To Be or Not to Be (1983) User Reviews

The Lubitsch Touch Or The Brooks Touch

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 5 June 2009]

Rather than a satire of a film classic like Frankenstein or a genre of films like the western was done in Blazing Saddles, Mel Brooks chose for the one and only time to do a remake of an already very funny film with the classic To Be Or Not To Be. 40 years later the Brooks remake has lost none of the laughs from the original, in fact Brooks could now talk about things unmentionable when Hollywood was under the Code.

The 1942 original film that starred Jack Benny, Carole Lombard, and Robert Stack in the roles that Mel Brooks, Anne Bancroft, and Tim Matheson play here, was a sophisticated comedy that was not well received when first out, many thought the Nazis were no subject to joke about during wartime. Over time it gained acceptance as yet another of the masterpieces that Ernest Lubitsch did over his career. It may have been Jack Benny's best big screen performance. It was also Carole Lombard's farewell performance.

Benny's comedy was droll, Brooks's humor hits you with a sledgehammer. Still the different approach works out in this remake. Anne Bancroft is more than a good substitute for Carole Lombard, in fact she's as funny in this as Lombard ever was on the screen.

Many years ago one of my supervisors knew Mel Brooks and Anne Bancroft and he told us at work that her image as a great dramatic actress, whose two career roles are in The Graduate and The Miracle Worker was a total fabrication. Mel Brooks he said was as zany a man in private as he was in film. But he also said that Bancroft was even zanier than he was and had few times to display that in public. In that sense the two were a perfectly matched couple. My supervisor said he lived in the same building as they did in Greenwich Village and got to know both of them.

Mel Brooks got to show the effect of the Holocaust to come on gays in one of the first films to acknowledge that publicly. One of the touching performances in the supporting cast is by James Haake as Sascha the dresser for Bancroft who gets a one way ticket to a concentration camp, but the trip gets put on hold permanently by his friends in the theater. Charles Durning also does well as Gestapo head in Warsaw who gets constantly bamboozled almost like World War II era film Nazis by Brooks's ingenuity and his theater troupe who give the best performances of their lives. And we can't forget Jose Ferrer adding yet another ethnic group to his repertoire as the Polish traitor Siletsky.

If you're not a fan of Mel Brooks you will become one after you see any of his films. And this review is dedicated to the late Robert Peregoff, one of my supervisors at work who provided me the insights I got into the Brooks-Bancroft screen and life partnership.

Very similar to the original

[HotToastyRag · 8/10 · 23 September 2020]

If I heard about a remake of To Be or Not to Be and didn't know the cast, I'd probably shrug it off and stick with the original. One of the reasons I loved the 1942 version is because it was made during wartime and had an extra sense of fear in every scene, since no one knew how the war would turn out. A remake in the 1980s wouldn't have that same effect, no matter how good it was. But, since I knew the cast, I decided to rent it. Who doesn't want to see Mel Brooks and Anne Bancroft together?

The remake is extremely similar to the original, so if you did love the 1942 film, you'll still love this one. Just in case you don't know the plot, I won't spoil it for you here. It follows a theater troupe in Poland during WWII, and how they get involved in the fight "backstage". Just as in the original, the comic timing in the remake is impeccable, and you'll see some familiar faces joining the cast. Charles Durning plays Erhardt, Christopher Lloyd plays Schultz, and José Ferrer plays Siletski. If you don't know who those characters are, then you obviously haven't seen either version of this story. It's time you started! Pick whichever cast appeals to you and get ready to split your sides laughing.

Light comedy also respectful of history

[Libretio · 6/10 · 20 January 2005]

TO BE OR NOT TO BE

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Dolby Stereo

1939: As the Nazi's invade their homeland, a humble Warsaw theatre troupe stages a daring escape after stumbling on a Gestapo plot to kill members of the Polish resistance.

Whilst the fondly-remembered Ernst Lubitsch original was actually filmed during wartime (1942), at a point when the outcome of the conflict was still uncertain, this updated vehicle for Mel Brooks has no such edge, but Alan Johnson's fast-paced remake at least preserves the elements of comedy and drama which made the earlier film so potent. There aren't many belly laughs to be had from the low-key screenplay (co-written by Thomas Meehan and Ronnie Graham), and the Nazi caricatures are fun without being especially funny (Charles Durning was Oscar-nominated for his role as bumbling Gestapo officer 'Concentration Camp' Erhardt), but the film offers an upbeat mixture of thrills and frivolity, and a superb cast of experienced players take turns stealing the limelight from leading player Brooks (Anne Bancroft has a ball as Brooks' duplicitous wife, easing her marriage blues by encouraging a half-innocent liaison with handsome airman Tim Matheson, who's been assigned by British Intelligence to foil a dastardly plot initiated by double agent Jose Ferrer). As in the original, the movie portrays the Nazi threat in a comic manner whilst constantly reminding viewers of the deadly reality which underpins the narrative, and while the scenario is fast-paced, funny and exciting in equal measure, it's also surprisingly respectful of history. Johnson's unfussy direction keeps things moving along nicely, and production values are efficient throughout.

