Harry Brown is a grrrrreat film. Very dark. VERY dark.
Michael Caine is "Harry Brown" (2009)
Started by
Safari Suit
, Jun 29 2009 03:59 PM
69 replies to this topic
#31
Dunph
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 3826 posts
Commander RNVR
- Location:Leeds, UK
Posted 18 October 2009 - 01:24 PM
#33
David Schofield
-
- Discharged
-
- 3026 posts
Commander
Posted 09 November 2009 - 03:51 PM
Is it true Caine and Connery aren't mates anymore?
If it is, I can't see why, can you....?
If it is, I can't see why, can you....?
#34
Zorin Industries
-
- Veterans
-
- 5634 posts
Commander
Posted 09 November 2009 - 05:03 PM
I saw HARRY BROWN this morning.
In 1969 Michael Caine tapped into Britain of the swinging sixties with the likes of THE ITALIAN JOB and ALFIE. In the 1980's he helped present a very different Britain in the likes of MONA LISA. Twenty years after that Caine returns to shine a torch on the Britain of 2009. And whilst there are a few more doors to blow off and he doesn't always wait to see the whites of the bruised and hoodie-covered eyes this time, Mr Micklewhite provides no fun and frolics in Turin in this WEST HAM TURINO.
HARRY BROWN is very good. And Sir Michael Caine is stunning in it. The film is not the LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING DOMINOES it has of course been billed as since GQ magazine and the late 1990's dictated every British film with men in had to be billed like a cooler cousin than THE ITALIAN JOB.
HARRY BROWN is a film that shows its lead actor preparing breakfast, eating it and wiping down the kitchen after - all with the kitchen tap dripping away like a sound effect hangover from Gus Van Sant's ELEPHANT. HARRY BROWN is a film that showcases why Lord Caine Of Camberwell is indeed one of the great British screen actors. Caine knows that a film can shift with one look - and there are a lot of looks like that in HARRY BROWN.
The cinematic great uncle of Paul Andrew Williams LONDON TO BRIGHTON, HARRY BROWN is a beautifully considered character piece. It is an extremely still film - which may jar with what some people are expecting. Caine's vendetta is not as gung-ho as it could have been with the wrong director, but also perhaps not as intricate or rewarding as some audiences might need. HARRY BROWN is certainly a morality tale and part of its overall bleakness is that it doesn't (nor shouldn't) provide solutions to a viscious culture that doesn't respond to principles and notions of good and bad.
If anything, Caine's own character - HARRY BROWN - is nearly overshadowed by DI ALICE (the always under-used Emily Mortimer in a great role where you could listen to her character's opinions and thoughts all day). The also underused Charlie Creed Miles (NIL BY MOUTH's tragic junkie - which shares a social agenda with HARRY BROWN) is also good value and suggests how some cops are merely a job interview away from being the thugs they are after. One criticism of the film is that it felt there were a few story avenues that have been pared down and dropped since the script meetings. There is a slight hint at the political troubles of Ireland with Liam Cunningham's pub landlord SID not quite honouring the casting and possible intent of such a good performer as Cunningham. Mortimer's ALICE has a backstory that is touched upon then dropped from proceedings as is an early and important death. But these are not getting in the way of the film being a - sadly - very apt and controlled look at a situation that is out of control. Echoing some of his monologues from the very good IS ANYBODY THERE, Caine powers the film with a logic and intent that is never cliched or preachy. HARRY BROWN does not offer answers. GORDON Brown should be doing that.
In 1969 Michael Caine tapped into Britain of the swinging sixties with the likes of THE ITALIAN JOB and ALFIE. In the 1980's he helped present a very different Britain in the likes of MONA LISA. Twenty years after that Caine returns to shine a torch on the Britain of 2009. And whilst there are a few more doors to blow off and he doesn't always wait to see the whites of the bruised and hoodie-covered eyes this time, Mr Micklewhite provides no fun and frolics in Turin in this WEST HAM TURINO.
HARRY BROWN is very good. And Sir Michael Caine is stunning in it. The film is not the LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING DOMINOES it has of course been billed as since GQ magazine and the late 1990's dictated every British film with men in had to be billed like a cooler cousin than THE ITALIAN JOB.
HARRY BROWN is a film that shows its lead actor preparing breakfast, eating it and wiping down the kitchen after - all with the kitchen tap dripping away like a sound effect hangover from Gus Van Sant's ELEPHANT. HARRY BROWN is a film that showcases why Lord Caine Of Camberwell is indeed one of the great British screen actors. Caine knows that a film can shift with one look - and there are a lot of looks like that in HARRY BROWN.
The cinematic great uncle of Paul Andrew Williams LONDON TO BRIGHTON, HARRY BROWN is a beautifully considered character piece. It is an extremely still film - which may jar with what some people are expecting. Caine's vendetta is not as gung-ho as it could have been with the wrong director, but also perhaps not as intricate or rewarding as some audiences might need. HARRY BROWN is certainly a morality tale and part of its overall bleakness is that it doesn't (nor shouldn't) provide solutions to a viscious culture that doesn't respond to principles and notions of good and bad.
