Letters posted here are associated with the following article:

21
Letters
Friday, December 16, 2005 12:00 AM

"The Producers"

Watching Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane's ultra-broad shtick is a little like watching a 3-D Imax film without the special glasses.

The letters thread is now closed.

View:
Friday, December 16, 2005 10:43 AM

Movie musicals

"As someone who loves musicals, I feel like I have been waiting for years for the return of the movie-musical."

Perhaps Richard Kelly ('Donnie Darko') will give use something with "Southland Tales." I wonder if Joss Whedon could make a standalone musical that kicks as much ass as the Buffy musical did.

Friday, December 16, 2005 11:15 AM

Zacharek hates it, so I'm not wasting my time with it

I was amused to see ARosenleaf's letter below commenting that Stephanie Zacharek hates every movie that he loves, because some time ago I realized that in Ms Zacharek I had found the all-important "reviewer whose taste exactly matches mine". Keep looking, ARosenleaf, you'll find your own someday!

Friday, December 16, 2005 03:02 PM

Kael Redux

Palie, I thought the same thing about swiping from Pauline Kael. Zacharek uses Kael's phrasing and word choices a lot. I also caught a whiff of Kael when Zacharek said she liked "a certain type of movie musical."

Friday, December 16, 2005 03:29 PM

Steph Rules OK

Stephanie Zacharek remains one of the best reasons to subscribe to Salon. Her bold, witty, and intelligent reviews (not to mention her never-fail bullshit detector) are the highlight of the week.

It's a pleasure to read criticism that says the emperor is buck nekkid, or bravely praises a film that has escaped the radar of less perceptive writers. I was greatly cheered when she flayed the more than craptacular lump that was "Rent," or exposed Sam Mendes for the fraud he is. She has championed the less well-reviewed "Serenity," "Oliver Twist," and saw the satire of "Lord of War." You see, this is a critic who actually LIKES movies and enjoys watching and writing about them.

There have been dark accusations that Ms. Zacharek has been dipping into the deep pool that is Pauline Kael. She has never made a secret of her admiration of Kael and is as honest and unflinching as her mentor.

Stay the path, lady.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 09:14 PM

hey--another misquote!!!!

I think someone put it succinctly when they said that this is NOT a remake of the original movie, but a film version of the musical version of the original movie. or something like that. i agree that matthew broderick (or Mr. Sarah Jessica Parker) was not the best choice for the role in the first place--i have always felt that his film performances lacked something. (anyone see the made for tv version of the music man he did with kristen chenoweth? they would have been better off switching the roles and having HER as harold hill and HIM as marian the librarian.) i have yet to see this movie, but i am looking forward to it...despite stephanie's ignorance and bitterness about movie musicals in general. i do not think it is fair for her to be comparing every single movie musical to Chicago--personally i did not think it is the best movie musical ever made...(and I will again say that I have a bachelors of fine arts degree in Musical theatre and so I am speaking from the experience of several years of analyzing every aspect of the musical theatre business) and i will say this for rent and the producers--the actors did all their own singing (albeit prerecorded), which is more than i can say for richard gere in chicago. also, just as a small aside--the song that stephanie referenced in her original review of the producers is called KEEP it gay, not MAKE it gay. ive said it before and ill say it again--i'd be more inclined to take this woman seriously if she proved to me that she was paying enough attention to the movie she was being paid to watch by accurately quoting it.

--again, not actually ralphmk but his girlfriend, Avery

Sunday, December 18, 2005 10:19 PM

Agreed - Never should've touched the original

As someone who absolutely adores the original movie, I have had an irrational dislike of the Broadway musical and the film of the movie.

I know I know I know the movie is not a remake of the original movie, but of the Broadway show. I guess I just always hated the very idea of turning my beloved little cult classic into this money machine. The original was so sweet and small, and it got hijacked into this "hot" Broadway ticket -- something to impress your friends with by managing to get a ticket. Shit, just being able to afford a ticket was impressive.

But the worst part for me, I think, is the thought of skinny-ass Uma Thurman as the secretary, and Will Ferrell as the Nazi playwright. Well, gotta have the big names, right?

It could've been worse: Could've been Jennifer Anniston and Steve Martin.

Monday, December 19, 2005 11:07 AM

Quite Frankly...

...the only way this movie could've shredded my nerves more quickly and efficiently would've been to have Martin Short flailing away in it. The last and I mean very last thing The Producers needed was yet one more shameless hambone.

Monday, December 19, 2005 11:42 AM

Why?

I never understood the logic behind making a movie based on a stage production that was based on a movie. Why not just see the original movie, which is a classic?

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 11:17 AM

Martin Short?

When I watch a movie starring Gene Wilder, at least in his pre-Richard-Pryor days, I see the character Wilder intends to portray. When I watch a movie with Martin Short, I see Martin Short. alfred ramirez gets it right: Martin short is not an actor. Although when he calls Matthew Broderick "just an actor" I am somewhat confused. It seems to imply that being an actor is not something necessary in a movie. In my mind, being an actor is a good thing. I am reminded of Peter O'Toole's line from My Favorite Year: "I'm not an actor, I'm a movie star!" Personally, I prefer actors.

And ARosenleaf, you are always lucky when you find a reviewer whom you can count on to provide you with a consistant guide. Even if it is a contrary guide. I offer you completely irony-free congratulations.

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 11:20 AM

also...

I forgot to include the fact that The Producersis one of my all-time favorite movies. I never even considered seeing any deriviate version of it, even if it starred Matthew Broderick as Leo Bloom.

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 08:13 AM

Well, I loved it, but I almost always disagree with Zacharek

Saw it yesterday and absolutely loved it. It was a hoot. And, I am a long time Mel Brooks fan - I adore the original, and I don't think this film takes its place in any way. It's a completely different view of it.

As for it being homophobic, well, I just want to ask her if she has EVER seen a Mel Brooks movie before? He has made a career of skewering stereotypes, and that's actually one of my favorite things about Mel Brooks.

Yes, this is a loud, over-the-top piece. It feels very much like a filmed stage play, but I (along with the other 2 people who joined me at the movie yesterday) thought it added to the charm. I thought it was awesome, but if you are the kind of person who chooses to check your sense of humor at the door, I would advise against seeing it.

Most Active Letters Threads

523

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
417

The face of rotted Washington

Evan Bayh demands more debt-financed war - fought by others - while boasting that he's a stern "deficit hawk."
185

Bigotry wins in Switzerland

By voting to ban the construction of minarets, Switzerland apes the most extreme intolerance in the Muslim world
129

Facebook, the mean girls and me

At 34 years old, I finally feel like a popular seventh-grader. How sad is that?
103

Polanski moves from jail to ski chalet

The rapist director is granted bail, and one of his most vocal apologists celebrates

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon