If you aren't old enough to cherish the memory of Sid's Caesar's Show of Shows in its heyday, if you don't think Mel Brooks, Woody Allen, Neil Simon, Larry Gelbart and the rest of his writers' room was the greatest collection of comic talent ever, and if you didn't watch most of the Army-McCarthy hearings, well, maybe this movie isn't for you. But you're just the one who should see if for its educational value. It tells us a whole lot about the golden age of television, of the country's torpor in the 50's, of the days when people who cared more for those dependent upon them than they did for themselves got run over by the corporate machine, and of the contrived and deliberate dumbing down of our national intellect. See this movie, and then rent some of the classic skits by Caesar, Reiner, Coca, Morris and company on DVD. You'll know why those of us who were there still die laughing the hundredth time we hear, "You have gespritzen on un general."
12 Reviews
Nathan Lane is a Prince (Max Prince)
Franklin-226 May 2001
This cable adaptation is a huge improvement over Neil Simon's original play for two reasons. The original was one of Simon's laugh a minute (and you can set your watch by it) plays with a big problem: it was written as an ensemble piece but one character-television comic Max Prince, who's based on stories about Sid Caesar-was so overpowering it threw the ensemble off. For this version, Simon, who got his start writing for Caesar's "Your Show of Shows" and "The Caesar Show," wisely puts more focus on Prince, adding scenes to flesh out the character and incorporate even more of the legends. With Nathan Lane in the role, he can't miss.
This is a very different performance for Lane, one of the industry's most capable farceurs. His Max Prince is as over-the-top as Lane often is, but he also invests the character with a strong serious side (like most great comics, Prince takes himself with an almost desperate seriousness) that gives the role heart. In between temper tantrums and one-liners belted out for all the world to hear, Simon and Lane have crafted some wonderfully subtle moments. He's strongly supported by the actors playing his writing staff-particularly Dan Castellenata and Saul Rubinek. And Richard Benjamin, who directed another Sid Caesar pastiche in "My Favorite Year," keeps the whole thing moving efficiently. I'm going to look for a rerun on Showtime so I can catch this again and can't wait for it to come out on video.
This is a very different performance for Lane, one of the industry's most capable farceurs. His Max Prince is as over-the-top as Lane often is, but he also invests the character with a strong serious side (like most great comics, Prince takes himself with an almost desperate seriousness) that gives the role heart. In between temper tantrums and one-liners belted out for all the world to hear, Simon and Lane have crafted some wonderfully subtle moments. He's strongly supported by the actors playing his writing staff-particularly Dan Castellenata and Saul Rubinek. And Richard Benjamin, who directed another Sid Caesar pastiche in "My Favorite Year," keeps the whole thing moving efficiently. I'm going to look for a rerun on Showtime so I can catch this again and can't wait for it to come out on video.
Only some mild laughter in this ponderous television adaptation
grahamclarke1 June 2005
I have always found Neil Simon's earlier works far more satisfying than his middle and later periods. It's understandable that comic writers such as Simon and Woody Allen felt the need to develop, having become tired of churning out pungent one liners. The transition from pure comic, to serious writer, albeit with a comic base, is a tricky one. Both Simon and Allen have on occasion handled this fusion of elements well, but by and large the challenge has not been well met by either.
"Laughter on the 23rd Floor" being a reminiscence of Simon's television writing days on the legendary "Show of Shows" was largely a comic piece when produced on Broadway. Since most of the characters in the play are loosely based on a group of writers famed for their wit, the play should have been a hilarious riot. While it made for an enjoyable evening in the theater, one couldn't help feeling it had somewhat missed the mark.
For the television adaptation Simon has turned "Laughter on the 23rd Floor" into a supposedly deeper and more serious work, in his portrayal of comic Max Prince. Depicting the complexities that make up the psyche of a comic is not an easy task but Simon's depiction of Max Prince does not go far beyond the clichés one would expect. Nathan Lane pulls out all the stops, but at times he seems to be unwittingly doing a Zero Mostel imitation. The biggest let down is that despite a group of fine and seasoned performers and many one liners, even the comic bits are not as funny as they should be.
Those who have a particular fondness for the period of 50's television and the tremendous talents around at the time are likely to be disappointed.
