Stand Up Guys

Lionsgate | Release Date: December 14, 2012

7.9	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 141 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

GreatMartinFeb 1, 2013

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 themAl 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 raped 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!… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

DawdlingPoetNov 28, 2021

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 cockyThis 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews