VALUTAZIONE IMDb
5,2/10
1648
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaReduced to minding the counter at a crusty pawn shop, Weslake stumbles onto a scheme by some disgruntled misfit clients to rob the place. Rather than blow the whistle, however, he insinuates... Leggi tuttoReduced to minding the counter at a crusty pawn shop, Weslake stumbles onto a scheme by some disgruntled misfit clients to rob the place. Rather than blow the whistle, however, he insinuates himself as the heist's mastermind.Reduced to minding the counter at a crusty pawn shop, Weslake stumbles onto a scheme by some disgruntled misfit clients to rob the place. Rather than blow the whistle, however, he insinuates himself as the heist's mastermind.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 2 candidature totali
Charlayne Woodard
- Jasmine
- (as Charlaine Woodard)
Ed Call
- Officer Darney
- (as Edward Call)
Recensioni in evidenza
The film is a very funny parody of classic heist movies. Whatever can go wrong will go wrong. There is a lot of humour coming from the differences between the rather goofy characters but also a lot of slapstick which I like. The cast shines. Sutherland gives a great performance of a character who is not quite as cool as he thinks he is. Jack Warden plays the grumpy pawn shop owner. The end is bitter sweet when Warden's character realizes that the only friends he has are the ones who wanted to rob him. I think it's a genuinely funny comedic jewel. I don't really get all the dislike for it. It is not Citizen Kane but as a comedy it works.
Not all his work is equal, but at this point I've seen almost all the films Louis Malle directed, and I've loved almost every last one. The problem with this one, unfortunately, is evident from the start, and the impression never meaningfully changes. For all the flits of cleverness it boasts throughout a runtime of ninety minutes, it takes more than half an hour to come close to eliciting a laugh, and longer still to actually do so. Other opportunities arise, but one can count the number that bear fruit; by my estimation, that's a total of three. I don't dislike 'Crackers,' mind you, and in fact there is much about it to appreciate to one degree or another. Sadly, however, the one thing a comedy requires to succeed is to be funny, and this picture makes far too little of an impression to meaningfully earn one's favor. It's enjoyable, but only in a rather passive way, providing a lot of smiles but too little of the desired reaction.
A strong cast was assembled, and I really do like them all; beyond the most significant stars, Tasia Valenza, Larry Riley, and Trinidad Silva are all pretty swell, and everyone performs admirably. The characters Jeffrey Fiskin wrote for them all are minor delights, given plentiful personality and quirks to lay the foundation for a mess of humor as they all play a part in the tableau. Similarly, the scene writing is filled with wit, a host of fun gags and bits that are plainly primed for greater things. And the narrative is fine soup for all these facets to swim in as the characters come together, a burglary is planned, and things go wrong. Meanwhile, there's nothing wrong with the comedic timing, such as it is, and it seems to me that Malle maintains the appropriate tone (light and a little wry) that should allow all these qualities to flourish. Every shot and scene is orchestrated with just the right touch that ensures everything looks and sounds good.
So what happened? Why does 'Crackers' fall so very flat as it does? Why did I laugh so little? I can only surmise that despite all its strengths, advantages, and potential, the material just didn't possess enough vitality to really take off. It's more blithely amusing than anything else, a feeling that's reinforced as the last several minutes rather shift the tone. I don't think this is "bad" by any means, and it's quite well made, really. In addition to Malle's reliable keen eye, and an able cast, the stunts and effects came off well. The sets, costume design, and hair and makeup are all fetching. And still the feature just kind of limps along, as there just doesn't seem to be enough life in Fiskin's screenplay to make it count. Or maybe no one in particular can be held responsible, and this is simply a rare concatenation of circumstances where all the various pieces fail to align in the exact right way. Whatever the case may be, the end result falls well short.
I won't say that the movie doesn't offer a good time, but it's a very mild one at that - baseline satisfactory and passable, the type of fare one can "watch" without actively engaging. I won't say to avoid it, but unless one stumbles upon it, there is definitely no reason to go out of your way for it. I'm glad for those who get more out of 'Crackers' than I do, but I'm sorry to say that despite everyone's efforts, this might actually be the low point of Malle's oeuvre. Oh well.