"Laughter on the 23rd Floor" being a reminiscence of Simon's television writing days on the legendary "Show of Shows" was largely a comic piece when produced on Broadway. Since most of the characters in the play are loosely based on a group of writers famed for their wit, the play should have been a hilarious riot. While it made for an enjoyable evening in the theater, one couldn't help feeling it had somewhat missed the mark.
For the television adaptation Simon has turned "Laughter on the 23rd Floor" into a supposedly deeper and more serious work, in his portrayal of comic Max Prince. Depicting the complexities that make up the psyche of a comic is not an easy task but Simon's depiction of Max Prince does not go far beyond the clichés one would expect. Nathan Lane pulls out all the stops, but at times he seems to be unwittingly doing a Zero Mostel imitation. The biggest let down is that despite a group of fine and seasoned performers and many one liners, even the comic bits are not as funny as they should be.
Those who have a particular fondness for the period of 50's television and the tremendous talents around at the time are likely to be disappointed.
What happened to the play? Elevator did not reach floor 23...
mercutio-83 April 2002
Neil Simon's play "Laughter on the 23rd Floor" centered on the relationship between a 1950s television comic (based on Sid Caesar and his staff of writers, who worked out of the 23rd floor of a midtown building in Manhattan. This group would talk, confide, fight, and go for each others' throats if the situation - however absurd - warranted it. Underneath the zaniness, hostility or any dilemna, however, was a shared love and talent for creating sketch comedy. And it was this talent that bonded writers and comic together and, when all smoke cleared, made them realize that they did in fact care for what they did, and for each other. Max Prince (the Sid Caesar model), and his writers. The writers and Max Prince. He needed them, they needed him. Together they needed comedy. This play was indeed a fine ensemble. Every character is defined. None are short-changed in depth. Would have been a novel approach for the film. Understandably, a film version of a stage script needs some change and adaptation so as to not be a confined, filmed play. When this transition goes so far afield, however, changing the intention and focus of the original piece, there seems to be no point in adapting it to film at all. The film "Laughter on the 23rd Floor" plays like a sequel to an original that was never made (like maybe the play?) The film focuses on Max Prince's relationships with virtually everyone (including his dead parents in a cemetary scene), EXCEPT the writers. Characters who were not even in the play become the main supporting cast, while the writers are left as incidental characters. Considering those who are playing the writers - Victor Garber, Mark Linn-Baker, Saul Rubinek, Dan Castellaneta, among others - a fine pool of talent is genuinely squandered, with nothing to do except occassionally react to and comment on the changing state of The Max Prince show. As a result, when Max makes the heartfelt statement that his writers mean everything to him, the point is lost, because there has been little interaction with them A more fitting title for this film would be "The Travels and Travails of Max Prince". Why this instead of "Laughter on the 23rd Floor"? Because Max hardly spends any TIME on the 23rd floor!
Great film
sargart266 April 2005
I found the cast to be very good. Mr Lane was exceptional as were other members of the cast. I must say that it was in my opinion as his best movie he has done. I have seen this movie many times, from this my interest in him has grown. His character Max Prince reminded me of his true character. Serious yet entertaining. I personally would like to see the play for this movie as I have heard that the cast were different to the ones in the movie, this would probably allow me to judge which was more superior. I must agree with the fact that the music could have been chosen better, as to could be said of the location, my recommendation would be Chicago or new york.
You can't rely on good actors alone
fredriksson6721 June 2005
Thanks, mercutio-8 for the information that it was based on a play, that helped me to understand that there might have been something to it once... But now there is almost no plot at all, just a couple of scenes with heavy bantering (sometimes somewhat funny) and some very unstructured criticism of the McCarthy era.
There has to be more to be made out of this concept - comedy under the strain of self-imposed (?) censorship during McCarthyism, rivalry and yet comradeship between writers, the actual process of brainstorming, the early TV-market economy demands from media barons vs. artistic freedom. I think there was an ambition to show these different themes - although the director accomplished none of the above.
No shadow should fall on the actors though - they're all top of the line. But when they get such a lousy script to work with, what can they do?