If anything, Caine's own character - HARRY BROWN - is nearly overshadowed by DI ALICE (the always under-used Emily Mortimer in a great role where you could listen to her character's opinions and thoughts all day). The also underused Charlie Creed Miles (NIL BY MOUTH's tragic junkie - which shares a social agenda with HARRY BROWN) is also good value and suggests how some cops are merely a job interview away from being the thugs they are after. One criticism of the film is that it felt there were a few story avenues that have been pared down and dropped since the script meetings. There is a slight hint at the political troubles of Ireland with Liam Cunningham's pub landlord SID not quite honouring the casting and possible intent of such a good performer as Cunningham. Mortimer's ALICE has a backstory that is touched upon then dropped from proceedings as is an early and important death. But these are not getting in the way of the film being a - sadly - very apt and controlled look at a situation that is out of control. Echoing some of his monologues from the very good IS ANYBODY THERE, Caine powers the film with a logic and intent that is never cliched or preachy. HARRY BROWN does not offer answers. GORDON Brown should be doing that.
#35
dodge
-
- Veterans
-
- 5068 posts
Commander
- Location:USA
Posted 09 November 2009 - 05:18 PM
I saw HARRY BROWN this morning.
In 1969 Michael Caine tapped into Britain of the swinging sixties with the likes of THE ITALIAN JOB and ALFIE. In the 1980's he helped present a very different Britain in the likes of MONA LISA. Twenty years after that Caine returns to shine a torch on the Britain of 2009. And whilst there are a few more doors to blow off and he doesn't always wait to see the whites of the bruised and hoodie-covered eyes this time, Mr Micklewhite provides no fun and frolics in Turin in this WEST HAM TURINO.
HARRY BROWN is very good. And Sir Michael Caine is stunning in it. The film is not the LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING DOMINOES it has of course been billed as since GQ magazine and the late 1990's dictated every British film with men in had to be billed like a cooler cousin than THE ITALIAN JOB.
HARRY BROWN is a film that shows its lead actor preparing breakfast, eating it and wiping down the kitchen after - all with the kitchen tap dripping away like a sound effect hangover from Gus Van Sant's ELEPHANT. HARRY BROWN is a film that showcases why Lord Caine Of Camberwell is indeed one of the great British screen actors. Caine knows that a film can shift with one look - and there are a lot of looks like that in HARRY BROWN.
The cinematic great uncle of Paul Andrew Williams LONDON TO BRIGHTON, HARRY BROWN is a beautifully considered character piece. It is an extremely still film - which may jar with what some people are expecting. Caine's vendetta is not as gung-ho as it could have been with the wrong director, but also perhaps not as intricate or rewarding as some audiences might need. HARRY BROWN is certainly a morality tale and part of its overall bleakness is that it doesn't (nor shouldn't) provide solutions to a viscious culture that doesn't respond to principles and notions of good and bad.
If anything, Caine's own character - HARRY BROWN - is nearly overshadowed by DI ALICE (the always under-used Emily Mortimer in a great role where you could listen to her character's opinions and thoughts all day). The also underused Charlie Creed Miles (NIL BY MOUTH's tragic junkie - which shares a social agenda with HARRY BROWN) is also good value and suggests how some cops are merely a job interview away from being the thugs they are after. One criticism of the film is that it felt there were a few story avenues that have been pared down and dropped since the script meetings. There is a slight hint at the political troubles of Ireland with Liam Cunningham's pub landlord SID not quite honouring the casting and possible intent of such a good performer as Cunningham. Mortimer's ALICE has a backstory that is touched upon then dropped from proceedings as is an early and important death. But these are not getting in the way of the film being a - sadly - very apt and controlled look at a situation that is out of control. Echoing some of his monologues from the very good IS ANYBODY THERE, Caine powers the film with a logic and intent that is never cliched or preachy. HARRY BROWN does not offer answers. GORDON Brown should be doing that.
Fine review, Zorin. And I'm definitely pumped up about seeing old Mikey in action, and top form, again.
#36
Safari Suit
-
- Veterans
-
- 5099 posts
Commander
- Location:UK
Posted 12 November 2009 - 06:23 PM
Empire commemorate the UK release of Harry Brown with a look-back at the most notable films of Caine's career, the great and the bad:
http://www.empireonl...t.asp?c=default
Mona Lisa is an obvious omission, I would have liked A Shock To the System to be on there and if The Swarm and Jaws: The Revenge are on there I think On Deadly Ground's dye job merits a mention, but what ya gonna do?
It's interesting how a lot of the hype for this, such as it is, seems to have centered around Caine as a cinematic icon, in much the same way say Bond films and other long-running and refreshed franchises build a lot of their publicity around reminding audiences of their franchise heritage.
As a big fan of the man this all has me stoked, even though I have this nagging feeling I wont like it... but hopefully as with many nagging feelings it will stay just that.
http://www.empireonl...t.asp?c=default
Mona Lisa is an obvious omission, I would have liked A Shock To the System to be on there and if The Swarm and Jaws: The Revenge are on there I think On Deadly Ground's dye job merits a mention, but what ya gonna do?
