Lionsgate | Release Date: December 14, 2012
8.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 125 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
92
Mixed:
27
Negative:
6
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characteres (5000 max)
6
TVJerryFeb 4, 2013
The film starts as Al Pacino gets out of prison after 28 years. He's met by his best friend, Christopher Walken, and they spend one wild night before it's Walken's job to kill Pacino. Sure, the characters have names, but it doesn't matter.The film starts as Al Pacino gets out of prison after 28 years. He's met by his best friend, Christopher Walken, and they spend one wild night before it's Walken's job to kill Pacino. Sure, the characters have names, but it doesn't matter. This is an indulgent acting workout for the two leads (plus Alan Arkin in a funny smaller role). The dialogue is forgettable, the situations strain credibility and there's too much chatter. If you enjoy watching these actors indulge themselves, you'll be in heaven. Otherwise, sit it out. Collapse
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
geedupMay 7, 2013
Not even Pacino and/or Walken could save the slow witted, uninspired writing of this movie. And that is saying enough. But i need to write a few more letters to submit this.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
cameronmorewoodAug 3, 2013
Al Pacino, Christopher Walken, and Alan Arkin are such fantastic actors, that they can turn subpar material into a half-way decent movie. These guys could probably make a Michael Bay flick interesting.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
oblique15Oct 8, 2013
It was interesting, but at times I found myself thinking about other things witch is never a good sign.Don`t go into this movie thinking about action, cause it has very little of it. It`s more about a couple friends coming together after 28It was interesting, but at times I found myself thinking about other things witch is never a good sign.Don`t go into this movie thinking about action, cause it has very little of it. It`s more about a couple friends coming together after 28 years of Al Pacino's character being released from prison. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
MeritCobaApr 27, 2016
Old actors never die, I guess. Walken and Pacino play two old dishrevelled criminals at the end of their lives. Their careers in crime did not garner them much in the end, it got Pacino 28 years in prison and Walken a crummy small apartmentOld actors never die, I guess. Walken and Pacino play two old dishrevelled criminals at the end of their lives. Their careers in crime did not garner them much in the end, it got Pacino 28 years in prison and Walken a crummy small apartment with cable television as its prime assets. Walken picks up Pacino from prison upon his release, but friendship isn't the sole motiv.
There isn't much conveyd in the movie. There are a few knots to untie and perhaps the most touching is the relation between Walken and his granddaughter, which is the only part in the story I liked. Otherwise the story is a dud that fails to explore such things as their lives of crime and what it got them but prefers to opt for silly scenes in which the oldsters take on thugs three time their numbers and at least hakf their age,These were gangsters we are told, but nice ones for they even help out old women cross the street.. So they help out a pretty lassie who has been maltreated by the gang that put her in the trunk of the car Pacino and Walken stole.
The only reason to watch this movie would be to see two old seasoned actors of name have a last go at it. It isn't On golden pond material really and mostly tacky because the script just doesn't provide them with anything to work with. it is nothing to remember these actors from.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
jcasetnlJul 27, 2013
Borderline embarrassing. This is the latest in the "we old-timers can still hack it" genre, but squarely in the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull pile of evidence to the contrary.

This is the kind of movie you get when a nobody director
Borderline embarrassing. This is the latest in the "we old-timers can still hack it" genre, but squarely in the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull pile of evidence to the contrary.

This is the kind of movie you get when a nobody director (Fisher Stevens, the bad guy from Hackers) gets legendary talent that's passed its prime. The actors call the shots and then go back to their trailers, and no one who wants to keep working in film says anything negative. Most of the supporting cast just walks around with that "I got to be in a film with Al Pacino" goofy grin.

I can honestly say I'd probably prefer to watch Hackers again.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Kevbo85Jul 14, 2013
There is a definite feeling of talent being wrung out while watching Stand Up Guys, a lingering sense that the cast is the only thing provided for appeal. The story itself is fine, while certainly generic by way of repetition (how manyThere is a definite feeling of talent being wrung out while watching Stand Up Guys, a lingering sense that the cast is the only thing provided for appeal. The story itself is fine, while certainly generic by way of repetition (how many gangster movies are we given on a yearly basis, after all?). The angle of senior, retired gangsters isn't original, but it is almost refreshing regardless. No, where this film falls flat is in matching the talent with scenes and dialog that match their abilities. The plot doesn't thicken, it grows increasingly thin as the minutes tick by. By the end, it is a sad state of affairs that one simply doesn't care what is going to happen...only that it happens sometime soon. No doubt, Christopher Walken and Al Pacino work well together. Mr. Walken's ability to gel with seemingly any actor or actress is almost supernatural, so it's no surprise that even despite the bland one-liners and compulsory (perhaps even unscripted) banter between his character and that of Pacino works despite the writing staff's best efforts to the contrary. Minor parts are also well casted, and well acted, but nowhere does the screenplay manage to come to life regardless of who is on camera. The rare action sequences are well done, no doubt, but almost feel forced under the weight of every other uninteresting moment.

Still, my strictly average score comes from the simple fact that, as actors, Pacino and Walken are two of my favorites. They also share a common thread throughout their respective careers of choosing seemingly unfitting or unpolished roles to take up, relative to their abilities. When each shines, they do so in a way that makes one great film justify a handful of those such as Stand Up Guys.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
DCEdmondsNov 13, 2014
"Stand Up Guys" 10 Scale Rating: 4.0 (Bad) ...

The Good: As expected getting Pacino, Walken, and Arkin together makes for solid acting performances and great banter. The fish out of water angle in regard to gangsters trying to cope with
"Stand Up Guys" 10 Scale Rating: 4.0 (Bad) ...

The Good: As expected getting Pacino, Walken, and Arkin together makes for solid acting performances and great banter. The fish out of water angle in regard to gangsters trying to cope with the fact that time has passed them by works. Chuckle-worthy at times.

The Bad: Sort of pointless and a little hollow, which doesn't help a buddy movie like this one. The ending leaves something to be desired and felt more than a little rushed. A mostly forgettable and below average film.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews