I ragazzi irresistibili

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.

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!

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

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.