Joe Mulholland, Head of Production at a Hollywood studio, makes a rather fool-hardy promise to a dying friend. He undertakes to make a major movie using the title - if not the content - of a... Read allJoe Mulholland, Head of Production at a Hollywood studio, makes a rather fool-hardy promise to a dying friend. He undertakes to make a major movie using the title - if not the content - of a best-selling sex manual "Love in Sex". Enlisting the help of depressed screenwriter Herb ... Read allJoe Mulholland, Head of Production at a Hollywood studio, makes a rather fool-hardy promise to a dying friend. He undertakes to make a major movie using the title - if not the content - of a best-selling sex manual "Love in Sex". Enlisting the help of depressed screenwriter Herb Derman and rather off-centre director Sid Spokane to try and come up with an idea or two, ... Read all
- Robin
- (as Peter Marc)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
The story is about a film project whose pedigree is odd. On a friend's deathbed, Joe (Walter Matthau) promises to make a movie using the same title as a famous sex book! The rest of the story is about the process...where the producers, director and writer all hash out what the film will be. Sadly, apart from the title, there's really not much more to their film.
Again and again, I kept hoping this movie would get better and funnier. It seemed like the folks who MADE the film thought it was clever....but it never translated to the audience and is therefore a directionless and mostly unfunny comedy with some good acting.
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.
Lack of love, lack of communication is a perfect synopsis of how many relationships turn out to be in real life, but which isnt often shown in Hollywood movies. For good reason: people dont like to watch mondane, depressing stories in movies, because they get to experience that in everyday life, every hour of the day.
But that's the strength of Charles Grodin' sense of (sarcastic) humor, he is capable of making ordinary and depressing situations seem funny.
The bad; Charles Grodin mentioned on David Leterman that Movers and Shakers is not a slapstick movie, but that's it's weak point: it kinda is slapstick at moments. An even more serious approach would have increased the comedy effect.
I loved the Charles Grodin scenes though and Walther Matthau is always a charm to watch, but many of the other supporting actors were OVERacting, although just a bit, but I never like it when comedy actors dont take their roles seriously.
Something is less funny to me, when it is SUPPOSE to be funny, like Steve Martin is acting so plain silly that it smothers the comedy effect.
This movie was cheaply made, because no one in Hollywood wanted to invest in a movie that was attacking Hollywood itself. So Charles Grodin put his own money in it and a lot of the actors took a paycut because they were befriended with Grodin and wanted to see this picture being made.
In the end I would not recommend this movie, but it might be of interest for the true fans of this particular dry and sarcastic humor of Charles Grodin. I'll still rate it 7 stars because I am such a fan of Charles Grodin as well...(for non Charles Grodin fans I would rate it a 6).
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaCharles Grodin got some of his actors friends involved in trying to pitch the film. Himself, Steve Martin, Gilda Radner, Penny Marshall and Tyne Daly all agreed to work for the least amount of money the union allowed.did so without even reading the script. When the film was finally green-lit, Grodin received no salary for writing or producing the film, only the minimum for working five weeks as an actor: about five thousand dollars for two years of work (seven years in total since the inception of the project).
- GoofsThe huge prop dinosaur that is mounted on the lawn of the movie studio lot changes position in respect to nearby buildings several times throughout the film.
- How long is Movers & Shakers?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Dreamers
- Filming locations
- California, USA(Location.)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $372,438
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $9,580
- May 5, 1985
- Gross worldwide
- $372,438
Contribute to this page
