Picking Up the Pieces (2000) User Reviews

Comic mystical concoction

[alanjj · 6/10 · 13 August 2003]

This is not mass pop entertainment, but a massive Bunuelian romp by a major director, with lots of name-brand, off-kilter stars. It has its highs and lows, but all-in-all it's an intriguing concoction. Just the feat of getting Woody Allen out of NY and into the desert to play a character named "Tex" is worth seeing. Throw in some great Woody Allen gags ("We Jews didn't intentionally kill Jesus, it was just a party that got out of hand"), a mad trio of investigators from the Vatican (Elliot Gould, Fran Drescher, Andy Dick), and a mayor played by Cheech Marin, and you've a pinata of surprises and fun. It's definitely worth capturing on your TiVo.

Beautifully Shot, not so beautiful otherwise

[Matt M. · 6/10 · 26 May 2000]

This movie was interesting. I love Woody, and the cinematography was quite, quite excellent, yet the film failed to get me involved. The script, although pretty original, ultimately failed because of its lack of structure. I would hasten to say (and I haven't checked yet) that whoever wrote this was a first timer.

The story of the miracle hand was suitable idea, yet I felt more could have been done with it. In addition, the direction (from a director I admire) was sloppy. Much of the acting (Fran Drescher???) seemed less then inspired, although Woody Allen was (and always is) very good comedically. Stone was ok in her brief appearance, and David Schwimmer, although HORRIBLY MISCAST as a priest, (could he be ANY more Jewish?) worked.

I think my major problem with the movie was a seeming lack of professionalism, which isn't to say it was bad by any strech of the imagination. Watching a movie like this, you sort of have to suspend your disbelief. Any attempt to take it seriously would ruin the movie (apparently much of the cast and crew didn't take the project seriously)

ANYWAY...tough call on this, but 6/10 is my vote~

A curio for Woody Allen fans

[gridoon2024 · 5/10 · 26 April 2013]

"Picking Up The Pieces" is an unusual project for Woody Allen to be involved with: it's one of the very few times in his career where he only stars in a movie without also having written and/or directed it, plus it's set in New Mexico, quite a few states away from his favorite city in the world, New York. He might seem like a fish out of water at first, but he does seem to have written a lot of his own dialogue (I'm assuming that because his lines are considerably funnier than anyone else's - "If the police find all these pieces they might suspect something" or "I confess I killed my wife - but I did it only once!"), and he sneaks in his usual ruminations about death and the afterlife as well. Only Woody could make the character he plays here so human, sympathetic, and funny. The rest of the cast, though distinguished and diverse, are simply not at his level, the direction is shapeless, and the story is thin. But I do appreciate the fact that this black comedy stays black to the end and does not play "nice" to win the audience's approval. ** out of 4.

A black comedic satire of religion

[gaynor.wild · 6 July 2000]

"Picking Up the Pieces" is a black comedy involving a gruesome murder, but without explicit violence. It's darkly satiric comments on religion are the centerpiece, with a powerfully expressive focus in the corpse's hand itself. Alfonso Arau has made a small gem of a movie, not to everyone's taste, but hilarious to many. The acting is quite good throughout. Kiefer Sutherland, as the villainous, red-neck cop perhaps overdoes it a bit, but it is satire. David Schwimmer, as a small-town New Mexican priest in love with a local prostitute and whose church is in financial trouble, is exceptionally good. And Sharon Stone (unrecognizable as the super-promiscuous wife of Woody Allen's butcher) is excellent as a woman whose final victimhood allows her redemption from a life of sin.

Three and a half Stars. Check it out

One of the cheesiest movies ever made -- and not in a camp way!

[klg19 · 1/10 · 9 June 2000]

I watched this movie on Cinemax in stunned silence. It contains some of the most sophomoric writing and cheapest sight gags one can imagine outside of a frat-house revue. Throughout the film, both Woody Allen and Sharon Stone keep fixed and glazed grins on their faces, as if they can hardly believe they're saying these horrible lines. That this cast and this director would produce this travesty passes all understanding.

The problem isn't the subject matter (hey, I'm all for irreverent treatment of organized religion!), it's that the plotting and the execution leave you wishing you'd spent the last two hours jabbing straight pins into the back of your hand. Or, perhaps, your eyes.

