The Producers

Posted on December 15, 2005 at 4:05 pm

B-
Lowest Recommended Age: High School
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for sexual humor and references.
Profanity: Crude language for a PG-13
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking
Violence/ Scariness: Comic violence and peril
Diversity Issues: A theme of the movie but sexist and homophobic humor
Date Released to Theaters: 2005
Date Released to DVD: 2006
Amazon.com ASIN: B000BMY2LU

The 1968 version of The Producers was a brilliantly funny commercial flop about an outrageously offensive and atrociously appealing play that became a hit. The screenplay won an Oscar for director/writer Mel Brooks. It was fall-out-of-your-chair-gasping hilarious and a cherished cult classic.


Then, in 2001, the little, low-budget film about crooked producers who think a sure-flop will make them rich became a Broadway musical that did make its producers rich. Very, very rich. The Broadway show became one of the most successful in history, with a record-breaking twelve Tony awards and a scheduled run that seems to extend into 22nd century.


So, of course they made it into a movie with the stars of the Broadway cast and a couple of movie stars added in for marquee value. From the Broadway show, we have Nathan Lane as king-of-the-flops producer Max Bialystock, who raises the money for his shows by wooing lonely widows, Matthew Broderick as timid accountant Leo Bloom, Gary Beach as wildly flamboyant director Roger De Bris, and Roger Bart as his sidekick/significant other Carmen Ghia. From television and movies, Will Ferrell as Franz Liebkind, the playwright of “Springtime for Hitler,” a merry musical romp that Max and Leo think is the answer to their prayers.


Leo tells Max that no one checks the books of a flop too carefully. So if they raise too much money for a play, selling more than 100 percent of the profits, they can keep all of the money — as long as they have a surefire flop. And what is a better recipe for theatrical disaster than a musical about the 20th century’s worst villain? Just to make sure, they bring on the worst director they can find and cast playwright Liebkind himself in the title role.


It’s all pleasantly flashy and fun, but it does not come close to the original. In the first place, the original movie didn’t know how funny it was, which is part of what made it funny. It was brash and audacious and irreverent. The new musical is none of those things. In making a movie of a success, it is too careful. It hits every joke square on the beat instead of striking a contrapuntal sidelong whack.

In the second place, the actors don’t have the same crazy genius. Nathan Lane’s performance is shtick-y. He doesn’t have Zero Mostel’s fearlessness. Matthew Broderick looks puffy and uncomfortable. He doesn’t do shlub very well and he doesn’t have Gene Wilder’s manic little trill. Thurman and Ferrell try hard but don’t add much.


In the third place, having the director of the Broadway show as director of the movie means that the movie is essentially a filmed version of the Broadway show with some scenes shot outdoors.

Most important, partly because of the cult status of the original and partly because of a general coarsening of society, it just isn’t that shocking any more. The flouncy, over the top gay characters aren’t very outrageous in a world where you can turn on the television and watch “Will and Grace” or “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.” The original came out less than twenty-five years after World War II. Partly because of the success of that movie and partly because we’ve had a lot of other murderous tyrants, making fun of Hitler seems almost conventional. There was an episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” featuring Mel Brooks and his late wife, Anne Bancroft that included a twist on “The Producers” that was truly twisted and demented and shriekingly hilarious.


But this movie is not directed at the audience that wants something truly twisted and demented or shocking and outrageous. This is directed at people who are looking for something safe that makes them feel a little bit twisted and outrageous — sort of like the little old ladies who want to play “hold me, touch me” with Max. More like “Springtime for the Redhead on Desperate Housewives.”


Parents should know that this movie has some very crude humor and that it both makes fun of and revels in outrageous bad taste. There are sexual references and some stereotyping of gay characters that some people might consider homophobic. In the context of this intentionally offensive comedy, however, it is not intended to reflect bias. There are some strong (and vivid) sexual references for a PG-13, characters drink alcohol, and there is some comic violence. Oh, and the main characters are crooks who are stealing money from (wealthy) old ladies.


Families who see this movie should talk about why the original was not successful at the box office while the musical play is one of Broadway’s all-time champs. Is it because times have changed? If you were going to put on a sure-fire flop, what would it be? What were Max’s motives for doing the show? What were Leo’s? What will happen to them next?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the original version as well as other Brooks movies like Young Frankenstein (co-written by Gene Wilder) and Blazing Saddles (all co-starring Wilder).

