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 *****
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 *****