Sour Grapes (1998) User Reviews

not quite prime-cut Larry David material, but enjoyable all the same

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 28 August 2007]

Although it's been a long time since I've seen Sour Grapes, the experience of seeing it- preferably alongside another Seinfeld fan- was fairly pleasant, in that biting Larry David tone. This was the only time David wrote and directed a film, and it does show that he's giving a good try to tell a story within the framework of a film feature all the way through. It's somehow quite an entertaining piece of quietly (or not so quietly) deranged satire on envy, sexual frustration, and the condition of a principle of something. The premise is simple- two good friends go out to Las Vegas to gamble, one friend asks the other for a quarter for a slot machine, and via the quarter in the slot machine the guy wins a helluva lot of money. By the friend with the original quarter's estimation, a part of that change is his, but the friend now says that it isn't. A likely Seinfeld sub-plot is stretched out so that the ideas are given a little breathing room, even if one recognizes that, perhaps, it would be a masterpiece if it were simply a Seinfeld episode, or more appropriately a Curb Your Enthusiasm with even more acidic humor and total unease thrown at the situation.

Around the premise, David also tosses in a supporting character who has one of his testicles removed- the wrong one by the doctor, who is one of the friends- and despite his now high voice (ho-ho) he seeks out some payback. That's one of the clearest big gags, as obvious as it is, is the moment when the 'testicle-man', as one might be tempted to describe him, is told by the doctor that the wrong one was taken out during surgery, to his immediate fainted response in a cut-away. On top of this, David experiments with some stupid sex humor (not that there wasn't at least a little later on on CYE, eg Jeff's mother's ass at a stoplight), like with Bierko's character in the self-humiliation of not being able to, um, 'service' himself in a certain way, under the stress of the tear in the friendship. As mentioned, none of this really makes for the kind of classic comedy one might expect, or crave, from maybe one of the only geniuses (yeah, I said it) working in comedy today. But as almost something of a fluke, it does its job well.

Seinfeld-ish

[MyDarkStar · 6/10 · 13 January 2002]

It's so funny that I didn't know Larry David wrote the script to this movie, because the whole time I was watching it I kept saying "That scene was just like something out of Seinfeld." or "That character reminds me of George Costanza" or "He kinda reminds me of Kramer.".

Larry David applies his unique brand of comedy to this script very well. It literally plays out like a long "Seinfeld" or "Curb Your Enthusiasm" episode. All the elements are here. Especially the way everything is related in the end.

The movie also has some really good performances from the cast, namely Steven Weber and Craig Bierko. Both of them are very fun to watch here. You can tell they must have had fun making the movie, because they work together very well.

Like I said, very Seinfeld-ish. Now that you know Larry David wrote it, you'll notice even more Larry David elements within the movie. They're everywhere when you consider the structure of the plot, the amplified & quirky characters etc...

Funny and Stressful

[bmanacles · 7/10 · 20 January 2007]

Frankly, I find this movie difficult to watch every time. So many things occur that just seem to spiral down into chaos causing chaos causing chaos. The main characters, at first...you take a side...then eventually you'll realize that neither are in the right. But one does something to the other, which is unspeakably terrible...and receives the same in turn. Eventually when it's all over, something ultimately terrible happens. Suspense is not only something that relates to a horror film, in my opinion...upon seeing this film. The director perfected it to an almost migraine inducing level. If you are patient, this movie is fantastic. If you're not, and you simply can't stand it...well perhaps this isn't for you.

sour indeed

[mcfly-31 · 15 July 1999]

An old premise, family bickering over money, is never fully explored here. Weber and Bierko are cousins, Weber loans Bierko 50 cents on a slot machine, and when Bierko hits it big, Weber expects half the prize money (reasonable I'd say). Instead he and Bierko feud the rest of the way, with one pulling constant stunts on the other, none of which are very amusing. Weber, a doctor, tells Bierko he's dying, at which point Bierko actually tries to have his mother scared to death so she won't have to live without him. And Weber, so distracted by the feud with Bierko, inadvertently amputates both testicles of a big time tv star. And get ready to laugh your brains out...the tv star now talks in a high voice. Oh please stop, you're killing me. And you'll love when Bierko gives himself oral sex in a totally lame, unconvincing scene where he constantly picks his head wayyyyyy up and then down...yeah, sure. The mark is missed consistently in this letdown.