It is a film without charm, without wit, without subtlety, without surprise. Your move.

Woody's worst

[jtpaladin · 1/10 · 24 February 2003]

I love Woody Allen's films. But even if I didn't expect to see a Woody Allen film, this would be bad from all perspectives. There was very little about this film that was amusing or funny. It was just stupid. I don't usually define a movie as being "stupid" but this film leaves me so speechless that I have very little to say about it.

There is no redeeming value to this film at all. Yes, some people complain that it's insulting to the Catholic Church but that is the least of its' problems. The storyline, script, acting, setting, sub-plots, etc. have no merit what-so-ever. It's just boring from start to finish.

Please, please don't waste your time viewing this film because you'll be dumber for having watched it.

Mind-bogglingly lame offering.

[barnabyrudge · 1/10 · 18 February 2006]

Woody Allen's output of late has undoubtedly been poorer than his works of genius from the 70s and 80s. But Picking Up The Pieces marks an absolute low-point for Woody the actor (as he didn't direct it - Alfonso Arau did - he at least doesn't have to shoulder the blame in THAT department). Arau's religious comedy is insulting on several levels, most notably in its tasteless spoofing of Catholicism and also in its totally ludicrous storyline, which narrates magical, fantastical events but doesn't have the correct tone for a magical, fantastical film. How so many good actors were lured into this debacle is hard to say. They must all look back on this ill-advised foray with a great deal of shame.

Butcher Tex Cowley (Woody Allen) kills and dismembers his adulterous wife Candy (Sharon Stone). He drives out into the New Mexico wilderness and buries her various body parts, before returning to his trailer in Texas. Unknown to Tex, one of Candy's severed hands fell from his truck during his journey to her burial spot. A blind old woman trips over the hand and miraculously regains her sight; believing the hand to be a miraculous gift - perhaps even the hand of the Holy Virgin - she takes it back to her village El Nino. Here, the local church is run by disillusioned priest Leo Jerome (David Schwimmer) who is preparing to quit his faith in order to be with the beautiful village hooker Desi (Maria Grazi Cucinotta). With the arrival of the severed hand, other villagers suddenly ask for - and are granted - personal miracles. Leo suddenly has to face up to the fact that God and faith may be for real. Meanwhile, the unscrupulous town mayor Machado (Cheech Marin) senses an opportunity to transform his run-down border village into a tourist trap, using the hand to lure in thousands of miracle-seeking pilgrims and holiday-makers. But the hand also attracts the attention of psycho-cop Bobo (Kiefer Sutherland). Bobo was one of Candy's many lovers, and he is determined to avenge her death by retrieving the hand and using it as forensic evidence to put Tex in the electric chair.

Virtually nothing works in this film. The script is an unclear, unfocused mess; the acting is indifferent; the jokes are alternately unfunny and offensive; the pacing is dull....in fact, the whole film seems to spit in the viewer's face, such is the contempt with which the audience is treated. Whether you take the film as a spoof, a black comedy or an anti-Catholic satire, it fails miserably. In fact, it fails UTTERLY, and may well be one of the worst films of the 21st Century thus far. If it's a toss-up between watching Picking Up The Pieces again or bathing in a cess-pool, I'll be opting for the latter every time.

Let's point the finger, shall we?

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 2 April 2006]

"Picking Up the Pieces" is one of those nonsense stories that gets morphed into something really neat. In this case, Sheriff Tex Cowley (Woody Allen) tries to bury the body of his wife, but accidentally leaves her hand above the ground. I should identify that her hand has the middle finger sticking out. When a blind woman stumbles upon the hand, she regains her vision, and then the hand starts performing all sorts of miracles.

Yes, it's a totally outlandish idea, but they do some really funny stuff with it. I especially liked the scene with "Ortiz". One might say that this movie looks at the interconnectedness of everything. Maybe. But overall, I'd say that it's an excuse to have fun. And it sure is something to see Woody Allen in a small Texas town. Also starring Sharon Stone, Cheech Marin, David Schwimmer, Maria Grazia Cucinotta, and Kiefer Sutherland.

