To Be or Not to Be (1983)

Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

An action-packed slog

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

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.

The older I get, and the more I am exposed to great ideas in film, especially comics in film, the less I tolerate Brooks.That's because he isn't a filmmaker. Never was. He's a vaudevillian, a stage comic. Now, that can be funny, and I suppose he's good at what he does. But there's a magic in cinema, in cinematic humor that bites deeper. Movies have a solvent when done right, a solvent that allows the humor to catalyze change.When you're on a stage, we expect the performer to be different, remote. We even laugh at the remoteness.Consider the film humor of embarrassment. We have a whole industry based on that, dozens of movies a year. They work because we enter the thing and feel embarrassed. That'll never happen with Brooks because he sees these as filmed stage shows.If you watch this, what you'll get is a rather clever acknowledgment of this. At root it is a simple structure: real world with Nazis, stage show with Nazis. (And of course, we chuckle, knowing Brooks' claim to fame is "Springtime for Hitler.") And as the thing goes on, we have the stage show and reality blurring from both ends.Brooks "plays" certain Nazi characters. And as time goes on the Nazis get more and more like stage characters. One device is rather sophisticated, where the real Nazi is made (by Brooks) to appear as a fake. And yes, Jews escaping as clowns from a pretend truck to a real one.At the center of all this is a valentine from Brooks to his wife. She's allowed to mug, and be the irresistible love interest to all heterosexual men, good and bad.If you go into this for laughs, you'll be disappointed. If you go into it as an essay on humor on the stage, you'll find it pretty darn impressive, worthy of the guy who introduced David Lynch to us through "Elephant Man."Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

This remake could not have had a finer cast led the magnificent Mel Brooks and his wife Anne Bancroft. I remembered him saying once that he loved singing and dancing Polish with his wife and now I can see why. They begin the show singing and dancing in Polish. I was surprised by how much they spoke Polish in the beginning. Unlike most Polish depictions, they are not considered to be taken as jokes in this film. They are in Warsaw with their theater troupe. In actuality, Warsaw was destroyed 90% by the war's end so it was probably very unlikely that they could outsmart the Germans but it's not a true story. The Jews wear the yellow Star of Davids and the homosexuals wear the pink triangle. Now the film could have ignored that part of the war but they did not. They wisely incorporated it into the storyline. They remind us of the concentration camps and the certain death that they would have faced. While the stars of the film and the fictional theater troupe, Anne and Frederick Bronski played by Bancroft and Brooks are forced out of their own home to live with their homosexual cast member played memorably by David Haacke in this small one room apartment. The rest of the cast is superb with Charles Durning, Tim Matheson as the young military man in love with Anna, Estelle Reiner, George Gaines, George Wyner, etc. Anne Bancroft is positively beautiful and glowing in her performance. She is truly a star and we know Mel loved her to death and she loved him in life as well. I don't get into the plot because I don't want to spoil it. It's worth watching again and again. Rest in peace, Anne.

Mel Brooks plays a bad Polish actor Dr. Frederick Bronski and Anne Bancroft plays his wife Anna.She does that also in real life.When the Nazis take over Warsaw they try to find a way to escape to England.To Be or Not to Be (1983) is a real comedy gem that hasn't got a lack of funny moments.If I mentioned them all I would be charged of overdoing.Of course you find some drama also because of the topic.I mean, there's the II Worldwar, the Nazis and the Jews.You can't make that all comedy.But I have to tell you this; if you got a Jewish master of comedy making fun of the Nazis you can't fail.It is noticed that the Jews are the best of comedians.If there was an average gentile comedian there in the lead instead of Mel this movie just wouldn't work so good.When he disguises himself as Hitler, that's just hilarious.The Führer himself was very hilarious.If only he had been only joking.That would have been a bad joke, but still.He and his fellow Nazi clowns are an easy target to make comedy of.The actors playing Nazi parts are superb here.Christopher Lloyd does an excellent job as Capt.Schultz and Charles Durning as Col Erhardt.The casting in this movie is something you have to give credit for.Mr Brooks and Mrs Bancroft make a marvelous couple in the lead.Tim Matheson is brilliant as Lt.Andre Sobinski and José Ferrer is great as Prof. Siletski.To Be or Not to Be is an eternal question that Hamlet kept asking and also the title of this film.But don't expect another version of Shakespeare's play because that's just something you're not gonna get.What you are gonna get is something much funnier.Watch this movie if you wanna die laughing.