Entertaining spin-off with awful cast (except for Orlando Jones)

[rock_n_rolland · 6/10 · 7 July 2005]

I actually thought it was kinda funny. It was certainly entertaining, and it was very Larry David, perhaps too much? I found that the main problem with the film was the awful casting, except for Orlando Jones. I honestly think this would have made a better film with a different cast and crew. The writing is good, it has the suspense and the story progress of a feature length movie, and it's entertaining. But I found myself imagining the cast of Seinfeld all the way, which was disturbing. They should have made a bigger effort of making it differ further from Seinfeld, but then I guess it wouldn't been made in the first place. This film was after all made at the peak of Seinfeld's success. What could have been a decent film ends up as a spin-off, but entertaining enough. The Friends-spoof is all worth it though!

This is a lot of Seinfeld!

[Weezer-16 · 7/10 · 2 September 1999]

I thought this movie was good....When I saw that Larry David (Co- writer of The Seinfeld Chronicles) was involved, I got great expectations. My opinion is that this comedy had a lot of Seinfeld. When you look at the dialogues and characters you clearly can see that this is similar to the Seinfeld Chronicles. I consider myself a Seinfeld fanatic and I love when people follow the example of this series. The movie was filled with sarcastic remarks, no moral, a plot full of entanglements and nothing is going as planned. This comedy is also good because the people involved don`t try to make it hylerious for everyone by using "stereotypical" characters and so on. I really recommend "Sour Grapes", but I guess you won`t like it if you don`t like Seinfeld.

7 stars

Irritating film

[jamariana · 3/10 · 28 March 2018]

Every character was so unbelievably irritating. Only Larry David and George Costanza can do Larry David right - otherwise it's just annoying and bizarre. All the yelling, exaggerated mannerisms, and ridiculous dialogue - no one behaves like that in real life! It was just hard to get through.

Could've been done better!

[imilic-1 · 6/10 · 18 January 2008]

I'm a Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm fan. What I liked in this movie was its unique story and how things get going. Things get complicated like in Seinfeld and CYE, but that could have been done better. It's not so funny like in Larry David's sitcoms. Larry should have added more humor and talk-jokes in the movie script. It's like I'm watching a Seinfeld episode written by an amateur stand-up comedian. Larry, it was because of the money, wasn't'it? Both characters are very much like Larry David. They talk and make gestures in the same way Larry does in Curb Your Enthusiasm; this can be very annoying and boring (like "Pretty, pretty, pretty good..."). And the guy who won at the casino is not such a good actor. He reminds me of Stephen Snedden from spin off series The Lone Gunmen - he is really that bad. And his wife resembles Susie from Curb Your Enthusiasm. And that horrible soundtrack! It's always the same song over and over again. And I used to like classic music...

Only thing missing is a laugh track ......

[merklekranz · 5/10 · 19 November 2009]

This plays like an extended sitcom, with the only thing missing being a laugh track. The entire movie seems stretched with non relevant material, such as the missing bag of cookies, or the elevator rudeness. There are a few chuckles along the way to the rather dark conclusion. Neither Steven Weber or Craig Bierko elicits any sympathy, so you wind up really not caring who gets a leg up on whom. Both girlfriends and the Mother are nothing but annoyances. The whole script beyond the initial idea of the slot machine sequence, seems like forced outrageousness. At best, a rather mediocre film that belongs on television, and nothing more. - MERK

Nothing great, but kind of fun.

[LebowskiT1000 · 7/10 · 6 May 2002]

I've been a huge fan of the tv show "Seinfeld" for quite some time now, so when I found out that this film was written and directed by Seinfeld co-creator Larry David, I had to take a peak at this film. I have to say that I didn't see a whole lot of similarity between Seinfeld and this film. There were some similar types of comedy in the film, but I found this movie to be much more of a dark-comedy than the comedy of Seinfeld. Which I guess leads me to believe that I liked the Jerry Seinfeld contribution of Seinfeld, not so much the Larry David contribution.

There really isn't a whole lot I can say about the film. I thought it was ok, but nothing spectacular. I wouldn't agree that if you like Seinfeld then you'll like this, cause I'm living proof that that isn't true. Anyhow, hope you like it more than I did. Thanks for reading,

-Chris

L.D. should have casted himself as the lead.

[ElijahCSkuggs · 5/10 · 30 June 2008]

Sour Grapes. The movie I wanted to love. Damn. Larry David's first directorial debut was a film I was entirely amped up to see. Being a huge fan of Seinfeld and Curb, like most of you, this is a must see film. But unfortunately it didn't even come close to meeting my expectations.

The flick revolves around two cousins, where one wins the jackpot on a slot machine from two of the other cousins quarters. The winning cousin doesn't see that he should share any money with his money-sharing cousin. What follows is lots of bickering, and silly situations.

So, the plot is pretty on par with a Curb episode. But this is where the problem and solution arises. Only Larry David himself can bring his own Curb-type humor to fruition. The two leads were good, they brought their own style, but the writing is so incredibly Larry David, it's all you compare them to. It's so damn obvious Larry should have played the winning cousin. But nevertheless, he didn't and the film suffered by it. Larry did make an appearance as a t.v. big wig, and like always stole the scene.

It's weird, I didn't hate the movie, but I didn't really like it either. Nothing truly funny, though there were a few giggles here and there. But the story was predictable, the actors didn't fit their roles and there wasn't enough L.D. Though I'll still say this is a must-see for all Larry David fans. The writing and humor is there, but it just goes to show, casting is incredibly important. No wonder Larry started his own show and made himself the lead. Genius.

Highly Underrated!

[kap999 · 9/10 · 6 February 2002]

I really don't know whats wrong with people. Movies that really suck and are devoid of any humor are considered funny and movies that are genuinely funny get a 5.2 rating? So this movie isn't exactly supposed to be intelligent or thought provoking or even too subtle for that matter but what it does is make you laugh. Not just slight chuckles but laugh till your stomach hurts.

The lead characters also do a pretty good job. The guy who wins the million dollars has a dialogue delivery style very similar to Norm McDonald (which is a good thing). It has this underlying sarcastic tone that makes almost anything he says funny. Like the Seinfeld series this movie too isn't about a real plot or anything but its amazing how creative people can be making you laugh with some of the silliest gags ever. After watching this film I felt light-headed. Almost anything seemed to amuse me after that. All day I had this annoying grin on my face with sudden outbursts of laughter just thinking about the movie. I know a good/funny movie when I see one. This one is genuinely funny. Try not to look for meaning or depth in it and you'll love it. Take my word for it. Its well worth your time.

Moderately Funny

[atlasmb · 6/10 · 12 July 2021]

Roger Ebert hated this film, primarily because he thought it insensitive. Director Larry David might have a sense of humor that could be called insensitive, but that style was a hallmark of his beloved series "Seinfeld". This film certainly reminds the viewer of "Seinfeld' It is from the same branch of the Davidian humor tree.

It was about 50 minutes in before I started to really enjoy the comedy, in part because early on I was imagining how the two primary characters, who are cousins, would play if Jerry Seinfeld and Jason Alexander were the leads. They did very well, my friend.

It does not take long to realize that the film has an odd choice of background music. Even if you enjoy Beethoven, Berlioz, Boccherini, and Bach, you might not prefer them as companions to such comedy.

When the one cousin pays a bum to enter his mother's house and murder her, you know you are not watching "Dial M for Murder"; this is just Larry David's style of humor---a style not suited for everyone. Those who don't appreciate his rude humor may feel their enthusiasm for the film curbed.

The actors are actually good in their roles. I enjoyed some of the minor characters, like Orlando Jones, who played the aforementioned bum.

In the end, this felt like an expansion of a lost "Seinfeld" episode, not a feature film.

Total Dud!