Terrible film

[vleighton · 1/10 · 26 February 2006]

I cannot think of a worse film. The bad acting was only surpassed by the bad script and the bad production work. Throughout, I kept thinking, was Woody that desperate for money? The trailers at the beginning hinted that there is an entire genre devoted to has-been actors hard up for cash. They insist on ten lines in this review, so I am typing away to fill up space. What more is there to say? There are great films in the world, like Loves of a Blonde by Forman or even great Woody Allen films like Annie Hall and Sleeper. I only rented this because of Woody's name, and for that, he earned his pay. Other great movies: The Third Man, Dr. Strangelove, Life of Brian, Groundhog's Day. Three more lines to go. Good movies: What about Bob? Anything by Hitchcock. Even a Mary Kate and Ashley movie, which as a father of young girls I ended up watching, is better than this thing, their best being "Our lips are sealed."

For a comedy, it's pretty serious!

[rezmo-mdb · 7/10 · 10 September 2003]

Maybe it's just the mood I'm in but after a failed first attempt at viewing this film (lasted about 10 minutes) I just finished seeing the "hole" thing and thought "what a great WA film ala the pre-serious Woody phase that he didn't write! This film was obviously not done with the BIG audience in mind, but out of love for the absurd to a sublime degree. Over the top puns abound in a truly profound way. Like for instance, "You can save your ass, or you can save your soul. But you can't save both. You choose, ass....soul...etc.,etc. I can't believe the many stars in this cast (albeit off-ctr types) did this for the money, so they must have had a blast making it. And c'mon folks, tell me you didn't love to see Kieffer hung up and beaten like a pinata with fireworks going off on his body. I hven't seen cast interviews, so I'm not as informed as some of the commenteers here are, but the overall message (last words of Woody)of this movie is not to be ignored: "f__k em if they can't take a joke". Yeah, the production was cheezy, but it fit so well. The patchwork editing just may have been intentional.... I can easily see how people panned this film. But, no offense intended, maybe you take yourself a bit too seriously.

PS: the quip about Jesus' party getting out of hand _was_ Lenny Bruce's comment as stated by Woody in the film.

Ahhhhhh

Oh dear

[Foz90 · 1/10 · 27 July 2004]

Never see this film!!

I have attempted to watch this awful film about 6 times now and have failed at each attempt to finish watching it. The idea is good but not very well written. This is as bad as it gets for Woody Allen's movie career. I never really understand what Kiefer Sutherland is doing in such a low quality film nor David Shcwimmer for that matter).

It is about a blind person who recovers her eye-sight when she sees a severed hand which she believes must be the Virgin Mary's. Things go from bad to worse as villagers here of the hand and its miraculous ways. Do not see this film. If you want to watch a comedy about chopped off body parts, do yourself a favour and watch the big lebowski.

A Farrelly/Coen Brothers influenced story

[commercesd · 8/10 · 3 April 2004]

The bawdy, crass jokes and lowbrow humor employed in Bill Wilson's script work in his story about a kosher butcher who catches his unfaithful wife in the act and is driven to homicidal maniacal behavior. From the gags involving a permanently frozen hand with its middle finger extended, to the obvious dialog quips, this movie is highly entertaining, with Farrelly/Coen Brothers influences. The impressive cast executes all the silliness with great ease and skill. Woody Allen's characteristically droll performance makes an interesting backdrop against the film's New Mexico locale.

Despite the obvious nature of the story, Director Alfonso Arau's use of visual realism lends to it's contrasting irony. Arau's style is reminiscent of some of Mexico's better comedies celebrating the culture through humorous eyes.

In Defense of Woody...

[merklekranz · 7/10 · 16 January 2007]

I am a big Woody Allen fan and greatly admire his early films, up to and including Annie Hall. The only two post A.H. films I have enjoyed are "Curse of the Jade Scorpion", and this one, "Picking Up the Pieces". There are moments of the old Woody here that have been missing in many of his more recent efforts. He should venture out of his "New York City comfort zone" more often. The movie is not perfect, and could / will offend some. I really liked the neon lighting, which in no small way reminds me of "Vamp". Do not let the one star ratings steer you away from "Picking Up the Pieces", because it is well worth a peek, and especially for those W.A. fans who yearn for the 1970s Woody. - MERK

disappointing movie from a promising cast

[m_madhu · 4/10 · 28 April 2002]

when you hear the names woody allen, sharon stone and kiefer sutherland, you expect a half-way decent movie. but the title picking up the pieces is probably a reference to the way the script was written. the movie meanders on and is neither funny or thought provoking. except for the quirky humor and the satirical depiction of how a "miracle" could be exploited, there really is nothing very exciting about this movie. woody allen is ok as a neurotic butcher whose wife constantly cheats on him, sharon stone is adequate in a minor role. the rest of the cast is incoseqential and piffling.

sadly, this movie could possibly have been made into a smart little satire, but the poor production values and the jerky narration makes it quite a boring movie.

a boring 4!

Enough bad actors can turn a bad movie into a meltdown

[greenfrog · 7 January 2004]

It's lucky for David Schwimmer that Fran Drescher and Woody Allen were along

for this loony ride, otherwise he would have had to take all the blame. The idea was crazy, the direction spliff-guided and the script lame. But the ACTING!

Woody does his stuttering, furrowed-brow, hands in the air schtick, but this is the umpteenth time and it is no longer just annoying, it's pathetic. Fran Drescher had one day, max two, on the set and treated it as a summer camp romp,

demonstrating ably that some people can build a career and a fortune on a

single act. Unfortunately, that act is on a TV set somewhere a million miles from this movie. But David Schwimmer!!?!! Oy-vey! He has one look (sensitive, troubled), one

tone of voice (ordering pizza on the phone) and no clues. Again, good luck to him for making a pile from being a Friend, but an actor he ain't. Kiefer Sutherland does his best with a stupid role but still doesn't convince as comic actor. Sharon Stone is great, but doesn't have more than a couple of

minutes on screen. But people -- this isn't a movie for watching. It's a movie for lying down, eyes shut, and hoping it will go away.

Woody, Woody, Woody.

[Jens Klaive · 1/10 · 4 December 2001]

A bunch of sitcom actors - and Woody Allen. Really weird casting. What was Woody thinking of when he decided to do this movie? This is probably one of the worst flicks I've ever seen. It stinks big time!

Don't waste your money or your time

[toast-15 · 1/10 · 21 October 2000]

This movie was awful! It pretends to be funny but it's the emporer's clothes...there isn't anything there unless you pretend, along with the cast and director, that this film is witty and sharp and "hilarious". In fact I picked this movie as a rental because I wanted a comedy, I saw the video jacket quoted someone saying it was "hilarious!" and I fell for it, hook, line and stinker. I sat, watching in disbelief and disgust as the body parts of Woody Allen's dismembered wife began falling out of the truck. A few scenes later a priest is making out with a hot babe. This is comedy?! Maybe it's funny (for some people) to make fun of other people's values, especially people in today's society who have little or no power (or respect?), like the Mexican-Americans protrayed in the movie, but I don't find that funny. For me it was just a waste of time and quite disturbing to see how little respect some people have for other people's values.

Bad beyond belief

[cbarr-3 · 1/10 · 26 May 2000]

I had high hopes for this film because of the cast.

My wife and I sat through it looking at one another and wondering if it was all a joke. I kept expecting someone to yell, "CUT" and have it turn out to be a film within a film about the making of a terrible film.

The screenplay is a mess. Lines that may have seemed cute to the writer on a lonely night, but which are painful on the screen. A plot that is truly idiotic.

But it is not only the writing. The directing is terrible, too. It literally looks like an attempt to portray a really bad film in a film about film. Decent actors stand around looking as if they have no idea what to do. In crowd scenes, people run around waving sticks -- looking like the ending of Blazing Saddles.

The acting is generally bad -- although with this plot and these lines, how could it be good? Sharon Stone is not too bad not playing herself -- but the role she plays is not very interesting. Others make fools of themselves. Even Woody Allen is bad as himself.

A couple of well known actors are so bad that you don't even know who they are. They screw up their faces (FD) of wear caps that cover their faces (LDP). I suspect they were hoping not to be recognized.

The casting is strange. All the Mexicans are played by Hispanics. But all the Catholic clergy are played by Jews. There is no reason why a Jewish actor should not play a Catholic priest or nun. But what is the possible reason for having only obviously Jewish actors play Catholic clergy? I guess because it's supposed to be funny. It wasn't. It worked about as well as a SNL skit.

