I liked Harry Brown, but felt it didn’t add up to the sum of its parts.

*****************SPOILERS************

Man, was that ending rough. And it felt as though the riot just appeared out of nowhere, and the death of the male detective felt forced and the female detective didn’t feel nearly fleshed out enough to be anything other than a tool to make the men really mean and nasty.

Everyone just died so Caine’s character could be built as a put-upon old man who just wants to end it.

There are, however, some REALLY effective scenes in the first half…the way he takes the young thug and leads him into the tunnel is awesome.

And yeah…that line comes at a really cool time and after a tense, awesomely effective scene.

Just wasn’t as good as I was hoping it would be.

And I think Jeanine has a good idea. Might be worth creating a tab for bite-size reviews like this instead of a thread, as it’s something that we’ve all contributed to I think at some stage.

Just had a thought – can we add a tab/page for brief reviews? That way it’s easier for people to find instead of recent comments?

You’d think it would be easier than this, but aparrently wordpress does not make it so

http://en.forums.wordpress.com/topic/turn-a-post-into-a-page?replies=11

Nick:

Thanks for the review…I really want to see Harry Brown.
Love the quote, too.

The context of the quote is what made it really good.

You forgot one of the most classic sketch-based comedies, one a close second to Kentucky Fried Movie:

Cracking Up

Not the Jerry Lewis Movie, but this. Worth checking out if you like sketch movies:

http://www.badmovieplanet.com/unknownmovies/reviews/rev324.html

Thanks for the review…I really want to see Harry Brown.
Love the quote, too.

And Marco:

Just wanted to say I really enjoy your capsule reviews. I read them and enjoy them. Keep it up.

A few of the gags and sketches are funny (especially early), but generally this is pretty lame stuff. Central sketches are either initially funny, then way overextended (Steven Seagal as ‘Cock Puncher’, a Britney Spears parody) or were never funny in the first place (a bizzare role-playing game sketch).

Clearly there were obvious problems; not only was this released direct-to-DVD but it took 5 years after its actual production to get even that, as evidenced by Rodney Dangerfield’s cameo appearance.

A pity, as I’ve enjoyed sketch-based comedy films in the past like ‘Kentucky Fried Movie’. As it is, not only is not even close to KFM, it’s not even as good as it’s followup ‘Amazon Women on the Moon’.

The easy analogy for this is a Brit flick Gran Torino, and Michael Caine is always a joy to watch, but this is possibly an even more rote treatment of Death Wish For an Old Man. Plot is like a double episode of an above-average police procedural.

Performances are all excellent, though. Emily Mortimer plays the detective uncovering the trail left by Brown and one drug dealer (played by Sean Harris) might be the creepiest portrayal of drug abuse since Requiem for a Dream.

While by no means revolutionary, the film is solid and always watchable, thanks to Caine and the other performers. Film looks good, as good as you can make a British suburb riddled with crime, anyhow.

New memorable Michael Caine quote: “You’ve failed to maintain your weapon, son.”

Cage drives the film and he’s pretty damn good. He sometimes doesn’t get credit for doing crazy well, but he does seem to be this time around – and rightfully so. He has to constantly be in character – hunching, twitchy, nervous and increasingly manic. There’s no phoning this in. No starring with only a slightly furrowed brow at some National Treasure clue. Somehow – Eva Mendes was actually alright in this. She’s usually vacant at best and distractingly bad at worst, but she works here – a vestige of decency and sanity, despite being a cocaine snorting hooker that gets Cage into the worst trouble. Val Kilmer is good, but he’s barely in the film. I think he’s in 5 scenes – only 3 of which he does anything in. Brad Dourif is good as a put-upon bookie. Xzibit manages not to give a Ja Rule or DMX performance, but isn’t anything special.

The film does look cheap as heck, but that kind of works in its favor.

B- (but a fun B-)

He only made 5 films, but all of them were nominated for Best Picture Oscar, a record that surely will never be equalled.

