X
- 2012
- R
- Lionsgate Films
- 1 h 35 m
- 2012
- R
- Lionsgate Films
- 1 h 35 m
Summary A pair of aging con men try to get the old gang back together for one last hurrah before one of the guys takes his last assignment -- to kill his comrade.
Directed By: Fisher Stevens
Written By: Noah Haidle
- 2012
- R
- Lionsgate Films
- 1 h 35 m
- 2012
- R
- Lionsgate Films
- 1 h 35 m
Stand Up Guys
41
7.9
Where to Watch
Summary A pair of aging con men try to get the old gang back together for one last hurrah before one of the guys takes his last assignment -- to kill his comrade.
Directed By: Fisher Stevens
Written By: Noah Haidle
Where to Watch
Top Cast
Metascore
Mixed or Average
Based on 32 Critic Reviews
41
22% Positive
7 Reviews
7 Reviews
28% Mixed
9 Reviews
9 Reviews
50% Negative
16 Reviews
16 Reviews
Metascore
Mixed or Average
Based on 32 Critic Reviews
41
22% Positive
7 Reviews
7 Reviews
28% Mixed
9 Reviews
9 Reviews
50% Negative
16 Reviews
16 Reviews
The thing most people will take away from Stand Up Guys is that it contains Al Pacino's best performance in years. So if you don't think Al Pacino still has it in him, this is a welcome chance to be proved wrong. But here's something interesting. Stand Up Guys also contains Christopher Walken's best performance in years. In addition, the film is extraordinarily well cast, and the acting, even in the smaller roles, is more than noteworthy.
Some actors don't need top-shelf material. Just the pleasure of their company is enough. And so Al Pacino, Christopher Walken and Alan Arkin turn the insubstantial Stand Up Guys into solid entertainment.
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 141 User Ratings
7.9
71% Positive
100 Ratings
100 Ratings
24% Mixed
34 Ratings
34 Ratings
5% Negative
7 Ratings
7 Ratings
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 141 User Ratings
7.9
71% Positive
100 Ratings
100 Ratings
24% Mixed
34 Ratings
34 Ratings
5% Negative
7 Ratings
7 Ratings
This was a classy movie with wonderful acting. It was touching and wickedly funny, but not for very young children, prudes, or people who expect action movies to contain only car chases, explosions and shooting. (Spoiler: It contains dialogue and sardonic humor.) If you liked Seven Psychopaths or In Bruges, you will absolutely love Stand Up Guys!
Report
I really, really loved this movie, all the more so because many of the critics had me expecting a piece of crap. Wow, talk about losing faith in these "experts" on film. Really puzzled as to why it was so panned. Can't help but believe some ageism is at work: wrinkly old guys are not supposed to be going to bed with young hookers or beating up young studs. Oh yeah, an Asian store clerk gets punched by Pacino's character so I guess this got the PC brigade riled up). Its a movie for Christ's sake. One critic even said it lacked "plausibility." Earth to critic: this wasn't a documentary. Go see it; you'll love it, especially if you grew up with these guys on the screen like I have.
Report
While the action is brisk, the film never feels in a hurry. Walken and Pacino amble through their paces. Arkin ups the adrenaline any time he's around, and he is not around quite enough.
It's been a long time since a movie wasted as much talent as Stand Up Guys, a film that aims to be a geezer "Goodfellas" but whose execution is a misfire.
Stevens wants to honor the living legends who have miraculously agreed to appear in his movie, but after spending a full hour treating their characters like cartoons, the about-face into heartfelt slop lacks the necessary gravitas.
Arkin in particular can barely hide his lack of enthusiasm for the material. Some of the looks he shoots his co-stars appear to contain a secret code of some kind, deciphered as: 'Well, at least I'm in 'Argo.'"
This moronically unfunny gangster comedy fluctuates wildly between the lowest-of-low humor and pity-the-aged-man pathos, and offers further evidence that the best days are behind its iconic cast members.
Stand Up Guys is even better than I thought it would be going in. It was phenomenal! I am a huge fan for the more slower paced type of films, and I'm just 18. Movies these days feel rushed: both on screen and the production of them. This will go into my short list of favorites for the best films released in 2012. I stayed away from it early on only because of the rating. But I guess, what drew my attention was the poster for it. Now I wasn't "judging the book by its cover"; it simply reminded me of a scene in A Clockwork Orange. So naturally, I was hooked!
Report
It was interesting, but at times I found myself thinking about other things witch is never a good ****`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.
Report
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.
Report
Al Pacino won an Oscar in 1992, Christopher Walken in 1978 while Alan Arkin received his in 2006. All 3 have been well financially rewarded, and prize awarded, for their many years of fine performances but it has been awhile since any of them have had a major hit. Being a fan of Pacino’s since 1969 when I saw him on stage, in “Does a Tiger Wear a Necktie”, and in film, in “The Panic In Needle Park” in 1971, I have gone to every current movie of his hoping that it would be the one to put him back on top.