a maligned minor classic

[Jamie-58 · 18 May 1999]

This remake of Ernst Lubitsch's wartime comedy has often been dismissed as a ham-fisted and unnecessary vanity exercise. This is grossly unfair, as the Brooks' version is in fact a deft and funny comedy that stands up well in comparison to its forebear. Mel Brooks and Anne Bancroft make their own the roles of the Bronskis, a Warsaw theatrical duo ("world famous in Poland")who star in revues at the Bronski theatre. When war breaks out the Bronskis become brood-hens to an ever-growing community of Jewish refugees while staying one step ahead of the Nazis. Brooks and Bancroft are fine in the roles of the battling Bronskis, particularly Mel Brooks who finds a touching level of vulnerability beneath the bombast and bluster of Frederick Bronski. Despite the farcical and improbable plot twists, the narrative is sound and genuine pathos registers throughout the film. Those with fond memories of Jack Benny and Carole Lombard in the lead roles may have boycotted this on first release, but they have denied themselves a rare treat - a sure-footed and genuinely entertaining film.

Soul Clap Its Hands.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 16 February 2016]

If it was funny forty years ago, why shouldn't it be funny now. I can imagine that there's an entire sector of social space that has never seen Jack Benny and Carol Lombard in the original. ("I don't watch black-and-white movies.") And if the same sector doesn't have much of a grasp of affairs in Poland in 1940, so much the more informative.

Mel Brooks leads a theatrical troupe in Warsaw in 1940 after it was occupied by the Nazis. The plot is too complex to describe in detail but involves a great deal of impersonation, switching uniforms, lambasting the Nazi hierarchy, and poking fun at egotistic actors.

The plot and dialog borrow heavily from 1940 but some of the jokes have been brought up to date. I'll mention just two.

The troupe is desperately seeking safety from bombs and when they enter the shelter, one actor makes the sign of the cross. The next in line, presumably Jewish, goes through some contortions over his thorax with his fingers. Now, I may be mistaken but I think this is an allusion to an old joke. An airplane in jeopardy finally makes a safe landing. A minister gets off and makes the sign of the cross, as does the priest who follows him. The Rabbi makes a sign too and when asked about it by a reporter, replies, "What sign of the cross? I was just checking -- spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch." The troupe's dresser is openly gay and he explains to Anne Bancroft that he hates having to wear a pink triangle. "It CLASHES with EVERYTHING." The acting was suitably hammy in Ernst Lubitsch's movie. Here, the performances out-Herod Herod. If you want subtlety, see the original. Charles Durning is a fine actor but may be miscast here. Anne Bancroft is beguiling, a splendid and under-rated actress with a skull and a frame sufficiently gracile to die for. I speak to you as your anthropologist. My services come with a fee -- ten cents.

You should probably watch this. It's still funny after all these years.

Arrezt Zem, Arrezt Zem, Arrezt Zem !! Zen Shoot Zem And Interrogate Zem !

[ShootingShark · 7/10 · 29 August 2011]

Frederick and Anna Bronski are husband-and-wife actors running a theatre company in Warsaw in 1939 when Germany invades Poland. By chance, they discover that visiting Professor Siletski is a Nazi agent with a crucial report on the resistance, and resolve to use all their acting skills to stop him getting those names to the High Command.

This remake of the 1942 Ernst Lubitsch comedy classic is very faithful to its predecessor but is a hugely entertaining picture in its own right. What I like about it most is its terrific cast - Brooks and Bancroft seem almost made for these roles and both are sensational, as are the whole Bronski troupe. Matheson and Ferrer are suitably suave and slimy, but the real stars for me are Durning and Lloyd as Colonel Erhardt and his adjutant Schultz - you can basically never go wrong with a short fat man and a tall thin man as a comedy duo, but these two are hilariously mismatched. The scene where Bronski, disguised as Siletski, delivers his report to Erhardt and the two Nazis scream at each other is a masterpiece of comic bungling. This film's chief addition is Sasha, the gay dresser character, who would never have gotten past the Hays Code, but exemplifies the many moments where Brooks cleverly sprinkles the comedy with sharp reminders of the horrors it's lampooning. It also has much more of a musical element courtesy of a terrific score by John Morris and some funny numbers (who else but Brooks would open with Sweet Georgia Brown in Polish ?). There aren't many straight remakes I'm especially fond of, but this is a definite exception; it's funny, beautifully made, re-tells a great story and is a terrific showcase for the comic talents of its ensemble. Produced by Brooks, and deftly scripted by Thomas Meehan and Ronny Graham (the latter of whom plays Sondheim, the very loud stage manager).

good film but so much like the original, why not just watch it instead?

