Review: Pacino and Walken are helpless against the inertia of 'Stand Up Guys'
When even Alan Arkin can't make the material work, there is a problem
Al Pacino, Christopher Walken, and Alan Arkin all know better.
Are you a fan of Motion Captured?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
Boy, I'm tired of "Tax Shelter Theater."
I know the landscape has changed in the last decade for independent financing, and I know it continues to change. It is a scary time to be making movies, if only because so many things seem to be evolving as we speak, and one of the things that feels most like a holdover from the '80s and '90s is this certain kind of low-budget picture that exists as part of a deal with a distributor, a pipeline of garbage that somehow lands big-name actors while rarely, if ever, cranking out anything worth watching. There are certain producers who show up on movies and as soon as I see their name, I automatically assume I'm about to see an indifferent piece of junk, and certain company names that set off the same warning bells. What gets me most about these movies is that they don't have to be so bad. It's financing that exists simply to service a deal, so why couldn't that money be used to attach those same big names to genuinely worthwhile and adventurous fare? You can't tell me that a movie as generic and paint-by-numbers as "Stand Up Guys" is the best that can be done with these resources. You just can't.
Fisher Stevens, probably best known for either his role as the wacky Indian guy in the "Short Circuit" movies or as Michelle Pfeiffer's most unlikely ex, is the director here, working from a script by Noah Haidle, and it's a rough sit by any standards. Al Pacino plays Valentine, a guy just getting out of prison after serving a long stretch. He's the guy who got popped, the guy who went down so everyone else could get away, and he did his time without flipping over on anyone and without complaining. Now, 28 years after he went in, he's out and his best friend Doc (Christopher Walken) picks him up and takes him out for a celebration. Doc's got orders, though, from Claphands (Mark Margolis), the crime boss who has been harboring a grudge for those full 28 years, and he's been told he has to kill Valentine before 10:00 AM the next morning. So Doc takes Val out for a long boozy wake, a night on the town before he goes, and along the way, they have adventures involving boner pills, Lucy Punch, a naked woman in a car trunk, and Hirsch (Alan Arkin), an old friend who they break out of a nursing home.
And over the course of that night, you will not be surprised or see anything that resembles actual spontaneous human behavior even once. The pleasure of watching Pacino and Walken and Arkin bounce off each other should be enough for any movie, but "Stand Up Guys" squanders it. This is a drag from start to finish.
There are a lot of talented people struggling to make this thing come to life. Julianna Marguiles shows up as Hirsch's daughter, and the "E/R" fan in me was delighted when she showed up in nurse's scrubs, but it's a nothing role. Same with Lucy Punch, doing a horrifying American accent as the madam of a whorehouse who took over for her mom. Vanessa Ferlito, Bill Burr, Addison Timlin… they all try, and it's not their fault, but it's just so wildly phony. For me, the moment where I went from bored to actively irritated was when Pacino basically recreates his "Scent Of A Woman" dance scene with a young woman at a bar, and it's such a reach, such an artificial "movie moment," that I just gave up.
Technically, it looks fine. It's not poorly made. But as you watch seven different company names go by and see seven different listed producers, it feels like a lot of people were involved and yet no one asked at any point, "What is the point of telling this story, and who is going to want to watch this?" The worst moment in the whole thing came at the very end, when the first credit dedicates the film to the memory of the late Bingham Ray. Considering how much good he did for the indie film community and considering how actively he embodied the spirit of taking risks on art you believe in, making this soft-boiled mush a memorial to him feels downright disrespectful.
Don't waste your time or your money. I'm sure it'll wash up on home video almost instantly, where it will be promptly and deservedly forgotten for good.
"Stand Up Guys" is in theaters now. You've been warned.
News From Our Partners
-
What to Watch Tonight: The Season Premiere of Rookie Blue and the Series Premieres of Save Me, Showville, and Does Someone Have to Go?
Nashville Season Finale Review: Funerals, Proposals, Car Accidents, Oh My?
What to Watch Tonight: The Season Finales of SVU, The Middle, Modern Family, Chicago Fire, Nashville, and Criminal Minds
-
The Telefile - Modern Family: Goodnight, Gracie. Hello, Series Highlight.
