Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

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.

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.

As a theater nerd, and a Mel Brooks fan, I was intrigued when I saw this movie on Netflix streaming. I added it to my list and forgot about it. One night, I couldn't find anything to watch, so I decided to stop procrastinating and finally watch the movie. And I was not disappointed. It's not as outrageous as "Blazing Saddles" or "Spaceballs". It's more along the lines of "Young Frankenstein" or "the Producers" where the story is just as important as the jokes. To be honest, I didn't know this was a remake until I saw people saying it was one online. So, I won't compare it to that film. I'm actually shocked that people don't mention this movie when talking about World War II movies. They always focus on the ones about Jewish people, like "Boy in the Striped Pajamas" and "Diary of Anne Frank", not that that's a bad thing, I mean Jewish people were one of the bigger targets. But this one brings up the fact that it wasn't just Jewish people being hauled off to concentration camps. One character is homosexual, and Mel Brooks's character mentions gypsies being taken too. And I appreciate that. The comedy is brilliant. Some jokes are a hit and miss for the causal viewer, but if you know a little bit about theater or World War II, then you should get most of the jokes. In fact, I can see where Brooks got the idea for some of the songs in "the Producers" Broadway show, like "Heil Myself", "It's Bad Luck to Say Good Luck", and a few others. Also, I started laughing my butt off when Christopher Lloyd entered the film. "Back to the Future" is my favorite movie of all time, and Christopher Lloyd's character is one of my favorites. I didn't even know he was in this movie until I saw his name in the opening credits. But as soon as he entered, I was giggling like a maniac. Overall, if you enjoy Mel Brooks, theater, or World War II movies, definitely give this a watch.

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).