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 24 December 2005]

Jack Benny did a few really good films--such as THE MEANEST MAN IN THE WORLD and TO BE OR NOT TO BE. Despite that he often made fun of his film career, he was pretty good when he played something other than "Jack Benny". And, in this version of TO BE OR NOT TO BE, Mel Brooks, instead, plays the lead. And, he does a competent job. The problem is, Jack Benny did such a good job in the original, why remake the film in the first place? I would have been a lot happier if they had just re-released the original to the theaters once again. Although, I must admit that Brooks is unusually restrained and does show respect for the material.

So my advice: watch this film and then see the VERY SIMILAR original.

Definitely meant "to Be"...

[Mister-6 · 10/10 · 9 February 2000]

I haven't seen the Ernst Lubitsch original of this gem but if I had, I might have been prejudiced in my decision of this being one of the finer films that Mel Brooks has been in.

Though not written by or directed by Mel, he and wife Anne Bancroft take center stage as Frederick and Anna Bronski, Poland's most famous acting family. When the Nazi war machine overtakes Warsaw, they and their acting troupe use every actor's trick in the book to escape and make their way to England.

All this, of course, while Anna becomes smitten with an American pilot (Matheson) who helps them both to freedom. In the meantime, there are threats from a devious doctor (Ferrer), a lecherous Nazi colonel (Durning) and a command for the troupe to perform for the Nazi Army with Hitler in the audience.

There are so many classic moments here that to list them would be a dis-service to the movie. Let me just say that I enjoyed this whole film from opening to closing and even the closing had some doozies.

The Nazis are seen as complete buffoons and the exchanges between Durning and his head officer (Lloyd) are classic. In fact, I can see why Durning was nominated for an Oscar for his role here; not just anyone could have pulled it off as well as he.

Everyone here has a good scene or two, including Mel's regulars (Graham, Wyner, Riley) and the dialogue even manages to get the proper sentiment and tension out of the proper scenes. A great effort by all involved.

Purists of the Jack Benny original may disagree, but this "To Be or Not to Be" is the "to Be" for me!

Ten stars. Mazeltov!

TO BE OR NOT TO BE (Alan Johnson, 1983) **1/2

[Bunuel1976 · 6/10 · 4 August 2007]

This is an unnecessary but not displeasing remake of Ernst Lubitsch's 1942 film, which is an undisputed classic (and one of my own all-time favorites). It turned out very faithful to the original: wisely, Brooks opted not to spoof what was already a black comedy – this may have had something to do with his decision not to write and direct the film himself.

The fast-moving plot still works beautifully, though the jokes tend to fall flat – since they don't have the same immediacy of the wartime years, while the level of acting is far below that of the 1942 version. The remake adds sentimentality and the unfortunate inevitability of a gay stereotype; all in all, however, Brooks' earlier lampoon of Nazism in the form of the "Springtime For Hitler" set-piece in THE PRODUCERS (1968) was much more effective. There are, nonetheless, a couple of good songs here – while the original's gem of a final gag involving Hitler has been replaced by an equally priceless one.

As I said, the leads are no match for Jack Benny and Carole Lombard from the 1942 version (and are overage to boot) – though it was certainly nice to watch real-life couple Brooks (who, unsurprisingly, gets to double as both Professor Siletsky and Hitler) and Anne Bancroft playing alongside each other for once. Still, Jose' Ferrer fills the old Stanley Ridges role more than adequately…but, then, Charles Durning makes for a poor substitute to Sig Rumann in the all-important role of Colonel "Concentration Camp" Erhardt (amazingly, Durning's rather forced performance here was nominated for an Oscar!).

Homage to Jack Benny

[kb2uoe · 9/10 · 24 December 2006]

Actually, when interviewed about this movie, Mel Brooks said it was an homage to Jack Benny. And if you look, the Bronskis live on Kubelsky Street, Benny Kubelsky is Jack Benny's real name. There are many other touches that also show Brooks' love for the original. Anne Bancroft is a true treat. Her comedic talents shine, she was truly a rare actress, and will be missed.

It was well done, with Mel Brooksian flair, and respectful of the original. I won't add comments about the acting, there are so many pros and cons at this point, one more won't make a difference. But if you have some free time, see BOTH of the movies. It's not sacrilege to like them both.

Hamming Hamlet

[jotix100 · 7/10 · 21 February 2005]

"To be, or not to be", in this version, while taking the basic idea from the classic by Ernst Lubitsch, is not a copy, but a variation on an idea. Under the direction of Alan Johnson, the film is worth a look because of all the people that were gathered to make a contribution.