This is a slick and entertaining piece which wisely doesn’t attempt to be a more traditional documentary length; it’s 40 min length seems just about right.

Many notable names of 1970s cinema who worked with Cazale give tributes, with the input of Al Pacino and Meryl Streep (life-long friend and fiancee at the time of his death respectively) are particularly effective. Streep’s comments about how Cazale inspired her at the start of her acting career are particularly noteworthy.

Perhaps even more interesting are the comments by present-day actors like Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Sam Rockwell and Steve Buscemi who give very good insights into why Cazale was such a good actor.

The only jarring notes are a segment where people walking down a street are shown a picture of Cazale from The Godfather and don’t know his name. I’ve always found this vox pop style superficial and proving nothing (except what the filmmakers want) and this is no exception.

Also jarring is one of the interviewees is Brett Ratner (not exactly a favourite of GE contributors), who really has no place in this documentary except that he’s exploiting his producing credit.

Still, worth a look and is currently online at YouTube (recorded from a recent broadcast on Australian TV), although perhaps not for long.

This film came with a great reputation and as a result, despite its many qualities I was slightly disappointed. To be sure it’s compelling and incisive at times and Douglas is very good in the central role. But there’s an element of stodginess – even dreariness – that creeps into the film during its latter stages. That’s in part perhaps because of the plot structure which has three Hollywood personalities each recount their relationship with Douglas’ character and how they were exploited by him. It would’ve been a lot more effective if his story had been done in a traditional chronological structure.

The Goodbye Girl (1977) – One of Neil Simon’s biggest cinematic hits; a single mother (Marsha Mason) and her young daugther through circumstance are forced to share an apartment with an idiosyncratic young actor (Richard Dreyfuss). The two don’t get along at first but eventually…

A bit like ‘The Bad and the Beautiful’, while this was an above average film because of its high reputation I was slightly disappointed by it.

By Simon’s standards, the ratio of one-liners is low and not many of them are memorable. The young daughter is irritating (although she got an Oscar nomination) and Mason’s character is hard to get a grip on at times. As well, there are scenes where Dreyfuss’ character is playing the lead in Richard III in a very camp style which many have found funny but I found idiotic.

There are significant compensations though. The film is agreeable for the most part and the romance between Dreyfuss and Mason works quite well, with a finale that’s nicely done. But best of all is Dreyfuss who gives an excellent performance and is the best thing in the film.

A pretty good film, but not really deserving of the Best Picture Oscar nominee it got; it certainly is far below ‘Annie Hall’ in terms of standard.

Buddy Buddy (1981) – One of the many films where Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau co-starred; here Matthau is a hitman in the process of completing a series of hits of ‘friendly witnesses’ but is severely derailed when he has to deal with a suicidal Jack Lemmon (whose wife has just left him).

The plot has a lot of potential for comic humour and it starts off reasonably well with a couple of big laughs – thanks mainly to Matthau’s fine performance. But the longer it goes on the flatter it gets and by the end ther are barely any jokes – let alone laughs – on display.

This killed off famed director Billy Wilder’s career and it’s easy to see why. In many aspects his filmmaking style comes across as very old hat for an early 1980s setting (maybe it would’ve worked better as a period piece). In supporting roles, Klaus Kinski is wasted and the usually reliable Paula Prentiss is dire (no wonder she virtually ended her film career after this).

While this certainly feels like a PR job instead of a warts-and-all biopic – his outrageous behaviour is carefully balanced to show that (most of the time) he’s a good husband – one can’t deny that this is a slick and entertaining picture.

It’s sharply directed and fast paced with a particularly good early performance by Paul Giamatti as an obnoxious radio manager. Stern and several members of his radio team play themselves and do a solid job.

There are weaknesses in the film; segments where the characters talk directly to the camera to explain their behaviour feels like padding and implicity a lack of faith in that character motivation was established during the core of the film.

