Al & Willie, ennemies professionnels

Back in the 1960's and 70's nobody was funnier than comedy couple Al Lewis and Willy Clark. Part of their appeal was their banter and running arguments but, since these continued offstage, Al decided to split up. Years later, Willy has never forgiven Al for deciding their join career was over but work for both men has dried up – especially for Willy, who alienates even those interested in hearing him audition for adverts. When Warner Brothers approaches Willy's niece with a part in a big Christmas movie for both the men. They both need it, but Al cannot face it if Willy is difficult, while Willy has no intension of making it easy for Al.

The cast attracted me to this television remake of the Sunshine Boys and indeed at the end of the whole thing it is the cast that is the main reason for watching it. The script offers a character study with bitter wit, one liners and character development. It is the latter that I had hoped would be done well but sadly it isn't as smart and detailed a character piece as I was looking forward. As it is the development does rather stop on the surface of the characters and, aside from the history that we are told, there isn't a lot of evidence of an actual relationship. The words that Al and Willy say tell us that they have this history but the script didn't given enough in the way of depth into the words. Erman directs in a solid way and tends to make sure that his cast are allowed to be static and deliver.

Falk has the best material because he has the difficult character. He does the grumpy stuff really well but he can't show the real person just below the front. Allen is enjoyable as plays his usual personae, although he also struggles to find much of a person below his one liners. They make a good pairing when they share scenes together. The support cast is surprisingly starry. Nobody really makes a mark but everyone is solid enough and has Parker in a main role as well as cameos from McKean, Schreiber, Goldberg and Falco. The sharp eyed will also spot Jennifer Esposito and Oz's Kirk Acevedo.

Overall then an amusing character piece but it does seem to be driven by the presence of stars rather than strong development of the title characters. I was a bit disappointed by this and, although the humour and cast kept me watching, there wasn't anywhere near the substance that they (and the audience) deserved.

The Sunshine Boys always struck me as a lesser Neil Simon comedy, amusing and likable but neither as funny nor as insightful as his best work. The original movie worked mainly because of a terrific cast. But this less well-cast and less well-directed TV remake exhibits all the flaws and none of the strengths of Simon's light work.

There are so many problems with this movie. Falk and Allen are too mismatched, with Falk overplaying to the point of annoyance and Woody underplaying to the point of putting me to sleep. They are both talented people, but they exhibit zero chemistry, and thus make no sense as an ex comedy duo. Walter Matthau and George Burns hated each other, but they also riffed off of each other. Falk and Allen feel not like people who worked together for decades but like people who met a week ago.

Sarah Jessica Parker isn't especially bad as Falk's niece/agent, but without the nervous energy of Richard Benjamin, her part just lays there, and she feels wildly unnecessary.

While many people here complain of Simon's rewrites, the truth is, the jokes from the first movie are mainly intact, and it's not Simon's fault that most of them fall flat the second time around. It is the listless direction and mismatched performances that sink this movie.

With the right cast, this movie could still work. But what's the point?

Less a remake than a rewrite, this updating of Neil Simon's famed stage comedy is good news/bad news. The bad news is that Simon rewrote the play to make it more contemporary, making the two battling comics relics of the 1950's comedy heyday of live television, rather than an almost forgotten vaudeville team. A logical change, I suppose given the passage of time, but one that Simon did not think out completely.

The good news is that Simon redefined one of the characters to suit the style and the humor of Woody Allen. It's even possible that Woody did a bit of re-writing himself. As such, Woody comes off relatively unscathed. Even so, this made-for-TV movie is itself awkwardly and remarkably unfunny and doesn't really make much sense.

The gist of the material remains the same: A famed comedy duo, Al Lewis and Willie Clark, split up with great animosity, but agree to re-team many years later for a special performance, just for the money. For this premise to work, there has to be a sense that the two worked together as a team and were, indeed, once a great act. It also has to be apparent that the two at least respect each other as talents, even if they hate each other as individuals. None of that is apparent in this film. Indeed, there is absolutely no chemistry whatsoever between Allen and costar Peter Falk. Plus their little bits of comic business fall flat.

