Movers & Shakers

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.

Most films start with good intentions by all the people involved in its creative process. It's a nightmare for the studio that produces a film like "Movers and Shakers" to watch the project turned into a lemon that no one will ever see. In fact, it was a surprise this showed recently on cable. Based on some of the names involved in it, we decided to take a look. Well, let's assume all the people that participated in it, won't include this experience in their resumes for future jobs within the movie industry.

It's also a puzzle as to why did a talented man of the stature of Walter Matthau ever saw in the possibility of this turkey having any future. For that matter, Charles Grodin, who wrote the screen play, is seen as a writer who hasn't figured out how to do an adaptation of the book the dying studio head wants to be made into a film. It appears that Mr. Grodin was writing about what would be his own role in this ill conceived movie.

Better keep surfing channels until something better is found.

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.

This aired on TCM last night, selected by guest programmer/star/screenwriter Charles Grodin. Classic? Hardly! He seems fairly proud of this pic, though, which allows an extremely talented cast to either overplay or underplay to agonizing effect. Director Asher (an Emmy winner for Bewitched) was better in the half hour television format. A complete waste of time. I think it's supposed to satirize the dying Hollywood studio system. It was movies like this that killed it. Pairing Bill Macy and Gilda Radner as a couple? Penny Marshall is credited and we hear her voice, but to my recollection only ever actually see her feet. Tyne Daly stands around with nothing substantive to do but be ticked off.