It's interesting how a lot of the hype for this, such as it is, seems to have centered around Caine as a cinematic icon, in much the same way say Bond films and other long-running and refreshed franchises build a lot of their publicity around reminding audiences of their franchise heritage.
As a big fan of the man this all has me stoked, even though I have this nagging feeling I wont like it... but hopefully as with many nagging feelings it will stay just that.
#37
Trident
-
- Veterans
-
- 2658 posts
Commander
- Location:Germany
Posted 12 November 2009 - 06:32 PM
As a big fan of the man this all has me stoked, even though I have this nagging feeling I wont like it... but hopefully as with many nagging feelings it will stay just that.
No!!!
Hopefully it will not stay a nagging feeling but will prove a ludicrous, unjustified case of scepticism you will laugh about after seeing the film.
#38
Safari Suit
-
- Veterans
-
- 5099 posts
Commander
- Location:UK
Posted 12 November 2009 - 07:56 PM
Well staying a nagging feeling means it doesn't translate into genuine animosity towards the actual film when I see/after I've seen it.
#39
Safari Suit
-
- Veterans
-
- 5099 posts
Commander
- Location:UK
Posted 16 November 2009 - 10:57 AM
Maybe it was because I saw it just after 2012, an overstuffed suspense-free blockbuster for which this served as the perfect antidote, but I did end up really enjoying Harry Brown.
My early speculative comparisons to Taken turned out to be quite far off the mark, and with all due respect to its many fans around these parts, the film is all the better for it. This is a fairly slow-paced film, but never boring. It is redolent of the thrillers of the 70s, and as a result naturally brings to mind arguably Caine's most iconic role as Jack Carter. There aren't really any big action set-pieces, and certainly no shakeycam, but there are certainly scenes which are as gripping as the most elaborate set-piece thanks to a good deal of suspense and yes, there are a good deal of truly badass moments.
There has been much debate about the morality of the film. I won’t deny that many of the points raised against it have been entirely fair. Whether or not the film has some subtle ambiguities, I think most will view the film as at the very least an advocate of taking a very hard-line against crime. I will not refute that. In many ways it is the film I feared Eden Lake would be, although it is certainly not classist in the manor that film was (unfairly) accused of being. The gap between the "heroes" and "villains" in this film is not one of status or education or even age, but values. I do not deny that if the Daily Mail runs an end of the year film poll this will probably do very well. Those who seem to find Greengrass and Damon the modern Marx and Engels on the basis of the Bourne films might feel a sense of salvation watching this one. But unless you seriously believe that these kind of films inspire copycat incidents, I don't think any of this really matters. What matters is that, unlike Nick Love's dire Outlaw, it makes you believe in Caine's plight for the duration of the film. If you get into Harry Brown, there will doubtless revel in Caine "doling out his own form of justice". Whether you find this reaction troubling is your own personal concern. It will be interesting to see how US critics react when Harry Brown is released there. For my part I found Brown's partisan nihilism a lot easier to stomach than the sense of misanthropy I got from Taken.
The film certainly can't be said to glamorise violence and guns however. The sense of tragedy Harry feels when having to watch a video of his friend's brutal murder is palpable. Harry's necessary encounter with gun dealers shows them to be anything but lovable Guy Ritchie cockney rogues. These characters come close to being cartoonish, but seem believable enough to make this a very disturbing scene for its lengthy duration.
Although the violence is not that graphic, this is a very bleak and harsh film, using its "18" certificate to near capacity with scenes of asphyxiation, child abuse, sexual assault and the seediest drug use imaginable. It's also often a very sad film. But if you can handle all that this is well worth seeing, especially for fans of the genre or Caine.
And it is a film which wouldn't have had anywhere near the same kind of resonance if he had made it 15 or more years ago. Once you see it I'm sure you'll agree.
My early speculative comparisons to Taken turned out to be quite far off the mark, and with all due respect to its many fans around these parts, the film is all the better for it. This is a fairly slow-paced film, but never boring. It is redolent of the thrillers of the 70s, and as a result naturally brings to mind arguably Caine's most iconic role as Jack Carter. There aren't really any big action set-pieces, and certainly no shakeycam, but there are certainly scenes which are as gripping as the most elaborate set-piece thanks to a good deal of suspense and yes, there are a good deal of truly badass moments.
There has been much debate about the morality of the film. I won’t deny that many of the points raised against it have been entirely fair. Whether or not the film has some subtle ambiguities, I think most will view the film as at the very least an advocate of taking a very hard-line against crime. I will not refute that. In many ways it is the film I feared Eden Lake would be, although it is certainly not classist in the manor that film was (unfairly) accused of being. The gap between the "heroes" and "villains" in this film is not one of status or education or even age, but values. I do not deny that if the Daily Mail runs an end of the year film poll this will probably do very well. Those who seem to find Greengrass and Damon the modern Marx and Engels on the basis of the Bourne films might feel a sense of salvation watching this one. But unless you seriously believe that these kind of films inspire copycat incidents, I don't think any of this really matters. What matters is that, unlike Nick Love's dire Outlaw, it makes you believe in Caine's plight for the duration of the film. If you get into Harry Brown, there will doubtless revel in Caine "doling out his own form of justice". Whether you find this reaction troubling is your own personal concern. It will be interesting to see how US critics react when Harry Brown is released there. For my part I found Brown's partisan nihilism a lot easier to stomach than the sense of misanthropy I got from Taken.
The film certainly can't be said to glamorise violence and guns however. The sense of tragedy Harry feels when having to watch a video of his friend's brutal murder is palpable. Harry's necessary encounter with gun dealers shows them to be anything but lovable Guy Ritchie cockney rogues. These characters come close to being cartoonish, but seem believable enough to make this a very disturbing scene for its lengthy duration.
Although the violence is not that graphic, this is a very bleak and harsh film, using its "18" certificate to near capacity with scenes of asphyxiation, child abuse, sexual assault and the seediest drug use imaginable. It's also often a very sad film. But if you can handle all that this is well worth seeing, especially for fans of the genre or Caine.
And it is a film which wouldn't have had anywhere near the same kind of resonance if he had made it 15 or more years ago. Once you see it I'm sure you'll agree.
#40
Judo chop
-
- Veterans
-
- 7461 posts
Commander
- Location:the bottle to the belly!
Posted 23 November 2009 - 04:43 PM
All of the remarks made thus far deilght me. I can't wait to see this one.
#41
jrcjohnny99
-
- Crew
-
- 856 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:Los Angeles
Posted 23 November 2009 - 05:16 PM
Anybody have any info on the US release yet???
#42
DR76
-
- Veterans
-
- 1673 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 23 November 2009 - 07:49 PM
But the films have one MAJOR difference. Whereas Eastwood’s Kowalski ultimately decides that killing is not the answer and deals with his situation in a more sacrificial way, Caine’s Brown takes the opposite approach.
If this is supposed to be the main reason why Caine's movie is better than Eastwood's, forget it. I'm not interested.
#43
Safari Suit
-
- Veterans
-
- 5099 posts
Commander
- Location:UK
Posted 23 November 2009 - 08:23 PM
I haven't seen Gran Torino yet so I can't compare them, but I can say that is certainly not the reason why Harry Brown is a good film. There are many reasons, and that is not one of them.
#44
Judo chop
-
- Veterans
-
- 7461 posts
Commander
- Location:the bottle to the belly!
Posted 23 November 2009 - 08:30 PM
Plus, you really shouldn't let another person's opinion decide for you whether a film strikes your interest.
I really thought that went without saying. Unless we've changed our stance on such matters... ??
I really thought that went without saying. Unless we've changed our stance on such matters... ??
#45
jrcjohnny99
-
- Crew
-
- 856 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:Los Angeles
Posted 14 December 2009 - 10:41 PM
Saw it when I was back in the UK last week;
Loved it; was very impressed with the whole movie and Caine in particular;
There is still no word in the US about a release which really surprises me.
Loved it; was very impressed with the whole movie and Caine in particular;
There is still no word in the US about a release which really surprises me.
#46
Zorin Industries
-
- Veterans
-
- 5634 posts
Commander
Posted 01 February 2010 - 11:54 AM
Did anyone in the US see this one...?
#47
Mr Teddy Bear
-
- Veterans
-
- 1154 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 01 February 2010 - 12:01 PM
I wonder if it'll ever get an Australian release...
#48
Mr. Blofeld
-
- Veterans
-
- 9173 posts
Commander
- Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA
Posted 01 February 2010 - 12:11 PM
Nein; wish I could've, though.Did anyone in the US see this one...?
#49
00Twelve
-
- Veterans
-
- 7706 posts
Commander
- Location:Kingsport, TN
Posted 01 February 2010 - 12:12 PM
I haven't seen it anywhere. Granted, I'm not in a major metro area. There doesn't even seem to be a set date for a DVD release here, which is both odd and disappointing.Did anyone in the US see this one...?
#50
jrcjohnny99
-
- Crew
-
- 856 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:Los Angeles
Posted 02 February 2010 - 06:35 AM
I haven't seen it anywhere. Granted, I'm not in a major metro area. There doesn't even seem to be a set date for a DVD release here, which is both odd and disappointing.Did anyone in the US see this one...?
Weirdly enough there is still no US release date set;
I believe Samuel Goldwyn has the US theatrical rights but nothing seems to be haooening;
there havent even been any critics screenings.
I caught it when I was back in the UK and thought it was excellent; very surprised Caine didnt get a BAFTA nom.
#51
Loomis
-
- Veterans
-
- 21862 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 24 March 2010 - 01:04 AM
I can't believe all this praise for HARRY BROWN.
Watched it yesterday on Blu-ray, and, honestly, it really isn't very good at all, let alone a great film. The aim, presumably, was to mate GRAN TORINO (although it's considerably closer to the boneheaded DEATH WISH II) with NIL BY MOUTH, but the end result is more reminiscent of a standard-issue Brit gangster flick crossed with a shot-in-Panavision episode of THE BILL.