Who knows what Mel Brooks might have been able to do with this movie, but since he's only acting in it, his hands appear to be tied. The idea of Mr. Brooks as a popular theater actor offers possibilities. His wife, Anna, brilliantly played by (Anne Bancroft) gives us a chance to observe this wonderful couple at the top of their form.

Some familiar faces are also seen. Tim Matheson, makes a great ace pilot, secretly in love with Anna. Charles Durning does an excellent portrayal of the Nazi Colonel Ehrhardt. Jose Ferrer is seen in the pivotal role of a traitor.

Probably the best scenes involve Mr. Brooks and Ms. Bancroft singing and dancing. Also, Mr. Brooks makes an incredible take off on Hamlet and as Hitler.

While the film is not all what one expects, it's gives us an excuse for watching it and still have a good time while at it.

The most under rated Brooks film

[thebulfrog · 9/10 · 6 January 2006]

When I saw this I had no idea it was a remake. I didn't know the original had been rated the 49th best comedy of all time by the AFI or that Brooks neither wrote nor directed it.

What I knew was that from the moment it started to the moment the curtains came down I was laughing nonstop in awe of an incredible plot. The film managed to escalate with each passing scene. Just when you thought nothing more could be done to it, they managed to push it further and further. Brook's performance was dead on, as was the entire casts. It's the sort of movie that gives Christopher Loyd only seven or eight lines, and you love him for it and need to ask for anything more.

It continually makes fun itself, building on jokes you thought were over half a movie ago. I'd place this movie above Spaceballs and below Men in Tights, but would say that it is without a doubt the best plot of any movie I've seen in some time, comedy or otherwise.

This is a movie that you should waste no time seeking out and renting, buying, seeing in whatever way you can.

Still not sold? I'll retell one of the jokes. Don't read further if you want the first five minutes to be as fresh as they were for me - if you're debating whether to see it or not, I hope this is able to sway you.

They're in a theater, putting on a show. We hear the Polish songs - not quite sure what they're singing about. The curtain comes down on the two actors smiling and bowing together as the audience claps. The moment the audience can no longer see them the actors start bickering in Polish. We're not sure what they're discussing, but it's clearly a heated debate. The curtain then comes up, they immediately are smiling, bowing, curtain comes down once again and it's back to the Polish bickering. They continue bickering, stopping for an announcement over the loudspeakers in this vaudeville theater. "Attention, for the Sanity and Clarity of the Audience the rest of this movie will be English"

Then the movie switches into English, and the plot begins.

Amazing!

[Emerenciano · 7/10 · 3 December 2002]

That's a very funny movie! The plot is good and the actors are just great!. I liked the way the story (of course it's a comedy) is told. The cast is really hilarious, making "To Be Or Not To Be" something I highly recommend. Don't miss it!

My Rate 7/10

A fair remake that can't hold a candle to the 1942 original

[SimonJack · 5/10 · 11 December 2015]

For anyone who hasn't seen the 1942 original film by this title, and especially for younger audiences today, this 1983 remake of "To Be or Not to Be" may be entertaining. Some may find it quite good. But for those who have seen the earlier film, the two films beg comparison. And when so viewed, this 1983 film can't hold a candle to the 1942 original.

Mel Brooks made some funny and very good movies in his day. The best were those in which he satirized the movie industry or society in some way. But, in this film he doesn't satirize the original film. Instead, he plays it straight for the comedy that made the 1942 film. Jack Benny and Carol Lombard starred in the original, which was held up for release until after the U.S. entered the war. But that film was spot-on in its timing and its grilling of Nazi Germany over its invasion of Poland. It was a clear and excellent satire of the time. So, even seeing it many years later, audiences can still connect with it and relish the satire.

On the other hand, what satire is there in a film made more than 40 years later? By then, the lampooning of the Nazis was an old and tiring act. Even done as a straight remake – as one might see a different cast in a Shakespeare play, this newer film is just flat. When it loses the reality and imminence of the threat that the first film portrayed, it also loses the punch and humor of satire.

And, if one sets aside the satire – which is the essence of the story, at least in the initial film – this 1983 version still falls way short of the 1942 movie. I don't fault Brooks and Anne Bancroft for wanting to do a remake of such a fine film. But Brooks' portrayal of the main male character, Frederick Bronski, seems robotic compared to Jack Benny's Joseph Tura. In places, Brooks seemed to force his hammy acting, whereas Benny's was natural and hilarious. Nor was the rest of the cast in this second production up to the performances of all the supporting players in the 1942 film. In short, this film lacks the energy in the players, and the humor just doesn't come across as spontaneous and natural. One has a sense that this was one large staged remake, and that it became weighed down by the staginess of it.

