However, for all the comic ingenuousness of the opening scene, Quick Change begins to slowly unravel as the trio attempt to leave New York City and encounter more and more absurd situations that gradually escalate to unrealistic proportions. What makes these circumstances nonsensical is the ease that Murray 's character is able to conveniently resolve them. The filmmakers should have stuck to showing New York City with its annoying denizens and inhabitants that worked so well in the first third of the picture. It is not that the rest of the film is bad necessarily, it is just that it comes as a let down after such an excellent beginning.
There's such a sense of incompleteness about a movie: You feel it as an actor delivering funny lines, and you feel it especially as a director: You tell the joke in June of 1988, and you have to wait two years to get the laugh. It's 1990, and I'm still waiting for the laugh.
This feeling is what may have motivated Murray to take more control on Quick Change. In addition to starring, he also co-produced and co-directed (screenwriter Howard Franklin also co-directed) the movie.
Where his contemporaries like Steve Martin and Chevy Chase have softened their edge over time (see Father of the Bride and Cops and Robbersons respectively), Murray seems to get more and more acerbic with every film. He had not been that good since he did Ghostbusters way back in 1984.
The rest of the cast supports Murray 's antics brilliantly. Geena Davis showed with Beetlejuice (1988) that she had the capacity to be a wonderful comedic actor and she proves it once again as Murray 's lover and partner in crime who also harbors a secret that threatens to consume her. Randy Quaid is at his hysterical best during the first third of the film, but his dumb guy shtick soon gets tiresome. It seems that the National Lampoon's Vacation films threaten to forever typecast him as a lunkhead. I hope for his sake that this is not the case. This leaves Jason Robards to play the straight man of the picture. He fills these shoes admirably as the detective who, like Murray 's character, is tired of New York City and all of its eccentricities. But something, perhaps a sense of duty, keeps him going and determined to catch the robbers if it is the last thing he ever does.
The constant supply of comical cameos keeps the rest of the film watchable. The always entertaining Phil Hartman appears as an anxiety-ridden Yuppie who holds the trio at gunpoint when he mistakenly thinks that they are breaking into his new apartment. The scene is a great battle of talents as he and Murray square off against each other. Tony Shalhoub makes an appearance as a hopelessly incoherent foreign taxi cab driver who delays the robbers from escaping the city. Shalhoub demonstrated once again that his comedic talents were being wasted on the Wings TV show and that his strengths lie in role like this one and his performance as a jaded Hollywood producer in Barton Fink (1991).
Bill Murray had high hopes for Quick Change. As he said in an interview, "everyone will enjoy this movie. But New Yorkers will enjoy it especially because they know how bad their city really is." Sadly, the film disappeared rather quickly upon its release. Perhaps its cynical view of New York City was too much for mainstream tastes. It is too bad because this is quite an entertaining film that only suffers from a weak ending, but is also filled with exceptional performances — especially that of Murray's who is finally given some room to showcase his comedic talents — something that he was not able to do at that time (although, Scrooged featured a tour-de-force performance by Murray). Watching Quick Change reminds one of his vintage roles in the aforementioned Ghostbusters and Stripes (1981), and shows that he has a legitimate shot at becoming a director. Let's hope his next directorial effort is without a chaperon.
Just finally caught up with this one after all these years on an HD broadcast. I love these kinds of all-in-one-night movies--some of the best seem to take place in NY. Very entertaining although I did note some inconsistencies in tone and pacing, most likely due to the inexperience of novice directors Franklin and Murray.
ReplyDeleteDVD Savant mentions in his review that Jonathan Demme was the original director of the film, but pulled out at some point close to production (to work on SILENCE OF THE LAMBS?). Based on Demme's oeuvre, he is a good choice for the material and I can't help but think that his departure happened rather late in the process--Jack Gilpin, so good as a yuppie cohort of Jeff Daniels in SOMETHING WILD, is the obnoxious yuppie who bargains with his watch; Robards had previously appeared in Demme's MELVIN AND HOWARD as Howard Hughes and was later in Demme's PHILADELPHIA. A lot of the peripheral characters and details, the working class ones in particular, are reminiscent of Demme's work.
Ned Merrill:
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting. I did not know that Demme was originally attached but now that you mention it, it is the kinda film that he might have done. I'm curious to know how it might've turned out but I thought Murray and co. did a pretty decent job. As I said, the last third of the film feels week but I think that was more a script issue.
This is very interesting... really cool...enjoying it...
ReplyDeleteThank you very much...
___________________
Andrew
#1 Satellite Television Service Provider
This is very informative interesting site.Personally i like it.
ReplyDeleteTimeshare Resales
I can't help but think that his departure happened rather late in the process--Jack Gilpin, so good as a yuppie cohort of Jeff Daniels in SOMETHING WILD, is the obnoxious yuppie who bargains with his watch; Robards had previously appeared in Demme's MELVIN AND HOWARD as Howard Hughes and was later in Demme's PHILADELPHIA.
ReplyDeleteSan Diego MLS