I suspect that the offensive language and treatment of the Church was also supposed to be funny. It was only offensive.

I went to a performance at Second City in Chicago a while back (it used to be one of my favorites). I noticed that it is now considered humor to simply make some extremely offensive comment about Catholicism. Not a comment that is itself funny or that even tries to be funny. But a comment that is supposed to be funny only because the act of saying it is funny. Much of this film is at this level of "sophistication."

My wife and I speculated that whoever got the actors to play in it must have gotten somebody's black book with which to blackmail them. Why else would talented people have allowed themselves to be humiliated?

MAYBE this will turn up on VHS. I hope not

interesting and entertaining

[tapas1 · 7/10 · 14 October 2007]

My wife hated it, all the way through watching it and now we can't stop talking about it. A single gesture has come to symbolize a triviality that is no longer viewed as an obscenity but now a talking point when it appears. The scenes of the "miracles" are interesting and provocative with a dark underlying sense of serenity. It all seems to flow from Woody as a redemption of his actions and his attitude on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The photography was intriguing with the moving pans when picking up the pieces and the surreal depictions of the towns people. I hope this movie will become a cult classic. I recommend a group viewing with martinis and steak tartare.

A rare miss for Woody Allen

[Jackpollins · 1/10 · 17 August 2009]

As a lifelong fan of Woody Allen, I once thought I could never see a bad Woody Allen film. That is, until I saw Picking Up The Pieces, the first horrible film that Woody Allen had something to do with. Here Allen plays Tex Cowley, a man who moves to a small Texas town. On his way driving there, he finds a hand with the middle finger sticking up. When he brings this to town, it starts to grant miracles. The only person a little suspicious of this is Father Leo Jerome (David Schwimmer), who goes to investigate. Meanwhile, a cop named Bobo (Kiefer Sutheland) investigates the case, thinking Tex had something to purposely do with it. Yes, Woody Allen uses some of his neurotic charm here, but even that falls flat. It's a movie that could of delivered on so many levels, but rather is too weird and confusing for its own good. Cameos from people like Eddie Griffin and Joseph Gordon Levitt don't help either. Don't get me wrong, this is a talented cast, but they not only don't show their talents, but show just how untalented they can be. Too weird, too boring, too confusing, and way too long, this god awful movie is definitely worth skipping. Go rent Manhattan or Annie Hall instead.

The pieces don't quite come together

[mattymatt4ever · 6/10 · 1 October 2001]

Another ensemble piece with a great cast that lacks a real sense of structure and focus. I have to admit, I was laughing a good deal of the time. With Woody Allen in the cast, how could I not? Woody, though working with a low-level script (that he didn't write, I might add), delivers a great comic performance. I thought maybe since he didn't contribute to the writing or directing, he might be a little subdued. But that wasn't the case, at all. In fact, there are even a few of those trademark Woody zingers (one-lingers)! There are many other talented cast members as well, but they seem to be in this movie to make the cast list look good. Yes, you heard right. Cheech Marin has a thankless role, and doesn't deliver too much of his usual schtick. Andy Dick doesn't even have any speaking parts! The only other actor, besides Woody, that delivered some genuine laughs was Eddie Griffin.

This is basically a broad comedy that hands us a series of vingettes, but doesn't generate a good energy due to its meandering style. You may as well have made this into a 90-minute sketch comedy for cable! Sure, everything is linked to a similar theme--a miraculous hand that supposedly belonged to a virgin and has magical powers--but it still feels scattered. Sure, it's a quirky premise, but there's not much ambition put into the execution. Most of the time, Alfonso Arau (the director) goes for cheap laughs. Of course, we can't just have the hand of this alleged virgin (who's actually a rampant slut who's had sexual intercourse with guys in every zip code) lying on a dirt road and leave the joke alone. That's not enough irony. The middle finger of this magical hand has to be extended. Now, I know this is farce not meant to be taken analytically, but why would this one blind woman gain her sight back through this hand and suddenly everyone in this New Mexico town believes it belonged to a virgin? What makes you think it came from a virgin? And what makes you think that a hand with spiritual powers would have its middle finger raised? Right there, you really really have to suspend disbelief! And down the road of cheap laughs, we have a dwarf who wishes upon this hand and grows a huge penis and a woman who grows huge breasts. And of course the "giving the finger" joke ran its course. Especially since I heard it before on a "Beavis and Butt-head" episode. So this ain't the first time I heard the "giving the finger" joke used in a literal sense.