Still, it isn't a total dud. Some of the lines and scenes are funny. They would be, no matter who played them. For those who have enjoyed this film, I recommend getting hold of the original to watch it. It's a wonderful WW II satire made and released early in that war. And the humor is that much funnier, and the satire that much more biting.

very funny

[suzie-13 · 30 August 1999]

I loved the Benny/Lombard version but Brookes and Bancroft are so personable you cannot help but love this. Durning was so funny and Christopher Lloyd was great....

I liked it.

Mel Brooks Well Remembered

[willrams · 7/10 · 19 February 2004]

I saw this film today on AMC and still laugh my head off at the antics of Mel Brooks and his wife in a remake of this 1942 film which starred Jack Benny and Carole Lombard. Brooks takes his funny equilibrium much further in this and his wife Ann Bancroft assists him in the antics of a ham theater production escaping from the cruel hands of the Nazis. Mel also sings and dances, but his greatest acting job comes from disquising himself as a German professor. They finally escape from the Nazis with the help of Robert Stack as a pilot. Charles Durning plays a German colonel and does a fantastic job of it; you get to hate him and laugh with him! I'd recommend this highly and entertaining! 7/10

A decent remake of the 1942 original, tainted by agendas

[tcamyuntoldartist · 7/10 · 24 July 2022]

I just saw the original, and was so delighted not to see something so deeply interwoven with the suffering of isolated groups of people as opposed to the entirety of Poland, that i was forced to lower my rating for this version.

On its own it's a masterpiece in every meaning of the word, BUT...

I was always bothered by how the chosens get the spotlight in being persecuted by Germany, and not the country and its Polish people that has just been made officially nonexistent. By the way i've also always been bugged by how the fact that the other half of Poland at the same time went to the Soviets is never touched on by the movie. The original also left out the Soviets, but it's understandable as at the time it wasn't clear the Union just might be worse than all German doings combined.

But this remake was made in a very different time, so in my book it is unacceptable not to mention Russia. It didn't fit the intended narrative ey...

Such a shame my review becomes deeply political, but i can't help it as i tend to watch films with a thinking mind.

I was also astonished to realize how much of a shot for shot remake this one is. What was changed was done due to better direction and pacing, and the previously mentioned agendas. The biggest offender was the standout scene of a small caliber actor at the theater who acts out a Shakespearean scene in the middle of an enemy soldier cloud, originally speaking for all Polish, maybe even all people not German?.. but in the remake in the name of all jews.. That's just a horrendous change. They crossed a line here and i really need to force myself to like this movie.

Nazi thriller with lots of farce

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 1 August 2014]

Real life husband and wife Mel Brooks and Anne Bancroft play husband and wife Frederick and Anna Bronski. They are performers in their own Polish theater when WWII invade. He's jealous of her flirtiness. She's tired of his bossiness. Lt. Andre Sobinski (Tim Matheson) is her secret admirer. He's a bomber pilot who escapes to Britain to keep fighting the war. Prof. Siletski (Jose Ferrer) is a double agent who is on his way back to Poland to expose the Polish resistance and Sobinski is sent back to intercept him. Col. Erhardt (Charles Durning) is the confused Nazi who takes over the Bronski home. Bronski impersonates Erhardt and then Siletski in order to stop the resistance from falling into Nazi hands.

It's not the usual Mel Brooks parody. He's not writing this one but there are lots of Brooks touches. He gets to take some more swipes at the Nazis. There is a compelling thrilling drama at the center of this but Brooks is always there to poke fun at it. It's a spy caper thriller that has lots of slapstick and farce injected into it.

The Mel Brooks way!

[f.gimenez · 9/10 · 18 August 2001]

This is the great Mel Brooks at his best!.

He revisits this classic film and makes it even crazier than the original, adding a lot of new stuff... (there are 3 numbers where Mel dances and sings, there are clowns, jews and a homosexual hairdresser pursued by the evil and stupid nazis.)

All the actors in this movie, and I mean ALL, are just terrific.

I´d like to state that this is not a remake of the Ernst Lubistch classic, (at least that´s my opinion), to me this is a tribute to the great director and his masterpiece.

I´ve watched the Lubistch "To be or not to be" a lot of times for it´s one of my favorite films, and the Mel Brooks version is completely different from the original. It was made the Brooks way, which I really adore.

So watch this film, you´ll have a lot of fun and won´t stop laughing.

Oh, just one more thing...

This is an asking to 20th Century Fox: When you decide to release this movie in DVD, include the absolutely amazing video-clip: "To be or not to be - Hitler Rap" performed by Mel Brooks please!!. I can assure you that a lot of people will buy it just for that.

(9 out of 10)

Play it again, Mel!

[ElMaruecan82 · 7/10 · 10 March 2022]

I guess the measure of a good remake is to retell a story and surpass it if not globally, but in enough occasions to make us feel it was worth the effort. Indeed the most remarkable stories aren't necessarily the most "remakable". And the original "To Be or Not To Be" starring Carole Lombard and Jack Benny was a remarkable movie.