[shark-43 · 4 November 1999]

I am a fan of Larry David, both of SEINFELD and his brilliant recent HBO special he starred in, but this is an utter disaster. A script that never should have been filmed. The main plot of money coming between cousins quickly grows tired (maybe this was a plot for a Seinfeld that never got used where George would give Kramer two quarters that he uses to hit a jackpot - might work in a twenty two minute sitcom, but not a feature film) Everyone is miscast 9even the usually steady Stephen Webber. Craig Bierko is awful, mugging and aping like Kramer's stand-in.) The character of the Jewish mother is such a cartoon and so one note. There are maybe three good jokes in the whole thing. The movie plays out like a car wreck - you find you can't look away because of the slim hope you might find a survivor!

I enjoyed it...

[paul-685-664575 · 7/10 · 10 September 2016]

Unlike most of you, including Larry David (according to Wikipedia), I had fun watching it. I loved the music too that sounded to me similar to the music in Oscar (the US version), one of those catchy classical thingies from a well-known opera. Hence, I kept comparing it to the equally low rated Oscar that I also loved (and I loved the original Louis de Funes version as well). My judgment: Oscar was better but still I am glad I saw Sour Grapes. IMHO, Viola Harris was sensational.

N.B. I am one of those gazillions of secular Jews for whom no topic is taboo to be made fun of. Have you heard of a rabbi, a priest, and a commissar in the gas chamber...

Not worthy of all the praise

[Ghenghy · 5/10 · 10 June 2002]

I think Larry David is a genius...I'm still bemoaning the loss of Curb Your Enthusiasm and Seinfeld along with the rest of the fans, but this movie has very little resemblance to either. Some funny moments that probably would be enhanced without the expectation of a feature length Larry David production. The two main characters, Stephen Weber and Craig Bierko basically lack the requisite angst filled, anxiety ridden complex that we've become accustomed too. And neither possesses the ethnic credibility to make this work. It's just not very good, and that's a shame. Give movies another shot Larry-you're fans aren't going anywhere. 5/10

Sour Grapes: 1/10

[movieguy1021 · 1/10 · 22 July 2003]

When it was on the air, I wasn't an avid watcher of `Seinfeld', but I enjoyed it. The co-creator of it, Larry David, went on to make the hit HBO show `Curb Your Enthusiasm'. But, before that, he wrote and directed the dud Sour Grapes, which makes you wonder how those two TV shows became so popular and funny. Sour Grapes is basically a short that could have been amusing at five minutes, but stretches out to an overlong and extremely boring 90 minutes of stupid plot devices, stupid and reused `humor', and stupidity in general.

What makes Sour Grapes so horrible is that there may have been about one or two jokes that made me do a little snort or something. That's about four seconds that I enjoyed, and out of a film that's 5400 seconds long, that's pretty bad. What am I saying `pretty bad'? It's atrocious! At least in some other bad movies, a few jokes caught on, and others are hit-and-miss, but almost every joke in Sour Grapes missed. Also, many running jokes flopped, such as Richie's `ability'. It wasn't funny the first time, and it wasn't funny the fourth time.

When your largest star is Steven Weber, that's a bad sign. He can be a good actor, except he never seems to pick good projects. He's Evan Maxwell, a successful doctor who goes with his friend/cousin Richie (Craig Bierko) to Atlantic City to gamble. Evan lends Richie two quarters for a slot machine, and he wins the jackpot. Since Evan lent him money, he expects to get about half of Richie's earnings. Wouldn't you do that in real life? And THEN things become quirky.

Well, there isn't really much to say, not only because it is a wholly unremarkable film, but I don't want it to take any more of my time than the 90 minutes it had already robbed me of. If you're looking for a completely unfunny comedy, where you will surely not laugh, then pick Sour Grapes. I'm sure there'll be lots of copies at your local Blockbusters, because most people will be smart enough to stay away from it.

My rating: 1/10

Rated R for language and sex-related humor.

Dire...