Also, the scenes with Stern and his wife feel rather unconvincing as it’s hard to believe that two such contrasting personalities could survive in a marriage. Indeed, that their real-life marriage broke up not long after the film was made makes sense from that perspective.

Despite being an insubstantial film in many ways, even non-Stern fans would get some entertainment out of this film.

As far as I can tell, it’s not regarded as one of Truffaut’s greater pictures, but it’s a fun time.

It would be close to the worst film I’ve seen by an Oscar-winning director.

Hmm, now that’s an interesting topic…

I’ve never seen Shandling’s TV work either, even though his 1990s show had a cult following here in Australia. As co-writer and star he has to take prime blame for this; you can see at times what type of film he’s trying to make but clearly he’s struggled with the different requirements film has over TV and is in way over his head. As a few reviewers noted, co-star Greg Kinnear would’ve been a much better choice for the lead role.

As for Mike Nichols, notwithstanding his patchy career, it is amazing how badly this is directed. It would be close to the worst film I’ve seen by an Oscar-winning director.

Knowing of its bad rep I had very low expectations but remarkably, it couldn’t even reach those. Apart from one or two funny moments, this is a complete disaster; unfunny, idiotic, and full of baffling character behaviour just so that it can reach it’s predictable denouement. It’s probably the most technially and structually inept mainstream Hollywood I’ve seen released this decade.

One of the film’s biggest problems is Shandling, who is totally out of depth here and it’s easy to see why his film career ground to a halt after this. Annette Bening does well to come out of his unscathed as the love interest while an excellent cast is largely wasted.

If the 2000 Year in Review thread was done now, this would be in a battle with ‘Scary Movie’ for the worst of its year.

Hawn and Reynolds are a screenwriting team who’ve been in a long-term romantic relationship. They decide to get married but when they visit both their sets of parents things go awry (vague echoes of ‘Meet The Parents’) and their relationship falls apart.

It has great credentials considering the cast, is directed Norman Jewison and co-written by Barry Levinson. But it’s an uninspired effort, badly lacking in sharpness and wit (probably Jewison wasn’t the director most suited to it); it’s easy to see why this is largely forgotten today.

Jessica Tandy is a standout, rising above her rather one-note role to give an amusing and effective performance.

What Women Want (2000) – Mel Gibson plays a self-obsessed chauvanistic advertising executive whose life and persona change when he gets the ability to hear the thoughts of all other women.

The central idea is a good one with lots of potential and it clearly worked a treat on audiences as this was amongst the 5 most popular films of its year, which is quite something in an era where they’re almost exclusively the reign of animation/action/kids films.

Unfortunately, the idea is largely wasted and only occasionally made clever use of. Indeed, Gibson doesn’t have the ‘gift’ for that much of the film; instead we get self-indulgent sequences where he dances to a 1950s Frank Sinatra tune.

The film aims to be insightful on the battle of the sexes and relationships but is never more than superficial (though occasionally funny).

On the plus side, the film is smoothly done and easy to take and Helen Hunt is good as Gibson’s love interest. But overall, this is a forgettable film and a bit of a mystery why it was such a megahit back in its day.

Not surprisingly, this is fairly frivilous, by-the-numbers stuff. It’s various ‘rules’ and observations about love and relationships are pretty generic and without insight. And the various endings seem to contradict most of the rules anyway.

Despite it being inconsequential and occasionally silly (with stock characterisations), it was still fairly enjoyable to watch and was never really bored despite its excessive running time (over 2 hours!)

That was in part because it was slickly and pleasantly done. And also it had a top-shelf cast who were generally enjoyable to watch (even if there were too many main characters in the film). Standout was Jennifer Aniston, perhaps because she’s done so many of these types of films and is therefore more adept at it. Ben Affleck seems a more relaxed and better actor than he was at his popularity peak a few years ago. Ginnifer Goodwin was also quite charming given the rather idiotic character she was saddled with.