Now, to be or not to be... remakable... is the rhetorical question. Ernst Lubitsch made the funniest movie that could mock the Nazis in good taste at Hitler's very expense and lifetime, after Charles Chaplin's "Great Dictator" of course. But while Chaplin used slapstick and silent humor, Lubitch let his unmistakable sophisticated touch hit the Nazis at their most vulnerable spots: their sense of humor. They couldn't understand humor because humor is two things at once: good spirit and intelligence and that doesn't mix well with evil and barbarity.

Now, Lubtisch made the film when America had just entered the war and to add a layer of poignancy, Carole Lombard had just finished the shooting when she joined a war rally bond that lead her to the fatal plane crash (and the post-production cutting of her line 'what can go wrong in a crash?'). The original film can't be separated from its context which is not just the war, but the war... before the Camps. Indeed, had Lubtisch known the extent of Nazi's barbarity, he might have considered them beyond the reach of humor... humor is sometimes too human to target barbarity and maybe Mel Brooks was the only one to go that far with the Nazis.

Now, where does Brooks fit in that preamble? Well, isn't he the performer who made his breakthrough in Hollywood by breaking the ultimate taboo; making fun of Hitler and prove that one could ridicule the Nazis even by knowing what they did. In a way, he completed Lubitsch and he could afford it, he who "rose below vulgarity" and somehow, could find the right balance in that remake. It's not that the film is better, each one belongs to different times, Lubtisch was a master of the screwball and gave a dimension of classy mundanity to all.... Brooks seizes the occasion to showcase once again how versatile he is and reminding the snobbish few that he's an EGOT winner after all.

His musical number: "A Little Peace" where he mocks the Nazi's so-called peaceful nature isn't in the same league than "Springtime for Hitler" but it comes closer. As for the Bronski theater that he owns , it is just a big love letter to the world of stage with variety shows, clown numbers and maybe the greatest dream of any comedy: being believable as a Shakespearien actor.

It's not about playing Shakespeare and his ultimate tormented character but be convincing in the realm of seriousness. Maybe laughs are just such easy and predictable emotions to command that they give enough rope for actors to cheat with it and indulge to overacting. However with drama it's all a matter of nuances and subduing while still deploying energy, ridicule isn't an option. With comedy, it is. I'm glad that, like the original, the Mel Brooks' remake made me think about the purpose of humor. Ironically, the iconic Hamlet soliloquy is precisely played for laughs, it's perhaps the most famous running gag: whenever he says "to be or not to be", the handsome pilot Lieutenant Andrei Sobinski (Tim Matheson) crosses an entire row to join his secret love, Frederick's wife Anna, played by his real-life wife Anne Bancroft.

Bancroft pulls a Mrs. Robinson on Mel Brooks but the adultery is purely secondary in the great scheme of things. When the same pilot tells Bronski that there's a spy (Jose Ferrer) threatening the lives of several Polish resistants, his only concern is to stay consistent in his position as the 'protective husband'. At first it seems that the film has no intent for 'seriousness' but the way I look at it, the film's stance is the following: poignancy is not a matter of timing like comedy. It just comes when you don't expect it. I didn't see coming the mention of the other 'yellow star', the pink triangle worn by the dresser Sasha (James Haake) There's also that cute moment where Bronski made the greatest act of his life, one that fooled S. S. Colonel Erhardt (Oscar-nominated Charles Durning) and he simply wish somebody could have seen it.

(it reminded me of that Jewish joke where God punishes a Rabbi who played golf during Yom Kippur by making him accomplish the greatest shot ever, Moses asks God how that is a punishment, and God says that he can't tell anyone about it.

Naturally it all comes down to the ultimate moment of poignancy, so great I had to check if it wasn't in the remake (it wasn't). It happens when the old Jewish woman (Estelle Reiner) is panicking at the sight of a full Nazi audience. The quick reaction of Sasha and shows three things: talent is one thing, but improvising is the measure of a genius,. That little moment encapsulates the essence of that Jewish humor that made Brooks such a relevant comedian: self-derision and quick wit.

I liked the casting of Charles Durning (and Christopher Lloyd as Schultz) and I thoroughly enjoyed his mimics and grimaces. Now, some would say that it's downright impossible that such a goofy character coexist in the same world where such atrocities happened. But here's news for viewers: it's a comedy and setting it in a real Poland would be indecent.

Now, as I was writing the review, I realized I was misinformed, this is not a Mel Brooks' film but one from his former choreographer Alan Jackson. Well, in spirit and in content, it's as Brooksians as Herbert Ross' "Play it Again, Sam" was Allenian. And Im glad Brooks could 'play 'Springtime for Hitler' again... albeit in a different way.