There has to be more to be made out of this concept - comedy under the strain of self-imposed (?) censorship during McCarthyism, rivalry and yet comradeship between writers, the actual process of brainstorming, the early TV-market economy demands from media barons vs. artistic freedom. I think there was an ambition to show these different themes - although the director accomplished none of the above.
No shadow should fall on the actors though - they're all top of the line. But when they get such a lousy script to work with, what can they do?
Take A Pass On This Mess
jbhsgossip15 July 2007
This is really a 3rd rate, made-for-television mess. First of all, there is NO 'Laughter on the 23rd Floor' or any other floor - and for a Neil Simon play that is shameful. Nathan Lane is, Nathan Lane, a short loud mouthed Jackie Gleason sounding caricature of Sid Caesar during Sid's Show of Shows era. It's supposed to be manic and inspired, but it's just loud and pointless. All the reviews here seem to imply that a great cast of fine character actors stood behind Lane and help boost the show along I don't buy that at all. None of the assorted 'fine character' actors helped anything, all their words and actions are forced to the point of being painful, their lines were very poorly delivered and none of them were believable for even one second for which I blame director Richard Benjamin. An almost insulting attempt at adding substance to this train wreck is the tossing in of Edward R. Morrow's legendary Joe McCarthy Show underneath and in between the overacting of Lane's lemming running toward the sea character. Then it's all tossed aside for a nice tidy and gutless ending My mother could write better than this. The one, single redeeming element in this claptrap is the very deftly played character of Lane's brother (Harry Price) played by character actor Richard Portnow. None of the other reviews even mention this guy but his is the ONLY performance worth a plug nickel in the whole show - everybody is running around frantically overacting their asses off to keep up with Lane and this guy steals the whole film out from underneath them with a quiet nod and a sheepish grin. If for some reason you feel compelled to waste your time watching this Don't take your eyes of off Portnow, he is the ONLY reason to sit through it!
Gets funnier and more poignant with repeated viewings
Grover-155 August 2003
A ring-tailed wonder of a non-stop spritzer with a dynamite cast headed by the incredible Nathan Lane. One of Neil Simon's all-time best, worth seeing over and over. It ranks with the classic comedies of Billy Wilder and Preston Sturges.
What laughter?
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews17 October 2009
I have not seen the play, or read it. However, having watched Murder by Death, also written by Neil Simon, I know that this was once marvelous. The man has talent, there's no doubt about that. I am not sure how this got so messed up. The ideas are potentially interesting, and the themes could be compelling. Heck, this could, if nothing more, be *funny*. But it's simply not so. Well, the jokes are occasionally great. We're talking one out of five or so, though. Looking at the guy's filmography, I'm thinking a large part of the blame lies with the director. The actors are all excellent, and they do the very best performances they can with what they are given to work with. You can only do so well with a script as apparently bad as this adaptation, and direction as utterly unfocused as this shows. This revolves around a 50's television comedian(maybe if you enjoy those, you'll find this amusing to a greater extent than I did) and his colleagues. There's stuff about censorship, commercialism and pushing oneself too hard, meanwhile, none of it gets enough development to matter or make an impact. The pacing is fine. Editing and cinematography are standard. There is some strong language in this. I recommend this to fans of at least one person involved who feel that they must catch everything that he/she/they are/is in. 5/10
Great cast, funny script.
WendyOh!21 June 2001
Nathan Lane all but steals the show, but this movie is also powered by the likes of Victor Garber and Saul Rubinek, among others, a rich and varied ensemble that aid the cause enormously. Neil Simon has given them a script chock full o laughs, with the occasional sappy moment. I found the direction lacking and average, and the music poor, and the location was obviously NOT New York. I'm beginning to recognize Canadian cities! But overall a very nice effort that hold up with the best of the cable movie genre.
Wonderful Homage to Sid the Kid!!!
norog-588-99118529 December 2014
We Simply Loved This Movie!!! A number of the reviews here seem to miss the point
this is NOT a comedy per say
.it's an homage to the greatest sketch comic to hit TV so far, Sid Caesar.
