Big Trouble

This is a demanding comedy, because much of the humor depends on references to classic films, and will be lost to someone who is not familiar with them. It does have many incredibly funny scenes on its own right, and some great performance bits.

Plus Beverly D'Angelo is gorgeous and very funny both.

See some later reviews for relevent films, and consider seeing the referenced films first to appreciate the humor more. Without understanding the references and parodies of this film-maker's comedy though, it might be confusing.

Also consider seeing some of Cassavetes work first, to get an idea of what he is usually about. This film melds his own idosyncratic style with a more mainstream American comic style, but has the timing and structure of Godard film.

Big Trouble is a a reteaming of some of the acting same talent that made the incredibly funny The In-Laws. It is much more surrealistic and avant-garde, being directed by that greatest of American directors John Cassavetes. Like the films he himself scripted, it is more character than plot driven. Cassavetes is exploring something in this film; it is not a consistently drop-down funny flim like The In-Laws, nor is the action as suspenseful and spine-tingling, but it has some incredibly funny moments, including one of the funniest scenes ever put on film (try some sardine liquor). Not to be missed by Cassavetes fans or die-hard In-Laws fans who want more.

Someone looking for an easy to watch straight-ahead comedy or action/adventure film, however, might be disappointed.

"Big Trouble" is a mediocre film. You will laugh occasionally but that's about all. And that's crushing considering the two leads, Alan Arkin and Peter Falk, and the writer, Andrew Bergman, previously teamed or "The In-Laws" an all-time great film comedy.

Here the two leads play basically the same parts. Falk is the one in control with his devious ideas while Arkin is the meek, unsuspecting one thrown in over his head. This time around the needlessly complicated plot follows an insurance scam.

The film was directed by John Cassavettes, one of our great directors. But comedy is not a genre he handled well. There were numerous reports of problems during shooting. It shows on the screen.

The one bright spot is Beverly D'Angelo looking as sexy as ever. Maybe they should have relegated Falk and Arkin to backup and made her the lead.

I worked on this film in 1986, in a scene that was ultimately left on the cutting room floor. When I auditioned for the film, I met with the director, who was in fact, Andrew Bergman (credited solely as the writer). Several weeks went by before I actually worked, and by that time, Bergman had been replaced by John Cassevetes. What I was told at the time, was that Bergman had been fired, and that Falk, a friend of Cassevetes, recommended that Cassevetes come in to finish the job. I don't know how much of the film was already in the can at that point, but I know that Cassevetes changed the script a bit. In the scene I was involved in, Falk and Arkin go into a hardware store to buy dynamite to blow up a building (An insurance office, as I recall). I played the Hardware store clerk. I remember the script being pretty much thrown out the window, and improvising much of the dialog, which included Falk explaining that the dynamite was need for a luau. "My Wife," he said, "makes a suckling pig, that'll knock your eye out. First you baste it––" "With clarified butter," Arkin chimes in. "Then blast the sh*t of it with dynamite." As the clerk, I apologize that the store doesn't carry dynamite, and end up selling them a hundred pounds of charcoal briquettes instead.

Funny.

And you will likely never see this scene.

Ah well.

Total parody of "Double Indemnity", with some added twists. The awesome, hilarious team of A. Arkin and P. Falk are together again, seven years after the under-rated "In-Laws". Beverly D'Angelo is "Blanche", the Barbara Stanwyck wife, looking to knock off the husband. Arkin is "Leonard", the insurance salesman, trying to put his sons through Yale. Falk is "Steve", the husband. Robert Stack is Leonard's boss, who refuses to help with the college bills. If you're a big fan of Falk and/or Arkin, you'll LOVE this film; they spend the whole time trying to outdo each other in the over-acting department. Also keep an eye out for Richard Libertini, also from the In-Laws; others will know him as the guru in All of Me (Edwina, Back in Bowl ) and Charles Durning (Tootsie). Written (copied/parodied ?) by Andrew Bergman, who certainly knew comedy... he had written the original In-Laws, Blazing Saddles, Soapdish, and Fletch!

Directed by John Cassevetes, who had done a bunch of stuff with Peter Falk already. Seems like quite a departure for Cassevetes... he had always done serious, pretty rough dramas. Fun stuff. On DVD. Never see this one shown on TV for some reason.

Leonard Hoffman (Alan Arkin) is an insurance agent with a suburban family. His three sons all get accepted into Yale. His boss Winslow (Robert Stack) refuses to help him with any scholarships. His work mate is the hard-nosed O'Mara (Charles Durning). He goes on a sales call to the drunken rich trophy wife Blanche Rickey (Beverly D'Angelo). She complains about her gambler husband Steve Rickey (Peter Falk). Desperate for money to pay for his kids' college, he joins Blanche to murder her husband for the life insurance.

This is the last film of John Cassavetes and he apparently hated it. The plot is so close to Double Indemnity that this is basically a spoof. Of course, none of it is funny because every moment of the movie, I'm asking if this is deliberate. It's hard to tell since Double Indemnity is not watched all the time. In order for a spoof to work, the audience must know all the beats in the original and what the filmmaker is doing to satire each moment for a joke. Then the last third of the movie goes bonkers. It becomes non-sense. The actors are trying for some wacky physical comedy despite the noir story. It's frustrating to watch a movie where the jokes don't work. One can see that everybody is trying but I don't understand what the film is trying to do.