A strong cast was assembled, and I really do like them all; beyond the most significant stars, Tasia Valenza, Larry Riley, and Trinidad Silva are all pretty swell, and everyone performs admirably. The characters Jeffrey Fiskin wrote for them all are minor delights, given plentiful personality and quirks to lay the foundation for a mess of humor as they all play a part in the tableau. Similarly, the scene writing is filled with wit, a host of fun gags and bits that are plainly primed for greater things. And the narrative is fine soup for all these facets to swim in as the characters come together, a burglary is planned, and things go wrong. Meanwhile, there's nothing wrong with the comedic timing, such as it is, and it seems to me that Malle maintains the appropriate tone (light and a little wry) that should allow all these qualities to flourish. Every shot and scene is orchestrated with just the right touch that ensures everything looks and sounds good.
So what happened? Why does 'Crackers' fall so very flat as it does? Why did I laugh so little? I can only surmise that despite all its strengths, advantages, and potential, the material just didn't possess enough vitality to really take off. It's more blithely amusing than anything else, a feeling that's reinforced as the last several minutes rather shift the tone. I don't think this is "bad" by any means, and it's quite well made, really. In addition to Malle's reliable keen eye, and an able cast, the stunts and effects came off well. The sets, costume design, and hair and makeup are all fetching. And still the feature just kind of limps along, as there just doesn't seem to be enough life in Fiskin's screenplay to make it count. Or maybe no one in particular can be held responsible, and this is simply a rare concatenation of circumstances where all the various pieces fail to align in the exact right way. Whatever the case may be, the end result falls well short.
I won't say that the movie doesn't offer a good time, but it's a very mild one at that - baseline satisfactory and passable, the type of fare one can "watch" without actively engaging. I won't say to avoid it, but unless one stumbles upon it, there is definitely no reason to go out of your way for it. I'm glad for those who get more out of 'Crackers' than I do, but I'm sorry to say that despite everyone's efforts, this might actually be the low point of Malle's oeuvre. Oh well.
"Crackers" falls into that category of films that have failed quite inexplicably - helmed by a great director, starring a cast of assured veterans (Sutherland, Warden) and talented newcomers (Penn, Baranksi) and written by the screenwriter of one of the best films of the eighties ("Cutter's Way"). Then why is it that no one talks about the film anymore? Firstly, the film has been made far more successfully on two other occasions in the guise of "Big Deal on Madonna Street" and then recently "Welcome To Collinwood". Secondly, Malle must have been going through an eighties dance music phase when he made the film because it is effectively ruined by an utterly dated and abysmal soundtrack - with a proper film score it would have been a far better film. Lastly, Sutherland gives what is probably his most broad and embarrassingly unfunny performance in the lead, subsequently hindering any sympathy for his character. There are other qualms (what exactly is the purpose of Baranski's character, lets throw in a slut for some wacky comedy?) but it is nevertheless still quite watchable. Shawn, who would collaborate with Malle on the acclaimed films "My Dinner With Andre" and "Vanya on 42nd Street", is very funny as the forever-eating Turtle and Penn is amusing in a dumb hood role he would practically resume for "We're No Angels", another film with a great director, writer and cast that would be a critical and commercial failure. No film made by Malle could be truly bad, and this isn't, but it is neither as quirky or funny as it wants to be.
Louis Malle lived in the USA during the last part of his life. If there was anyone with enough talent to bring "Crackers" to the screen, it was him. Unfortunately, sometimes, even with the best intentions, no doubt, a great man produces a film that is well beneath himself. Of course, anyone is entitled to a mistake, but if there was anything wrong with this project it seems to be the Jeffrey Alan Fiskin's screen treatment of the classic Mario Monicelli film "Big Deal at Madonna Street".
The cast Mr. Malle assembled for the film is a first rate one, just by looking at the names in it. Donald Sutherland, Jack Warden, Sean Penn, Christine Baranski and the rest have enough experience to show much better than what comes out on the screen.
Let's just remember Mr. Malle for his greatness, and not by this misguided effort.
The cast Mr. Malle assembled for the film is a first rate one, just by looking at the names in it. Donald Sutherland, Jack Warden, Sean Penn, Christine Baranski and the rest have enough experience to show much better than what comes out on the screen.
Let's just remember Mr. Malle for his greatness, and not by this misguided effort.
