Andy (film-critic) As I watched The Survivors, I couldn't help but wonder what was going through the mind of director Michael Ritchie when he was presented with the script. Outside of the enormous gaps in plot and development, he had to see some humor in it somewhere to cast two direct opposites of the comedy spectrum to helm this project. There had to be a mission or a reason in Ritchie's mind when he decided that Robin Williams, a fast-talking comedian that can sometimes be uncontrollable, and Walter Matthau, a slow-methodical comedian that appeals to the "every man", would be his key players. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall during this opening meeting because this little fly would have spoken up and mentioned that this pairing would doom the script, and possibly put a black mark on both of these actor's careers. I wouldn't just stop there, I would tear this film to pieces trying to get others to explain to me the subsequent ending and missing tone. The only element that I would be content with would be the casting of Jerry Reed, who honestly brought some humor and intelligence to this scarred film. The Survivors was not a film, but instead an attempt to allow two comedians the opportunity to express themselves coupled with heavy firepower. Nothing more, nothing less.Could somebody, anybody, please help me out with the story surrounding The Survivors? From the zigzag opening centered around the parrot and Robin Williams' job to the incident at Matthau's gas station (a plot point never mentioned or concluded), Ritchie spends no time developing anything. His choice of direction is simply to allow Williams to be as "zany" as possible and see how Matthau reacts to it. If it weren't for Jerry Reed this film would have been nearly an hour and a half of forced jokes, gunshots, and awkward moments. The story was pointless. In most instances I can find bits and pieces of a story which keeps my attention allowing me to be curious about how the ending will resolve itself. For there to be this resolution, there has to be a conflict. Ritchie attempts to create one with the entire "survival of the fittest" byline, but even that idea is never fully announced. I felt like a Ping-Pong ball in this film, constantly going back and forth between Williams and Matthau hoping that I would land on something that scored a point, but alas, this was the game that would never end. Ritchie even takes us into the wilderness in attempts to bring more laughs and eventually draw an ending, but again, nothing happens. Nothing is explained, nothing is developed, nothing is linear. Williams goes into the woods to be trained in survival, yet for the amount of time he was there it was as if he was unable to learn anything. Also, where did he get the funds to buy the house out in the woods? Then, without giving anything away, there was that pathetic ending. WHAT HAPPENED? I use big words there because there was not one iota of a conclusion. Enemies became friends, friends became enemies, and before words could be spoken the ending credits appeared.I would like to announce this here, but I believe Michael Ritchie could not even handle the simplest of tasks with this film. The direction was horrible because Ritchie could not control his actors. It was obvious as you watched Williams and Matthau on screen that there were getting no advice or pointers from the man behind the camera. Ritchie didn't stop Williams during his rants (which at times were never relevant to the film) and did not help Matthau react to the insanity that Williams was bringing to the table. What should have been the best part of this film was easily the most painful to watch. Williams and Matthau, in this critic's eye, possibly could be ranked as the WORST comic pairing in cinema. Matthau's form of comedy is completely, if not 100%, different to Williams' shenanigans. While in some film cases this would work to a movie's advantage, for The Survivors, it did not. There were no characters for these two comedians to enter into. I sat during the entire hour and a half watching Robin Williams be Robin Williams and the same for Walter Matthau. I could not see any semblance of a character between the two of them. Both seemed to jump from one trait to the next. Neither seemed to have a complete hold or knowledge of who they were attempting to portray. This is half due to the flimsy story, but mainly I place the blame on Ritchie. With Williams and Matthau at the helm, this had the beginnings of a hilarious possible gut-busting, laugh-out-loud comedy that would be a staple in the film community, but Ritchie, in my eyes, could not handle it. He relied to heavily on his actor's comic "personas" instead of actually building characters for them.Overall, this was a very sad excuse for a film. I have read some other reviews that speak highly of the comedy in this film while do speak similarly of the lacking story, but for me everything was broken. There were no characters, there was no direction, there was obviously no story, and our two central actors didn't work for their money, but just read through their lines and gave a measly 30% to the final product. The only plus I give this film is the accomplishment of Jerry Reed. He was worth watching. The scene between his wife and I was nearly close to perfection. I think it was the only time that I found myself chuckling through this entire film. Ritchie could not handle this film and in the end The Survivors is probably a film that neither Williams or Matthau wants to remember.Grade: ** out of *****

