Joshua Then and Now

My wife and I saw this movie just because the video recorder was on the wrong station when it started recording. We saw who was in it, and decided to give it a shot. What a pleasant surprise this movie turned out to be.

Woods is masterful as he plays the sardonic Joshua, the son of a stripper/hooker and an x boxer on the run from the mob or the cops or both. (Arkin) Alan Arkin is just amazing in this part. If you like him, you have to see him teaching his young son about politics, the Jewish faith and the female anatomy. The pool room scene will kill you! Joshua's mom, Linda Sorenson, always in competition with his beloved Father for Josua's affection, throws one of the greatest birthday for Joshua any kid could hope for. A total hoot.

The story follows young Josh and his buddies into their adult lives. As you would imagine, they take different paths. One becomes a doctor. One a wine snob. Josh meets the girl of his dreams and marries her. (Beautiful Gabrielle Lazur.) In classic "Romeo and Juliet" fashion, they are from two different worlds. But in this case, the adversity has a slightly more comedic ending.

I LOVE this film. Settig the VCR to the wrong station that day was one of the best things I've ever done!!!

I love the way both Joshua & his father rip right through the arrogant BS of religiosity & the stuffy uptight pretentiousness of the rich & powerful. Most refreshing to watch these rare & delightful characters call spit "spit."

Josh's mom is a real down to earth treat as well, while the relationship between Joshua & Pauline is really touching with its openness & authenticity.

Alan Arkin at this funniest.

i love mainstream movies just like the next guy.. gladiator, traffic, usual suspects, shawshank redemption etc. this is a movie very different from those.. but still a great movie. alan arkin is very funny. james woods makes his best role.. and gabriell lazure is a stunning woman...

I was a James woods fan since Videodrome.

My best friend and I went to our local movie theatre and saw this movie. As a kid but a fan of film at a really young age. My mother and I would watch movies that are now only on TMC now.

That's how I started learning film instead of watching movies.

Now I go from so bad it's good stuff to seeing techniques that were poorly reviewed to the same shots in other films to be "oh my goodness that is great". I'm paraphrasing obviously. 🙄 Anyway to rewatch this film is a conundrum ... Do I look at it as the new me sees the art or do I not and use the memory as a way to assess film now ?

This movie drew me in on one level only but made me look at Allen Arkin as another actor to follow.

So that's my dilemma.

The film to me was so out of my depth as I watched it. Then there was a sad strange feeling that I knew this story. I had seen it in standard TV series at the time but only ever touched on.

I was 17 and finally found that the joy of film is the most satisfying thing that became my escape to let my mind wander and reason to dig deep and realize that art is art and to judge a piece for its time.

Ok I think I've ranted enough.

Joshua Shapiro (James Woods) is a famous writer caught in a scandal. His wife has left and his kids are inconsolable. He recalls his life starting with his childhood in the tough Montreal neighborhood during WWII. His father Reuben Shapiro (Alan Arkin), involved in some sketchy stuff, goes on the run. His mother is a performer who does burlesque stripping for his friends. Reuben gets out of prison. Joshua wants to go to the Spanish Civil War but ends up in London. Nobody wants his writing and he befriends Sidney Murdoch. His writing finally gets into the newspaper as he pursues a mysterious blonde. Pauline turns out to be the wife of a wannabe communist Colin Fraser and daughter of Senator Hornby. Her brother Kevin is troubled. Joshua would steal Pauline away and be married with kids.

This is a Canadian art-house film based on Mordecai Richler's novel. Canadian director Ted Kotcheff continues after doing the previous Richler movie. The look has more in common with a 70's movie. It's a long fictional biopic. There is limited drama or tension. It's fun to see James Woods and even better to have Alan Arkin in supporting role. The movie excels when Arkin is on the screen. This life is too rambling to be concise. There are bits of great scenes like his mother stripping for his childhood friends. This is an interesting part of Canadian cinema.