Ula dances.

And then Ula dances again!

Uma Thurman was cast because she is a "name" for a film that was actually very difficult to finance. (Do you want to put up 50 million dollars for a Nathan Lane movie?) Will Ferrell was the same thing. Big overseas pre-sales.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/17/06 at 1:51am

Will Ferrel was good in it.

Uma Thurman was cast because Nicole Kidman dropped out.

I loved the movie - a total throwback to the way movie musicals used to be made - much like the stage show.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 5/17/06 at 1:53am

It's odd that so many people and critics complained about this film being too much like the stage show but yet they complained that "Rent" was not enough like the stage show. Go figure.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 5/17/06 at 1:14pm

Usually Walmart has a low price for newly released DVDs. I was expecting them to sell it for around $13-14. But when I went yesterday it was about $20. No thank you, I'd rather wait till I can get it in the $10 bin.

[bschneid76]

Posted: 5/17/06 at 3:16pm

Those who enjoy the film will buy it anyway, those who didn't like it at the theaters won't buy it. It wasn't at many theaters anyway so many people didn't get an opportunity to see it, so they will go rent it (hopefully). I think people just expect too much from films today. Who cares if it's almost a copy from the stage show, if it had had flashy camera movements it would have taken away what the show is about and the humor in it. I hope they come out with a directors cut and put in all the deleted scenes and they all seem to be needed, like The King of Broadway which looked great! And the vingettes in Along Came Bialy. It was hilarious!

[M.Berger]

Posted: 5/17/06 at 3:48pm

I'ver never seen the stage version, because NYC is too far away from me. But having seen the movie only I have to state that I liked it very much. It was incredibly funny, Lane and Broderick made a great couple and the music is wonderful!
Only disappointment: When Uma Thurman "belts" it sounds like a little mouse, she reminds me of an opera tenor I once saw in Vienna who tried so hard to sing loud that you thought his head would explode within the next minutes - but you didn't hear a single tone properly. It looks extremely funny when Lane and Broderick sink in the couch, because they are supposed to be blown away by Ulla belting, while you hear Thurmans untrained voice trying to be loud.
Whatever - I saw the movie 5 times in three weeks, so you get an idea of how I liked it ...

[Taryn2]

Posted: 5/17/06 at 5:29pm

I too have never seen the original prduction because i can't fly back and forth between katy, texas and New York.

but I adore mel brooks and i liked the movie. and the fact that is so much like the original production can be a good thing, it helps out those of us that can afford 7$ for a movie, but not hundreds of dollars for a ticket.

When i can find $20, I'll buy it.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 3:26am

Uma is just one of those terrible hasty casting mistakes - as Munk reminds us - she was a last minute replacement for Nicole Kidman (who is no belter herself). I wonder why they didn't go for talent when they lost the name? And what the hell was that hat Nathan wears about. He looks like a bad Boris Badanov.

STill, four great performances from the stage are captured forever. Love the "hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiissssssssssssssssssssssssss."

[YankeeGal#24]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 7:15am

"I loved the movie - a total throwback to the way movie musicals used to be made - much like the stage show."


I loved it too, for exactly the same reason--and laughed like a loon at the outtakes on the DVD.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 7:28am

it helps out those of us that can afford 7$ for a movie, but not hundreds of dollars for a ticket.

Where can you see a movie for 7 bucks?? Invite me.

I haven't seen the movie yet, only the show, with the original cast, and it was simply brilliant. I can see how the show not only wouldn't transfer to a movie well, but I can also see how the musical version of a dated film wouldn't appeal to a mass mainstream movie-going audience. But I'll check out the film now that I can rent it. We pay 11 bucks to go to the movies up here.

Updated On: 5/18/06 at 07:28 AM

[JasonM12480]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 12:14am

The movie is great.

The DVD is worth the price of the hysterical outtakes. I was rolling on the floor in laughter.