kakiepye7 This movie does it all: entertains, sickens, confuses, enlightens, disappoints, enrages, delights... You get a young, burgeoning Robin Williams at the height of his cocaine abuse, a poorly-aged and dangerously arthritic Walter Matthau whose acting conjures past greatness ("Charade") and the effervescent Jerry Reed, at the peak of his career and in full, self-confident stride after the monumental success of the "Smokey" series and "Highballin" (won two awards at Cannes and a Gay and Lesbian Film Alliance Honor). Not sure why this movie is listed a comedy. I sob uncontrollably every time I watch it, which is nine times a week since 1996. Simply put, Reed's character "Jack" steals the show. His role would've been bigger but rumor has it that he made ridiculous demands while on set. Apparently, he had in his contract dodo-egg omelets at every meal and nobody on set can utter his name. Towards the end of filming, he attacked Robin William's publicist with a samurai sword. Needless to say, the man is our new Lord and this movie is his Testament....

jrs-8 It seems that many people have enjoyed "The Survivors" and as a huge Walter Matthau fan I sure wanted to be one of them. "The Survivors" is a muddled mess with script problems and, most curiously, problems with the casting of its leading actors Matthau and Robin Williams. Just reading that would make you thing that the casting is inspired but it ends up working against the film. Matthau and Williams have two very distinctive styles of comedy that work against each other and that aspect is clear throughout the movie. These two appear to be starring in different movies even when they are on screen together. Director Michael Ritchie appears to have let Williams and his manic sense of humor go crazy with no attempt to reel him in to a calmer level more suitable for the film. Take a look at "The World According to Garp" where Williams worked with the great George Roy Hill to see a restrained and terrific performance. Sure some of Williams' manic comedy sneaks through there but it was at a minimum. Here Williams is all over the map which is surprising considering director Ritchie's track record of only good movies up to this point ("The Candidate", "Smile" and "The Bad News Bears" among others).Another problem with the film is the tone of the script. It wants to be satirical, farcical, and dark all at the same time. Had it stuck with just one of those tones we might have had a better movie. Perhaps a satirical look at the difficulties of big business which is suggested in a funny opening scene when Williams is fired by his boss' parrot. Or perhaps a dark comedy about two down on their luck guys who happen across a hit man, trying to stay alive or even perhaps hoping to be killed, as they get their lives in some sort of order. This is hinted at but the story falls flat with the casting of Jerry Reed as the hit man who turns out to be a likable guy. Reed never convinced me he was anything more then the Snowman with a gun waiting for Burt Reynolds. He always seems to be winking at himself and never comes off as menacing. And the last act of the film at the survivalist outing is so mundane and silly it doesn't even belong in this film."The Survivors" could have been a really special film had director Ritchie reigned in and restrained Williams some and having the script go through major overhauls instead of looking like they shot a first draft. As it now stands there are a few laughs and it's not a total waste of time but will be a huge disappointment to fans of the lead actors.

jshinson I'll fore-go the plot summary and rantings of the usual Hollywood critic and cut straight to what this movie is all about...Comedy with a capital C. From the very beginning of the movie when Donald Quinelle(Robin Williams) is fired by a parrot (A. Parrot). It appears as though the economy has gone into the toilet and "society is coming undone like a cheap suit" as we later hear Donald say. Walter Matthau is excellent as Williams' straight man in this movie that precedes "Falling Down" by about a decade. Where the main character in "Falling Down" makes us feel sorry for him because of his misfortune, "The Survivors", namely Robin Williams and Walter Matthau as Soony Paluso, doesn't get our sympathy because we know they're going to get through their trials as they have good humor and good friendship. The movie deals with real issues like unemployment and a failing economy. There is even a subplot that involves a militia movement that feeds on the fears that Donald Quinelle is experiencing. It is all done in fun, as Donald and Sonny run from the bad guy (Jerry Reed) who is not the hit man he makes himself out to be.I saw this movie when it was originally released in '83 with some friends of mine and now 22 years later, we still quote this movie. It is definitely a hidden treasure and why it didn't get great reviews is a mystery to me. There is one scene that may have been a detriment to the success of this film, although I cannot imagine why...In the first act,When Donald is in his hospital bed and gown recovering from the robber's gunshot wound, there is a brief instant when he is watching the news editorial on the hospital TV regarding his own "dumbluck", he turns his backside toward the television and shows his backside to the TV. We don't see his bare backside, however, as he returns to his original position in the hospital bed, Donald reveals a little more of himself under his hospital gown than we bargain for. I think that one got by the editor, but the sack is there for all to see. Not a big deal, but should have been caught by someone other than us, the audience. I highly recommend renting "The Survivors". I bought it on VHS about five years ago after looking for it for several years, and I still watch it once in a while, particularly when I need a good laugh because it seems like the world is coming apart like a cheap suit at times.