Outstanding War Film that Is Not Anti-Polish

[Captain Ken · 10/10 · 8 April 2002]

What a refreshing film about World War II that shows the truth about Poles who fought against the Nazi rule. Brooks and his wife shine in this comedy in Warsaw as they protect Jews and gays in those grim days. What great acting. What a classic film. !!!! It should be in the top 250. Mel Brooks has the magic touch

Brooks and (Bancroft) Shine

[davidmvining · 7/10 · 26 February 2022]

This is one of those movies I grew up with, it having been a key cornerstone of my father's small VHS collection. This is probably the Mel Brooks movie I've seen the most, and like many films from my childhood, I haven't seen it in years. The movie was instantly recognizable and new all at once, and while it is a remake of an Ernst Lubitsch film of the same name from 1942 (a film I've seen once many moons ago and remember little of), I've always seen it as its own creation. It's also the one movie that Brooks has a role in that he didn't direct that I associate with him most fully, having handed off the directing duties to Alan Johnson, the choreographer Brooks had worked with on musical numbers all the way back to The Producers while retaining the producer credit under his Brooksfilms production company.

In Poland in the earliest days of World War II, the Bronski theatrical company tries to keep things moving along, ignoring the world-shattering events happening outside their doors in favor of simply entertaining their audience. Led by the husband and wife acting team, Frederick (Brooks) and Anna (Anne Bancroft, Brooks' wife), they can only keep the world out so long before the Polish Foreign Office sends an official to end their production of a bit called "Naughty Nazis" that pokes fun at Hitler, in order to not offend the German chancellor and give him grounds to invade Poland. Not that Hitler really needed offense because he rolls right over the border shortly thereafter, and the theatrical troupe is suddenly trying to operate under Nazi occupation.

During one of the final performances, a young Polish airman, Lieutenant Andrei Sobinski (Tim Matheson), after having sent dozens of roses to Anna, gets invited backstage and the two begin a very chaste love affair without Frederick's knowledge, brought to a sudden close when Sobinski must flee to England to join the Polish arm of the Royal Air Corps. In England, he discovers that the Voice for a Free Poland, Professor Siletski (Jose Ferrer), is actually a German spy who has collected names from the Polish underground with every intention of giving up those names to the Gestapo once he arrives in Warsaw the next evening. Airdropped into Poland, he finds shelter with Anna, and we have our mixture of dramatic and comic setups. On the one hand there's a ticking clock on finding a way to get the list of names from Siletski, and on the other hand there's Sobinski hiding away from the SS in Frederick's own bed.

The plot develops into a plan to trick Siletski into giving up the list to the actors and then giving useless names to the local SS Colonel Erhardt (Charles Durning). This involves a series of disguises for Frederick that take his acting ability to its furthest, all without an audience, providing Frederick with both opportunity for amusement and pathos as he reflects on the danger he keeps getting himself into and out of. In between all of this is Anna, catching the eye of every German officer and spy and using her appeal to help advance the overall plan. As it makes it to its finale, with the troupe of actors making their way to England using the skills of their pilot friend, there's tension and even a nice Highlight from The Merchant of Venice for Lupinsky.

The movie really is a combination of drama and comedy, but the drama is what holds most firmly. There are definitely funny bits throughout ranging from character-based humor to stuff that edges more into the outrageous, like the announcer at the beginning of the film saying that the rest of the film will be in English instead of Polish with Brooks and Bancroft reacting to the sound or Lupinsky (Lewis J. Stadlen) doing a Star of David over his chest like a Catholic doing a cross. Most of it is a smaller type of comedy, though, and I can see how that would disappoint fans of Brooks' more typical output. The one person who consistently edges into that type of comedy is Durning as Erhardt and Christopher Lloyd as Schultz, the colonel constantly on edge at being found out by higherups that he tells jokes about the Fuhrer, a role for which he was nominated for an Oscar, and Schultz always loyally following orders that Erhardt blames him for going badly.

Where I think the movie succeeds where Brooks more recent output had failed is that its actually a story. Essentially just replicating the original film by Lubitsch while finding room for Brooks and Bancroft to have some fun, it's an enjoyable film with obvious affection for its characters and the ability to find levels of pathos for major and even some minor characters while delivering laughs from time to time as well. On top of the functional story is funny stuff. Wipe away the funny stuff, and you still have something. However, the funny stuff is there and it's nice to have for sure. This may not be Brooks' finest hour on film, but it's a rather delightful take on familiar material.

Delightful slapstick at its best

[lora64 · 10/10 · 5 June 2002]

I was so pleased to come across this movie on tv, and found it delightful every step of the way even though it does go "over the top" in its script. I could almost sense Sid Caesar's presence in the group but he was not a part of it here, which I regret.

Although the subject matter is serious enough, as it deals with the Nazi military and their activities, there is so much humor to be found in the foibles of citizens and soldiers alike that we are swept up in the steady action.

