Recensioni degli utenti

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.

With some minor and not always successful updates to bring the times into focus The Sunshine Boys is given an update with Peter Falk and Woody Allen playing the roles that Walter Matthau and George Burns played two decades earlier. I doubt this can be updated again though. Comedy teams like Lewis and Clark just didn't make it into a newer age of entertainment.

Falk is the active feisty one still scratching for a living doing odd jobs here and there with an agent in the family his niece Sarah Jessica Parker. Lots of things annoy this curmudgeon most of all his former partner Woody Allen now retired comfortably in New Jersey.

Parker gets an offer to reteam the two in small supporting roles in a film. The film is the story of what happens with them.

Falk and Allen fit very nicely into the roles that Neil Simon created. But I do recall Falk talking about an incident in 1930. In 1996 the people involved would have been cracking the centenary. I guess Simon missed that one.

Look for a very important and unbilled appearance by Whoopi Goldberg as a nurse. She and Falk could have made a great team.

Fairly funny film dealing with a pair of out of style showmen who simply can't get along. This picture shows how a young man with a rotten attitude grows old to become even more detestable...a contemptible, useless bore. Not a bad comedy, but I have seen much better. The performances seemed a tad forced to me, however, I may have merely objected to the dialogue: Neil Simon not being one of my favorite writers.

This is awful.. I couldn't finish it. Falk is so annoying- he ruins any fun you might have convinced yourself you had- he reads his lines like a pitbull with a kid in it's mouth- and it's about as funny. Allen comes off better but is lit from behind like a traveling mummy exhibit. Michael Jackson has less chalk on his face than Allen. What would possess Woody to do reworked Neil Simon material? SKIP IT!

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.

The only reason I was unfortunate enough to see this version of "The Sunshine Boys" is because Netflix sent it to me by mistake, as I thought I was getting the 1975 film version. Boy, was I dismayed, but I gamely watched it anyway because the play is hilarious.

You wouldn't know it based on this updated version. The update is one of the big reasons this version stinketh too much. In the original, Lewis and Clark were old vaudeville comics reunited to recreate their old act on a television variety show. Here, we must supposed they were sort of like Martin and Lewis on television or played Vegas...it's hard to figure out. What's worse is that in this version, we never get to see their "old act," as they've been hired to play supporting characters in a family film. Thus, we have no idea why these old guys are legends.

I suppose it would be extremely difficult to stage any version of "The Sunshine Boys" without keeping it in its original time period, i.e. 1972. Let's face it: vaudeville caved in on itself in the 1930's. Anyone who was a star in vaudeville would not be alive today, or if they were they'd be in their early 100's (possibly late 80's or 90's if they were a child star).

My point is that the original needs to be perpetuated, because if nothing else (aside from a look at the relationship of two performers who worked brilliantly together on stage but horribly offstage) it allows us to see a slice of Americana that is now gone - the crummy, cheap, gag-filled vaudeville act. This 1995 version shows us nothing.

Al Lewis was beefed up for this version, possibly because Woody Allen was making a rare acting appearance in something not of his own doing. And Allen is an old associate of writer Neil Simon from the Golden Age of Television days. Regardless, Allen doesn't get to do much except exercise his particular brand of comic delivery (point with forefinger then jerk back thumb - repeat ad nauseam) in his added scenes showing his New Jersey retirement. Al Lewis is much more effective if we don't see him until well after Willie has kvetched about him, building up the suspense - - "will Al Lewis really be a monster?" and then a sweet old man walks in.

Another wrong choice is to pad out the script with unnecessary characters (Allen's daughter, for instance) and to make Willie's nephew of the play his niece in this version. I suppose some wise guy said "Hey, when you update this show, we need more female roles. It's 1995!" Bottom line: please skip this version of the play. Please see the 1975 film. Not only will you get Walter Matthau as a hilarious old Jewish man but you'll see what is possibly George Burns's best screen performance next to "Going In Style" (at 80 - and having to hold his own against Matthau - Burns deserved his Oscar for the role).