As a kid I watched "Your Show of Shows" on TV every week and I loved it! I've read about it and watched interviews with all the principles Particularly good was an HBO (?) Special a few years back that featured most of the writers, plus at the end Sid, sitting on a stage and just discussing what it was like to work with the manic Sid and produce a live one & one half hour comedy show a week!!! The predecessor "To Laughter on the 23rd Floor" was the wonderful "My Favorite Year". In that movie about "The Sid Show" Joe Bologna did a great job bringing the talented and wonderfully crazed Sid Caesar to life. He had the advantage over Nathan Lane because he looked and was built like Caesar but the writers bullpen wasn't as the real writers described. When Sid wanted to apologize to someone he would send over some steaks or tires to the offended party.
"Laughter" used the same Director, Richard Benjamin, and the star, Mark Linn-Baker, as "My Favorite Year". Baker played a Young Mel Brooks junior writer in "My Favorite Year" and 20 years later the older Baker played the Head writer in "Laughter". Neil Simon used his history as a "Show of Shows" writer to make "Laughter on the 23rd Floor" feel REAL! and although short and stumpy... Nathan Lane managed to achieve a poignancy in his interpretation of (large & muscular) Caesar with his genius performance. This movie was about the life of a comedy writers bullpen featuring the greatest group to ever work a TV show and about their untimely end.
NOTE: The Show of Shows had only one sponsor as did most of the early TV shows and therefore the program was forced to please that sponsor if they wanted to keep working. I believe it was the Hoffman Television Co. that backed Caesar and because they were soooo successful in selling the new TV's... Hoffman couldn't keep up with the demand so they decided advertising was no longer necessary and dropped "The Show of Show's"! Caesar & Company was damned for being tooooo good!!!
As a kid I watched "Your Show of Shows" on TV every week and I loved it! I've read about it and watched interviews with all the principles Particularly good was an HBO (?) Special a few years back that featured most of the writers, plus at the end Sid, sitting on a stage and just discussing what it was like to work with the manic Sid and produce a live one & one half hour comedy show a week!!! The predecessor "To Laughter on the 23rd Floor" was the wonderful "My Favorite Year". In that movie about "The Sid Show" Joe Bologna did a great job bringing the talented and wonderfully crazed Sid Caesar to life. He had the advantage over Nathan Lane because he looked and was built like Caesar but the writers bullpen wasn't as the real writers described. When Sid wanted to apologize to someone he would send over some steaks or tires to the offended party.
"Laughter" used the same Director, Richard Benjamin, and the star, Mark Linn-Baker, as "My Favorite Year". Baker played a Young Mel Brooks junior writer in "My Favorite Year" and 20 years later the older Baker played the Head writer in "Laughter". Neil Simon used his history as a "Show of Shows" writer to make "Laughter on the 23rd Floor" feel REAL! and although short and stumpy... Nathan Lane managed to achieve a poignancy in his interpretation of (large & muscular) Caesar with his genius performance. This movie was about the life of a comedy writers bullpen featuring the greatest group to ever work a TV show and about their untimely end.
NOTE: The Show of Shows had only one sponsor as did most of the early TV shows and therefore the program was forced to please that sponsor if they wanted to keep working. I believe it was the Hoffman Television Co. that backed Caesar and because they were soooo successful in selling the new TV's... Hoffman couldn't keep up with the demand so they decided advertising was no longer necessary and dropped "The Show of Show's"! Caesar & Company was damned for being tooooo good!!!
For the Golden Age Of Television Lovers
in321q29 October 2001
To see this film, is to see what television was and to a great degree still remains to be today. Nathan Lane with a wonderful supporting cast shows the audience what "real television" was like. It's a fine story of talent, respect and true friendship amongst a writing team and a proud star of a "Hit Show " as they face the end of an era of Americana, "Good Television Programming".
Lane demonstrates his breadth of talent by showing us the range of human emotion it takes to be a "Top Banana". Good direction and writing in this piece that could have lasted 10 to 20 minutes longer, as it left me wanting more for all the characters. Thank You Mr. Simon, Mr. Lane, et al.
Lane demonstrates his breadth of talent by showing us the range of human emotion it takes to be a "Top Banana". Good direction and writing in this piece that could have lasted 10 to 20 minutes longer, as it left me wanting more for all the characters. Thank You Mr. Simon, Mr. Lane, et al.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
