Promessa é Dívida

The good: leave it to Charles Grodin to write a story that is full of subtle, sarcastic observations of life. This story is mondane and humbling. But very humanlike! And that's the point!

Lack of love, lack of communication is a perfect synopsis of how many relationships turn out to be in real life, but which isnt often shown in Hollywood movies. For good reason: people dont like to watch mondane, depressing stories in movies, because they get to experience that in everyday life, every hour of the day.

But that's the strength of Charles Grodin' sense of (sarcastic) humor, he is capable of making ordinary and depressing situations seem funny.

The bad; Charles Grodin mentioned on David Leterman that Movers and Shakers is not a slapstick movie, but that's it's weak point: it kinda is slapstick at moments. An even more serious approach would have increased the comedy effect.

I loved the Charles Grodin scenes though and Walther Matthau is always a charm to watch, but many of the other supporting actors were OVERacting, although just a bit, but I never like it when comedy actors dont take their roles seriously.

Something is less funny to me, when it is SUPPOSE to be funny, like Steve Martin is acting so plain silly that it smothers the comedy effect.

This movie was cheaply made, because no one in Hollywood wanted to invest in a movie that was attacking Hollywood itself. So Charles Grodin put his own money in it and a lot of the actors took a paycut because they were befriended with Grodin and wanted to see this picture being made.

In the end I would not recommend this movie, but it might be of interest for the true fans of this particular dry and sarcastic humor of Charles Grodin. I'll still rate it 7 stars because I am such a fan of Charles Grodin as well...(for non Charles Grodin fans I would rate it a 6).

This movie has everything: Inane writing; heavy-handed direction; call-in acting; a voice-over that attempts to tie a series of pointless scenes into a plot line. Someone lacked the courage to say no, no, no. Anything that might have been edited out would have doubtless been better than what was edited in. Student films are better. What's Up Tiger Lily was better. A Woody Woodpecker cartoon is better. A George Burns/Bea Arthur porno would be better.

My review was written in April 1985 after watching the movie at a Midtown Manhattan screening room.

"Movers & Shakers" is an unsuccessful insider's look at the foibles of the creative end of Hollywood filmmaking. Comedy is only occasionally amusing and faces a bleak box office future. Pic was lensed without announcement to the trade last spring under the more appropriate title "Dreamers".

First of twin stories concerns the production chief of a studio, Joe Mulholland (Walter Matthau), who is dedicated to making a meaningful, quality picture in tribute to his hero, ailing producer Saul Gritz (Vincent Gardenia). Buying the rights (literally, just the title) to the bestselling manual "Love in Sex" as a result of a deathbed promise to Gritz, Mulhollnad hires successful screenwriter Herb Derman (Charles Grodin) to try and come up with an idea for the impossible project. Meanwhile, second sory is about Derman, whio is having extreme personal problems with his withdrawn wife Nancy (Tyne Daly), who won't let him touch her.

Mulholland is in trouble with his boss Louis Martin (William Prince) as thee studio, especially after installing a huge model dinosaur that cost $1,000,000 and "only moved a little" (for a special effects epic that never got made) as a monument to the man who dreamed it up, Gritz. As the film project goes awry, Derman's marital problems are paralleled by the slapstick violent relationship of the film's goofy directo Sid Spokane (William Macy) and his girlfriend, soon to be his wife, Livia (Gilda Radner).

In his original screenplay for "Movers & Shakers", Grodin takes various potshots at lamentable filmmaking trends, including in-jokes such as the dinosaur which instantly recalls the recalcitrant title figure in Dino De Laurentiis' "King Kong' remake that co-starred Grodin. He scores his best points in presenting production meetings where a lot of thinking-out-loud occurs.

Unfortunately, the film is overburdened with extensive voiceover narration by Grodin, which steals the spotlight from the central character expertly essayed by Matthau. What's more, we find out nothing about the personal life of Matthau's production topper persona, while the Daly-Grodin relationship remains cryptic and cannot sustain the emphasis placed upon it. Vet comedy director William Asher (who piloted the 1982 tv version of "Charley's Aunt" starring Grodin) fails to bring any visual style to this low-budget feature, whose talky format will probably play better on tv.

An unusually interesting cast has been recruited, with solid support provided by Macy, Radner and Daly. Stev Martin guests in a seven-minute cameo s a Ramon Novarro-era latin star, but it is not prime comedy material and Martin's ego-trip spoof is similar (but inferious by comparison) to Billy Crystal's patented Frenando Lamas takeoff. It's also as pleasure to see Nita Talbot as an acerbic cowork, Joe Mantell as Derman's agent and in a small role, Luana Anders, who co-starred in 1964 in Grodin's first feature (for AIP), "Sex and the College Girl".

i just got done watching this movie on TCM, & i found it very funny. i saw the listing with Matthau & Grodin, & i didn't even bother to read the synopsis. That was enough for me. The story about a studio that buys the title of a book, simply for the title -- not the subject of the book. the movie focuses on how the movie studios will focus group & committee an idea to death. (a la the TV series "Action"). the young studio hot-shot keeps complaining about the 'old' age of the people working on the project ('why him? what is he 50?'). typical of the youth obsession in Hollywood, & the discarding of people in their middle-ages. those with NO life experience who trash fine or even classic movies by doing flat & soulless remakes, by flat & soulless performers. or by making inane movies about TV shows just because they grew up on those shows. that's today's Hollywood : No Real Stars, No Real Personas. just flat soulless surgically enhanced hacks. Could anyone recognize an impression of any of todays so-called stars? (& no i don't mean their catch-phrases). where's the talent of a Bogey, Gable, Carey Grant, Bette Davis, or Myrna Loy. or of a Shirley MacLaine, Peter Sellers, Paul Newman, Jack Lemmon, or Matthau? they don't make talent like that anymore. before the movie Charles Grodin asked the question : "because of today's audiences having better knowledge of the Hollywood system, would the movie play better today than it did in 1985 ?" sadly based on the other reviews here it would appear that the answer is no. i gave it 6 stars. nothing special, just a good comedy that features two of the best at their craft : Matthau & Grodin.

"Movers & Shakers" is a film written by Charles Grodin and he also produced and starred in the movie. In many ways, it reminds me of "The Player", as it's a look at some of the insiders who run Hollywood. However, the film is no where nearly as clever or enjoyable at "The Player"...in fact, it seems to have little sense of direction as well.

The story is about a film project whose pedigree is odd. On a friend's deathbed, Joe (Walter Matthau) promises to make a movie using the same title as a famous sex book! The rest of the story is about the process...where the producers, director and writer all hash out what the film will be. Sadly, apart from the title, there's really not much more to their film.

Again and again, I kept hoping this movie would get better and funnier. It seemed like the folks who MADE the film thought it was clever....but it never translated to the audience and is therefore a directionless and mostly unfunny comedy with some good acting.