A pale mimeograph of the original film. Why was this picture even made? I can understand Brooks wanting to bring The Producers to the stage. It was a lifelong ambition. That he was able to find talent in this day and age to approximate the originals is surprising. But, was it necessary to remake the film? No. A resounding no. Nathan Lane is not Zero Mostel. Matthew Broderick is no Gene Wilder. This 2005 fair attempt becomes a travesty in comparison with one of the greatest films of the 20th Century. This film is but a pale mimeograph of the original, a work the likes of which I do not expect to see repeated in my lifetime. Remaking The Producers on film is like remaking Citizen Kane or 2001:A Space Odyssey. The thought almost verges on blasphemy. If this 2005 outing were better than the original it might be forgiven but it is, as someone once said of the Coburn "Flint" films, road-show James Bond (an unearned comparison; the Flint films are marvelous; oh, and Derek Flint was not a rapist). The Producers (2005) is road-show Mel Brooks. The whole production should have been left on the stage where it was intended. All admirable talent, but wasted on a Sisyfusian effort to outshine perfection that was achieved in 1967 and shall never be eclipsed. This is Brooks's moment of hubris. He thought he could outdo himself, or find a new audience in a new age. One last hurrah, I suppose. If only he had not made this film. Everything would have been all right. Now it exists forever, a mentally disabled sibling living in the shadow of the supremely accomplished elder statesman. I like the actors, I like the way they played the characters; they were the best choices anyone could make. But taking it from stage to screen is just an insult to the irreplaceable. I cannot watch the entire film. I do not want to experience another bleeding ulcer. If you like The Producers (2005) all well and good. Do not watch the original, then. That's all the warning I can give you.