This is not a boring comedy; in fact, it's quite entertaining. Quite funny as well. It just isn't what I consider a good movie. Don't be fooled by the big stars. This movie went direct-to-cable and it's obvious why. Not the worst comedy I've ever seen (far from it), but a lot more could've been done with it's lucrative, darkly comic premise. If you want to see a better example of this type of dark comedy, watch "Very Bad Things." The movie is much more graphic in its approach (a VERY dark comedy), but it's executed well and nicely gels.

My score: 6 (out of 10)

"Never Again!," Woody! (Open Letter)

[gerrybob44 · 1/10 · 3 October 2007]

I truly hope that I am one of last of the braying chorus to say:

"For Heaven's sake, Woody, don't you EVER-EVER do another film (NOT of your own, unique writing, direction etc.)like this absolutely horrendous flick!"...

...totally UNfunny, banal, trite and derivative...not to mention incredibly offensive (the Church, Latinos, "good" v. "bad" people, and on and on... even Texas!).

Hey, I'm NOT begrudging you your (hopefully very high) fee, Woody...after all; this was 2000...but surely I'm correct in believing that for now...and all time to come...you will continue to remain one of America's only true auteur's, n'est-ce pas?!?

So; I can only say to you now, Woody, (io sono Italiano): "FUHGEDDABOUDIT!!"...

...and ONLY continue to "do do that voodoo that you do so well."

Gerry Dubin

I Guess I'm In The Minority

[DrGerbil · 8/10 · 1 August 2010]

I am surprised at what poor reviews this film has gotten. I myself liked it very much.

It's very irreverent, very politically incorrect, and I can see where it would offend a lot of people. However, I didn't think it was mean-spirited at all, and it encourages us to think about our faith and what spirituality means to us.

I enjoyed seeing Woody Allen out of his comfort zone--wearing Western clothes, and as a character named "Tex"--and, although I am sure that this film didn't make much money, I thought it was adorable.

I hesitate to recommend it, though, since it is a very very dark comedy. One of the cast members (I think Fran Drescher) compared it to "It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World." I would definitely avoid it if you're offended by anyone poking fun at religion.

An ode or an imitation

[charlietuna · 6/10 · 25 July 2001]

What I enjoyed most about Alfonso Arau's "Like Water for Chocolate" was the distinctive Mexican imagery he brought to the screen. In many ways, the vision reminded me of a toned down Ken Russell. With this effort, the similarities to Russell are even more profound as are the ties to Matthew Bright's "Freeway". Yet "Picking up Pieces" cannot measure up to such lofty company. While visually stimulating, both the story and the performances are uneven. Woody Allen does his best to carry this film on his shoulders, but unfortunately, his screen time has to be divided with David Schwimmer. In all, this film is what you would expect from a first time director, doing his best to follow in the footsteps of his directorial heroes and not that of a man as accomplished as Arau. Bill Wilson's writing drops to plebian levels throughout the film, making you think that Allen did his fair share of add libbing. Ultimately the film is a poor facsimile of other people's work, a fact perhaps best represented in Eddie Griffin's character "Sediento". The character is based on a real person known to many as the "Venice Guitar Dude" who is an ubiquitous figure at Venice Beach, CA and formally on the Western tour dates of the Grateful Dead. One can only hope that the real "Venice Guitar Dude" got paid. Otherwise this film was a waste of my money.

Revolting

[Signet · 1/10 · 20 December 2003]

If not the worst film ever made, it is so bad that it makes one think fondly of the antic creativity of Ed Wood. This movie, a sniggering piece of anti-Catholic bigotry, featuring an all-star cast of people who should have known better, is so shamefully acted that one wonders how hard up the performers were to take their roles. Fran Drescher, abandoning her trademark whine, offers such an embarrassing performance that she should sue the distributors for defamation by allowing the public to discover how long she has defrauded them by passing herself off as a comic actress. Here, she evokes neither laughs nor applause. The rest of the cast merely deserves our censure for the waste of our time and the blot on their own resumes.

Shame on all concerned with this ugly, nasty little piece of work.