Related Tags:

 

Comedy Movies -- format Musical Remake

Cheaper by the Dozen 2

Posted on December 12, 2005 at 12:49 pm

C+
Lowest Recommended Age: Kindergarten - 3rd Grade
MPAA Rating: Rated PG for some crude humor and mild language.
Profanity: Brief crude language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Social drinking
Violence/ Scariness: Comic, cartoon-style peril and violence, including fire, no one hurt
Diversity Issues: Brief anti-gay humor
Date Released to Theaters: 2005
Date Released to DVD: 2006
Amazon.com ASIN: B000EHSVFU

As synthetically generic as a “Happy Holidays” card from your realtor, this by-the-numbers pratfall-fest is, at least, a teensy bit better than the 2004 original. I’ll explain why in a moment. But first, I want to say something about montages.


Montages are the music-video-style interludes in movies. One you see quite often is the falling-in-love montage, with some sweet pop song in the background as our lovebirds ride a bicycle built for two, squirt water pistols at each other and squeal with laughter, walk hand-in-hand through an outdoor market, and smooch in the moonlight. Once in a while they genuinely help to tell the story, but most of the time they are just a lazy way to keep the audience feeling good without doing any actual work by writing, you know, dialogue to show us why these two people really like each other.


Then there are the trying on clothes montages (Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman) and the getting yourself or your team or your house in shape montages (Rocky running up the steps) and the passage of time montages. Again, it’s usually just laziness.


When I tell you that this movie features not one but three montages, you get the idea. On the other hand, it’s kind of a relief to be spared the sitcom-style dialogue.


Steve Martin and Bonnie Hunt return as Tom and Kate Baker, parents of 12 children. As their children are growing up, with the two oldest girls moving out of town, they plan one last family vacation at a house on a lake they used to go to when the children were younger. At the lake, they run unto Tom’s old nemesis, the ultra-competitive Jimmy Murtaugh (Eugene Levy), with his beautiful trophy wife Serina (Carmen Electra) and eight high-achieving children.


Tom feels diminished by Jimmy, though their children get along very well, especially two budding romances between the 8th graders and the college-age children. Various fracases and pratfalls later (not once, but twice a guy in a wheelchair who has no other connection to the story falls into the water), the two families square off in a pentathelon of camp contests, a battle of egg-toss, three-legged race, volleyball. Everyone learns again the importance of family. Martin even gets a chance to shed a tear about how wonderful it all is to love your family so very, very much.


I’m still angry that these films appropriate the title of two of the best books for children ever written and then give us something that has no relationship whatsoever to the books or the astonishing, hilarious, and touching real-life story they portrayed about “motion study” pioneers Frank and Lillian Gilbreth and their twelve children.

Put that to one side, and it’s just a super-sized “Brady Bunch” episode with a lot of dumb-daddy pratfalls and some crude humor (including two completely inappropriate anti-gay jokes). Hillary Duff, now that she’s lost the babyfat that gave her face some sweetness, just looks horsey in a thankless part.

What it does have going for it is a trophy wife (Electra) who is not a stereotype. She is generous and tells her husband when he is behaving badly. Martin and Hunt have an easy chemistry, and one of the kids, Alyson Stoner, is a stand-out who makes a real impression, a genuine achievement amid all the crowd and noise. But the movie’s fundamental superficiality is clear in the absence of any notion of what family really is. There’s some sloppy sentimentality, but not a single moment of genuine parenting — no instruction, guidance (even when a child shoplifts, which is treated as evidence of insecurity not as theft), support, generosity, or even listening. The movie’s idea of what it means to be a parent is not much more than affectionate proximity. What’s cheap here is the sentiment.


Parents should know that the movie has some crude language and jokes, including potty humor, a hit in the crotch, and homophobic references. One girl calls her young sister “butch” because she doesn’t like make-up and it is supposed to be funny that when a man puts his arm around another man’s shoulders, people think they are gay. Character drink (including drinking to make themselves feel better). Misbehavior is endorsed (even encouraged) or overlooked, including shoplifting and destructive pranks.

Families who see this movie should talk about what the best — and worst — parts of having such a large family would be. Why did Tom care so much about what Jimmy thought of him? Why did Jimmy want Tom to care so much? Families should also talk about how they feel as the children grow up and what families do to stay close to each other.


Families who enjoy this movie should read the book and its sequel, and see the original movies.

Related Tags:

 

Action/Adventure Comedy Family Issues Movies -- format

Last Holiday

Posted on December 11, 2005 at 12:57 pm

B-
Lowest Recommended Age: High School
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for some sexual reference.
Profanity: Some strong and crude language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking
Violence/ Scariness: Comic peril, theme of fatal illness
Diversity Issues: Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters: 2005
Date Released to DVD: 2006
Amazon.com ASIN: B000ERVJJK

Every night, Georgia Bird (Queen Latifah) cooks a spectacular meal, arranges everything perfectly, takes a picture of it for her “possibilities” scrapbook and then feeds it to the boy who lives next door while she microwaves a frozen diet dinner for herself. She works at a store where she meekly goes along with whatever her nasty boss tells her and she can barely speak when dreamboat Sean (LL Cool J) walks by.