"Crackers" has to be one of the coolest and unusual films on Louis Malle extensive career, which goes from "Elevator to the Gallows" to "Vanya on 42th
Street" with masterpieces such as "Goodbye Children" and "Atlantic City". Here, he tells the story of a group of misfits who work or spend some time
to score some money on a pawnshop led by greedy Garvey (Jack Warden). They are poor and desperatly broke trying to do weird jobs or just going from scheme
to scheme until the wisest of them all Weslake (Donald Sutherland) invites to break into the safety vault from the place when Garvey's out visiting his mom. They are played by Sean Penn,
Larry Riley, Trinidad Silva and Wallace Shawn and they all play in a cool fashion as this bunch of low-life characters who might finally find their place in
the sun with lots of money or whatever is in the safe.
Some people see the movie as a social commentary on America's economical situation with this group of odd men trying to make it big with the score of the century, where the poor take advantage of the wealthy one. I don't go that far because the movie plays it simple and safe as an adventure comedy, without making any political statements. It's just humor of the best quality. Those guys have limited imagination, pros and cons but somehow they make it like regular joes of whom we feel empathy and we like them in the way they are. Wheter Sutherland plays the smart lead, Penn plays the charming dude who wants to date Ramon's sister; and Shawn doesn't talk much but only keeps thinking on how to score some free food, they're all interesting and cool to see how they conduct things until the highly expected robbery (which is hilarious, when they met several challenges on the way.
I loved their routines, the movie takes its time to develop and we have the opportunity to get to know all of them and other characters as well (like the police officer Maxine, funny role for Christine Baranski), to live with them in that small town where they keep bumping on each other in several ways. "Crackers" has a fine sense of humor and goes as a near perfect comedy, a terrain Mr. Malle hardly ever explored. It was a different experience for him, who at first thought he was the wrong man for the job but in the end he came to enjoy the experience. It's an enjoyable movie and one that entertains a lot, undeserving of its low ratings and low audience viewers. Criminally underrated.
And it's another case of a movie that is so good, with many great characters that I could imagine it as being a TV series. I'd certainly watch that. 9/10.
Some people see the movie as a social commentary on America's economical situation with this group of odd men trying to make it big with the score of the century, where the poor take advantage of the wealthy one. I don't go that far because the movie plays it simple and safe as an adventure comedy, without making any political statements. It's just humor of the best quality. Those guys have limited imagination, pros and cons but somehow they make it like regular joes of whom we feel empathy and we like them in the way they are. Wheter Sutherland plays the smart lead, Penn plays the charming dude who wants to date Ramon's sister; and Shawn doesn't talk much but only keeps thinking on how to score some free food, they're all interesting and cool to see how they conduct things until the highly expected robbery (which is hilarious, when they met several challenges on the way.
I loved their routines, the movie takes its time to develop and we have the opportunity to get to know all of them and other characters as well (like the police officer Maxine, funny role for Christine Baranski), to live with them in that small town where they keep bumping on each other in several ways. "Crackers" has a fine sense of humor and goes as a near perfect comedy, a terrain Mr. Malle hardly ever explored. It was a different experience for him, who at first thought he was the wrong man for the job but in the end he came to enjoy the experience. It's an enjoyable movie and one that entertains a lot, undeserving of its low ratings and low audience viewers. Criminally underrated.
And it's another case of a movie that is so good, with many great characters that I could imagine it as being a TV series. I'd certainly watch that. 9/10.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThis movie was the first remake of Mario Monicelli's "Big Deal on Madonna Street" (I soliti ignoti (1958)). The second would be Welcome to Collinwood (2002). Both American movies, that remake was set in Cleveland, Ohio, whereas this remake was set in San Francisco, California. The two remakes were made around eighteen years apart.
- ConnessioniEdited into The Green Fog (2017)
- Colonne sonoreWe Got More Than We Need
Words and Music by Michael McDonald and Ed Sanford
Performed by Michael McDonald (uncredited)
Courtesy of Warner Bros. Records, Inc.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Crackers?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Crackers
- Luoghi delle riprese
- 2934 24th Street, San Francisco, California, Stati Uniti(Produce market)
- Azienda produttrice
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 12.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 129.268 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 58.689 USD
- 20 feb 1984
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 129.268 USD
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti