Ziegfeld Theatre

141 West 54th Street,
New York, NY 10019

Unfavorite 107 people favorited this theater

Showing 3,501 - 3,525 of 4,002 comments

Mikeoaklandpark
Mikeoaklandpark on December 27, 2005 at 7:29 am

I felt they made it to slapstick almost like a Three Stoges movie.

ErikH
ErikH on December 27, 2005 at 6:04 am

Reaction to “The Producers” from critics and audiences alike has been sharply divided. I prefer the stage version with Lane and Broderick (which I saw six times), but the film is enjoyable if you can accept the staginess of the presentation—-the film is an odd hybrid of a filmed stage production (such as the tv version of “Sweeney Todd”) and a movie.

In his review on “Ebert and Roeper,” Ebert said “I loved the play and liked the movie.” I agree.

Mikeoaklandpark
Mikeoaklandpark on December 27, 2005 at 3:40 am

The movie is absolutely terrible.I love musicals and loved the broadway show, but this did not transfer well into a movie. Beleive me the people who paid $12.75 to see thismovvie were ripped off. If I was a critic, my review would have statrted like this.
Mel Brooks creattes majoy FLOP in Producers movies. I would have gien it *½ stars and only the half because Will Farrell is the best thing in the movie.

uncleal923
uncleal923 on December 26, 2005 at 9:06 pm

How is the Producers? I did not see it on Broadway and I would like to see the film at my local theater.

uncleal923
uncleal923 on December 26, 2005 at 9:04 pm

mikeoaklandpark;
Try contacting cinematreasures.org from their ‘contact us’ link on the homepage.

HowardBHaas
HowardBHaas on December 26, 2005 at 6:23 pm

Here’s a nice interior photo found on a popular photo website-
View link

PeterApruzzese
PeterApruzzese on December 20, 2005 at 10:59 am

Check your email – the link to “remove” is at the bottom of it.

Mikeoaklandpark
Mikeoaklandpark on December 20, 2005 at 10:50 am

Does anybody know how I stop getting e mails when somebody reponds to this theater? I musty have accidently checked the block one day. I don’t kow if it was Clearview Cinemas or Mel Brooks being a thief, but if I was still living in NYC I would have boycotted and would be picketing the theater. There was no excusse to raise the price for this film. I always loved this theater but would not support this.

Ed Solero
Ed Solero on December 20, 2005 at 10:16 am

According to Clearview Cinemas, the $12.50 price will last only for the exclusive premier run of “The Producers” and prices will return to the normal $10.75 once the film goes into wider distribution.

hardbop
hardbop on December 20, 2005 at 9:30 am

“Worth every penny of the inflated $12.50 ticket price.”

Wow. Thanx for the warning. I’ll be giving the Ziegfeld a wide berth in the future if they are charging $12.50 a pop.

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on December 19, 2005 at 9:14 am

Rhett and Vincent: well, at least we can look forward to the next best thing – “Ryan’s Daughter” on DVD February 7th from Warner Home Video (who will do it justice). Turn up the volume!

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on December 19, 2005 at 6:53 am

Yeah I missed it too for some reason and saw it only very recently at the MOMA. Yep it puts all contemporary filmaking in the shade. Astounding that at the time the idiot New York critics totally humiliated Lean personally at a public function which caused him not to make another film for 11 years.
We lost many years of his moviemaking.
And yes the film deserves a major 70mm release. Some of it is stupendous.

umbaba
umbaba on December 18, 2005 at 6:37 am

Bill….I personally believe “Ryan’s Daughter” is David Lean’s most underrated film and one of Mitchum’s best. What a re-release that would make…but..that’ll be the day

dave-bronx™
dave-bronx™ on December 17, 2005 at 12:50 am

Dolly (Mrs. Walter) Reade did the original interiors here. She is a nice lady, but in the lobby she did go a little overboard with the red and gold flocked wallpaper, the French provincial furniture and the red-globed gas-lamp replicas. That decor in a larger, taller room would have been ok, but in that room it was a somewhat overbearing. Still, it was more imaginative than other theatres built in that era. The decor in the auditorium, due to it’s size, came across better. I haven’t seen it since Wonder-Boy from Toronto had it renovated, so maybe it doesn’t look like that anymore.

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on December 16, 2005 at 8:16 pm

Re: Vincent’s comment about “Ryan’s Daughter” at the Ziegfeld – for 35 years I’ve regretted NOT being able to see that movie there. In December 1970 I was standing outside the Ziegfeld with my cousin, all ready to go in, when he talked me out of it, saying it looked boring, etc. We wound up seeing “Love Story” at Loew’s State 1 instead. What a comedown compared to the great film experience “Ryan’s Daughter” turned out to be.

