Universal Pictures | Release Date: December 16, 2005
7.8
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 161 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
121
Mixed:
18
Negative:
22
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
10
br_nunn00Jan 13, 2016
The critics truly destroyed a great musical to movie production. It was extremely well done with laughs throughout. I've had many songs stuck in my head for days. I'm not quite sure how anyone with even the slightest interest inThe critics truly destroyed a great musical to movie production. It was extremely well done with laughs throughout. I've had many songs stuck in my head for days. I'm not quite sure how anyone with even the slightest interest in broadway/musicals/'feel good movies' could not enjoy this movie. It's frivolous with a weak plot made for stage but who cares? This is not a drama or a narrative or anything but a feel good musical. I'll always watch this movie if it's on. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
AtomicCookieSep 15, 2014
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I don't care what anyone else thinks. This movie was great! The music, the characters, and even the comedy was great enough to make me feel as if though I was watching a masterpiece made out of another masterpiece. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
beingryanjudeAug 31, 2014
This remake of The Producers stretched far too long considering its bland and ordinary look at the classic musical. I lost interest long before Uma Thurman even joined the screen--and I'm still unsure why she even joined.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
KenMar 22, 2007
Though some of the humor falls flat and it suffers from an unbearably long ending, The Producers is quite a fun and exuberant movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
RoyR.Aug 3, 2006
I'm someone who has a fairly strong stomach for bad films, it takes a nasty ride for me to stop appreciating something even as wallpaper, That said I turned this off. It was making me sick so I turned it off.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
JohnH.Jul 28, 2006
I never saw the Broadway production. I am too young (15) to know the original version. But this movie seemed like a good performance of a good musical. It does not stand out for its musical virtues, but nothing on Broadway (besides I never saw the Broadway production. I am too young (15) to know the original version. But this movie seemed like a good performance of a good musical. It does not stand out for its musical virtues, but nothing on Broadway (besides Soundheim) is of musical caliber anywhere near the average classical CD I can pick up at the library. Musicals are never created to showcase music alone, anyway. Two complaints seem to be: that the movie does not convey the full brilliance of the Broadway version, and that it does not take advantage of the movie-medium. As to the second, I would be sorely upset if any more of the music was cut out; I rented the DVD to see a full musical for a fortieth the price, not a destroyed and non-musical movie based on a musical which was originally based on a non-musical movie that was (apparently) great to begin with. And, if the Broadway rendition was much better than this one, it must truly have been magnificent; this one is quite good. Collapse
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
MelissaM.Jun 17, 2006
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, 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JLiddyJun 8, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
AMovieCriticJun 4, 2006
Too long. The problem is the songs, which serve to interrupt the comedy and story, and end up dragging on and on. I'm sure they were entertaining on Broadway, but on a screen, it's just not. It's boring, and the songs drag on Too long. The problem is the songs, which serve to interrupt the comedy and story, and end up dragging on and on. I'm sure they were entertaining on Broadway, but on a screen, it's just not. It's boring, and the songs drag on and on. On a Broadway stage, songs can go on and on because there's something exciting, (I guess) about seeing big musical numbers performed right in front of you. But in a movie, on a screen, they've got to be short and quick, because they do nothing but interrupt the plot. The movie, (when there's no singing going on,) is funny, and the idea was always a creative one, and there are some very funny performanes here. But you can't enjoy the movie when it keeps interrupting itself for yet another pointless musical number. Clocking in at over 2 hours, it's a long movie, and one that would have been much better with at least 30 minutes cut. And there's no question about where the cuts should have taken place; the SONGS. Some could have easily been eliminated (or at the very least shortened) and it would have greatly benefitted the movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JeffF.Jun 1, 2006
Pretty good film,but why did they leave out the best parts of the original? L.S.D. The bar scene and blowing up the theater.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
CharlieN.May 17, 2006