It's nice to see Caine still getting leading roles in major movies, but make no mistake: HARRY BROWN is no QUIET AMERICAN. Indeed, I wonder exactly why he signed on for this one. Did he read the script? Heck, did anyone read the script?
For the script is where HARRY BROWN's problems mostly lie - it's dreadful. The dialogue is ripe, the characters walking clichés, and the plot holes mammoth. For the first ten minutes or so, the film promises to shine as a slow-burning and powerful character-driven odyssey rooted in close-to-the-bone realism, but it soon abandons believability and ratches up the grisly action, with the plot taking one utterly ludicrous turn after another and telegraphing every move that is made. Watching HARRY BROWN, whenever you think you can tell what's about to happen, you're proven correct. Conversely, whenever you think it can't possibly chuck any more credibility out of the window, you're proven wrong.
This join-the-dots and woefully unconvincing screenplay seems to be the sort of thing a public schoolboy with no idea of what life is truly like on the sink estates of "Broken Britain" would write, based purely on "research" involving a few trips to the Daily Mail's website and repeated viewings of LAYER CAKE, with perhaps the odd butcher's at EASTENDERS in an attempt to get an ear for the dialogue. It's just appalling. Only Caine's charisma keeps this film afloat as a brain-in-neutral and often unintentionally hilarious timekiller. Without him, HARRY BROWN would be completely worthless.
I'm especially disappointed because I was one of the people who financed HARRY BROWN, thanks to my purchase of National Lottery tickets. Now, why on earth is lottery money given to mainstream, commercial, profit-making films like this one (and ST. TRINIAN'S)? How in the world can this be considered a "good cause"? While I don't believe that the film industry should receive any lottery cash whatsoever (given that there are numerous worthy charities out there), I could see the "art" argument for using it to fund the sort of filmmakers whose work is inherently difficult to finance - the Derek Jarmans of this world. But that doesn't seem to happen. Instead, the UK Film Council in its wisdom chooses to funnel lottery loot to trashy popular movies like this one, which are designed to appeal to a wide cross-section of viewers and make a fortune on DVD, Blu-ray and TV sales. If you want to remake DEATH WISH or reboot some crappy old franchise like ST. TRINIAN's, then fine - good luck to you. But why you should be given National Lottery funds escapes me.
Watched it yesterday on Blu-ray, and, honestly, it really isn't very good at all, let alone a great film. The aim, presumably, was to mate GRAN TORINO (although it's considerably closer to the boneheaded DEATH WISH II) with NIL BY MOUTH, but the end result is more reminiscent of a standard-issue Brit gangster flick crossed with a shot-in-Panavision episode of THE BILL.
It's nice to see Caine still getting leading roles in major movies, but make no mistake: HARRY BROWN is no QUIET AMERICAN. Indeed, I wonder exactly why he signed on for this one. Did he read the script? Heck, did anyone read the script?
For the script is where HARRY BROWN's problems mostly lie - it's dreadful. The dialogue is ripe, the characters walking clichés, and the plot holes mammoth. For the first ten minutes or so, the film promises to shine as a slow-burning and powerful character-driven odyssey rooted in close-to-the-bone realism, but it soon abandons believability and ratches up the grisly action, with the plot taking one utterly ludicrous turn after another and telegraphing every move that is made. Watching HARRY BROWN, whenever you think you can tell what's about to happen, you're proven correct. Conversely, whenever you think it can't possibly chuck any more credibility out of the window, you're proven wrong.
This join-the-dots and woefully unconvincing screenplay seems to be the sort of thing a public schoolboy with no idea of what life is truly like on the sink estates of "Broken Britain" would write, based purely on "research" involving a few trips to the Daily Mail's website and repeated viewings of LAYER CAKE, with perhaps the odd butcher's at EASTENDERS in an attempt to get an ear for the dialogue. It's just appalling. Only Caine's charisma keeps this film afloat as a brain-in-neutral and often unintentionally hilarious timekiller. Without him, HARRY BROWN would be completely worthless.
I'm especially disappointed because I was one of the people who financed HARRY BROWN, thanks to my purchase of National Lottery tickets. Now, why on earth is lottery money given to mainstream, commercial, profit-making films like this one (and ST. TRINIAN'S)? How in the world can this be considered a "good cause"? While I don't believe that the film industry should receive any lottery cash whatsoever (given that there are numerous worthy charities out there), I could see the "art" argument for using it to fund the sort of filmmakers whose work is inherently difficult to finance - the Derek Jarmans of this world. But that doesn't seem to happen. Instead, the UK Film Council in its wisdom chooses to funnel lottery loot to trashy popular movies like this one, which are designed to appeal to a wide cross-section of viewers and make a fortune on DVD, Blu-ray and TV sales. If you want to remake DEATH WISH or reboot some crappy old franchise like ST. TRINIAN's, then fine - good luck to you. But why you should be given National Lottery funds escapes me.