The Telefile - Critics' Choice Television Awards 2013: Nominees Announced
The Telefile - TV on DVD: Tuesday, May 21, 2013
-
Weekend Movies: 'The Hangover 3,' 'Fast & Furious 6,' & 'Epic' (VIDEO)
'Dazed and Confused' Sequel: Richard Linklater Says It May Shoot This Fall
Morgan Freeman Falls Asleep During Interview for New Movie
-
Total Recall: Bradley Cooper's Best Movies
Parental Guidance: Epic and Beautiful Creatures
Comic Book Movies You Can Watch Online
-
Cannes Film Festival: Cannes 2013, Day Eight: Blue Is The Warmest Color captures a relationship’s rawness and beauty
Hear This: Pantera’s “Walk” is the cry of aggrieved, disaffected youth
Watch This: Vanishing Point caters to car nuts and existentialists alike
-
'Rush' Trailer: The Risk of Death Turns People On
Need for Speed Rivals Will Race onto Xbox One and PlayStation 4
Sonic: Lost World's Six New Characters are Teased
-
Former Cast Member Bill Hader Reveals Justin Bieber Was Diva on 'SNL' Set
Rihanna vs. Nicki Minaj: Which Diva Has the Best Booty? – Readers Poll
Rita Ora Dyes Her Hair Bright Blue [Pics]
-
WATCH: Jon Stewart Shuts Down Bill O'Reilly
'900 Pound Man: The Race Against Time': Is It Too Late?
Ashley Benson Is Not Dating All Of Her Friends
Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured
Latest Posts
-
Our conversation was an afternoon delightThursday, May 23, 2013
-
One of the emotional lynchpins of the series discusses the newest filmWednesday, May 22, 2013
-
Two of the supporting characters from the trilogy weigh in on saying goodbyeWednesday, May 22, 2013
-
Simon Pegg is still jumping fencesWednesday, May 22, 2013
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login SignupHooah
February 1, 2013 at 4:51AM EST Reply to CommentIt always amuses me how eye of the beholder most things in life are. Drew and Ebert saw the same movie. Ebert gives it 3 1/2 stars and Drew gives it a D.
February 1, 2013 at 5:16AM ESTBeef Supreme I thought this was interesting too, especially because they largely describe the movie in similar terms, as well: "Director Fisher Stevens begins with a permissive screenplay by Noah Haidle that exists in no particular city, for no particular reason other than to give the actors the pleasure of riffing through more or less standard set-pieces."
February 1, 2013 at 11:42AM ESTand
" If you haven't seen an old criminal crony in 28 years, and you have to kill him, obviously you drill him as soon as possibly convenient. The clock ticks down entirely for the entertainment of the audience and the convenience of the director.
But no. Doc and Val first have to collect another stand-up guy, Hirsch (Arkin). He was their gang's old driver, now hooked up to oxygen tanks in a hospital. They go to see him, spring him from the hospital, and the plot provides reasons he must drive for them once again. The best reason is that this is an obligatory plot point."
The main difference is that Ebert enjoyed Pacino, Walken and Arkin. While reading his review, I would never have guess it was a 3 1/2 star review. I guess he just had a good time.
Paul S
February 1, 2013 at 8:00AM EST Reply to CommentPity... I liked the trailer and so much wanted this one to work.
What Lies Beneath Maybe it will for you. There's other critics that think it does work. A big part of Drew's review was how he decided it was a piece of crap the moment he saw who produced it and then the actual movie only confirmed his initial feelings. Maybe the names of the producers will mean nothing to you. You never know what you'll think of a movie until you actually see it.
February 1, 2013 at 1:12PM ESTPaul S That's true. I thought Drew oversold Looper. I thought it was overhyped and the plot's premise that a gangster organisation controlled time travel weak.
February 1, 2013 at 1:35PM ESTdrew Wrong, WhatLiesBeneath. I did not decide it was crap when I saw the names of the producers. You read that completely backwards. The movie is a depressing piece of crap no matter who made it. My point is that it is indicative of a larger problem in our business, movies that are squeezed out to satisfy a financing deal instead of films that are made because someone has something to say.