Hilarious and brilliant!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MarkB.Jan 12, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
BillyS.Jan 10, 2006
Mel Brooks writes and directs a comedy film classic in 1968 then turns it into the biggest Broadway Musical since A Chorus Line by teaming up Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane in the roles played by now legends Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel. Mel Brooks writes and directs a comedy film classic in 1968 then turns it into the biggest Broadway Musical since A Chorus Line by teaming up Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane in the roles played by now legends Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel. Can he possibly make this into a movie to top its pedigree? Well, if you add Uma Thurman as the Swedish secretary, Will Ferrell as the Nazi playwright and bring back Roger Bart and Gary Beach as the director and his assistant and what you get might not be all it could have been, but above all..... THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
LeslieS.Jan 10, 2006
I saw this play on Broadway with Lane and Broderick, and the play was much funnnier. The movie had too many broad vaudevillian strokes and stagnant mugging for the camera, which I attribute to bad direction. The best thing about this movie I saw this play on Broadway with Lane and Broderick, and the play was much funnnier. The movie had too many broad vaudevillian strokes and stagnant mugging for the camera, which I attribute to bad direction. The best thing about this movie was the hilarious Will Ferrell as the German Franz Liebkind. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
SephiaJan 7, 2006
This was absolutely hilarious! I haven't laughed that loud (or that long) since I saw the Producers on Broadway!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MikeG.Jan 6, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AngieJan 5, 2006
Absolutely hilarious! The actors were all absolutely amazing - Mathew Broderick stole the show for me. If you have a sense of humor, go see this movie!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
AxelB.Jan 5, 2006
The score isn't stellar, but it does have a couple great songs. The whole thing reminds you of a 1950s musical film, sure, but, let's face it, that's what it is. If you love musicals, you'll love it. If you don't, The score isn't stellar, but it does have a couple great songs. The whole thing reminds you of a 1950s musical film, sure, but, let's face it, that's what it is. If you love musicals, you'll love it. If you don't, you won't. Funnier than the original film (which is very funny), The Producers preserves on film a couple of terrific Broadway performances. Will Farrell can sing, and Uma Thurman is miscast (a body double is used for the tougher dance sequences). Still, it's a fun evening at the movies. Just don't expect West Side Story. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
PaulB.Jan 2, 2006
Not up to expectations. Most songs work okay, but too many don't. Too many shots put me at a Broadway audience angle instead of that of a film viewer. Actors were brilliant.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JoeyK.Jan 1, 2006
It gets off to a shaky start, with extremely misdelivered lines. Anyone who has seen the original knows how the first Leo and Max scene should look, and Broderick and Lane just don't live up to Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder's It gets off to a shaky start, with extremely misdelivered lines. Anyone who has seen the original knows how the first Leo and Max scene should look, and Broderick and Lane just don't live up to Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder's preformances. Later on, though, it isn't as noticable or intrusive. The movie is a rendition of the Broadway musical, and although it's missing 2 songs, (both of which were missed) it sticks to the musical quite well. There are some scenes from the original movie, that weren't in the musical, that could have worked now that it's a movie again, but unfortunately, there was only one part I noticed that did so. Aside from the dissapointing delivery, the main bother was an array of jokes that they should have realized didn't work. There were changed jokes, and changed styles of delivery, seemingly always for the worse, which was surprising and dissapointing. This isn't as good as either of the other versions, but it's still really funny, and worth it if only because it's the only way to get the Broadway version without goin ghtere yourself. Final note: Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal is a moron. (Second to last review, gave it a 20). This movie itself was no gem compared to the other versions, but the other version were utterly fantastic. The original musical was far from overrated, and that's saying a lot, and the original movie was a flawless comedic masterpeice. There are reasons to complain about this movie, but none of them have to do with the source material. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
martyJan 1, 2006
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!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
rcunardJan 1, 2006
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???
