The Last Shot
The Last Shot
R | 24 September 2004 (USA)
The Last Shot Trailers

A movie director-screenwriter finds a man to finance his latest project but soon discovers that the producer is actually an undercover FBI agent working on a mob sting operation.

Reviews
Wordiezett

So much average

... View More
Kaydan Christian

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

... View More
Lucia Ayala

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

... View More
Logan

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

... View More
mrliteral

I believe there's an inherent inequality in a movie about the movies, about making a movie, not getting a theatrical release. I remember seeing ads for The Last Shot on TV, I remember hearing of a limited release for about a week, and I remember its sudden disappearance from any form of media. It eventually came out on DVD, and that's the end of the story. Which is too bad, because if this movie deserves anything, it's a movie audience.Is it a great film? No...but it's funny. Is it filled with insight into the creative process, the miasmic crossroads of art and commerce? No...but it has a sense of truth and experience. Is there any reason a theater full of people would not be glad they had paid to see this movie? None that I can see. A cruel irony of this is the opening credits, which are mainly played against a background of items and events in an actual movie theater. Though I should correct myself and say opening titles; as one character points out, credits are at the end, titles at the beginning. It's a movie-savvy group of people, y'understand.Even if you're not a big fan of Alec Baldwin or Matthew Broderick, it's worth seeing for the supporting cast. Joan Cusack, Toni Collette, and Tony Shalhoub each steal the few short scenes they're in. And for anyone who is a screenwriter (like me!), wants to be a screenwriter, or thinks they know what it means to be a screenwriter...the quick montage of Baldwin's character hearing pitches on the street from everyone he sees is so brilliant and funny and true, it's a lesson in humility we could all use from time to time.I think the story is hampered by the idea that Baldwin's character, FBI man-undercover-as-Hollywood producer, would choose a script set in the desert of Arizona (even titled Arizona) when he needs to shoot in Rhode Island so he can set up the local mob boss there. Seems a little pointless, but, this appears to be one of the based-on-actual-events aspects of the story that really happened. The real FBI man did find a script, written for the desert, and convinced the filmmakers to shoot in New England, even though he knew, and they didn't, they'd never shoot a frame. And I can't help thinking, about Broderick's character or the real guys with the script...way to sell out! And I just don't completely buy it as a story element. Not that I don't believe people sell out; they sure as hell do, but with all the scripts out there, seems like he could have found one that fit the location. Sometimes what's true is too stupid to actually work in a movie.Speaking of a script, Jeff Nathanson, who has done some decent work in the past, most notably for Steven Spielberg, probably could have rewritten this a bit more, but does a very good job as a first time director. It's really a shame the movie was never released properly and couldn't turn a profit. That's got to be heartbreaking, at least for a little while. But in the end, he has a good movie and a quality DVD. If you want to sit down and for an hour and half and enjoy what you see, give it a look. It isn't perfect, but what is? As long as a movie is fun to sit through, instead of a chore, I'd call it a great success.