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?

I am a great fan of Neil Simon's work, and of the original film version starring Walter Matthau and George Burns in a truly wonderful and memorable film.

To say this film sucks is an understatement, I can see why they updated the old guys routine from vaudeville to 50s TV, but I still didn't see any need to make this - even as a TV movie - AT ALL! As another poster pointed out, Peter Falk and Woody Allen appear to be in 2 completely different films with absolutely zero chemistry between them, Falk in particular is awesomely awful in his hammy OTT portrayal of Willie Clark in comparison to Allen's subtle naturalistic style - indeed one is left asking how if these two ever shared a coffee and a chat together, never mind a TV career.

Again, I love both Allen and Falk, but they are just so miscast in a mis-idea to remake this, even if it does have Simon's fingerprints on the updated script.

One of the worst TV movies ever.

A delightful view into the lives of legends lost. It has heart and soul. Besides the lines being hilarious, it is funny just to look at Allen and Falk together.

If you enjoy woody's acting and simon's writing then definitely check this one out.

This movie is H-O-R-R-I-B-L-E!!

A friend bought it for me because he knew that I enjoyed Woody Allen's work. I really tried to like it, but half-way into it I got so frustrated with Peter Falk (why does he have to be so annoying??) and the script that I had to turn it off. It left me with a really bad stomach ache. I have never had a movie affect me like that. I tried, I really tried. In order for my love of Woody Allen to come back, I had to watch "Annie Hall" with Diane Keaton and "Scenes from a Mall" with Bette Midler.

Skip this movie...if someone accidentally buys this movie for you (because it just happened to be in the $3.00 bin at Wal-Mart), I have a little advice.... BURN IT!

This is a made-for -TV film of the Neil Simon comedy, better known in the Walter Matthau and George Burns version. Peter Falk and Woody Allen play two grumpy old comedians who get back together after many years of mutual hatred.

Woody Allen understates his performance in the George Burns role and his character is pleasingly different from his normal screen persona. Unfortunately Peter Falk's performance is so mannered that it renders the film virtually unwatchable

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.

I am a great fun of all Woody Allen's works, especially when he appears on the screen himself. This movie was one of the stops on my journey to discover all his productions and for the first time I was severely disappointed. It's just simply unwatchable from the beginning. I should have become suspicious when old, grumpy, horribly annoying Peter Folk confused East and West sides of Manhattan! What a crap! This movie does not include any plot, Woody's funny remarks on TV shopping are only funny moments. Falk stays equally annoying to the end (thankfully it lasts 90mins only) mumbling nonsense crap for more than an hour. No No No. It's definitely the second on my list of the-worst-movies-ever (the first being 2012 Doomsday!)

i had the misfortune to view this version of the Sunshine Boys last night as a part of my Netflix Video Streaming Service. i dozed off for a bit during the performance and that i feel was the best part of the evening.

during the portion where i was awake, watching this mess, i kept comparing it in my mind to the vastly superior film that featured Walter Matheau/George Burns/Richard Benjamin/Murray Abraham/Fitz Feld/Carol Arthur etc and wondered just what compelled anyone to produce or act in this updated (?) version. i noticed Whoopie Goldberg in the part of the nurse tending to Peter Falk, but also noticed she took no billing for the part. i think i understand why. she evidently wished to be anonymous, if possible. i don't blame her in the least.

do yourself a favor, don't watch this version. pick up the original version. that you'll enjoy

This movie is one of the funniest movies I have ever watched. And I have seen my fair share of comedies, from Dom Deloiuse's work to Mel Brooks, Gene Wilder, Marty Feldman, and Rodney Dangerfield. I don't understand why it is so underrated.

Peter Faulk is absolutely historical and Woody Allen plays an excellent straight man. This movie had me on the floor laughing. I would suggest this movie to anyone that wanted to get a good laugh. I admit that I have not seen the original Sunshine boys so I hope all of the other users are right that the original was better because that movie would have to be the funniest movie ever made if it were any funnier than this version...