#52
Garth007
-
- Crew
-
- 598 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:La Plata, MO
Posted 24 March 2010 - 02:32 AM
Wow i guess this is Michael Caine version on Taken lol looks very cool
#53
Zorin Industries
-
- Veterans
-
- 5634 posts
Commander
Posted 24 March 2010 - 10:20 AM
The actual lottery money going into films in Britain is not that much. Sadly. And a lot of lottery-sourced money goes into film but via other avenues (funding new filmmakers schemes, funding writers to go to Screenwriters festivals, ensuring that 'some' more locally produced films get into cinemas etc).I can't believe all this praise for HARRY BROWN.
Watched it yesterday on Blu-ray, and, honestly, it really isn't very good at all, let alone a great film. The aim, presumably, was to mate GRAN TORINO (although it's considerably closer to the boneheaded DEATH WISH II) with NIL BY MOUTH, but the end result is more reminiscent of a standard-issue Brit gangster flick crossed with a shot-in-Panavision episode of THE BILL.
It's nice to see Caine still getting leading roles in major movies, but make no mistake: HARRY BROWN is no QUIET AMERICAN. Indeed, I wonder exactly why he signed on for this one. Did he read the script? Heck, did anyone read the script?
For the script is where HARRY BROWN's problems mostly lie - it's dreadful. The dialogue is ripe, the characters walking clichés, and the plot holes mammoth. For the first ten minutes or so, the film promises to shine as a slow-burning and powerful character-driven odyssey rooted in close-to-the-bone realism, but it soon abandons believability and ratches up the grisly action, with the plot taking one utterly ludicrous turn after another and telegraphing every move that is made. Watching HARRY BROWN, whenever you think you can tell what's about to happen, you're proven correct. Conversely, whenever you think it can't possibly chuck any more credibility out of the window, you're proven wrong.
This join-the-dots and woefully unconvincing screenplay seems to be the sort of thing a public schoolboy with no idea of what life is truly like on the sink estates of "Broken Britain" would write, based purely on "research" involving a few trips to the Daily Mail's website and repeated viewings of LAYER CAKE, with perhaps the odd butcher's at EASTENDERS in an attempt to get an ear for the dialogue. It's just appalling. Only Caine's charisma keeps this film afloat as a brain-in-neutral and often unintentionally hilarious timekiller. Without him, HARRY BROWN would be completely worthless.
I'm especially disappointed because I was one of the people who financed HARRY BROWN, thanks to my purchase of National Lottery tickets. Now, why on earth is lottery money given to mainstream, commercial, profit-making films like this one (and ST. TRINIAN'S)? How in the world can this be considered a "good cause"? While I don't believe that the film industry should receive any lottery cash whatsoever (given that there are numerous worthy charities out there), I could see the "art" argument for using it to fund the sort of filmmakers whose work is inherently difficult to finance - the Derek Jarmans of this world. But that doesn't seem to happen. Instead, the UK Film Council in its wisdom chooses to funnel lottery loot to trashy popular movies like this one, which are designed to appeal to a wide cross-section of viewers and make a fortune on DVD, Blu-ray and TV sales. If you want to remake DEATH WISH or reboot some crappy old franchise like ST. TRINIAN's, then fine - good luck to you. But why you should be given National Lottery funds escapes me.
Couldn't agree with you any less about HARRY BROWN. I thought it was a very good study of violence and how your age dictates your reaction of it.
#54
Loomis
-
- Veterans
-
- 21862 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 24 March 2010 - 12:30 PM
Couldn't agree with you any less about HARRY BROWN.
Same here. You mention NIL BY MOUTH in your review (an excellent film) and claim that HARRY BROWN shares its social agenda, but I just don't see it.
I don't believe HARRY BROWN has any meaningful social agenda at all - whereas NIL BY MOUTH is a serious-minded and searing piece of work (one of the most powerful films I've ever seen, in fact), HARRY BROWN just strikes me as a cynical action flick with nauseating "topical" and "realistic" pretensions for "the lads" to enjoy on DVD after the pub - that it seems to have been marketed as THE ITALIAN JOB meets LOCK STOCK hardly helps. NIL BY MOUTH brings its characters and their world to life, whereas HARRY BROWN is populated by cardboard cutouts, and, at the end of the day, no one's going into it for anything other than bloody entertainment. Acres of ripe, on-the-nose dialogue about youth crime do not bestow gravitas on this grubby popcorn project.
HARRY BROWN distances the viewer by going wildly OTT and chucking subtlety out of the window. Here's an example: at one point Harry visits a massive cannabis factory. Such places are - I imagine - looked after by smart and sober professionals. They're multimillion-pound businesses, after all. Here, though, the two blokes in charge are clueless heroin addicts so emaciated that they resemble Gollum and so permanently blitzed they can scarcely stand up. They couldn't run a trip to the all-night garage, let alone a major drug operation. They also appear to have custody of guns, a large amount of cash and what appears to be a stolen army jeep. The trouble is that these "characters" are drawn so cartoonishly and acted so hammily that they seem as close to real drug gangsters as Freddy Krueger does to a believable serial killer (to put it in terms of that genre, if NIL BY MOUTH is HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, HARRY BROWN is Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN II).
It's at such points - and there are plenty - that the film seems to hurl every possible "chav"/"Broken Britain" cliché at the screen at once, making me seriously wonder whether it was written by a Daily Mail journo. Realism is stripped away, and consequently so is genuine viewer engagement.
#55
Safari Suit
-
- Veterans
-
- 5099 posts
Commander
- Location:UK
Posted 24 March 2010 - 07:47 PM
Geez, no wonder you think buying lottery tickets is a good idea 
Seriously, as horribly Michael-Bay-fanboy-on-the-AICN-talkbacks lazy as it may be most of your complaints don't really register for me for one simple reason; it's an action movie. Daily Mail worldview and rhetoric and cartoonish exaggeration are hardly shocking things to find in the genre. And if you seriously feel an action film going OTT is a dealbreaker I don't see how you can be looking forward to The Expendables, or what exactly you're doing on a James Bond board for that matter.
Seriously, as horribly Michael-Bay-fanboy-on-the-AICN-talkbacks lazy as it may be most of your complaints don't really register for me for one simple reason; it's an action movie. Daily Mail worldview and rhetoric and cartoonish exaggeration are hardly shocking things to find in the genre. And if you seriously feel an action film going OTT is a dealbreaker I don't see how you can be looking forward to The Expendables, or what exactly you're doing on a James Bond board for that matter.
#56
volante
-
- Veterans
-
- 1926 posts
Lt. Commander
- Location:GCHQ
Posted 10 April 2010 - 09:53 AM
I thought it was an excellent film
#57
Loomis
-
- Veterans
-
- 21862 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 10 April 2010 - 10:32 AM
Geez, no wonder you think buying lottery tickets is a good idea
Seriously, as horribly Michael-Bay-fanboy-on-the-AICN-talkbacks lazy as it may be most of your complaints don't really register for me for one simple reason; it's an action movie. Daily Mail worldview and rhetoric and cartoonish exaggeration are hardly shocking things to find in the genre. And if you seriously feel an action film going OTT is a dealbreaker I don't see how you can be looking forward to The Expendables, or what exactly you're doing on a James Bond board for that matter.
Come on, HARRY BROWN is hardly supposed to be an action movie along the lighthearted, escapist lines of THE EXPENDABLES or Bond. Such films don't feature crap pushed through the letterboxes of pensioners or teenage junkies dying from overdoses! HARRY BROWN also pretends to be a serious, character-driven piece with important things to say about modern Britain. Sure, it's an "action movie" (albeit hardly a very exciting one), but one with pretensions.
The problem I have with it is not that it goes OTT but that it purports to be about the real world - and it doesn't succeed in being realistic because its characters and situations are so absurd. There's the sense of a film that's trying to have its cake and eat it - it wants to be good old-fashioned thick-ear action entertainment, but it also wants to be serious and worthy and lecture the viewer on the breakdown of society. It's certainly possible for a film to pull off both stances, but it requires a heck of a lot more panache than is shown by the makers of HARRY BROWN. It tries to be DEATH WISH or RAMBO meeting NIL BY MOUTH or NAKED, but the drama is too flimsy (and too preposterous) and the tone is schizophrenic.
If HARRY BROWN had set out its stall as a straight-down-the-line piece of action hokum, I'd probably be fine with it, but its airs and graces churn my stomach.
#58
jrcjohnny99
-
- Crew
-
- 856 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:Los Angeles
Posted 10 April 2010 - 06:03 PM
It's worth noting the original 'Deathwish' was a cross of social issues and revenge-action in it's time; yes the sequels became overblown, but the original discussed the then, very serious issue of street crime in NYC (Which is really no different to the gang/knife crime that Britains inner cities are facing now).
If 'Harry Brown' is following the pedigree of the original 'Deathwish' the I presonally find nothing wrong with that.
There is a US release date set finally, press screenings are taking place right now.
If 'Harry Brown' is following the pedigree of the original 'Deathwish' the I presonally find nothing wrong with that.
There is a US release date set finally, press screenings are taking place right now.
#59
tim partridge
-
- Crew
-
- 743 posts
Lieutenant
Posted 26 April 2010 - 12:11 PM
This one teeters for me. It's a real 50/50. Just my opinions below and nothing else:
I think as an accomplishment of directorial mise en scene on a limited budget, it's a definite triumph. Very technically robust with an unnerving, expert grasp of technique, though I felt often longwindedly indulgent.
As a film though, eeek... Trying to tightrope real grey, working class social problems in a dark, stylised, formulaic Hollywood structure for me just makes the whole thing awkwardly tasteless. The morals don't meet in the middle, and that's where Harry Brown feels like real tasteless exploitation, but without the ironic charm, wink in the eye and FUN of a Taken, Death Wish or Dirty Harry. It also felt like several on the nose expensive TV commercials stuck together, rather than a movie.
It's all so sombre, like the most wristlingly depressing aspects of a kitchen sink Alan Parker type film, but also smacks of being directed by a Johnathan Glazer like commercials/music video director, deep into their ubertechnique, perpetual night time visuals and David Lynch/Playstation ad killer sound design. However, even with such technical artistry, I found so much of it derivitive of other stuff handled with a lighter but more effective touch- the underage heroin addicted girl scene, here shot like a Johnathan Glazer Jeans advert, with an almost theatrical, Artaudian use of mood (throbbing bass and style), but I couldn't help that the same kind of scene had more impact in Taken, and that film managed to have fun, humour and Holly Valance in it!