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MikeB.Jan 1, 2006
Entertaining -- a little slow in the middle.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
PaulF.Dec 31, 2005
The first three fourths of this movie was a ten. The last fourth barely hung on but was ok enough. The best part of this movie is the rendition of Spring Time for Hitler. I laughed the whole way through, funny stuff all the way. I was also The first three fourths of this movie was a ten. The last fourth barely hung on but was ok enough. The best part of this movie is the rendition of Spring Time for Hitler. I laughed the whole way through, funny stuff all the way. I was also really surprised that Broderick could sing so well. And Uma thurman was right on the money with her character. Another thing that surprised me is that this movie came across as old style. It almost as if they were trying to dulpicate the older one with Gene Wilder. I enjoyed that one too but this one beat the old one hands down. If musicals can be your thing I highly suggest seeing this one. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
MichaelL.Dec 30, 2005
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 - 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
LeoDec 30, 2005
This film does have some good jokes, but there are just alot of bad ones as well.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
howellg.Dec 26, 2005
Basically a film version of the great Broadway play. it works.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JohnC.P.Dec 25, 2005
All the criticism about the movie being simply a "capture" of the stage production is correct. But I didn't care. Stroman successfully captures the ENERGY of a live musical production in a film, forcing me to repeatedly remind myself All the criticism about the movie being simply a "capture" of the stage production is correct. But I didn't care. Stroman successfully captures the ENERGY of a live musical production in a film, forcing me to repeatedly remind myself NOT to applaud after each big musical numbers. There is a great fun to be had with this film. A big-screen must, if you ask me. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ConnorDec 24, 2005
Anyone who is a fan of the stage show will certainly be pleased with the film. Although two songs from the play were cut and Uma Thurman's voice was less than thrilling, it is just plain fun. I'm not saying "Oscar," but it's a Anyone who is a fan of the stage show will certainly be pleased with the film. Although two songs from the play were cut and Uma Thurman's voice was less than thrilling, it is just plain fun. I'm not saying "Oscar," but it's a really good time. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
LauraO.Dec 22, 2005
Wow! I love the singing and dancing!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DilipL.Dec 22, 2005
Musicals are great! This is no different!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
TrentF.Dec 22, 2005
Wow! What a great time! Best time you can have in a theatre with your clothes on!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
GarethD.Dec 22, 2005
First film in 10 years I wanted to walk out on. Dull. Turgid. Dated. Childish. Avoid like the plague.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
SaulD.Dec 21, 2005
Best comedy of the year. 40 year old virgin and wedding crashers were simple minded and dumb... This was a laughing riot! Should have been directed by someone else though, but still quite good.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
CharlesC.Dec 21, 2005
While this movie was not directed to well. Stroman's inexperience shows, the actors were great and Brooks' jokes are all around. Good, but not deserving of any movie awards, maybe acting and music, but maybe not even acting.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
GaryF.Dec 20, 2005
Run for yout life while you still have a chance. simply awful!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
SarahN.Dec 20, 2005
I went to the Toronto screening and all i can say is that i was impressed. I've never seen the original or the musical before, but now i want to see them. My entire theatre was laughing all the way through. What joy it was to watch this I went to the Toronto screening and all i can say is that i was impressed. I've never seen the original or the musical before, but now i want to see them. My entire theatre was laughing all the way through. What joy it was to watch this movie! If youre looking for a good time...go watch this movie! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AnaI.Dec 20, 2005
Wow! Thats all i have to say! Fun Fun Fun!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
TomF.Dec 20, 2005
A good adaptation of the broadway musical but i really wish they had the LSD character from the original! Broderick was a little lacking but his singing somewhat made up for it. Overall a fun time had by all!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JessLDec 20, 2005
A littel over the top but all good for me! The comedy is great, the singing is good and the performances are remarkable!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
CarlG.Dec 20, 2005
I was completely astonished by this. I never once stopped laughing! Everyone's entitled to their opinions and i think this was very good!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JohnB.Dec 20, 2005
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
TomMDec 19, 2005
The direction is abysmal, but there are some funny moments and the actors did their best. I hope this is Stroman's last movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
FabianDec 19, 2005
Boring and tedious. THE PRODUCERS was not funny. Several people walked out of the theatre before mid-point, I should have done the same.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
BrentPDec 19, 2005