[dmb1243 · 1/10 · 6 November 1999]

Sour Grapes is an appalling movie, and one of the worst examples of 'comedy' I have ever seen. The jokes are clichéd-most of them come from 'The Big Book of terrible sexual innuendo'. In short, its ridiculous plot is just an excuse for the same low-grade jokes and buddy movie shenanigans that have been done a million times before. Only Sour Grapes is much, much worse...

Good Wine from "Sour Grapes"

[sotfinoski · 8/10 · 3 May 2005]

If I had believed all the negative on-line reviews for this film, I probably never would have rented it. But I'm very glad I didn't pay heed. While "Sour Grapes" may not quite reach the comedic heights of Larry David's "Curb Your Enthusiasm" on HBO, there's enough of David's hilarious, mean-spirited, offbeat humor to please any fan of his classic comedy series (oh, yeah, and Seinfeld fans, too). The circuitous way the plot unfolds and then crazily accelerates is very much in the style of both series and the two leads, especially the under-appreciated Craig Bierko,are great. Director and writer David takes perfect aim at such diverse targets as overbearing mothers (the actress in this part is wonderful), dutiful sons, feckless sitcom stars, brain surgeons (who shouldn't fiddle around with testicles), and homeless people. I can see why this film was a flop at the box-office. Larry David is an acquired taste and better suited to a niche audience on cable. But if you like anything else he's done, you shouldn't miss this overlooked little beauty.

Horrid, AVOID!

[chris377 · 1/10 · 25 March 2000]

Larry David, who created "Seinfeld" has concocted a painfully unfunny comedy. Craig Bierko and Steven Weber each imitate characters from "Seinfeld" with very poor results. The premise itself seems to be ripped from a storyline from the show. Poor dialog, story, acting, and execution. JUST PLAIN BAD!

like a bad two hour episode of Seinfeld

[nomo057 · 10 March 2003]

For all of the good things i had heard about this movie, i was very disappointed. This movie was nothing more than an extention of Seinfeld, which was co-created and written by Larry David. There are conversations about hotel sex and Craig Beirko reminded me of George with his constantly reminding everyone that a doctor didn't hold a door for him. Even the parody of "Friends", wasn't funny. Larry David is a smart and witty guy, but this movie was just a miss.

If you have watched Seinfeld then you've already seen this movie.

[mooro612 · 1/10 · 26 March 2013]

What a waste of time. Do not watch this movie if you have watched Seinfeld or Curb Your Enthusiasm. You have already seen it. It is full of the same jokes, the same sight gags and the same comedic premises. It was a waste of two hours. Larry David is a very funny man but he obviously ran out of material a long time ago. He is rehashing old ideas, familiar scenes and retelling old jokes. You can tell he directed it very early on when both main characters act in exactly the same manner as George in Seinfeld or Larry himself would in Curb Your Enthusiasm. You can almost picture him telling the actors this is how I want you to play this scene. The auntie is also just a rehash of every Jewish mother in all his works. It is the same character, and a racial stereo type as well. The way he uses black characters is nothing short of racist, but we already knew this from Season 1 Episode 9 of Curb Your Enthusiasm, and before that ten years of Seinfeld. In short it is full of misunderstandings, slight misses of important phone calls and gross over reactions to minor irritants. When the elevator scene came around late in the movie, I couldn't take it any more. How many times have we seen the exact same scene? Utter rubbish!

It's not ENTIRELY awful...

[London-6 · 3/10 · 12 October 1999]

The beginning (well, the entire first half, really) of this movie was terrible. The plot was lacking, the dialogue was worse, and the music was annoying. The only good thing about it was the fact that it starred Steven Weber and Craig Bierko. I only continued to watch it because I didn't want to pay three dollars to rent a movie and not see the whole thing. Finally, about an hour into the movie, it actually became fairly good. The music was still there, but the script was a whole lot better. My advice to anyone wishing to see it is to grin and bear it for the first hour or so until it gets interesting.

Tart and tricky

[StevePulaski · 5/10 · 6 November 2011]

Sour Grapes has a certain appeal for Larry David fans like myself, but ultimately, it's too long and overdone. This is a perfect example of eclectic humor where for every one person who finds a certain event funny there are ten people who are appalled or left scratching their head.