Mel Brook and Anne Bancroft carry the plot along splendidly. I don't think Jose Ferrer had been in many comedies so it was a pleasure to see him take part in this type of film.

Good entertainment and full of action.

a double bill review with Lubitsch's original

[lasttimeisaw · 6/10 · 1 June 2015]

An enthralling and ebullient double bill of two versions of TO BE OR NOT TO BE, Lubitsch's Black & White masterpiece, also famous for being Carole Lombard's swan song before a plane crash brought her away from this world at the prime age of 33, and Mel Brooks' (almost) faithful color remade (although the director title falls on the head of his longtime collaborator Alan Johnson) starring him and his wife Ms. Bancroft.

It is the same story being transcribed under two different palettes, the remake owes its tongue-in-cheek drollness greatly to the screenwriter Edwin Justus Mayer of the 1942 version since many one-liners are copied verbatim, both versions are abounding with witty caricatures of Hitler and his Nazi regime, embellishes a tall order in the wartime Warsaw with conspicuous burlesque, a Polish acting troupe's collective endeavour to hunt down a German spy and a subsequent flee from war zone to England, during which a crucial tool is that our hero, the ham actor Joseph Tura (Benny) / Frederick Bronski (Brooks), has to playact different characters, from the spy professor, a Nazi colonel and even Hitler himself (in the remake), to bluff his way out; meanwhile he is also vexed by the budding romance between his actor wife Maria (Lombard) / Anna (Bancroft) and a young aviator Lt. Sobieski (Stack) / Lt. Sobinski (Matheson).

But there are also apparent differences which can bear out why Lubitsch's original is a much better piece of work, taking the opening sequences for example, Lubitsch starts with a voice-over narrating an unusual happening in Warsaw before WWII, Adolf Hitler is spotted on the street, then a following revelation reveals that it is after all an act, Hitler is played by a character actor who tries to test his resemblance by walking among the mass, what a pleasant surprise! But in the remake, Mel Brooks doesn't adopt this route, instead, he opens with a vaudeville number SWEET GEORGIA BROWN with Bancroft, a fairly impressive stunt but fails to match Lubitsch's ingenious gambit, later audience will discover, one main reason behind this alteration is that there is no role of the character actor who resembles Hitler in this version, as Brooks himself will disguise as Hitler in the final escape scam, so probably it is a sacrifice to fulfil Brooks' own ego to enlarge his part as the star.

For most part, the silver-screen magnetism of the original is beguilingly outstrips the remake's more mundane touch, and being a well-intended fairytale, the mundane touch is unfortunately an impediment particularly in the elongated escape plan, the entire operation feels preposterous with the all the chase (don't let me start on the doggie Mutki's eleventh- hour jump) and what happens to the real Hitler in the theatre, he doesn't feel absurd when clearly no actors are on the stage to perform? In the original, this passage is fast-paced with a whimsical take of the fake Hitler ordering two pilots to jump off the plane without parachutes, to mock Nazi's blind obedience.

With all my respect to Brooks and Bancroft, but in the remake, they are just too old for their roles, egregiously jarring is Brooks as young Hamlet in his ridicule titular monologue, seriously? I don't consider myself as an ageist, but this is more than a farce to swallow. Bancroft is two-and-a-half decades past her prime as a seductress in THE GRADUATE (1967, 8/10), her comedic bent can never pass beyond the slinky postures. OK. we get it, it is a family business, let the profit kept within one's own turf. However, a big thumb-up for the remake to introduce an openly gay character Sasha (Haake), Anna's dresser, into the plot, in order to carry through the side-splitting wisecrack "how can a theatre survive without Jews, gays and gypsies?". Also Charles Durning usurps an Oscar-nomination for the remake as Col. Erhardt, but having watched the original first, his farcical rendition feels a shade forced compared with Sig Ruman's effortless spontaneity.

In the original, the Lombard-and-Benny pair forms a more organic liaison thanks a lot to the retro flair, she is a classic lady with glamour and dignity, he is somewhat childlike but self- consciously over-proud of his acting, their bickering is crammed with spark and tease, even Robert Stack's handsome pilot is dreamier in the vintage silhouette.

All in all, it might be unfair for the remake to be viewed immediately after the original, but also the double-bill viewing is a telling corroboration of why vintage classics can obtain their timeless appeal, nostalgia aside, they are absolutely one-of-a-kind in their visual tactility, their characters' mannerism and the streamlined narrative tactics, if you are into it, you cannot get enough of it, as for the remake, maybe it is just not vintage enough, nothing we can do about that, as least for now.

Not so funny

[aheaven2005 · 5/10 · 30 April 2022]

A much too long not often funny Mel Brooks movie. There's a few good moments but of the funny scenes you can see coming a mile before. Sadly not at the level of some of his other work.