Movers & Shakers

My review was written in April 1985 after watching the movie at a Midtown Manhattan screening room.

"Movers & Shakers" is an unsuccessful insider's look at the foibles of the creative end of Hollywood filmmaking. Comedy is only occasionally amusing and faces a bleak box office future. Pic was lensed without announcement to the trade last spring under the more appropriate title "Dreamers".

First of twin stories concerns the production chief of a studio, Joe Mulholland (Walter Matthau), who is dedicated to making a meaningful, quality picture in tribute to his hero, ailing producer Saul Gritz (Vincent Gardenia). Buying the rights (literally, just the title) to the bestselling manual "Love in Sex" as a result of a deathbed promise to Gritz, Mulhollnad hires successful screenwriter Herb Derman (Charles Grodin) to try and come up with an idea for the impossible project. Meanwhile, second sory is about Derman, whio is having extreme personal problems with his withdrawn wife Nancy (Tyne Daly), who won't let him touch her.

Mulholland is in trouble with his boss Louis Martin (William Prince) as thee studio, especially after installing a huge model dinosaur that cost $1,000,000 and "only moved a little" (for a special effects epic that never got made) as a monument to the man who dreamed it up, Gritz. As the film project goes awry, Derman's marital problems are paralleled by the slapstick violent relationship of the film's goofy directo Sid Spokane (William Macy) and his girlfriend, soon to be his wife, Livia (Gilda Radner).

In his original screenplay for "Movers & Shakers", Grodin takes various potshots at lamentable filmmaking trends, including in-jokes such as the dinosaur which instantly recalls the recalcitrant title figure in Dino De Laurentiis' "King Kong' remake that co-starred Grodin. He scores his best points in presenting production meetings where a lot of thinking-out-loud occurs.

Unfortunately, the film is overburdened with extensive voiceover narration by Grodin, which steals the spotlight from the central character expertly essayed by Matthau. What's more, we find out nothing about the personal life of Matthau's production topper persona, while the Daly-Grodin relationship remains cryptic and cannot sustain the emphasis placed upon it. Vet comedy director William Asher (who piloted the 1982 tv version of "Charley's Aunt" starring Grodin) fails to bring any visual style to this low-budget feature, whose talky format will probably play better on tv.

An unusually interesting cast has been recruited, with solid support provided by Macy, Radner and Daly. Stev Martin guests in a seven-minute cameo s a Ramon Novarro-era latin star, but it is not prime comedy material and Martin's ego-trip spoof is similar (but inferious by comparison) to Billy Crystal's patented Frenando Lamas takeoff. It's also as pleasure to see Nita Talbot as an acerbic cowork, Joe Mantell as Derman's agent and in a small role, Luana Anders, who co-starred in 1964 in Grodin's first feature (for AIP), "Sex and the College Girl".

One of my favorite films of all time. So very quotable with an unforgettable performance from Bill Macy. This film stands up to many, many viewings. I've seen it over 25 times.

I am only giving this film a "5" out of respect for it's cast headed by Walter Matthau, Charles Grodin, Steve Martin, Bill Macy, Tyne Daly, Gilda Radner, Penny Marshall, and Vincent Gardenia. Otherwise it is a peculiar satire on Hollywood that never quite works.

Walter Matthau works at a large studio, now run by William Prince. Matthau is a successful producer there, but his mentor was Gardenia, who was once a great producer. But Gardenia has been going downhill, both creatively and physically. He has wasted millions of dollars on a film about the prehistoric world, and has even set up a huge dinosaur from the film on the grounds of the studio (much to a fed up Prince's anger). But Gardenia is taken off all other projects. He is now dying, and Matthau goes to see him. Gardenia, on the death bed, forces Matthau to do a film on a book he has just bought: a sexual guidebook. Matthau says he will, knowing it is a ridiculous promise.

After Gardenia's death Matthau takes a close look into the sex book. This is the most popular sex guide in America, but the point is brought out in the film that if one thinks of sex lightly, as a powerful explosion from the emotion of love, it is easy to show in film, on stage, on television, on radio, in novels and short stories, or in paintings and sculpture. But if the actual physical activities involved were to be studied in a film (not a pornography film, by the way), it becomes boring.

Still Matthau tries. He consults with Macy, a fabled film director (involved in a torrid and complicated affair with Radner - it ends when they wound each other in a shoot out). Macy's approach is to remind us of all the great film lovers of the past (Bogart among them) and how "dependable" they were. Matthau talks to Grodin, a leading screenplay writer. Grodin can't see where the drama needed for the film will come in. Matthau is advised to see the last of the great silent film lovers, the "ageless" Martin (once a rival of Valentino). He keeps talking of decades old romantic moments - but all is for naught when Matthau and Grodin and Macy see Martin is now henpecked by his harridan wife (Marshall).

As you can see the film certainly had great direction in the script, except that despite the energy of the cast it just never rose above the one point: that discussing the physical activity of sex on film is not going to make a good movie. Somehow the script dropped a somewhat promising element: that a desperate Matthau might start dropping away from what Gardenia wished and produced a film that was a sex comedy. But for that to have fully worked, Gardenia's wacko character would have had to be alive throughout the film, and he would have had to keep the sense of taking the credit for the success of Matthau's changing the production plan to save the project. That never happens.

I think the film tried to be philosophical but never got beyond presenting the main argument. It was a poor choice to make. MOVERS & SHAKERS may never have been a promisingly great film, but it might have been an amusing one. It is not too amusing now. Definitely not worthy of it's cast's energies at all.

Most films start with good intentions by all the people involved in its creative process. It's a nightmare for the studio that produces a film like "Movers and Shakers" to watch the project turned into a lemon that no one will ever see. In fact, it was a surprise this showed recently on cable. Based on some of the names involved in it, we decided to take a look. Well, let's assume all the people that participated in it, won't include this experience in their resumes for future jobs within the movie industry.

It's also a puzzle as to why did a talented man of the stature of Walter Matthau ever saw in the possibility of this turkey having any future. For that matter, Charles Grodin, who wrote the screen play, is seen as a writer who hasn't figured out how to do an adaptation of the book the dying studio head wants to be made into a film. It appears that Mr. Grodin was writing about what would be his own role in this ill conceived movie.

Better keep surfing channels until something better is found.

i just got done watching this movie on TCM, & i found it very funny. i saw the listing with Matthau & Grodin, & i didn't even bother to read the synopsis. That was enough for me. The story about a studio that buys the title of a book, simply for the title -- not the subject of the book. the movie focuses on how the movie studios will focus group & committee an idea to death. (a la the TV series "Action"). the young studio hot-shot keeps complaining about the 'old' age of the people working on the project ('why him? what is he 50?'). typical of the youth obsession in Hollywood, & the discarding of people in their middle-ages. those with NO life experience who trash fine or even classic movies by doing flat & soulless remakes, by flat & soulless performers. or by making inane movies about TV shows just because they grew up on those shows. that's today's Hollywood : No Real Stars, No Real Personas. just flat soulless surgically enhanced hacks. Could anyone recognize an impression of any of todays so-called stars? (& no i don't mean their catch-phrases). where's the talent of a Bogey, Gable, Carey Grant, Bette Davis, or Myrna Loy. or of a Shirley MacLaine, Peter Sellers, Paul Newman, Jack Lemmon, or Matthau? they don't make talent like that anymore. before the movie Charles Grodin asked the question : "because of today's audiences having better knowledge of the Hollywood system, would the movie play better today than it did in 1985 ?" sadly based on the other reviews here it would appear that the answer is no. i gave it 6 stars. nothing special, just a good comedy that features two of the best at their craft : Matthau & Grodin.