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on December 16, 2005 at 8:01 pm

Just got back from a hilarious showing of “The Producers” at the Ziegfeld. Worth every penny of the inflated $12.50 ticket price. Say what you want about the theater’s decor, its size as compared to the Roxy or Rivoli, etc. – I love the Ziegfeld and I’d hate to think what New York City would be like without it.

ERD
ERD on December 16, 2005 at 3:59 pm

In response to some of the above negative comments, “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.” An attempt was made to create an atmosphere in this theatre and honor Flo Ziegfeld. The interior was much better than many of the late 1960’s & 70’s movie houses. It is unique in its own way, even if it wasn’t built during the movie palace era. There are many people for over a quarter of a century who have felt their movie going experience has been enhanced when attending the Ziegfeld. To them, there are many pleasant memories associated with this theatre.

dave-bronx™
dave-bronx™ on December 16, 2005 at 1:02 pm

Wedding hall chic? I always thought of it as ‘New Orleans Whorehouse Chic’… at least in the lobby…

Ed Solero
Ed Solero on December 16, 2005 at 11:20 am

Stevebob… I wholeheartedly agree with you. This is certainly not a “movie palace” in the traditional sense of the phrase – but then, neither are probably more than 80% of the theaters listed on this site. The Ziegfeld is basically a larger more decked-out version of some of the more upscale suburban boxes that were built in the ‘60’s (like the Fox in East Setauket or the Loew’s Bay Terrace in Bayside). The seating is plush and there’s a sufficient amount of velvet and brocade trim for the theater to have passed as “elegant” in the '60’s and '70’s (sort of wedding-hall chic). I felt the same towards the former Astor Plaza, which was a bit less flashy than the Ziegfeld but shared with it the one virtue that made both places a rare treat for moviegoers, particularly as older theaters (the true palaces) were either multiplexed or razed in the '80’s and '90’s: an extraordinarily spacious single screen auditorium.

That’s still good enough reason to seek out the Ziegfeld when an interesting enough film is booked there. But, I would agree that there is nothing particularly palatial about the theater’s architectural merits and certainly nothing in its interior appointments to merit favorable comparison with true lost cinematic treasures like the Rivoli, Strand, Loew’s State or Roxy Theaters.

Edward Havens
Edward Havens on December 16, 2005 at 11:15 am

Sorry, SteveBob, but no one is pretending the Ziegfeld is anything more than it is. The last large single-screen cinema left in Manhattan.

I’ll repeat what I said in this comment section back in March of this year:

“So the Ziegfeld isn’t the greatest theatre that ever existed. So what? I’m 37 and most of the greatest theatres that did exist were torn down or mutilated in some way before I was born. Nothing I can do about that. A palace it may not be, but for what’s left in this city, I’ll take the Ziegfeld or the Beekman as many times as I can as long as they’re still here.”

Granted, the Beekman is gone, I’m now 38 and I’ve since moved back to Los Angeles, but the Ziegfeld was still a hell of a place to see a movie.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on December 16, 2005 at 10:57 am

Remember that way back in the fall of ‘70 when Lean’s first film since his greatest success Zhivago opened he chose not the Rivoli or Criterion two great epic theaters still intact in all their Time Square glory he chose the small screened tackily appointed Ziegfeld. From the very beginning this theater superseded all the others still standing and I will never know why. One of fate’s cruel jokes I suppose.

stevebob
stevebob on December 16, 2005 at 10:28 am

I already posted this in response to the story about the exclusive engagement of “The Producers”, but I think it’s worth saying here too.

Sometimes I get a little sick of the devoted reverence shown to the
Ziegfeld Theater. Think about it — if it weren’t the only large single-screen house left in Manhattan, it would merit scant attention at all.

It is not a movie palace, was not built during the movie-palace era, and the decor is frankly tacky. (If you are a gay man of a certain age, you’ll probably agree that “piss elegant” is a perfect description for the style.) It is just a sad, sad joke when you consider the spectacular original Ziegfeld Theater it replaced.

Now, with the demise of the Astor Plaza, I will admit that I will choose to see a film at the Ziegfeld if possible simply because of the size of the house. That’s what it has going for it, and that’s all that it has going for it.

It is what it is. Let’s not pretend it’s something it’s not.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on December 12, 2005 at 6:53 am

That ad really brought me back. Imagine a full page film ad for one theater with a stylized logo the way ads often were in the Times' Arts and Leisure until the 70’s.