Then she finds out that she has a serious condition and only three weeks to live. So she takes all of her money out of the bank and decides to blow it all on a trip to a fabulous resort. The woman who has been so careful for so long has no reason to be careful anymore. The woman who has been saving everything for someday decides that the time has come to spend.


Queen Latifah has a warm and lovely screen presence and it is a pleasure to see her light up as Georgia comes alive. We are immediately on her side as the caterpillar and we can’t help thrilling as she begins to kick up her heels and spread her wings as a butterfly. Yes, there will be a trying-on-fancy-clothes-montage when Georgia decides to replace her drab wardrobe. Yes, Georgia will run into her hero, the resort’s French chef (Gerard Depardieu) and the mega-millionaire who owns the store she works in, visiting the resort to hobnob with bigwigs. And yes, everyone will assume she’s a bigwig, too (why else would she be throwing so much money around) and yes, everyone will be charmed by her freshness and honesty. And yes, Georgia will wonder why it took dying to teach her how to live.


And yes, we enjoy seeing it all unfold. The script is pure formula, but Queen Latifah is having such a ball that we are happy to be invited along. At times it feels like an extended trailer for itself with silly set-pieces (Georgia base-jumps! Georgia cooks with the chef!), but we are on her side all the way and when the happily-ever-ending arrives, we’re as happy as she is.

Parents should know that the movie has an extremely crude joke about oral sex for a PG-13 movie. There is some comic peril, some strong language, and some social drinking. The theme of a fatal disease may be disturbing to some audience members.


Families who see this movie should talk about what they might put in their own “possiblities” books — and what they can do to make those possibilities into realities. Why did it take a diagnosis of a serious disease to make Georgia brave enough to try out her dreams?


Families who appreciate this movie will also appreciate Queen Latifah’s fine performances in Chicago and Living out Loud (both with mature material). They might enjoy the original version of this movie, starring Alec Guiness (the original Obi-wan Kenobi in Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope.

Related Tags:

 

Action/Adventure Comedy Drama Movies -- format

Casanova

Posted on November 22, 2005 at 10:40 am

C+
Lowest Recommended Age: Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating: Rated R for some sexual content
Profanity: Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking
Violence/ Scariness: Action peril and violence
Diversity Issues: A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters: 2005
Date Released to DVD: 2006
Amazon.com ASIN: B000EDWKXI

Mistake number one may be the title. There may be times in history when it is possible to have an appealing lead character whose primary interest in life is women, but this doesn’t seem to be it.


For centuries, people have been fascinated by Casanova, an 18th century adventurer who made and lost fortunes, escaped from prison, worked as a cleric and a spy, and whose legendary romances with hundreds of woman, as detailed in his autobiography, have made his name a label (both scornful and admiring) for generations of lotharios. His legend has inspired a number of films going back to a 1918 silent version, including portrayals by Donald Sutherland (in Il Casanova di Federico Fellini and by Richard Chamberlain in Casanova — and even impersonated by Bob Hope in Casanova’s Big Night).

In this film, Casanova’s womanizing is attributed to youthful high spirits and a supposedly endearing inability to turn down any woman who is enraptured by his charms — meaning any woman. Director Lasse Hallstrom recognizes that contemporary audiences will not have much patience with this, so he hedges his bets, making his Casanova (Heath Ledger) just a hopeless romantic ready to become completely faithful when he meets the right woman. Having abandoned the real-life Casanova’s most defining characteristic, Hallstrom and Ledger might have been better off creating a completely fictional character.


The fundamental disconnect in the personality of the movie’s hero runs straight into a collision with the movie’s tone. It tries to be a mildly post-modern version of a very traditional door-slamming farce, with a headache-inducing mish-mash of false identities and near-misses, all of which seem more of a distraction than an entertainment. Even the pleasures of on-location scenery in Venice are diminished by staging so artificial it might as well be a stage set.


Then there is mistake number two — an idea which must have seemed daring in a story conference — casting the ravishing Sienna Miller as Francesca Bruni, the spirited feminist heroine (so far, so good) but doing its best to make her look plain so we would appreciate how much Casanova loves her for her mind and spirit. Miller is still anything but ordinary, but for this kind of high-gloss romp, she there should have been no stinting on the glamour.


For the same reason, despite its subject matter, this might also have worked better as a PG-13. The sexual material in the film is not as explicit as many R-rated films, but given the choices of scenes, it is explicit enough to detract from the light-hearted and romantic tone the film is trying for.


