...I didn't even manage 10mins before switching this movie off. The original 1967 version is one of my favourite movies, & I consistently watch it approx six times per year. The 2005 version is terrible, forced acting, bad casting especially Matthew Broderick, he just isn't convincing nor is he funny, may be he did it for the paycheck! (for that I can't blame him). I'm sorry but 2005 was a total unwatchable mistake. For me this movie is an insult on the original! How on earth can the pairing of Zero and Gene Wilder be bettered (improved) upon... It's truly amazing how some ratings are so high with up to ten star ratings!! I must be living in a different world from these people.To conclude for utter brilliance in comedy you MUST watch the 1967 Original. (especially You younger people who often don't give 'oldie movies' a chance)p.s. when you're in the mood for a good comedy also watch 'The Twelve Chairs' of 1970 by Mel brooks....

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.

I've seen every version of The Producers--the 1967 film with Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder, the Broadway show with Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick, and the movie musical with Lane and Broderick.Mel adapted his original film for Broadway tastes. It had to be a musical because that's what sells tickets in theater. Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick were Broadway stars. However, the show was disappointing. A few of the musical numbers, particularly the old ladies and walkers was inventive. That Brooks had to include a song about being gay was cringe- worthy but necessary as Broadway musical theater audiences have to be hit over the head with the obvious. The show did not make a great film musical because it was not a great Broadway musical. Everything wrong about the musical starting with Lane and Broderick made its way to the screen. Lane and Broderick could never fill Mostel's and Wilder's shoes. Lane was too stridently fey, and Broderick too limply colorless. I disliked that some characters were combined, and that Ulla's character became Bloom's romantic interest. In the 1967 film, Bialystock was the great romancer. Everything and everyone was a conquest. Part of the fun was Bialystock's unstoppable wooing of the little old ladies for their money, of Bloom for his accounting wizardry, and everyone else who could serve his end game. Mel made a pot of money on his musical versions and I say bully for him. His genius was rewarded financially and theatrically with 12 Tony awards (not much competition that year). Saying that, if this is the only version of The Producers seen, there's enough humor and talent to entertain. It is nowhere and I mean nowhere nearly as funny and zany as the 1967 film. Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder are comedic giants. The original script and movie is simply one of the funniest ever.

2 stars? I must be in a charitable mood. The original movie of 1967 (per IMDb) had comic geniuses Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder, who were well supported by Kenneth Mars and many others. The Broadway musical was, like this movie remake, aimed at people of degraded tastes. Truly wretched songs were added, for one thing, and they have been apparently transferred to this movie version of the Broadway show. Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane are garish caricatures. They do not perform and do not act; they merely mug and pose and throw themselves about clumsily and unconvincingly. (It's arguable which of the two is worse.)The role of Franz Liebkind has been greatly and badly inflated expanded from a nice little counterpoint for Mostel and Wilder to a feature role for Will Ferrell, who is not good in it: it's just more mugging. Broderick and Lane? What was the casting director thinking? Box office, I guess.