This is a great movie. This movie is played by two strong characters which is represent "hagelian" relationship. They worked together as a comedian, but they always fight in argument about small things. It has been done during 8 years, until one day Willy got heart attack. You will see the power of dialogues, characters, and inner-action from these old guys. They can tell you something without any dialogue. Their moves and acts are very strong. These characters was built by Neil Simon's script who advanced in theater plays. This is one of his movies that I like much, beside "The Lonely Guy" :)

I couldn't assign this more than 3* -- 2 for Allen, 1 for Falk. I was in NYC on business during this work's original stage run, with Sam Levene in the Woody Allen part, and Jack Albertson in Falk's.

I'm not prejudiced against New Yorkers, I just think they're about one-third to a half less-sophisticated and -trendy than they do.

Everyone was praising the original of this work as if it were a treasure, and I'd have graded to original at a B+. The subsequent Burns/Matthau flick, 20 years prior to this one, could be about B-, with a bit of a stretch.

I loved Columbo, and have enjoyed Peter Falk's work with his buddies, John Cassavetes and Ben Gazzara -- but here, his voice and accent throughout sounded at times like Arte Johnson when he did his nerdy German soldier character on "Laugh In," and the rest of the time like Adam Sandler doing his Opera Man, the nerd from "The Waterboy," and other inane types he has done with this same type silly nasal, whiny accent.

I've thought Bruce Jenner, in his Village People opus, "Can't Stop the Music, " may have been one of the worst performances ever recorded on film -- but then Bruce's talent was running, jumping, throwing the discus, putting the shot, etc., not acting.

Peter Falk, with a very strong resumé in both humorous and serious roles, may have been even worse here. It's a stretch to mark this offering even a D-.

This is so bad, it redefines the word awful. There isn't a single funny moment in it.

Neil Simon updates his classic play and ruins it. A year after writing this fiasco, he would also wrote The Odd Couple II. Clearly, it was time to put away the typewriter. He wasn't funny anymore and out of touch with his audience. He removes the doctor skit and instead has some idiotic schtick with a kid in a hospital bed. Not funny.

Allen and Falk are just plain bad as the stars. I didn't care for either one of them. Allen was Allen. No acting stretch here. Falk was simply annoying. In the original film, George Burns played it low key. Walter Matthau was over the top but likable in his own way. These two are irritating and abrasive.

For good measure, a few notables are tossed in the mix, none of whom brings anything to their roles at all. Sarah Jessica Parker and Whoopi Goldberg are faces---that's all. They bring very little to the proceedings.

To add some class, the production uses Liza Minelli singing Old Friends, the Stephen Sondheim song. A great song wasted in an insipid production. Sadly, the best part of a poorly conceived project.

Review: I enjoyed the banter between Falk &  Allen, which Falk dominated, and I liked the chemistry between the 2 characters. Watching them grow old together was sweat and funny in parts and it was good to see another side to Falk who everyone knows as Colombo. You can tell that the film was adapted from a play because it's mostly based around conversations between the 2 comics who are trying to get along so they can make a movie. It didn't get a major release, like the Matthau and Burns version, because it was made for TV but it's a watchable movie with fast jokes and clever wit. Watchable!

Round-Up: After all of the Colombo reruns around the world, Peter Falk is definitely a household name. Famous for his trench coat and cigar, it's hard to watch him without thinking of him cracking some crime is his unique way. In this film he stands toe to toe with Woody Allen and he proves that in his later years, he still could pull off a great performance. Woody Allen was pretty toned down but he still pulled out some funny lines which were well written by Neil Simon. It's not as good as the Mathhau/Burns version, but it's worth a watch, just to compare to two.

I recommend this movie to people who are into there comedies about 2 old school comedians with a rocky relationship, who join up to make a movie. 5/10

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.