There are moments, though, when it does achieve that light-hearted and romantic tone, and it rises like the hot-air balloon Casanova and Francesca take for a ride. Oliver Platt is sweetly silly as a clueless but open-hearted suitor, Jeremy Irons purples it up as a draconian Inquisitor, and Lena Olin contributes one of the movie’s most genuinely romantic moments as a woman who is surprised to find herself capable of being smitten. And it has swordfights and scenery and smooches. It isn’t a very good movie and it makes some fatally poor choices, but audiences in search of a cinematic bon bon may find its failures forgiveable.


Parents should know that this is the highly fictionalized story of one of the most notorious womanizers in history. While it is a light-hearted portrayal, the movie is about promescuity and what might in a less silly movie be called debauchery. The movie includes frequent sexual references and situations, some strong language, and drinking.


Families who see this movie should talk about why Casanova felt differently about Francesca than he did about the other women he had met.

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy the Oscar-winning Tom Jones and Shakespeare in Love.

Related Tags:

 

Action/Adventure Comedy Drama Movies -- format Romance

The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants

Posted on May 31, 2005 at 12:58 pm

This is a story about one summer in the life of four friends, told with sincerity, heart, and a little bit of magic — the very same qualities that made the original book and its sequels a “you have to read this” classic for young girls.

Four 16-year-olds, friends since before birth, when their mothers met in a prenatal exercise class, are about to be separated for the summer for the first time ever. Just before they leave, they find a mysterious pair of blue jeans that somehow fit each of them perfectly, even though their sizes as shapes are as different as their personalities. They decide to share the pants as a way of sharing their experiences over the summer. As they mail the pants back and forth to each other, the jeans will help them share their stories and stay connected.

The first to wear the pants is shy artist Lena (Alexis Bledel of television’s Gilmore Girls) goes to Greece to visit her grandparents. On the island of Santorini she meets Kostas. Despite a multi-generation feud between their families — and a promise never to see him again, Lena and Kostas fall in love.

Outgoing and athletic Bridget (Blake Lively) goes to soccer camp. She thinks a romance with her handsome coach is what she needs to make up for the emptiness that she has felt since her mother died.

traveling pants.jpgAspiring writer Carmen (America Ferrera of Real Women Have Curves) goes to South Carolina to see her father (Bradley Whitford), who did not tell her that he was living with a woman (Nancy Travis) with two children and planning to get married.

And rebellious would-be film-maker Tibby (Amber Tamblyn of television’s Joan of Arcadia) stays home, working at a huge discount store called Wallman’s and trying to make a movie about how bleak and meaningless everything is. She meets a girl named Bailey (Jenna Boyd) who becomes her film crew.

Each of the girls wears the pants and sends them on to the next with a letter. As they all try on new experiences and emotions and feel a little lost and vulnerable, the pants and their friendship keeps them feeling close and supported.

What takes this above the level of the average something-for-everyone collection of stories with a group hug at the end is its willingness to keep things a little complicated and messy instead of tying everything up neatly into the TV-style resolutions most people think are required in stories for young audiences.

Characters make real mistakes, not cute flubs that are either quickly corrected or happy accidents that work out even better than the original plan. Some characters learn lessons and change their minds or their behavior, but others do not. Some wounds are healed and some of what is lost is found, but some not. This is more reassuring, rather than less, because in our hearts even kids know that is true; all endings are not happy. It is good to see how people handle that — and can even be enlarged by it.

The film benefits, too, from sensitive and committed performances by its five young stars (including the precociously centered Boyd, a real presence on screen here as she was in the otherwise awful Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star). They make us believe in the connection between very different characters. It’s almost possible to think of them as different aspects of the same adolescent — shy and bold, thoughtful and impulsive, cynical and hopeful. Together, like the movie itself and like those magical Levis, they are more than the sum of their parts.

Parents should know that there is a subtle reference to a sexual encounter that one of the characters initiates but later considers a mistake. This is handled sensitively and responsibly. The same is true of other difficult issues the characters must face, including the suicide of a parent, a difficult adjustment to a divorced parent’s re-marriage, and a very sad death.

Families who see this movie should talk about what makes such different girls such loyal and devoted friends? What are the most important lessons each one of them learns over the summer? Why don’t the pants fit Bailey? Families should talk about why this movie does not try to give everyone a happy ending or even an ending at all. Why was Bridget so wrong about what she thought would make her feel less lonely? How did her mistake help her to share her feelings with her friends in a way she could not before? What could Carmen have done to try to get to know her father’s new family better?

Families who enjoy this film will also enjoy The Baby Sitters Club. And, of course, they should read the bookand its sequels. They might also enjoy a different kind of story about a magical piece of clothing shared by a disparate group of people in a life-changing series of adventures, The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit.

Related Tags:

 

Based on a book Comedy Drama Series/Sequel
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2024, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik