Movers & Shakers

Most films start with good intentions by all the people involved in its creative process. It's a nightmare for the studio that produces a film like "Movers and Shakers" to watch the project turned into a lemon that no one will ever see. In fact, it was a surprise this showed recently on cable. Based on some of the names involved in it, we decided to take a look. Well, let's assume all the people that participated in it, won't include this experience in their resumes for future jobs within the movie industry.

It's also a puzzle as to why did a talented man of the stature of Walter Matthau ever saw in the possibility of this turkey having any future. For that matter, Charles Grodin, who wrote the screen play, is seen as a writer who hasn't figured out how to do an adaptation of the book the dying studio head wants to be made into a film. It appears that Mr. Grodin was writing about what would be his own role in this ill conceived movie.

Better keep surfing channels until something better is found.

I am only giving this film a "5" out of respect for it's cast headed by Walter Matthau, Charles Grodin, Steve Martin, Bill Macy, Tyne Daly, Gilda Radner, Penny Marshall, and Vincent Gardenia. Otherwise it is a peculiar satire on Hollywood that never quite works.

Walter Matthau works at a large studio, now run by William Prince. Matthau is a successful producer there, but his mentor was Gardenia, who was once a great producer. But Gardenia has been going downhill, both creatively and physically. He has wasted millions of dollars on a film about the prehistoric world, and has even set up a huge dinosaur from the film on the grounds of the studio (much to a fed up Prince's anger). But Gardenia is taken off all other projects. He is now dying, and Matthau goes to see him. Gardenia, on the death bed, forces Matthau to do a film on a book he has just bought: a sexual guidebook. Matthau says he will, knowing it is a ridiculous promise.

After Gardenia's death Matthau takes a close look into the sex book. This is the most popular sex guide in America, but the point is brought out in the film that if one thinks of sex lightly, as a powerful explosion from the emotion of love, it is easy to show in film, on stage, on television, on radio, in novels and short stories, or in paintings and sculpture. But if the actual physical activities involved were to be studied in a film (not a pornography film, by the way), it becomes boring.

Still Matthau tries. He consults with Macy, a fabled film director (involved in a torrid and complicated affair with Radner - it ends when they wound each other in a shoot out). Macy's approach is to remind us of all the great film lovers of the past (Bogart among them) and how "dependable" they were. Matthau talks to Grodin, a leading screenplay writer. Grodin can't see where the drama needed for the film will come in. Matthau is advised to see the last of the great silent film lovers, the "ageless" Martin (once a rival of Valentino). He keeps talking of decades old romantic moments - but all is for naught when Matthau and Grodin and Macy see Martin is now henpecked by his harridan wife (Marshall).

As you can see the film certainly had great direction in the script, except that despite the energy of the cast it just never rose above the one point: that discussing the physical activity of sex on film is not going to make a good movie. Somehow the script dropped a somewhat promising element: that a desperate Matthau might start dropping away from what Gardenia wished and produced a film that was a sex comedy. But for that to have fully worked, Gardenia's wacko character would have had to be alive throughout the film, and he would have had to keep the sense of taking the credit for the success of Matthau's changing the production plan to save the project. That never happens.

I think the film tried to be philosophical but never got beyond presenting the main argument. It was a poor choice to make. MOVERS & SHAKERS may never have been a promisingly great film, but it might have been an amusing one. It is not too amusing now. Definitely not worthy of it's cast's energies at all.

i just got done watching this movie on TCM, & i found it very funny. i saw the listing with Matthau & Grodin, & i didn't even bother to read the synopsis. That was enough for me. The story about a studio that buys the title of a book, simply for the title -- not the subject of the book. the movie focuses on how the movie studios will focus group & committee an idea to death. (a la the TV series "Action"). the young studio hot-shot keeps complaining about the 'old' age of the people working on the project ('why him? what is he 50?'). typical of the youth obsession in Hollywood, & the discarding of people in their middle-ages. those with NO life experience who trash fine or even classic movies by doing flat & soulless remakes, by flat & soulless performers. or by making inane movies about TV shows just because they grew up on those shows. that's today's Hollywood : No Real Stars, No Real Personas. just flat soulless surgically enhanced hacks. Could anyone recognize an impression of any of todays so-called stars? (& no i don't mean their catch-phrases). where's the talent of a Bogey, Gable, Carey Grant, Bette Davis, or Myrna Loy. or of a Shirley MacLaine, Peter Sellers, Paul Newman, Jack Lemmon, or Matthau? they don't make talent like that anymore. before the movie Charles Grodin asked the question : "because of today's audiences having better knowledge of the Hollywood system, would the movie play better today than it did in 1985 ?" sadly based on the other reviews here it would appear that the answer is no. i gave it 6 stars. nothing special, just a good comedy that features two of the best at their craft : Matthau & Grodin.

The good: leave it to Charles Grodin to write a story that is full of subtle, sarcastic observations of life. This story is mondane and humbling. But very humanlike! And that's the point!

Lack of love, lack of communication is a perfect synopsis of how many relationships turn out to be in real life, but which isnt often shown in Hollywood movies. For good reason: people dont like to watch mondane, depressing stories in movies, because they get to experience that in everyday life, every hour of the day.

But that's the strength of Charles Grodin' sense of (sarcastic) humor, he is capable of making ordinary and depressing situations seem funny.

The bad; Charles Grodin mentioned on David Leterman that Movers and Shakers is not a slapstick movie, but that's it's weak point: it kinda is slapstick at moments. An even more serious approach would have increased the comedy effect.

I loved the Charles Grodin scenes though and Walther Matthau is always a charm to watch, but many of the other supporting actors were OVERacting, although just a bit, but I never like it when comedy actors dont take their roles seriously.

Something is less funny to me, when it is SUPPOSE to be funny, like Steve Martin is acting so plain silly that it smothers the comedy effect.

This movie was cheaply made, because no one in Hollywood wanted to invest in a movie that was attacking Hollywood itself. So Charles Grodin put his own money in it and a lot of the actors took a paycut because they were befriended with Grodin and wanted to see this picture being made.

In the end I would not recommend this movie, but it might be of interest for the true fans of this particular dry and sarcastic humor of Charles Grodin. I'll still rate it 7 stars because I am such a fan of Charles Grodin as well...(for non Charles Grodin fans I would rate it a 6).

This is surely one of the worst movies ever made. A comedy without a single laugh. The stupidity of the script, blame Charles Grodin for the entire film, is amazing. Steve Martin's performance was low, even for him. In short, awful and without redeeming features.