When this 1983 Columbia comedy was made, American society was in a place of flux with an uneasiness and uncertainty about life and the future. The Cold War was old and wearing. The "sexual revolution" of the 1960s had since passed into history, but its tentacles were everywhere in society. Secularism was just becoming vogue in society if not yet in conversation. And political correctness was about to emerge. There seemed to be a malaise over what comes next. I thought about that malaise when reading the comments about this movie. Few others saw the satire or could appreciate the farce. Some thought it was just a funny movie. This film pokes fun at many of the social conditions of the time. It breaks ground on social commentary that was beginning to emerge as critique of some of the foibles of the American system and society. Some of those things in years ahead would become more agitating. We didn't know it then, but we do now, looking back. So, I'm somewhat surprised that so few people who have commented on "The Survivors" could see how it spoofed so much of what was going on and emerging. Much of the movie is devoted to the survivalist training and escapism by Robin Williams as Donald Quinelle. Closely connected to that is the effort of Walter Matthau's Sonny Paluso to keep from getting killed by a criminal, Jack Locke, played by Jerry Reed. But, feeding both of these subplots within this film are many nuances of things that don't seem right about society. Williams, Matthau and Reed all play their parts well, as do a few people in the supporting cast. The film has a good share of antics, especially by Donald. And the screenplay is filled with witty, farcical and outrageous lines. These and some of the early situations leading up to the survivalist confrontations are what build on the satire. But for some unnecessary profanity and occasional crassness, I would have this movie in my library of satire films. Before I give some sample lines of the humor, consider these few situations that spoof the culture of the time. After Sonny loses his gas station and is out of work, he can't draw unemployment relief while he looks for work. He tells the social worker he has paid into the unemployment insurance for 15 years as an employer, and asks rhetorically, why he can't receive any assistance when he has lost his job? The woman says, "You cannot be unemployed. You were an employer."The irony and political correctness spoof are so clear in this scene. The government employee is a Hindu woman who has a red jewel (bindi) on her forehead. She has an accent so she is a recent immigrant. Yet, she has a job and tells the native-born Sonny that there's no help for him. She tells him to go stand in another line, but Sonny protests. He stood in line six hours just to see her, and now she tells him to go stand in another line. He says, "You can't treat people like cattle. Oh, excuse me." She glares at him, and I laughed all the harder. Once more Sonny protests, and she sprays mace in his face. Of course, that wasn't funny.When Sonny and Donald take Jack Locke into the police station to turn him over, they're told to wait in line. The police are all busy and there's a line. No one pays attention to them, looks up, or listens to what they have to say. It's just, "get in line." The survivalist stuff is a poke at that type of social craze that reared its head a couple of times in the 20th century. And, Sonny's reticence to "get involved" or report a criminal is a jab at an attitude that was quite prominent in that time that further enabled small-time crooks and others to get by with thievery and other crimes. There were some other satirical jabs in places (i.e. Sonny's 16-year old daughter watching a porn video she got from a teacher). Here are some of my favorite lines from this film. Masked Jack Locke, robbing the café, "S--- man, you ain't got no money. What did they pay you in, food stamps? You oughta be robbing me."Donald is lying on the floor after being shot in the arm. He's frantic. Sonny says, "You're not going to die." Donald, "They always say that to people who are going to die."Donald's girlfriend, Doreen (played by Annie McEnroe), "Donald, I'm sure no one who matters watches the five o'clock news."Jack Locke, "I was raised a Southern Baptist and I place a high value on human life. $20,000 minimum."Donald, "This will be like skiing, except for the booby traps." Doreen, "I don't believe in surviving. I believe in living."Donald, on the phone to Jack, "You drive fast, oyster brain. Because the sooner you get here, the sooner there'll be one less wart on the ass of society."Jack tells his wife that he goes away at times because he's a professional killer. "So, I'm not out there committing adultery. I'm out there committing murder."Donald, after shooting a pop-up target that has a boom box, "Wes says to shoot the radios because without music they lose half their will to fight."Wes, "Welcome to the new Middle Ages."Donald, "What kind of man gives cigarettes to trees?" One has to see this scene for the full humor.

In THE SURVIVORS, Robin Williams and Walter Matthau team up to take on a professional hit-man, at least at first. This film actually makes fun of survivalists which, while relying heavily on stereotypes, is still quite funny. The story, though, is predicated on a series of coincidences which makes the whole thing seem set up to make a point. And while things never get preachy, there are a few moments that might have you rolling your eyes a bit, but then it returns to the laughs. Even though this is one of Robin Williams' lesser comedies, he and Walter Matthau make a fine comic team who play nicely off of the other. There isn't too much in the way of character building, but I didn't honestly expect too much of that in this type of movie. The pacing is pretty good, keeping things moving along at a nice clip, until the final act which was a bit bloated. It isn't until the final moments that a switch-a-roo of sorts is made in terms of who the villain is, and calculated to drive home the message of the film, that is, survivalists are all crazy, deluded gun nuts. While this might be true to an extent, this still doesn't excuse reframing the hit-man as just another victim of an "economy in the toilet" (to borrow a phrase from the film). This just seemed odd to me, and somewhat misguided. Still, the farcical nature of the film makes it hard to take seriously, but in the end I quite enjoyed it. Great? No, but it's a decent watch.

