Director:
Susan StromanMúsica:
Glen KellyReparto:
Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick, Uma Thurman, Will Ferrell, Roger Bart, Eileen Essell, Michael McKean, David Huddleston, Debra Monk, Andrea Martin, Jon Lovitz (más)Streaming (2)
Sinopsis(1)
Estamos en 1959 y en Broadway resuenan los nombres de las grandes figuras del teatro. El productor Max Bialystock (Nathan Lane), sin embargo, ya no es uno de ellos. Un día, el tímido contable Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick) se presenta en la oficina de Bialystock para hacer las cuentas e inocentemente deja caer que un hombre deshonesto podía ganar más dinero produciendo un fracaso que produciendo un éxito. De inmediato, a Bialystock se le enciende la bombilla y trata de persuadir al reticente Bloom para urdir tan perfecto plan: producir un estrepitoso fracaso en Broadway, embolsarse una fortuna y largarse del país con el dinero. Poco convencido, Bloom vuelve a su deprimente trabajo, pero no puede evitar soñar con una vida mucho más glamorosa. Al final, llega a la conclusión de que está harto, se lía la manta a la cabeza y decide asociarse con Bialystock para perpetrar el delito. (Sony Pictures Esp.)
(más)Videos (1)
Reseñas (4)
Una mezcolanza cómico-musical colorista, pero con un guión muy chapucero, en el que la duración desproporcionada y la inanidad superan con creces al ingenio y a unos personajes poco geniales (especialmente el SS interpretado por Will Ferrell). El dúo central actúa a menudo muy forzado y Uma Thurman es sorprendentemente sólo una colección bien vestida. Si alguien aquí pretendía seguir el éxito de Chicago, no lo ha logrado en ningún caso.
()
When I was watching the movie "Producers" - I mean this one from 2005 - one thought came to my mind. Why don't the producers just ditch the idea of making completely new movies, when instead they can take the old ones, dust them off, and make a new premiere. The answer is obvious. Firstly, the problem is that viewers probably wouldn't go see an old movie. At least not in the numbers that the producers would wish for. After all, the image 40 years ago was somewhat different. The actors played differently, it didn't always have the necessary shine. Secondly, what would be the point of having actors if it was just about remakes all the time? I know that there are also original movies, but there are just too many remakes. I'm a little afraid that Disney, now being the new owner of Lucasfilm, will make a remake of "Star Wars". That would truly be the peak of all greed, not to mention that the pseudo 3D versions of "Star Wars" are already a parasitic presence that sucks the audience in without adding any value. Remaking will simply continue, even though the original is great. "Producers" by Mel Brooks, his directorial debut, is a legendary satire and parody with incredibly catchy songs. But it's already been more than 40 years. That's why it also got its turn and in 2005 we could enjoy a new version. It's bigger, longer, in more colors, but still more boring, drawn-out, and less entertaining. Matthew Broderick plays in a way that you'll either love or hate him. The same goes for Nathan Lane. Uma Thurman, in her portrayal, simply couldn't hold my interest, but that's because I can only stand her in Tarantino's movies. "Producers" are not bad, but what's the point of making an average copy of an exceptional work. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/11/deja-vu-fred-claus-oko-dravce-penelope.html
()
"Keep it gay!" This Neo-Nazi musical comes back to the silver screen for the second time around... And in significantly worse condition. It’s more vaudeville, more colorful and more superficially cheesy than Brooks’ original. The satire has disappeared into thin air and it virtually changed into a prime example of what the original made fun of. On the other hand it’s still pretty pleasantly loopy and in places it instils this perfect cozy feeling of well-being. It could have worked significantly better if the authors had shortened most of the songs and cut down the introduction in a way that it wouldn’t take seventy minutes for the musical "Springtime for Hitler" to finally make appearance. This way you will be exhausted even before you get to see it. The cast is pretty ok. All in all it’s pretty good. Which, given the quality of the original, is pretty damn little. If you are acquainted with the original Producers, just leave out the new ones, but if you happened to miss it, give this new version a try. You might feel tempted to get your hands on the 1968 original. And here by the way, if you have some patience, you get to see a classic singing Mel Brooks.
()
The soundtrack alone is worth five stars, whilst the movie/musical is garbage. Maybe even worse than garbage. I love the original Mel Brooks film, and that's probably why I feel the way I do about it. I knew not to expect a remake, but rather an adaptation of the musical it was based on, and yet... I'm speechless. The result was an overstuffed, unfunny, loud, hysterical work with a mammoth runtime that almost killed me... Yes, Springtime for Hitler is staged better here than in the original film, it's more spectacular and bombastic, Uma Thurman is nice ti look at and Will Ferrell as a Nazi librettist is also quite good... But what's the use when the rest is such appalling misery. I suspect that the producers of this piece made a nice buck.
()
Anuncio