Dirty Harry
Author: kenjha
26 December 2012
After his best friend is killed by hoodlums, an elderly man goes vigilante. The vigilante film has ranged from the awful "Death Wish" (1974) to the fine "Gran Torino" (2008). This entry may be the low point of the sub-genre. Nothing works here. The opening credits have ridiculously tiny print. The opening scenes feature nauseating camera work (this is the director's first feature). The villains are one-dimensional caricatures. The situations are clichés. The narrative has no flow, as it gets bogged down in police politics. Caine's character is flat. Even a good actress like Mortimer is wasted in an anemic role. It's dreary and depressing.
17 out of 38 people found the following review useful:
The Epitome of everything foul in mass cinema
Author: Richard von Lust from Germany
16 June 2010
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Harry Brown is a weak, utterly formulaic and propagandist piece of cinematic ordure. Let me explain. There are only four remotely positive characters in the whole film. 1. An old man who means good but nonetheless brandishes a bayonet to protect himself. 2. A weak and rather stupid male police inspector whose only positive claim is that he tries to defend the female hero but dies in the process. 3. Michael Caine of course who fights for good but naturally kills everything around him and 4 (the real hero and only really positive character) a female police woman who knows all, sees all, feels all and ultimately saves society.
All the other characters are male (besides a few female extras like rape victims)and all these males are either stupid, insane, violent or just plain evil. All the gang members are shown to be psychopaths, thereby showing absolutely no understanding of modern culture whatsoever. Most of them are white, thereby showing no understanding crime statistics. All of them are male, thereby showing no comprehension of the rise of females in gangs. And none of them have any criticism of each other, thereby showing no connection with real gang culture.
Drug takers are shown as total crack maniacs who give total strangers a tour of their weed factory and their snuff movie studio before shooting up with heroin and selling them guns and ammo whilst off their heads. Of course the purchaser just blows them away. Utter tosh.
The police are shown to be all weak and stupid - excepting the female inspector of course. They face a riot without tear gas and simply run away when a few stones are thrown. Again utter rubbish.
And the basic moral message of the film is that revenge is cool. It is that sick. This film doesn't reflect modern social ills but rather it actually encourages them. Micheal Cain has no problem in shooting kids without any attempt to arrest them or use non lethal force. He makes himself judge, jury and executioner - exactly as bad as the film tries to show the gang members as being. In one particularly sickening scene he forces a young whimpering lad whose only crime was to witness a killing and lead the boy to his death as a human shield against the other boys. And we are meant to applaud this?
Harry Brown is genderist, fascist, classist and racist filth. Do not soil your mind by even watching it.
9 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Harry Brown is politics. It's not Michael Caine playing Dirty Harry.
Author: Michael Thompson from United Kingdom
11 March 2011
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Okay, now to get to the nuts and bolts of Harry Brown.
Michael Caine was interviewed around the time of this films release, and in this interview he talked about the very real issue of thousands of young people being thrown on the political scrap heap by the politicians, and that his film, Harry Brown is about these type of youngsters.
What annoys me about Michael Cain, is that he is a known Thatcher supporter, and it was Thatcher in the 80's who got rid of our manufacturing bases, who destroyed our infrastructure, who got rid of our council houses, who took hope away from millions by removing their jobs, making millions of adult men and woman unemployed, and on life long benefits for millions.
Michael Cain is on record as saying that he grew up on the type of kitchen sink estates he plays Harry Brown in, but when Maurice Micklewhite ( Michael Caine's real name ), was a young boy, Thatcher was not in power.
This film should not be about pensioner Harry Brown going on a rampage among young thugs, to find out and gain revenge on who murdered his friend.
The real issue in this film is an indictment of 18 years of right wing Tory rule under Thatcher and Major, and a further 13 years under Blair and Brown who did nothing to reverse the national decline they inherited in 1997, a country in tatters, and youngsters with no hope.
Im not stereotyping all youngsters as thugs. I am saying that the thugs stereotyped in Harry Brown, including Michael Cain's interview comments, are a replica of a lost generation in survival mode, due to breakdowns in family life.
Michael Cain's political interview comments have brought forth this review of Harry Brown.
I believe it is a shame that this film revolved around Harry Brown's revenge, and the violence which came forth was typical and predictable.
Michael Cain could have made a film with a political edge, to make us think, but he didn't, like the politician's, Michael Cain chose the easy way out. Violence in a modern Britain.
18 out of 44 people found the following review useful:
I see all these positive reviews out of the UK and think
Author: Simon Bocanegra from Norman, Oklahoma
31 January 2010
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
well, Michael Caine doesn't make bad movies, does he? *Answer below.
Granted, the notion of a vigilante pensioner is already a stretch, but Clint Eastwood pulled it off to perfection. They're about the same age, Eastwood and Caine, aren't they? But Eastwood's war was Korea in the 50's and Caine's was supposed to be Northern Ireland in the 70's. Okay, whatever.
Then I read "Oscar for Michael Caine" and "everything Gran Torino was supposed to be" and wonder, because frankly Gran Torino hit the note that this sack of garbage totally misses.
There is no plot, no plot development, no character development....well, the Gollumesque dealer is a pretty spooky advertisement against that sort of lifestyle.
It's basically a mindless rehash of vigilante movies of the past few decades, except it's maybe supposed to appeal to retired folks and those getting on in years. Which, I suppose, there's quite an audience to tap there.
So, really, I've got to wonder what is bothering all these UK viewers that they think this is gold. No, I don't want to wonder because I've already wasted an hour and a half of my time watching it and that was too much. I'd like to know Sir Michael's opinion of the film, if he thinks it adds to the celluloid canon in any way....
*Yes, Michael Caine made a bad movie here.
13 out of 35 people found the following review useful:
Boring; laughably bad
Author: vsdobbs from Canada
2 May 2010
I cannot believe the positive reviews this film has gotten. The film is literally Rambo (ex marine messed with by everyone he comes into contact with) crossed with Death Wish. However, the bad guys are so comically over the top the film is laughable. You will not see a more unbelievably ridiculous crew of baddies in another film. It's like the campy bad guys from Robocop except they're not played campy--they're played for real. Absolutely hilarious!
The score is overwrought and ridiculously out of place; the script is boring and predictable; the characters are about half-a-dimension each, and going nowhere fast; the police are unbelievably ineffective.
Truly, this is one of the films most devoid of, well, anything, that I've seen in years. It won't scare you, it won't thrill you, it won't entertain you--all it will do is cause you to shake your head in bafflement that it managed to get made.
Anyone who thinks this movie is a masterpiece on any level whatsoever is deluded. Oscar nominations? The mind, it boggles at the thought.
28 out of 93 people found the following review useful:
A couple of hours you'll never get back
Author: Robert Saxon from London England
8 November 2009
On hearing of a British movie starring Michael Caine and Emily Mortimer, it's probably natural for avid film fans to skip to the cinema in the hope of finding the kind of gem that Venus turned out to be a few years ago. A tiny movie of unqualified class that would, for a modest budget, entertain its audience with a good story well told, turn the heads of the cinematic world, earn praise for cast and crew, and possibly major awards nods for those involved. Though it's fair to say that Caine delivers a solid performance as the titular lead in Harry Brown, to suggest that the film itself was anything but poor would be a massive inaccuracy.
There is no doubt that many comparisons will be drawn with tales that have trodden the well worn path this film follows, from the belligerent Death Wish to stylish Gran Torino. However, this is not Harry Brown's greatest flaw. That is an honour reserved for the American cop-movie-cliché ridden script directed with the kind of two dimensional, unimaginative heavy handedness one would expect from first year film students. Or Guy Ritchie. It is paint by numbers film making, delivered by people who have failed completely to do their homework or think beyond anything they have seen on and absorbed from the small screen. Since most of that is clearly from across The Pond we are fitted with this strange hybrid coat that never sits comfortably on British shoulders.
Caine does his considerable best with what he has to work with, and at times shows a deeper understanding of his character than the script deserves. As such he is a gemstone set in lead. Emily Mortimer is baffling as Inspector Frampton. One cannot help but wonder how such a simpering and weak woman - intelligent though she may be - rose to be a police officer of senior rank when she has such an utter lack of backbone. She is no Jane Tennyson, and is surrounded by a police force portrayed as being utterly devoid of saving graces, lacking respect, understanding or intelligence by a writer and a director who have no knowledge or comprehension of police training, procedure, methodology or character.
Everything about this film - with the exception of Caine - is poor. It is a shallow pool filled with stale regurgitate, utterly pointless and thoroughly distasteful, that serves no purpose whatsoever. It lacks the power of Sweeney, the intelligence of Cracker, the depth of Prime Suspect, and with the exception of Michael Caine's character study of the protagonist, is drivel of the worst order, aping films of much greater stature that come from a culture similar but alien to our own and whose overriding characteristics will never apply to Britain or its people. Poorly observed, badly written, sloppily directed and served on a bed of hyperbole, this in microcosm is why British Cinema is in such a parlous state. It fails to convince on every level, and a strong performance by Caine is betrayed by too many weaknesses that no actor, however brilliant, could possibly overcome.
The only wonder of Harry Brown is that enough people in various funding bodies were persuaded to release the significant funds required to make it.
It is said that Caine hopes for an Oscar for this film. It wouldn't be unfair to suggest that his disappointment is likely to be as great as that of his audience.
5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
it's something brown, all right...
Author: Martin Teller from Portland OR
12 January 2012
It's possible that Michael Caine has been forever ruined for me by THE TRIP. I can't watch him without thinking of Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon dueling with their Caine impressions. It doesn't matter, though, because Caine or not (and his performance here is nothing special in the slightest), this is a spectacularly awful movie. It demonizes its villains to the extreme (they GROW MARIJUANA AND TAPE THEMSELVES HAVING SEX!!!) in order to justify its ultra-conservative fear-mongering endorsement of vigilante violence. Loaded with terrible clichés, absurd characterizations, predictable plot developments, and some incredibly shoddy policework. But of course the government is inept at everything, and that's why we need to take up arms and waste all those filthy chavs ourselves, am I right? And speaking of police, Emily Mortimer is rather blubbery and humorless for a homicide detective. Maybe I'm reading too much David Simon lately, but if you're offended by a would-be witticism as innocuous as "death-o-gram," you're in the wrong line of work. An utter waste of time.
11 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Angry Old Man: The Movie
Author: TheMarwood from United States
23 March 2010
Oh dear. Where to begin with this one. This kind of film is my favorite kind of bad film. It's competently made, has nice cinematography and the actors are talented -- but the screenplay is lurid rubbish -- and everyone took it seriously. There are so many unintentionally hilarious scenes, I feel a new cult classic is born. How about the scene where Michael Caine's old friend almost gets asphyxiated from poo in a flaming paper bag and starts screaming "bastards!" into the night sky -- while tragic dramatic music is playing. But that's nothing compared to the not so subtle criminal youth. Blisters; rotten flesh; bags under their eyes that fall past their knees; weird tics that make Looney Toons characters seem tranquilized in comparison.
The half baked detective subplot is funny for all the wrong reasons too. This villainous youth gang occupies an underpass tunnel for most of the film's running time and commit heinous murders in this tunnel, yet the police can't seem to pin a murder on these junkies. Or the police won't pin a murder on these junkies. They are junkies in a tunnel, not a rich mafia crime syndicate.
For a good laugh, watch Micahel Caine fight crime. One can only hope for as many sequels as Death Wish. Personally, I think Harry Brown 5: The Face of Death, would make the world a better place.
3 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Why are so many UK films this boring?
Author: photomanvince from United States
24 October 2010
This isn't an English version of Gran Torino as I had hoped it would be! It is more a lesson in how to politely take revenge.
Michael Caine is too good an actor to have taken this role. It simply proved to me that the English can make mediocre films using great actors, just as they do in the U.S.
The characters lack depth.
The movie is: Predictable, cliché and slow.
Make sure you have plenty of patience when watching this.
It also lacks believable character development.
Either don't waste your time, or wait 'till it comes out on TV.
5 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
Great idea but too far-fetched
Author: DuncanOldham
30 November 2009
I was really let down by this movie.
The previews and the general idea of the movie were right up my street but it was too far-fetched for my liking.
I thought it was a great opportunity to show how bad the system is in the UK but it failed.
The 2 police officers were the strangest coppers I've ever seen. It was bizarre. I can't believe that Michael Caine put his name to this.
I also thought too much happened too quickly at the start. It seemed rush to point.
Sorry if my review is negative because I see the votes are quite high so I'm on my own with this one I think :)
Duncan Oldham