Another reviewer asks, "Who's Susan Stroman?" and says "It must be her husband voting". First of all, if you did a tiny bit of research, you would have seen that Susan Stroman's husband is dead, and she was hand-selected by Mel Another reviewer asks, "Who's Susan Stroman?" and says "It must be her husband voting". First of all, if you did a tiny bit of research, you would have seen that Susan Stroman's husband is dead, and she was hand-selected by Mel Brooks to direct The Producers. Granted, she was a choreographer before becoming the Tony-award winning director of the Broadway show, and her husband was originally the director of the show, but I think her stage direction was top-notch. Granted, an essentially direct translation of the stage show to the screen mars an otherwise great production. A 10 to the original movie. And, at least this is a way to see the Broadway show if you missed it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
EnnioPDec 19, 2005
If anyone thinks this movie is slow moving and boring then i think you were watching the wrong movie. This has high energy all the way through. It is very entertainment. It looked like an old 50s movie musical, which was great considering If anyone thinks this movie is slow moving and boring then i think you were watching the wrong movie. This has high energy all the way through. It is very entertainment. It looked like an old 50s movie musical, which was great considering Stroman intended it to. People in my theatre were laughing all the way through. It was loads of fun! Highly reccomend it! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
SusanM.Dec 19, 2005
Don't listen to the bad reviews in the NY papers! The New York papers either must have it in for Mel Brooks or they were in a bad mood when they saw this film. As a fan of both the original film and the Broadway show, I was really Don't listen to the bad reviews in the NY papers! The New York papers either must have it in for Mel Brooks or they were in a bad mood when they saw this film. As a fan of both the original film and the Broadway show, I was really looking forward to this new version. So my heart sank when I read the nasty NY reviews ... but I decided to see it and judge for myself. Admittedly, I sat there with much trepidation, fearing that I'd agree with them ... especially since the original movie is one of my favorites and can always make me laugh no matter how many times I've seen it. Well, much to my delighted surprise, I LOVED IT. I saw it at the Ziegfeld on Friday (opening) night and the entire audience sure enjoyed it, too ... often breaking into spontaneous applause ... and LAUGHING LAUGHING LAUGHING. Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick recreated their stage roles with hilarious intensity. If you want a genuinely good time at the movies, if you want some good hearty silly laughs ... go see The Producers. It's funny. It's enjoyable. It's entertaining. It's terrific!!!! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
BillA.Dec 18, 2005
Disappointing and it looked terrible.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ShaunL.Dec 16, 2005
It proves again that critiques have really no pulse on what the general movie going public enjoys. In their own terms O stars on the audience pulse. A sleeping guy in a chair. a deflated ballon. This movie is the best in Musicals, and if It proves again that critiques have really no pulse on what the general movie going public enjoys. In their own terms O stars on the audience pulse. A sleeping guy in a chair. a deflated ballon. This movie is the best in Musicals, and if anyone does not get a grip of ANY of Mel Brooks films and the genre of over the top? They have missed the point all of these years. I laughed all the way through. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
MattA.Dec 16, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
TheHamsTheHamsDec 16, 2005
Can't believe how misinformed the critics were. This was a grand old movie. Phenomenal, even. I definitely recommend seeing this. This scenario reminds me of the Polar Express: most critics loved it but the majority of movie-goers Can't believe how misinformed the critics were. This was a grand old movie. Phenomenal, even. I definitely recommend seeing this. This scenario reminds me of the Polar Express: most critics loved it but the majority of movie-goers thought it sucked. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JosephR.Dec 16, 2005
Wow. Really didn't transfer back to the big screen. Overdone, poorly filmed, and WAY over the top. And did I mention s-l-o-o-o-w moving?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
joeh.Dec 16, 2005
The only ones murdering this genre are the critics with their inability to take in something different and today's society's desire for only action and violence.....or idiotic comedy.......forget all the critics, they really make The only ones murdering this genre are the critics with their inability to take in something different and today's society's desire for only action and violence.....or idiotic comedy.......forget all the critics, they really make me sick...damn college dropouts lucky to have a job. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
jennamDec 15, 2005
What fun time! The songs were great, the acting was good. Crazy and wild! I loved it!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
IlyaS.Dec 15, 2005
I'm usually not a person to like a musical, but this one gave me many, many laughs.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
geogryp.Dec 15, 2005
Micheal Phillips - Chicago Tribune is a great big fool and he is sorely mistaken.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
yankdDec 15, 2005
This is a wonderous film... these critics dont understand the film is meant to be over the top and loud....its a farce, its throwback to the musicals of old....and it does an excellent job!!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
SuO.Dec 15, 2005
I loved it. A big, old-fashioned, in your face musical with lots of color and singing!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
guyy.Dec 15, 2005
What an awesome time i had with this film everthing was just right...this is entertainment.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
treedw.Dec 15, 2005
What a spectacular movie! greatly funny and wildly entertaining.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
gyulagDec 13, 2005
Great movie!! Great entertainment! Great time at the movies!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JeremyD.Dec 13, 2005
Wonderful movie. It is over the top but that is what makes it great!
0 of 0 users found this helpful