elshikh4
So why you felt unsatisfied after the movie's end ? It's not a bad movie by all means. OK, I think I have the answer for that.The thing is that script is all about comedy. Yes, it's a black comedy, with potential character study. Also it's thrilling, with numbered hours before inevitable, very sad, climax. Add to that, a pretty neat twist in the end, where the meaning is "leave with a bang", or "die with your friend, instead of dying alone", or maybe "let's turn out sunset to sunrise". However, the real goal that this script wanted, and spared no effort to reach it.. was comedy ! Accordingly we have 2 problems. The first is that the comedy didn't hit a big mark. "Disgusting" is a fair word to describe most of it with scenes in a brothel, conversations about penises, bad erection sequence, nutcracker joke.. etc, etc, till it approaches being a nasty sex comedy. That was awful, let alone boring as well. Aside from that, you'd get freely obnoxious moments like snoring medicine bills (why not swallowing them ??). Disgusting comedy both ways !The second problem is the bad irony between the light and average at best material on one hand, and the super heavyweight names in the cast on the other. When you read names like Al Pacino, Christopher Walken and Alan Arkin, you have to think Oscar worthy, deepness behind the drama, seriousness along comedy. But sorry. No such luck. That's why it has that vibe of a very good TV movie, that should have had Danny Aiello, Chazz Palminteri, and Gary Busey as lead actors instead. Or – better – needed a wholly comic cast since the start, with better comic situations too.In terms of faulty script, I believe Walken isn't that stupid to kill Pacino in the bathroom with no silencer (too noisy, too bloody, it would be a mess !). Pacino didn't have to tell the detailed story of killing the mob boss's kid wrongly, since Walken was there anyway. The running gag of "kicking a**es, and chewing gum" is a frank proof of writing lacking. Originally, why to borrow form another movie, and I mean They Live (1988), and don't make a quirk by yourself ?? Plus, considering the ages of the movie's writer and director, Noah Haidle and Fisher Stevens respectively, that line could be a running gag between them since the late 1980s, not between those 2 lead characters who are much older (Pacino's character went to jail at least in 1984, namely 4 years before that movie was even made !).Yet, what irritates me more is the lost chances. While the movie had forces of nature as lead actors, it didn't try to invest them rightly. I thought that in the diner scene the 3 characters would have some talk about the old days, with exploring their fears, dreams, joys, and frustrations. However, what I had was "I want to do 2 girls in the same time", and before you know it Arkin drops dead ! Another lost chance when Pacino goes to confess in the church. I hoped to see the serious side of the movie there. But it turned out to be another attempt at comedy, which was done poorly by the way !The oldies on the soundtrack didn't make me at ease. Although they're wonderful, but the idea of old music on soundtracks became so trite lately. Why not thinking in something more innovative ?! Once, in 1949, a mystery English movie by the title of The Third Man, directed by a good guy named Carol Reed, went to use a cherry music by a nice gent named Anton Karas, for all the dark and edgy time of the movie. Hollywood misses, or maybe forgot, that revolutionary spirit, to a degree where their soundtracks became something sellable more than distinct. A safe move, though not that artistic, and really commonplace !Fisher Stevens did well in his directorial debut, but not very well like his performance as a comedian / actor I adore. Addison Timlin and Walken were the best of this movie. Walken, in specific, ate up Pacino all the way. Couple of lines, and I mean only couple of lines, fascinated me : "We die twice; once, when the breath leaves our body, and once when the last person we know says our name", and "They look like the sunrise but I was painting you". The painting was great. And I liked the last moment a lot, it's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid-ish, but has its own character nevertheless. So all the time I expected much more, to find so little. No, I won't say the publicity fooled me. I'll say it's a waste to play a potentially powerful black comedy just for laughs. And it's worse than that already when those laughs aren't even there. And it's even worse and worse when you bring 3 of the finest actors to perform no fine comedy or drama. See, it's "bad ironies" not "bad irony" after all !
imariczadar
Walken and Pacino are the main, and almost the only reason to watch this film. The ideal film for the older generation, I mean really old. Predictable, but interesting plot with small background story. Borrowed quote from cult movies, but it fits perfectly, not too much action as we used to, especially from Pachino, but enough.Neither comedy nor action, but it is more than watchable. Enough interesting/wired side characters which make the plot interesting. In the final scenes of the film Pachino and Walken showed flashes of their old glory. Let's summarize, If you like Walken or Pacino, you will like the movie, if not, skip it.