As I watched The Survivors, I couldn't help but wonder what was going through the mind of director Michael Ritchie when he was presented with the script. Outside of the enormous gaps in plot and development, he had to see some humor in it somewhere to cast two direct opposites of the comedy spectrum to helm this project. There had to be a mission or a reason in Ritchie's mind when he decided that Robin Williams, a fast-talking comedian that can sometimes be uncontrollable, and Walter Matthau, a slow-methodical comedian that appeals to the "every man", would be his key players. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall during this opening meeting because this little fly would have spoken up and mentioned that this pairing would doom the script, and possibly put a black mark on both of these actor's careers. I wouldn't just stop there, I would tear this film to pieces trying to get others to explain to me the subsequent ending and missing tone. The only element that I would be content with would be the casting of Jerry Reed, who honestly brought some humor and intelligence to this scarred film. The Survivors was not a film, but instead an attempt to allow two comedians the opportunity to express themselves coupled with heavy firepower. Nothing more, nothing less.Could somebody, anybody, please help me out with the story surrounding The Survivors? From the zigzag opening centered around the parrot and Robin Williams' job to the incident at Matthau's gas station (a plot point never mentioned or concluded), Ritchie spends no time developing anything. His choice of direction is simply to allow Williams to be as "zany" as possible and see how Matthau reacts to it. If it weren't for Jerry Reed this film would have been nearly an hour and a half of forced jokes, gunshots, and awkward moments. The story was pointless. In most instances I can find bits and pieces of a story which keeps my attention allowing me to be curious about how the ending will resolve itself. For there to be this resolution, there has to be a conflict. Ritchie attempts to create one with the entire "survival of the fittest" byline, but even that idea is never fully announced. I felt like a Ping-Pong ball in this film, constantly going back and forth between Williams and Matthau hoping that I would land on something that scored a point, but alas, this was the game that would never end. Ritchie even takes us into the wilderness in attempts to bring more laughs and eventually draw an ending, but again, nothing happens. Nothing is explained, nothing is developed, nothing is linear. Williams goes into the woods to be trained in survival, yet for the amount of time he was there it was as if he was unable to learn anything. Also, where did he get the funds to buy the house out in the woods? Then, without giving anything away, there was that pathetic ending. WHAT HAPPENED? I use big words there because there was not one iota of a conclusion. Enemies became friends, friends became enemies, and before words could be spoken the ending credits appeared.I would like to announce this here, but I believe Michael Ritchie could not even handle the simplest of tasks with this film. The direction was horrible because Ritchie could not control his actors. It was obvious as you watched Williams and Matthau on screen that there were getting no advice or pointers from the man behind the camera. Ritchie didn't stop Williams during his rants (which at times were never relevant to the film) and did not help Matthau react to the insanity that Williams was bringing to the table. What should have been the best part of this film was easily the most painful to watch. Williams and Matthau, in this critic's eye, possibly could be ranked as the WORST comic pairing in cinema. Matthau's form of comedy is completely, if not 100%, different to Williams' shenanigans. While in some film cases this would work to a movie's advantage, for The Survivors, it did not. There were no characters for these two comedians to enter into. I sat during the entire hour and a half watching Robin Williams be Robin Williams and the same for Walter Matthau. I could not see any semblance of a character between the two of them. Both seemed to jump from one trait to the next. Neither seemed to have a complete hold or knowledge of who they were attempting to portray. This is half due to the flimsy story, but mainly I place the blame on Ritchie. With Williams and Matthau at the helm, this had the beginnings of a hilarious possible gut-busting, laugh-out-loud comedy that would be a staple in the film community, but Ritchie, in my eyes, could not handle it. He relied to heavily on his actor's comic "personas" instead of actually building characters for them.Overall, this was a very sad excuse for a film. I have read some other reviews that speak highly of the comedy in this film while do speak similarly of the lacking story, but for me everything was broken. There were no characters, there was no direction, there was obviously no story, and our two central actors didn't work for their money, but just read through their lines and gave a measly 30% to the final product. The only plus I give this film is the accomplishment of Jerry Reed. He was worth watching. The scene between his wife and I was nearly close to perfection. I think it was the only time that I found myself chuckling through this entire film. Ritchie could not handle this film and in the end The Survivors is probably a film that neither Williams or Matthau wants to remember.Grade: ** out of *****

This movie does it all: entertains, sickens, confuses, enlightens, disappoints, enrages, delights... You get a young, burgeoning Robin Williams at the height of his cocaine abuse, a poorly-aged and dangerously arthritic Walter Matthau whose acting conjures past greatness ("Charade") and the effervescent Jerry Reed, at the peak of his career and in full, self-confident stride after the monumental success of the "Smokey" series and "Highballin" (won two awards at Cannes and a Gay and Lesbian Film Alliance Honor). Not sure why this movie is listed a comedy. I sob uncontrollably every time I watch it, which is nine times a week since 1996. Simply put, Reed's character "Jack" steals the show. His role would've been bigger but rumor has it that he made ridiculous demands while on set. Apparently, he had in his contract dodo-egg omelets at every meal and nobody on set can utter his name. Towards the end of filming, he attacked Robin William's publicist with a samurai sword. Needless to say, the man is our new Lord and this movie is his Testament....