February 1, 2013 at 8:09PM ESTNice try, though.
Beef Supreme I think it's hard to read the sentence "There are certain producers who show up on movies and as soon as I see their name, I automatically assume I'm about to see an indifferent piece of junk, and certain company names that set off the same warning bells." in any other way than that you set out with a very negative opinions out this movie even before you saw it though. But yes, you said you "assumed" it was crap, not that you had decided it was crap.
February 1, 2013 at 9:19PM ESTdrew Let's try this again. See, the start of the paragraph is about the broad topic of these tax-shelter movies in general. Then, at the end of the paragraph, I specifically start to focus on this film, which turned out to be a perfect example of this type of filmmaking.
February 1, 2013 at 9:33PM ESTNowhere do I say "Before I sat down to watch this film, I decided it was terrible." Sorry if my discussion of the overall wasteland of international financing confused you, but saying that I sat down ready to hate this film is simply false.
I walk into every film hoping it will be good. When a film fails as completely as this one, and it's a product of the same system that continually turns out garbage, it is perfectly valid to link them together.
The point is that I saw the film. I hated the film. And then I wrote about how it exists as a symptom of a larger problem.
You've got the cause and effect utterly backwards, though, and I won't play semantic games with you about it. You're wrong. Period.
Beef Supreme What's with the condescending attitude? I'm just pointing out that what you wrote comes across as a bias towards this movie before you saw it, since you said you assume that certain movies are indifferent pieces of junk based on the producer and company credits. That's literally what you wrote, it's not semantics. If that's not what you meant, or if you don't include this movie in that category even though it's in this review, that's another matter.
February 1, 2013 at 10:04PM ESTThat doesn't mean you decided it was terrible, and I don't agree with What Lies Beneath that you did.
drew It's not condescending.
February 2, 2013 at 5:54PM ESTBut I won't have you tell me that I'm lying about why I disliked the movie. I just won't. You are free to read or not read my work, but you don't get to tell me that my motivations are not honest, and you don't get to define my reaction to something in direct contrast to what I wrote.
Sorry. You just don't.
DefRef
February 1, 2013 at 12:43PM EST Reply to Comment>"But as you watch seven different company names go by and see seven different listed producers"
I've noticed this more lately when the first 90 seconds of the movie are a parade of cheaply-made logos from companies I've never heard of. I remark to my girlfriend, "Looks like they had to cobble together the money from various rich plastic surgeons and bingo clubs."
It's not impossible to do a "last night of fun before bad things happen" story - case in point, Things Change, the 1988 David Mamet lark with Joe Mantegna as a Mob soldier who has to babysit Don Ameche for a weekend before he goes to prison in the place of the Mafia don he looks just like. Rather than staying cooped up in a Chicago hotel room, he treats him to a trip to Lake Tahoe (IIRC) and hijinks ensue. It's a light film by Mamet standards (like State and Main - "Go you Huskies!") but it's sweet and you care about the characters.
Paul S You're right, Things Change is a gem.
February 1, 2013 at 1:36PM ESTdrew "Things Change" is a charming little movie. "Stand Up Guys" is a million miles away from "Things Change."
February 1, 2013 at 8:10PM ESTTrey
February 2, 2013 at 12:36AM EST Reply to CommentThis is more or less to Drew. Your review was about what I expect from someone who reviews movies all day, and I would be unlikely to go and see the movie based on how you described it.
Then, I read the comments, and saw how vitriolic your responses were to comments, and all I can think is that you are a somewhat bitter individual in general, and so your opinion about how well a movie works becomes questionable.
February 2, 2013 at 2:05AM ESTCinemaPsycho You have the right to your opinion. However, I think his responses are perfectly reasonable given that the comments in question seem determined to misunderstand what Drew is saying. Is it "bitter" for a critic to defend himself and clarify his position? I don't think so. Why would it be? And this is coming from someone who doesn't always agree with Drew's opinions (but respects his right to say them).
February 2, 2013 at 3:04AM ESTdrew It is obvious you do not read the majority of what I post.
February 2, 2013 at 5:53PM EST