This isn't bad, and it serves as a precursor to writer and director Larry David's new hit show Curb Your Enthusiasm, currently finished with its eight season. The show began in 1999, and Sour Grapes was completed and released in 1998. It bares a striking resemblance in some cases, and the way some scenes end with an awkward conversation or a random event occurring now seem like it was hinting at what Larry David would find success with later in his career. It's an interesting little setup, but not executed well enough.

What makes Curb Your Enthusiasm work so well? I think it's the character of Larry and his bizarre situations, the highly relatable quality of him that many people find in themselves, and the fact that the character himself is so open with discussing random, off the wall situations. It's a unique and daring show that should be lucky it clicks so well with audiences. But it's not everyone's humor, and neither is Sour Grapes. Maybe if Larry David waited a little while longer, worked on Curb for a few seasons, and made a made a bigger name for himself this film would've been more understood and a bit more of a success. Sadly, we'll have to give it the time period it was conducted in.

The story follows around two cousins named Evan and Ritchie (Weber and Bierko). Both of them and their spouses go to Atlantic City for the weekend. The men decide to play the slots. Ritchie asks to borrow two quarters after Evan told him to be eligible to win the jackpot you must put in at least three quarters. Ritchie does and boom, wins the jackpot of $436,214.50. How did I remember that? Because you'll hear that number more times in this film than any other number regardless of amount or digits in any film probably in your life.

Evan believes he is entitled to at least half of Ritchie's earnings, but Ritchie believes he only owes Evan the two quarters and nothing more. As you would imagine, the money comes between the two cousins and they bicker like little kids. I admire the film for at least setting up a plausible quibble that will likely have a typical person siding with one of the main characters. Personally, I'm middle of the road having sympathy with Evan believing he entitled to a small portion of the money since he contributed to the win. No more than maybe a fourth of the money should be given to him, but after all, it truly is the gesture that counts.

Trying to settle ends, Evan buys Ritchie a jogging suit for his birthday. Ritchie gives the jogging suit to a bum. Evan sees that the weasel gave the jogging suit away on his ride home. So to get even, when Ritchie goes home after a visit from the doctor, Evan. Evan calls him up and says that he has a rare form of Cancer with only a few months to live. Ritchie, who lives with his mom, worries that his mom won't be able to go on without him and thus sets up a plan for the bum to kill his mother.

Alas, his plan backfires, and now his mother is in the hospital and he is informed that the Cancer call was just a joke. Now both of the men are in hot water and we are supposed to laugh at both of their miseries. I took longer to explain the plot than I usually do, since I believe a review should be more about the thoughts of the person writing rather than solely the plot of the story. But when it comes to Larry David, in order to explain the film, you have to explain almost the whole thing while dodging spoilers. If I'm trying to mention a funny part in Curb to someone, I have to literally tell them the whole episode's synopsis in order for them to effectively get the joke. It's because much of the humor happens because it was the result of a trigger effect caused by the characters. It's a fun and unique way of humor.

This all feels like a dull pilot for a sitcom destined to have half a first season, and since David was also working with Jerry Seinfeld on Seinfeld at the time of this, this could've been a rejected episode idea David wanted to pursue. However, the conflict could've been resulted if the characters had an honest talk with one another instead of acting merely on impulse and present emotions.

The funniest scenes exist not with Weber and Bierko, but with the group of bums who have numerous and far too quick lines of dialog. Some of the funniest characters are severely underwritten in a Larry David picture? No way.

Sour Grapes is cute, but not very well done. It occupies way too much time and leaves way too little accomplished. It becomes not a comedy, but a very long setup that grows weary when blown out of proportion. The two leads are cute, but not memorable. The script isn't sour, but far from sweet. And the directing is of second rate quality. Larry David is a writing wizard, and it is shown here. But he works better when he has a strict time limit, like with his two successful sitcoms, rather than a free range film that isn't time sensitive. It's a curious piece of history for a man so colorful, but brings little to light other than David's writing abilities and his surefire way to create a successful trigger effect in his stories.