ElMaruecan82
Released in 1968, Mel Brooks' "The Producers" was a masterpiece of vulgarity that pushed the limits of political correctness for the sake of heartfelt belly laughs. That it deals with Broadway and musicals is besides the point, the film is a comedic milestone: it didn't get to be such a classic because of the songs, but because of the story, a fresh irreverent script that earned Mel Brooks an Oscar. Well, to be fair, it became a classic thanks to a song, one song that defined the whole fraudulent concept of a sure-to-flop-musical but that succeeds in a brilliantly self-referential way because the public could see such bad taste can only be deliberate.The song was "Springtime for Hitler" (and Germany) and if there ever was one needed in the entire film, it was this one. The rest was just hearing ornament. Yet the remake, as pointless as it is, gratifies us with countless songs supposed to drive the narrative, but instead slowing it down and down till the 120th minute. I don't know much about the Broadway version of the original movie, but if they wanted to 'remake' something for the big screen, they could've remade the original, not the musical. A Broadway hit doesn't necessarily make a great film but the director Susan Stroman, took the film's reputation for granted. And no offense, but I want to ask 'who is she anyway?'Seriously, if anyone could remake the film, it should've been Mel Brooks himself, although he lost his touch in the 90's, he might have kept a few tricks under his sleeve. Unfortunately, 2005 coincided with a sad time for the legendary comedian, with the illness and death of his wife, actress Anne Bancroft. The film was certainly not a priority and I don't think the flop broke his heart and in a way, I'm glad the flop didn't hurt his legacy, and Stroman courageously carries the guilt of this remake. But she's not the only one to blame. The whole idea of remaking the play was ludicrous but it had chances to work, it went all wrong with the casting.The actors are good, in the sense that they're not bad. But Nathan Lane ain't no Zero Mostel and Matthew Broderick ain't certainly no Gene Wilder. In their defense, Mostel and Wilder created such a dynamic duo in the original that it was impossible to match their energy. I'm partial to Lane though, if he had Wilder's physique, he could have repeated his antics from "The Birdcage" and be as hysterical as him, I'm certain about that. But come on, how can you put Broderick and 'hysterical' in the same sentence? No offense again, but his emotional range can't get rid of that wide-eyed expression that made him look cute in his 20's, but awkward in his 40's. Even if his career depended on it, Broderick can't look wild, let alone 'Wilder'.But seeing is believing and the test-scene was the 'hysterical' one, and unfortunately, while Lane could pass as a Max Byalistock, I cringed at Broderick's impersonation of Wilder, maybe because his reputation precedes him, and creates a bias, but when the supposed-to-be highlight of the film makes you cringe, you know it's a bad signal. That's the tragedy of remakes, they can't escape from the original's shadow, and watching "The Producers" is like being submitted to an exercise of redundant comparisons. To make it short, when it's like the original, the original is funnier, when the film adds extra-songs, the original is shorter. So why the remake anyway?Of course, it's a very legitimate comedy/musical, nominated for four Golden Globes with songs that are well-choreographed as much as well-forgotten. The new actors are good, Will Ferrell does an interesting Franz Liebenkind and Gary Beach a remarkable eccentric director… still, you can't help but keep Kenneth Mars and Christopher Hewett in your mind. Only Uma Thurman (and that was a surprise) does an interesting and refreshing performance as Swedish Ulla and plays her more than a foil for the two leads' nastiness, she literally illuminates the screen. But even these good performances can't save the film after the musical (the one in the film) ends and the public applauds. The film loses its rhythm and there's still more to come.Even the original had its share of slow moments, but you can't have a high spot without a few low ones. The problem with the 2005 version is that by the time you get to the high spot, the film has given us two long patience-challenging songs that incredibly lowered your enjoyment. So mathematically speaking, when you consider the film's length, you don't have many gags to enjoy. It's like a dosage where the level of music has increased so much it made it lose the taste of fun, like a lemonade with too much water. The first one had bad taste, the second is tasteless.Speaking of the original, it was one of Ebert's favorite comedies and as far as he was concerned, he couldn't say he didn't enjoy the 2005 version, but couldn't say he loved it either. He knew there was some quality and professionalism in the making but that was it, the film couldn't make him forget the extraordinary experience the 1968 version was, at its time, and it still held up. And that's the magic of cinema, movies owe their classic reputation to the timing of their release.Brooks' film was a comedic milestone because it broke many grounds of political correctness but it's modern within its own context. The theme is relevant but the execution is a reflection of its time, now the 2005 version can't get away with that excuse, so at the end, it's not only outdated, but irrelevant. And to make it worse, it's longer, more boring and less funny as if the film's 'producers' wanted to pull a 'Byalistock' in this project.
