I was truely disappointed. This is the first Mel Brooks production I've ever seen that I didn't like. I don't think I laughed a single time. Just Mel cracking jokes at Jews and Gays and Nazi's because he can -- after all, he is Mel... Miss this one, hopefully he will bounce back.

This movie disapoints. I wonder if those reviewers who rated this movie highly ever saw the original whick was truely a scream and should be seen so as to put this remake in context. The role of "LSD" as played by Dick Shawn was incredibly funny but was written out of the remake. Will Ferrel could have been a great "LSD". Yet the originally small role of the swedish secretary was expanded, unecesary, and boring. Nathan Lane is Talented but Zero Mostel was a genius who's portrayal of Max reached into the audience's head whith madcap angst. I never fully apeciated his talent until now. Rent this movie, but buy the original and enjoy it for years to come.… Expand

About 4/5 of the way through this wan, seemingly endless adaptation of Mel Brooks' Broadway smash which was in turn an adaptation of his ourageous 1968 movie, crooked stage mogul Max Bialystock, in jail for matters too convoluted to discuss here, does a one-man song and dance relating everything that happened to put him there. This little three-minute sequence actually features more genuine fun and entertaunment than most of thetwo-hours-plus surrounding it. That's largely because Nathan Lane, taking Zero Mostel's role in the original movie, is a stage performer who knows how to adapt his work for other venues; on screen he can be effectively bigger than life while keeping it absolutely real and believable. That talent, sadly, has completely eluded Lane's partner-in-crime Matthew Broderick, who may have been just fine on Broadway, but is thoroughly synthetic and unconvincing in Gene Wilder's old film role; the bits in which Broderick clutches his "blue blankie" in moments of stress are particularly embarrassing. Supporting performers Will Farrell, Roger Bart and Uma Thurman do pretty well, and I've heard comments that this is a perfect reproduction of the stage musical for people who never got to see it, but plays are plays and films are films, and I didn't pony up my $6.50 (plus popcorn and soda) to see a photographed piece of theater; I paid to see a MOVIE, dammit! Director Susan Stroman and her crew give the phrase "nail your camera to the ground" a whole new series of dimensions; they do their jobs as though Brooks threatened to fine each of them $500. everytime they moved the camera, included an inventive edit or did anything that was remotely cinematically interesting. Not only will this absolutely not do in the era of Chicago, but Stroman's embalming job makes me want to take another look at Rent; Chris Columbus' handling of Jonathan Larson's stage material may have been flawed, but at least he was clearly trying to make a real movie out of it. Then again, The Producers in its newest incarnation has serious problems that range beyond Stroman's directorial decisions or lack of same, starting at the writing level: I'm fully aware that writers as prolific as Brooks almost inevitably tend to repeat their own tricks, but I was shocked at how many comic bits and dialogue snatches he appropriated from his other movies in addition to the original Producers (especially Blazing Saddles). And the subject matter--two con artists putting together a sappy musical that's highly favorable to Adolf Hitler hoping for a mammoth flop followed by even more mammoth write-off wealth--was indeed daring and controversial in 1968...but the very fact that it WAS so phenomenally recycled as a piece of Great White Way comfort food perfectly indicates how completely time has passed this concept by. (It also explains why the big play-within-a-play production number, 'Springtime for Hitler', towers so much over the other, rather trite tunes, even though Brooks wrote them all: it's the only one that came from the original film.) It's been said more than once that one of the intended aims of the American neoconservative movement is to completely erase the 1960s; judging from the 2005 holiday season's reduction of two of that decade's most groundbreaking and incendiary mass-audience films (The Graduate, trivialized in Rumor Has It... and the original Producers) to vapid, easily-gummed milk toast, the neocons don't have to lift too many fingers to accomplish this particular goal; good old liberal Hollywood is already doing a lot of the job for them.… Expand

One of those movies that just felt off. In particular, the scenes with just one or two performers on screen just seemed to drag on and suffer. It lacked the big, booming numbers that a movie can work to its advantage with larger sets than a Broadway stage. As a result, this movie felt like a series of sets and backlots and didn't take advantage of the fact that it was a movie. It had its moments, but it just felt cramped and, yes, a little tired.… Expand

There are a few very funny jokes, but more really bad ones. The highlight of the movie is Roger Bart from Desperate Housewives. Other than that, I'd say see Brokeback Mountain or Narnia instead!

This is the only movie that I have ever walked out on. Thankfully I got my money back. Good actors - stupid characters. Some plays should stay on Broadway. The theater is for MOVIES - not plays. Hear me Rent???

I watched this movie in a large cinema screen and about 20% of the few people watching this movie left well before the film ended. I diddnt leave because I was on a date - but otherwise I would have. This film is just silly - over the top - overly camp and the only thing that gave me a few laughs was will ferrell, and uma thurman who looked ravishing.

First film in 10 years I wanted to walk out on. Dull. Turgid. Dated. Childish. Avoid like the plague.

Run for yout life while you still have a chance. simply awful!

I cant fathom giving this movie 10s, I think the studio monkeys must be hitting this site. This movie was lousy. Its slow, stale and the direction is inept.

The direction is abysmal, but there are some funny moments and the actors did their best. I hope this is Stroman's last movie.

Boring and tedious. THE PRODUCERS was not funny. Several people walked out of the theatre before mid-point, I should have done the same.

All of these people have to be either from the studio or directly related to the film in some way because this truly was what 90% of the critics are saying: utter crap. Destroyed Brooks' masterpiece on so many levels. By the way, who the hell is Susan Stroman and why was she picked to direct? Don't believe the user comments by Susan Stromans' most likely submitted Susan Stroman's mom and husband---stay away from this movie.… Expand