Responses to this message:
The greatest disappointment in this movie filled with disappointments is the identity of the screenwriter. Neil Simon, creator of the original Broadway play, shows how even successful, talented, and creative writers can turn in hack work, even when based on wonderful original material.
Rather than review the events in the movie, I'll just comment on various mistakes and tawdriness which this porker is filled with.
First, it is difficult to see Walter Matthau as Oscar, the slob-gambler. The wardrobe has put him in those awful "old-people" clothes which, though they sag appropriately, do not contain or broadcast a distinctive character. Oscar at 75 would naturally be wearing the same sweatshirt he wore thirty years ago. Then amusing comments could have been made about the stains on it, the layers of stain, and how one masterpiece has be painted over another, earlier one, how it is a "work-in-progress", etc. Matthau's hair is obviously dyed, or he has a genetic mutation; either way, the hair is wrong for the age of the character, and once again, it is not slobby enough.
The gambling that Oscar is involved with is pathetically penny-ante. He should be in a rich condo he won in a card game, and should be playing for other retirees' Keogh plans, and ripping off younger, less experienced gamblers.
And his home is not messy. It's just not. And he's not profane, either. As the character has aged, so has the culture, and nowadays we can hear our elders say "fuck" a bit more.
Second, Jack Lemmon, as good an actor as he is, cannot play Felix-the-Fussy any more. He's gone fat, and his grey hair is long and wispy. The "real" Felix would not be fat, his hair would be anally short, and Felix is far more likely than Oscar to have dyed his hair. Felix's hypochrondiac character is also unexploited. Now, the sad fact is that many of our elders have to take large numbers of pills, sprays, injections, wear braces, supports, etc. as a natural part of growing old. Not only does the Felix character not use any of these, he is remarkably less hypochrondriacal than before. This makes for not-funny.
Okay, so the characters are gone, beyond their familiar names, and our memories from the original film and the later TV show. What next?
The physical setting and the theme music. The theme music is classically New York. It says urbanism, sophistication, etc. Playing the theme music in the deserts and farming areas of California is just nuts. It emphasizes how lost this sequel is from the source material. As to the physical setting, putting two fragile old people to hike in the blazing sun is not good comedy; everyone knows the physical danger these people are in, and it's just not funny. This isn't even a "fish-out-of-water" movie anyway -- it's a "relationship" movie. To say it again: Oscar and Felix are quintessially urban characters; the rural/freeway setting is inappropriate and jarring.
Lapses in character:
1) Felix says "fuck" first. This wouldn't happen.
2) Felix forgets his suitcase with thousands of dollars in cash and an expensive gift. Felix wouldn't have done that. Oscar would have thrown the suitcase away in frustration, or something funny like that -- but nothing funny is done with this situation.
3) Oscar does all the driving. Would Felix allow Oscar such control over his life? Think of how funny it would have been for Felix to be driving and Oscar to be a backseat driver. Think of cautious Felix trying to "fit in" to the shark-like nature of the California freeways. Another of the many good comedic situations lost.
4) Oscar gets all sentimental with his son, and reverse-psychologizes him into marriage. Oscar is the LAST person to be sentimental. He would more likely have convinced his son OUT of marriage.
Time-line mistakes:
Oscar's son, from the looks of it, was born when his Dad was 55 years old -- that' another thing not properly explained in the movie. Oscar and Felix were together in 1968 [movie time], 30 years ago, which means that Oscar had to have produced his twentysomething child AFTER he and Felix were together. Think of the comedic possibilities! Oscar's love-child from a one-night stand in the '70's.) Now, it is explained in the movie that they haven't seen each other for "17 years", which is ridiculous from the amount the two actors have aged. Get real! It could have been more fun to contrast the '60's attitudes with the 90's attitudes.
And the same goes for Felix's daughter. It could have been a FUNNY background situation, instead of just lame.
There are many, many other flaws to this film, too many to name, but I will name one more: the complete contempt for the elderly -- not in the film, but in the AUDIENCE. This film was evidently "targetted" for the "elderly" market, and the witlessness, tedium, poor and inconsistent characters, snickering at sex, and so on in the screenplay and execution of this film bespeak a deep contempt on the part of almost everybody involved for the intelligence and outlook of the elderly.
Fauggh! I shit on this film, not because it is wholly irredeemable -- there are far worse films -- but because it had wonderful source material, a good writer, and excellent performers, all of which it wasted in an empty, dashed-off, slackhanded exercise in demographic money-trolling.
Responses to this message:
Post a response to this discussion thread