Somewhere behind the early 1960s cold-war iron curtain, the Hollander family cause an international spying incident when Walter photographs a sunset in a sensitive region. In order to stay ... See full summary »
In an attempt to resurrect the slapstick comedy of Laurel and Hardy or The Marx Brothers, Stanley Tucci and Oliver Platt team-up as two out-of-work actors who accidentally stowaway on a ... See full summary »
Neil Simon wrote this updated version of his 1972 Broadway play about a film agent's efforts to recombine the once famous comedy pair Lewis and Clark, played by Woody Allen and Peter Falk. Written by
Kunal Taravade <email@example.com>
One of three 1996 Neil Simon adaptations made for television and first broadcast in that year. The others were Jake's Women (1996) and London Suite (1996). All were made for production houses Hallmark Entertainment and Metropolitan Productions. See more »
[Entering the dining room]
Haven't been in the Friars' Club in years.
Oh, really? Still a member?
Yeah, until I die. Then I'll quit.
See more »
I was so looking forward to seeing this remake/rewrite having missed it when it was originally broadcast. I so enjoyed the original with Burns and Matthau, and always wondered what the pairing of Falk and Allen would bring to the story. Alas, very little. Allen was better than OK, but Falk seemed totally miscast. This is strange as I find his work in comedies is usually very good. But as has been mentioned in other comments here, there was absolutely no chemistry between the two actors. I think the reason was Allen took his role to a newer place while keeping the basis of the relationship between his character and Falk's true to the story. He didn't play George Burns playing Lewis. He let his personality and comic delivery take over the role. Falk, on the other hand, didn't seem to rise above the Willy Clark as done by Walter Matthau. He didn't even seem to me to have ever been Allen's comic partner. Just not his role. Unfair to compare the two versions? Perhaps, but if one is going to try and redo what was done so well before, one has to expect the yardstick to be what it is.
3 of 5 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?