moonspinner55 Neil Simon's cantankerous comedy about old show-biz team of Lewis and Clark reuniting in the modern day for one more performance--and picking up right where they left off, by arguing--didn't quite work in 1975, despite lots of acclaim. Walter Matthau was ill-suited for the larger role of Willie Clark, though it did give us the return of George Burns as Al Lewis, for which he nabbed a Supporting Oscar. Simon has tweaked the material for this TV-made remake, peppering the dialogue exchanges with some modern references (which don't really work) and changing Clark's nephew to a niece (which does). Peter Falk plays Willie Clark this time, and though Falk isn't naturally a comedian (and his Jewish lapses into Yiddish), he holds his own with Simon's hit-or-miss rhythm and wrings some laughs out of the outrageous arguments. Woody Allen's performance as Al Lewis is even better; Allen doesn't bicker so much as search for logic in the illogical, and this coupled with some very funny lines results in a surprisingly successful bit of casting (who would've thought we'd ever see Woody Allen performing Neil Simon!). Sarah Jessica Parker is terrific as well playing Clark's level-headed relative and agent, hoping for a miracle in bringing these two together again--though sweetly resigned to the fact it may never happen. Good production values (except for some bad lighting), a smooth pace and a satisfying finish; this one is more enjoyable than the theatrical feature simply due to the casting. Falk and Allen would appear not to be convincing as a former comedy duo from the 1960s, and yet they nearly pull it off.

LatigoMeans I was so looking forward to seeing this remake/rewrite having missed it when it was originally broadcast. I so enjoyed the original with Burns and Matthau, and always wondered what the pairing of Falk and Allen would bring to the story. Alas, very little. Allen was better than OK, but Falk seemed totally miscast. This is strange as I find his work in comedies is usually very good. But as has been mentioned in other comments here, there was absolutely no chemistry between the two actors. I think the reason was Allen took his role to a newer place while keeping the basis of the relationship between his character and Falk's true to the story. He didn't play George Burns playing Lewis. He let his personality and comic delivery take over the role. Falk, on the other hand, didn't seem to rise above the Willy Clark as done by Walter Matthau. He didn't even seem to me to have ever been Allen's comic partner. Just not his role. Unfair to compare the two versions? Perhaps, but if one is going to try and redo what was done so well before, one has to expect the yardstick to be what it is.

jonnyplex The only reason I was unfortunate enough to see this version of "The Sunshine Boys" is because Netflix sent it to me by mistake, as I thought I was getting the 1975 film version. Boy, was I dismayed, but I gamely watched it anyway because the play is hilarious.You wouldn't know it based on this updated version. The update is one of the big reasons this version stinketh too much. In the original, Lewis and Clark were old vaudeville comics reunited to recreate their old act on a television variety show. Here, we must supposed they were sort of like Martin and Lewis on television or played Vegas...it's hard to figure out. What's worse is that in this version, we never get to see their "old act," as they've been hired to play supporting characters in a family film. Thus, we have no idea why these old guys are legends.I suppose it would be extremely difficult to stage any version of "The Sunshine Boys" without keeping it in its original time period, i.e. 1972. Let's face it: vaudeville caved in on itself in the 1930's. Anyone who was a star in vaudeville would not be alive today, or if they were they'd be in their early 100's (possibly late 80's or 90's if they were a child star).My point is that the original needs to be perpetuated, because if nothing else (aside from a look at the relationship of two performers who worked brilliantly together on stage but horribly offstage) it allows us to see a slice of Americana that is now gone - the crummy, cheap, gag-filled vaudeville act. This 1995 version shows us nothing.Al Lewis was beefed up for this version, possibly because Woody Allen was making a rare acting appearance in something not of his own doing. And Allen is an old associate of writer Neil Simon from the Golden Age of Television days. Regardless, Allen doesn't get to do much except exercise his particular brand of comic delivery (point with forefinger then jerk back thumb - repeat ad nauseam) in his added scenes showing his New Jersey retirement. Al Lewis is much more effective if we don't see him until well after Willie has kvetched about him, building up the suspense - - "will Al Lewis really be a monster?" and then a sweet old man walks in.Another wrong choice is to pad out the script with unnecessary characters (Allen's daughter, for instance) and to make Willie's nephew of the play his niece in this version. I suppose some wise guy said "Hey, when you update this show, we need more female roles. It's 1995!" Bottom line: please skip this version of the play. Please see the 1975 film. Not only will you get Walter Matthau as a hilarious old Jewish man but you'll see what is possibly George Burns's best screen performance next to "Going In Style" (at 80 - and having to hold his own against Matthau - Burns deserved his Oscar for the role).

rallen A delightful view into the lives of legends lost. It has heart and soul. Besides the lines being hilarious, it is funny just to look at Allen and Falk together.If you enjoy woody's acting and simon's writing then definitely check this one out.