Some of the indulgent creative licence seemed more suited to a commercial and very out of place in a longform narrative piece. The very indulgent letter box fire scene for example, which is like something from a doom riden Fire safety campaign- no fire alarms? Cool looking and dreadfilled for sure, but does this want to be a council estate commentary or a Glazer ad? The bloated speech Brown gives to the drug addict too, like a huge self aware piece of "bad
" iconography- what about the girl who needed to reach the hospital that he was so concerned about a minute a go (you know, the immediate reason why you just shot these guys)??
The morality low of the whole piece for me was Brown's broad, out of context comparison of council estate wars to Northern Ireland, excusing the terrorism of the latter as "fighting for something"... Oh dear, film undoes itself. And what a washed out, pretentiously liberal sweep in an otherwise seemingly right wing movie?
And where's the sense of fun and escapism that make Hollywood action movies special? I can see why tonally they decided to oust all of the fun out of the movie given the approach, but I can't help but think that fun is everything the filmmakers should have given us with this, rather than manipulative dread at the expense of real issues portrayed in forceful shades of black and white. I don't think anyone would argue that Harry Brown is particularly deep film outside of the Hollywood popcorn realm, so for me it begs the question: where's the popcorn?
I do appreciate the issues raised in Harry Brown, many of the scenes stood out as solid and memorable, adrenaline rushing and the filmmaker's demonstrated an expert grasp of sensory manipulation. Stunning indeed. Like I said though, big clash with moral intent. Council estate thugs depicted like the Zombie plague from a 24 Days Later movie, having them slur Soap Opera ASBO speak in BBC drama style interrogation scenes in such shades of black and white with a nice little walk off in the sunset resolution at the end. Doesn't really help anyone involved in the real issues, other than the filmmakers all the way to the bank.
I think as an accomplishment of directorial mise en scene on a limited budget, it's a definite triumph. Very technically robust with an unnerving, expert grasp of technique, though I felt often longwindedly indulgent.
As a film though, eeek... Trying to tightrope real grey, working class social problems in a dark, stylised, formulaic Hollywood structure for me just makes the whole thing awkwardly tasteless. The morals don't meet in the middle, and that's where Harry Brown feels like real tasteless exploitation, but without the ironic charm, wink in the eye and FUN of a Taken, Death Wish or Dirty Harry. It also felt like several on the nose expensive TV commercials stuck together, rather than a movie.
It's all so sombre, like the most wristlingly depressing aspects of a kitchen sink Alan Parker type film, but also smacks of being directed by a Johnathan Glazer like commercials/music video director, deep into their ubertechnique, perpetual night time visuals and David Lynch/Playstation ad killer sound design. However, even with such technical artistry, I found so much of it derivitive of other stuff handled with a lighter but more effective touch- the underage heroin addicted girl scene, here shot like a Johnathan Glazer Jeans advert, with an almost theatrical, Artaudian use of mood (throbbing bass and style), but I couldn't help that the same kind of scene had more impact in Taken, and that film managed to have fun, humour and Holly Valance in it!
Some of the indulgent creative licence seemed more suited to a commercial and very out of place in a longform narrative piece. The very indulgent letter box fire scene for example, which is like something from a doom riden Fire safety campaign- no fire alarms? Cool looking and dreadfilled for sure, but does this want to be a council estate commentary or a Glazer ad? The bloated speech Brown gives to the drug addict too, like a huge self aware piece of "bad
" iconography- what about the girl who needed to reach the hospital that he was so concerned about a minute a go (you know, the immediate reason why you just shot these guys)?? The morality low of the whole piece for me was Brown's broad, out of context comparison of council estate wars to Northern Ireland, excusing the terrorism of the latter as "fighting for something"... Oh dear, film undoes itself. And what a washed out, pretentiously liberal sweep in an otherwise seemingly right wing movie?
And where's the sense of fun and escapism that make Hollywood action movies special? I can see why tonally they decided to oust all of the fun out of the movie given the approach, but I can't help but think that fun is everything the filmmakers should have given us with this, rather than manipulative dread at the expense of real issues portrayed in forceful shades of black and white. I don't think anyone would argue that Harry Brown is particularly deep film outside of the Hollywood popcorn realm, so for me it begs the question: where's the popcorn?
I do appreciate the issues raised in Harry Brown, many of the scenes stood out as solid and memorable, adrenaline rushing and the filmmaker's demonstrated an expert grasp of sensory manipulation. Stunning indeed. Like I said though, big clash with moral intent. Council estate thugs depicted like the Zombie plague from a 24 Days Later movie, having them slur Soap Opera ASBO speak in BBC drama style interrogation scenes in such shades of black and white with a nice little walk off in the sunset resolution at the end. Doesn't really help anyone involved in the real issues, other than the filmmakers all the way to the bank.
Edited by tim partridge, 26 April 2010 - 12:17 PM.
