Allison Davies
The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
Mathilde the Guild
Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.
Fleur
Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.
Wren
It's misogynistic, as all Mel Brooks' work is. But I forgive that because this movie is the one that truly got me into musicals as a whole. I believe I was seven when I first saw this show, I'm 18 now and it remains one of my favorite movies. It's funny and perfectly paced, all in all a great movie. I personally think this version is far superior to the original 1968 version (I think that's the right year). Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick are delightful and have fantastic chemistry. I understand that it's not for everyone, but if you enjoy Broadway shows like the Book of Mormon, Monty Python's Spamalot, or Avenue Q, I could not recommend something better than this.
petertainanmission
Really this is much better than one would expect. Of course the original is better/different. Are there flaws in this version? Of course there are. What could benefit by comparison? But yet this is a very very entertaining movie. It's funny in different places. The music is just as good. The concept still amuses greatly. Where is Gene Wilder who made the whole movie? He isn't there. But the screenplay is, by Mel Brooks who was probably completing that which he hadn't. It is very enjoyable and entertaining and very out of character for Hollywood, so just sit back and enjoy - and don't think.
br_nunn
Anyone with a dash of culture and affinity for anything theatre should really like this movie. I simply cannot believe the low ratings! Negative reviews seem to be complaining about certain niche aspects (like how over the top it is) but I think these were intentional and add to the charm.This is a feel good movie with a ludicrous plot line, many laughs, catchy music, excellent choreography, awesome set pieces, etc etc. What's not to like??? The original was good but it's so dated. This was a nice refresh and I think extremely well done! All the actors committed and did a great job. Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick were excellent castings for both venues.I love this movie and will be singing the tunes for a long time. Thank you so much for a great movie!! Nobody should be swayed by the low ratings, it's just simply a great movie.
laversj
I go to the cinema regularly; so much so that I have considered that I may be addicted to popcorn, or at the very least have an unhealthy obsession with escapism, but after countless films I have only ever genuinely wanted to walk out of the cinema on perhaps two or three occasions. One such occasion was Charlie's Angels 2. Another was this film.I haven't seen the original and though I suspect Mel Brooks probably did a sounder job, I don't think I would be brave enough to take the risk. Nor have I seen the stage show but I don't think either of these thing should matter; I 'm not passing comment on either of those works but on this piece of cinema itself as it stands alone. And it stands poorly, leaning on a crutch with a slightly seedy demeanour.So great was the impact that this film had on me that now, 9 years after having seen it, I experienced an uncomfortable flashback, resulting in cold sweats and nausea. Once they had passed I thought that it may be time to work through the past trauma and that this review may be a first step forward in doing so.I won't go into the technical details about why I did not enjoy this film because I think it is still too soon for me but I will say this: a previous review was quite accurate in their description of it being produced like a stage show not a movie; I'm not sure if this was an experiment on the part of the film makers but it felt like I was part of one and I certainly had not given my consent.I did not enjoy this film. I thought it was bad.