On the other hand Drew Barrymore made little impression; indeed her character could’ve been excised entirely (there are too many central characters in the film).

Also, it could’ve done without the segments where various people are giving their thoughts on relationships, and the vox pops with all the central characters during the end credits was unnecessary.

Overall, watchable but forgettable.

One of the plot issues in TLV is at the end, after they get the train moving. There’s still the gunman on board at that time – what happens to him? When we last see him, he’s pointing the gun at everyone. Then flash-forward to London and the happy ending. But – bad guy still on board!

The story and genre has all sorts of pitfalls, but it manages to avoid most of them and be quite aimable, thanks to Reynolds who is suprisingly adept and funny in the lead role. As for the three women, Isla Fisher gives the best performance, in part because she has the best character of the three. Rachel Weisz is good but slightly wasted in her role and Elizabeth Banks struggles to give her limited role any dimension.

It’s a fairly slick and enjoyable film, although unmemorable and its attempts to convey a 1990s atmosphere (a difficult task) don’t really work.

I’ve also seen the 1979 remake with Cybill Shepherd and Elliot Gould in the main roles. They don’t really gel and the film is clearly inferior to the original, although if you haven’t the 1938 version it’s passable entertainment.

Re: plot problems, I don’t recall that many glaring ones with this film although certainly that was a common problem with Hitchcock films. Even in a film that I loved like ‘North by Northwest’ there are some glaring ones and in one that I liked in ‘Frenzy’ there are some absolutely mind-bogglingly obvious plot issues.

It is quite funny, and at times it’s quite suspenseful, with some great archetypical Hitchcock moments, but in the end, however, it’s simply too uneven in tone and too sloppy with its narrative to be considered one of his best. It does make a good companion piece to The 39 Steps, though, which was made immediately afterwards several years earlier, even if it is inferior to that film.

I prefaced the title with the director, so as to avoid any initial confusion with that Witherspoon-as-high-school-shrew movie that came out a bit ago. You know, the one with a grown-up Ferris Bueller who never looks like he’s grown up yet.

This was titled Election, Vol. 1 in the UK and apparently there’s a sequel, which I will get around to shortly.

This is now my favorite Johhnie To movie, behind Breaking News. And though Breaking News had the best-ever action movie opening (honestly, rent it, borrow it, but watch the first four minutes of Breaking News. If you’re a lover of the form, it will be difficult not to be impressed), the second half left me asking if we were even watching the same movie we started with.

With Election, however, To really uses his camera skills to take us into the election of a high-powered Triad boss and what happens when one of the other men in the Triad, Big D, decides he’s not going to go along with the election.

Most of To’s movies can be summed up in one sentence. This one is no different. It’s a bunch of old and young men arguing about who will run the gang. But where most may feel this is a weakness of To’s, it’s what endears me to his and most of Hong Kong cinema.

As in A Bittersweet Life, plot is stripped away and we get to see characters moving towards a singular goal set out at the beginning. It’s the essence of action and what I feel Hong Kong action filmmakers just get so right.

Great movie with a great performance from Tony Leung Ka Fai as Big D.

And agreed about Fifth Element… Chris Tucker ruins every scene he’s in.

The Fifth Element is ok. Besson basically just let his actors (particularly Oldman and Tucker) run wild, which didn’t really work out in the end.

As for the hatred of Besson, that was just the overall idea I got from all things I’ve read on numerous blogs and movie sites.

Angel-A, which I LOVED and thought was one of his strongest films was vilified over here. Europe liked it quite a bit, but here…not so much. Just an impression I get that people have of him.

Is there a lot of Besson hatred out there? I can’t claim that he’s one of my favorites (I thought The Messenger was utterly embarrassing), although I haven’t seen most of his films. But I haven’t picked up on a lot of hatred aside from maybe a stray critic or two.

Luc Besson’s first English-language movie could easily be classified a phenomenon in his home country, as it was the biggest money-maker in France that decade. In America, however, it died an ignominious death as a commercial failure.