“Stand Up Guys” is more of an actors class exercise than a film with each actor playing characters they have played before but as if given a signal to ‘go for it’. As the movie starts Pacino is being released from prison after serving 28 years taking the fall for his gang where a mob boss’s son was killed. Walken picks him up and it isn’t long before both know that he is suppose to kill Pacino. One of the first stops is a brothel where Pacino isn’t able to perform so they leave, break into a pharmacy and steal some drugs along with Viagra which he takes a handful of and after a raunchy scene or two they have to go to the hospital. At the hospital they meet a nurse, played by Julianna Margulies, who just happens to be the daughter of the third member of their gang, Arkin, who they find is in a nursing home. Yes they break him out and go on a wild race but first stopping back at thebrothel for an item on his bucket list.
Walken is suppose to kill Pacino before 10 AM in the morning but first they help a woman who has been **** get revenge, Pacino eats a surf and turf dinner with a root beer float, comes back to the same restaurant in the early morning to have 2 steaks, waffles and a shake. Oh, by the way, there is a reason they keep on coming to this restaurant.
There really doesn’t seem to be much sense in the screenplay by Noah Haidle or the direction of Fisher Stevens. It is hard to place when, or where, this all takes place as there isn’t a cellphone or computer in sight no plus when was the last time you saw a pay phone in a restaurant? At the same time they steal a car that doesn’t need a ignition key to start.
Actors of this caliber are always a joy just to watch even if it looks like an Actors Studio class but it seems Hollywood and Independent films are having a problem with the old actors and getting stories worth their talents.
By the way it is time for Pacino to clean up and doing something with his face and head hair!
Report
This is a comedy film, with aspects of crime drama interspersed and containing themes including cons and revenge. This film was rather underwhelming when it first started - it appeared to consist primarily of (of course) a bunch of cocky ageing guys talking about things, how things were but not a whole lot actually happening. It definitely has a seediness to it, with a 'house of ill repute' featuring quite early on. Some of the scenarios the characters find themselves in are amusing, if not a bit potentially cringe-y. I think its fair to say that these ageing criminals have become somewhat bumbling in their more senior years, although they clearly do still have a rebellious side to them and still enjoy having a bit of fun. Seeing how some people respond to their exaggerated advances is relatively amusing, although a fair bit predictable. There are some pretty decent one-liners but the plot, for the most part, felt a bit underwhelming.
It is very much a character driven film, with a frustratingly slow plot pace. I felt that it came across as a bit self indulgent, probably due to the 3 main a-list actors seeming to reminisce about things and not really doing a whole lot, for the first half an hour or so in any case.
Cast wise, Val spends most of the time on screen and he is played by Al Pacino. Obviously, he is more well known for his appearances in crime drama films. This film very much comes across as a comedy, moreso than a crime thriller/drama. He did seem, to me, a bit out of place in this film. Meanwhile, Doc is played by Christopher Walken and he also appears on screen a lot, as one of Vals better friends. Walken is quite well known for his somewhat eccentric comedic roles and I felt he suited his role in this film quite well. Other cast members include Alan Arkin as Hirsch, Julianna Margulies as Nina Hirsch and Mark Margolis as Claphands (yes, you read it right!).
I get the feeling that the main cast are somehow trying to prove that they can have a bit of a laugh at themselves and don't take themselves too seriously but I didn't feel like it quite worked properly for a general audience. If the script was beefed up a bit and it was a little more substantial, with more action based scenes and a stronger plot, then I think this could have been a lot better. As it is, its fairly watchable and there are some amusing moments but overall, the main word to come to mind in relation to this specific film is dull - other such words being bland and mildly depressing. It felt a bit like they were trying too hard.
Content wise, the film contains sex references and innuendos, with some scenes being set in a brothel - nothing especially graphic is shown, with no full frontal nudity. There is some violence, although nothing particuarly explicit and there are numerous profanities. Women are effectively objectified in various scenes, due to the plot. One character is shown snorting drugs as well as others shown smoking and drinking but otherwise there's little likely to offend. The film has been given a 15 rating due to this content.
Unsurprisingly, no, I wouldn't recommend this film. It does feature a decent cast but the script seemed quite lacking, the plot pace is frustratingly slow and it just seemed a bit too bland overall.
Report
Production Company
Lionsgate Films,
Sidney Kimmel Entertainment,
Lakeshore Entertainment
Release Date Dec 14, 2012
Duration 1 h 35 m
Rating R
Tagline They don't make 'em like they used to.
Awards
Golden Globes, USA
• 1 Nomination