... View More
whenadelphiaisdown

Wednesday, September 29, 2004message to Roy Disney for whatever its worth There were several unsafe, against union protocol and contract practices that occurred in the many weeks that I was shooting the film, as one of a handful of extras who were labeled in the script and storyboards as Stevens friends (Matthew Broderick played the role of Steven). Among these practices was the biggest flub of all: The pivotal Helicopter Scene where myself and about 5 others were directed by the Stunt Coordinator to stand under the hovering helicopter that was 10 ft above the ground (if a 6 man jumped up, he could've touched it, see the movie, it shows all) which is in every way a STUNT CONTRACT ROLE. Myself and the others participated about 3 times and then refused, unless given a contract. As there was no SAG rep on the set, we had no one to vouch for us, and the production grew livid at our request and literally started ripping our wardrobe off of us and placing it on other stunt people. This was indication enough as to how integral we were to the shot, and how we were getting a stunt contract stolen from right under us. We got the exact shots that we participated in, as well as the exact cameras that took those shots, as well as the storyboards showing US while the helicopter flew and hovered over our heads and presented it to our REP at the Screen Actors Guild, who in turn was going to present it as a claim on behalf of the 5 of us to Disney. A year went by and 4 of us (all except one) were sent a check of $20 for our troubles. Here is the aftermath of how Disney has made us feel:Written by myself on 9/28/04SOO.. has everyone seen the film yet? I had a chance on Sunday. I must say Disney is all about the profanity, nudity, gangster violence and cheap shots at typical shoddy-haven't we- heard-all-this-before-the-Player-etc "Hollywood biz" humor... ah, when Disney can stoop this low, well, there's your answer to family values, downward spiraling morals of society as a whole and well, a bleak bleak future of quality entertainment.Or am I giving them too much credit?regarding that helicopter scene... What exactly did OUR SAG "REP" say?!? There was no evidence of us being in that shot; and After reviewing the dailies all he saw were people scattering before the chopper came in; and that he could do nothing about it; as well as there was so much debris he couldn't make out anything. This is correct, right, or am I leaving anything out?(Even though when we chose to stop participating, they ripped our jackets and hats off of us and put them on stunt people who WERE UNDER CONTRACT DOING EXACTLY WHAT WE HAD JUST BEEN DOING in the shots that we had specifically named, down to which camera and everything! This alone is evidence that you don't need to weed through crushed walnut shells to uncover. )Well, if you go with THAT line of thinking, than there isn't any evidence that ANYONE was in the shot. I guess all those people were just figments of our imagination, and hell... did the entire shoot happen at all? Or maybe I simply died the night our shuttle bus was breaking every driving rule in the book, including crossing a double yellow line, driving on the wrong side of the road, and zooming way past the speed limit down a very steep hill in Antelope Valley in the wee dark hours of the morning, just to try and get us back to our cars in the nick of time so they wouldn't HAVE to pay us Golden Time... and everything since has ALL BEEN A DREAM. Ah! A dream is a wish your heart makes, to quote from the Disney cricket... and I must have wished this...I also must have wished to see myself speaking on the big screen one day. Who knew the wish would come true while chumming it up with Matty Broderick? It must be a dream, as don't exactly remember speaking nor a boom over my head, and when did that other guy have that huge run-on sentence monologue in the same scene? We must've both been dreaming... how weird! Too bad my dream didn't include a contract for my on-camera speaking role...---After talking with our SAG "rep"He told me after reviewing the dailies all he saw were people scattering before the chopper came in, but he says there was so much debris he "couldn't make out anything".I ask him why would they put Stunt people with us and sandwiched us in. He says "I Don't Know"I said didn't you ask them that, he Says "NO", he says he had to plead with Disney for the $20.00 I ask about the SAG lawyers taking on the case. He says "it's out of their jurisdiction" The only way to get anything is to get an outside lawyer to go after Disney and then SAG for not providing the service and protection we pay them for.They know we probably will not do this so they will make there back handed deals with these production companies.------------------------- Dear Roy, I'm sure your father never intended for his name to be used in this manner.

... View More
lord woodburry

Classical Comedy's overriding message is that despite adversity life goes on. The Last Shotcertainly fits the classical mold.The FBI wants to penetrate the mob in Providence. They need a front company to attract the mob's greedy attention. No, the FBI doesn't use the familiar form, a carting company. Instead, the FBI decides to take over a movie company struggling to make a Western. Posing as an "angel" FBI Undercover Agent Joe Devine (Alec Baldwin) persuades down and out director Steven Schats (Matthew Broderick)to film the Western in mid winter in Providence RI garbage dump.Agent Joe Devine (Alec Baldwin) can bamboozle the naive director Steven Schats but can he sting the mob ? The film poses an interesting question: how many such probes are floating around and how far will the FBI go in creating phony enterprises?

... View More
Jason Platt

Matthew Broderick is especially effective at this movie filled with warmth and a deep love for film-making. Yes, the script and many of the performances (notably Calista Flockhart and an unbilled Joan Cusack) poke fun at Hollywood, but what gets you glued to this film is that you really root for Matthew Broderick's character. He is one of the few male actors that I know of that isn't afraid to be sweet and gentle on screen. Without his ability to make his character so likable and believable, this film would not be nearly as good. I also think he as an exceptional ability to play a scene "straight" meaning serious while there is hilarity all around him. He is really believable in his part. There is some brusque language used that seems to be just thrown in and doesn't fit with the sweet nature of this film. Perhaps it is used so more people would come see it. But this is a minor flaw. I think that people who dream of being filmmakers themselves will especially enjoy this film.

... View More