The Producers
Mel Brooks’ hilarious comedy, ‘The Producers’,
dealing with a pair of Broadway producers who discover that
with a bit of creative accounting a Broadway ‘flop’
can make more money than a Broadway ‘hit’, first
made the screen in 1968. It was an outrageous success. And,
ever since, it has always featured on everybody’s ‘most-favorite-movie’
list. The original ‘The Producers’ was practically
a musical. It contained three songs, including the legendary
‘Springtime for Hitler’, so, about five years
ago, Mel wrote a few more songs and presented it on the Broadway
stage. It was an outrageous success. Now, it is back on the
screen as a fully-fledged movie musical, and, you have guessed
it, it is an outrageous success. There is really nothing more
to be said. This re-working of the film is fabulous. Zero
Mostel and Gene Wilder first essayed Max Bialystock and Leo
Bloom, the producers of the title, and now Nathan Lane and
Mathew Broderick bring their Broadway stage interpretations
to the new film. Comparisons are pointless. All four actors
are memorable in their own way. Max and Leo are just as exasperating
and lovable as ever. Will Ferrell is hysterical as the Nazi
author of the play Max and Leo wish to produce, and, Uma Thurman,
as their dumb-blonde Swedish leading-lady, Ulla, is delightful.
The rest of the supporting cast glitter away quietly in the
background waiting for their moment in the spotlight. Mel
Brooks’ new songs and production numbers have all the
glamour that you would expect from a Broadway musical, and
they have been faithfully re-created for the screen. This
is an extravagant Hollywood musical in the grand-old-tradition.
They literally don’t make movies like this anymore.
The problem is that fans of the movie will want copies of
both. It is hopeless to decide which movie is the more fabulous.
Both of the movies will now have to go on your ‘most-favorite-movie’
list.
Basic Instinct 2
After toiling away for ten years in B-grade movies, Sharon
Stone was at the point of giving-up when she landed the leading
role in Paul Verhoeven’s 1992 thriller ‘Basic
Instinct’. A major production at the time. Verhoeven
knew how to present his leading-lady, and, after showing it
all, Sharon finally rocketed to super-stardom, and a somewhat
mediocre A-grade career ensued. Never-the-less, Sharon has
managed to remain visible and has been able to keep her career
moving along. Now, at a well-maintained 48 years, she is still
a sex-symbol for the aging ‘thinking-man’. However,
Sharon’s career choices must be fairly slim at the moment
if she has elected to reprise her character of Catherine Trammel,
a murder-mystery novelist who likes to fully-research her
stories, in this rather lukewarm sequel ‘Basic Instinct
2’. For some unexplained reason Catherine has left San
Francisco and has re-located to London. There she is under
suspicion of murder, and after a judge orders a psychological
examination, Catherine begins her entertaining mind-games
with her court-appointed psychiatrist. I am not going to tell
you much more, as that would spoil the fun, but, anyone who
has seen ‘Basic Instinct’ will get the general
idea. Michael Caton-Jones directs without much zest, and Leora
Barish and Henry Bean’s script meanders along with countless
sub-plots and red-herrings galore. This movie lacks the style
and tension of the gripping original. But, and this is a big
‘but’, Sharon Stone saves the movie from total
boredom by delivering a mesmerizing performance. After Catherine’s
14 year absence from the screen, Sharon now presents a much
more mature and lethal villainess. Gone is the playful kittenish
vamp of her earlier incarnation. Time and experience have
turned Sharon’s Catherine into a sleek and sharp manipulator
as dangerous as her much loved ice-picks. With this movie
Sharon Stone announces that she is back, well, she has never
really been away, but, let us all hope that a smart producer
will now offer her something she can get her teeth into. Sharon
is more than capable.
Inside Man
Spike Lee is a well-respected African-American director, best
know for his controversial movies that deal with racial issues
in an urban American environment. His movies usually display
a certain amount of contemporary style and flair, and are
normally performed by competent but unknown ensemble-casts.
They generally have limited commercial appeal and are mostly
regarded as ‘art-house’ material. However, Spike
Lee’s latest film, ‘Inside Man’, is aimed
fair and square at the mainstream. The movie, though, is a
strange kettle-of-fish. It cannot make up its mind what it
wants to be. Half of the movie is shot as a glossy action
thriller, while the rest is presented as a grainy pseudo-documentary.
Both styles are inter-cut through the movie, to represent
the ‘event’ and its ‘consequences’,
but this repetitive cutting only results in destroying the
flow of the primary focus of the movie, which is, in-essence,
a run-of-the-mill bank heist. Once again, I am not going to
tell you anything about the bank heist, why spoil your fun,
but take it from me that there are no surprises to be found
in the story. I was one-step ahead of the script all the way
through the movie. Though, I will warn you that there is a
lot of nasty violence. Spike Lee hasn’t been well-served
by his celebrity cast either. As a possibly corrupt policeman
Denzel Washington gives a pedestrian performance, and Jodie
Foster, in her small role as a ‘spin-doctor’,
is an embarrassment. She strolls through the movie with a
supercilious sneer and that is about it. Willem Dafoe grimaces
and scratches and there is way too much ‘method’
in his cantankerous cop. Clive Owen is the best thing in the
movie. He gives a riveting portrayal of the violent bank robber.
Clive Owen is one of the more interesting new English actors
currently making-it-big in American movies. One day he is
going to be a great James Bond. What Spike Lee needs to decide
fairly soon, as a director, is he ‘art-house’
or ‘mainstream’. This movie shows that you cannot
be both.
Second in Command
God, I am so sick of these gung-ho action-man movies. But,
they still keep making them so somebody must be watching them.
‘Second in Command’ is a lot of rubbish about
some revolting peasants in a Balkan country staging a coup
d’etat, and the President of the country seeks asylum
at the American Embassy. Jean-Claude Van Damme is getting
a bit long-in-the-tooth for this silly stuff, and his sexy
Belgium accent doesn’t make him a very believable American
Marines Commando. In-fact, the whole film isn’t very
believable.