Comparisons to the 1976 film version with Walter Matthau and George Burns are inevitable and justified. The Matthau/Burns film, while hardly a great effort, still manages to be an enduring and enjoyable piece of fluff. It plays like a "classic" comedy routine, in that it gets better on repeated viewings, where each gag and joke are anticipated. The bombastic Matthau and the dour, unassuming Burns work well as a team, even as they perform together with conflicting styles. In neither film is it obvious that their so-called legendary comedy skits were at all funny -- which may be intentional -- but at least in the 1976 version the off-stage theatrics click.

In updating the story, the characters are supposedly veterans of fifties television, a style of comedy that is broad by today's standards, but subdued compared to the farce of vaudeville. Nobody seems to have told Falk of the change, as he overplays his role with a fierce, almost reckless hamminess (and a totally out of place Borscht Belt accent) that makes Matthau's bombast look like sleep walking. There is nothing lovable, likable or even amusing about Falk's performance: It is just plain bad. Indeed, instead of playing him as a crotchety old coot, Falk makes Willie Clark seem frighteningly mentally unstable.

This stands in sharp contrast to Allen, who plays his role with a degree of realism, or at least the type of realism that is the trademark of his other films. Gone is the slow, doddering, benign frustration of Burns' Oscar-winning interpretation, replaced by a character who, at sixty-something, is still quick-witted and energetic -- a character not unlike Woody Allen. Though he plays the part with a bit more snideness and exasperation, Allen doesn't fall back on an old-folks stereotype. Indeed, by the end of the film, his Al Lewis is not planning to head for a retirement home, but has his sites set on a show business comeback.

But despite a thoughtful performance, Allen doesn't get many laughs either, largely because he is cast as the straight man. Allen's straight-faced, disbelieving reactions to Falk's asinine behavior seems all too real. Falk and Allen seem to be in two different movies, if not two different universes; Falk is doing vaudeville schlock, while Allen is into modern irony. The play is about two comics who can't communicate in any way but through their humor, but Falk and Allen aren't even using the same comic language, or for that matter telling the same jokes.

Neil Simon's cantankerous comedy about old show-biz team of Lewis and Clark reuniting in the modern day for one more performance--and picking up right where they left off, by arguing--didn't quite work in 1975, despite lots of acclaim. Walter Matthau was ill-suited for the larger role of Willie Clark, though it did give us the return of George Burns as Al Lewis, for which he nabbed a Supporting Oscar. Simon has tweaked the material for this TV-made remake, peppering the dialogue exchanges with some modern references (which don't really work) and changing Clark's nephew to a niece (which does). Peter Falk plays Willie Clark this time, and though Falk isn't naturally a comedian (and his Jewish lapses into Yiddish), he holds his own with Simon's hit-or-miss rhythm and wrings some laughs out of the outrageous arguments. Woody Allen's performance as Al Lewis is even better; Allen doesn't bicker so much as search for logic in the illogical, and this coupled with some very funny lines results in a surprisingly successful bit of casting (who would've thought we'd ever see Woody Allen performing Neil Simon!). Sarah Jessica Parker is terrific as well playing Clark's level-headed relative and agent, hoping for a miracle in bringing these two together again--though sweetly resigned to the fact it may never happen. Good production values (except for some bad lighting), a smooth pace and a satisfying finish; this one is more enjoyable than the theatrical feature simply due to the casting. Falk and Allen would appear not to be convincing as a former comedy duo from the 1960s, and yet they nearly pull it off.

I was so looking forward to seeing this remake/rewrite having missed it when it was originally broadcast. I so enjoyed the original with Burns and Matthau, and always wondered what the pairing of Falk and Allen would bring to the story. Alas, very little. Allen was better than OK, but Falk seemed totally miscast. This is strange as I find his work in comedies is usually very good. But as has been mentioned in other comments here, there was absolutely no chemistry between the two actors. I think the reason was Allen took his role to a newer place while keeping the basis of the relationship between his character and Falk's true to the story. He didn't play George Burns playing Lewis. He let his personality and comic delivery take over the role. Falk, on the other hand, didn't seem to rise above the Willy Clark as done by Walter Matthau. He didn't even seem to me to have ever been Allen's comic partner. Just not his role. Unfair to compare the two versions? Perhaps, but if one is going to try and redo what was done so well before, one has to expect the yardstick to be what it is.