The film is, though, a mesmerizing, languorous, beautifully-shot and impressively-scored film that takes its time getting there, but has a truly pitch-perfect, astounding final ten minutes.

Like most of Fatih Akin’s work, the true nature of the piece and what it’s trying to say is not readily discernible until that final ten minutes, when everything we’ve watched about all the different plot threads and people comes together and finishes the final part of the tapestry and lets us understand the piece as a whole.

I’ve never quite understood the hatred for Besson and his films, as I’ve always enjoyed every movie he’s made. And this one is one of my two favorites. The framing of the shots and the liberal use of the wide angle lens are a joy to behold. The transfer on the dvd was some of the best I’ve seen and both the color and black and white cinematography are a master-class in form and function.

But it’s the ending that really makes it shine, especially the haunting, astounding final minutes of acceptance of who and what a person is and must be.

Absolutely worth checking out.

(Note: This is the 2 hour and 40 minute director’s cut. A far cry from the 1 hour 55 minute American cut. Wonder what they took out and how it differed.)

It does fit perfectly within Shia’s resume of vapid, unoffensive, big-budget spectacles.

I’ve never exactly been in love with Madden’s work, but I feel for the guy for having the ungrateful Weinsteins kick sand in his face twice in a row (after delivering them Oscar glory).

BRUNO:

Atrocious to the point of unwatchable.

Maybury was influenced by both Stan Brakhage and Eric Von Stroheim for this, which you don’t get in a typical multiplex movie.

(Hope this doesn’t get me in trouble with Brian again, but honestly, this is all I can get from the film):

?

I loved the paper when it came out, but I think I loved pretty much everything i saw then, seeing how in love I was with movies.
But I was taken with Howard’s Parenthood and The Paper, though written by the Koepp brothers, apparently got a strong re-write from Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel and that was the impetus that got Howard involved, as they wrote Parenthood.
I remember this being REALLY well acted by Keaton, who I don’t think ever really got the recognition he deserved.
I also remember the scene with Spalding Gray on the phone.
Duvall, Tomei, Close, Keaton…it was an amazing cast.
I remember reading somewhere that he got such great reviews for the Parenthood cast that he wanted to one-up it with The Paper…

I read the original novel by Elmore Leonard about twenty years ago, and imagined the novel in my head while I read it. This film is very similar to how I imagined it, including a scene in which someone is shot in the face while they are blowing bubblegum, but the tone is far more menacing than Leonard’s book, which is has a dry sense of comedy.

By the way, I gave this thread a category, because otherwise it becomes very hard to find after lying dormant for a while.

I didn’t have great hopes for this film as it didn’t have a particularly great reputation and I haven’t been a fan of Ron Howard’s directorial work. And it would be easy to point out the flaws of this film; it’s a sometimes uneasy mix of comedy and drama, even by Hollywood mainstream melodrama standards some of the events are unlikely and everything is wrapped up too easily at the end.

But for all that, I really enjoyed this movie. It’s lively and engrossing and really got me hooked into the fate of the central characters. Howard does a fine job of keeping all the various plots coherent and really creates a convincing atmosphere of what being part of a newspaper team is like. And while the script breaks no new ground, it does have some nicely written scenes and one or two genuinely funny lines.

But what probably really makes this work is the cast. I read somewhere suggest this was probably the best cast assembled for a Hollywood movie of the 1990s and it’s a pretty fair call imo. Michael Keaton in the lead role as the editor probably isn’t entirely convincing but he’s enjoyable to watch, especially in the lighter moments of the film. And Spalding Gray is a standout in a small role as the editor of the paper who Keaton is considering joining.

One interesting sidelight is watching the technology on display here. Film cameras, no mobile phones on display, computers with no GUI (let alone Internet) – it feels like it belongs in the Middle Ages such has been the changes in technology in the past 15 years.