Harry Brown

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.

I was at a recent Chase & Status gig, feeling old and a bit out of place when they did a track featuring Plan B which had the video projected onto the back of the stage. The video included clips from Harry Brown and it reminded me this film existed since it has slipped away in my mind. So, back in my mind, I decided to watch it despite only having heard so-so things about it. The end result of this was for me to have those so-so things confirmed because it is a film that kind-of does a job in terms of being a solid watch but at the same time doesn't really perform any other function or have anything specific to make it particularly worth seeing. The plot in a nutshell is that a pensioner seeks revenge on the drug gangs running his estate when they kill a friend of his. So essentially we are in Death Wish territory although I was curious to see if the film celebrated vigilante violence, whether it condemned it or whether it used the thriller plot to make comments on the state of modern Britain and such forgotten estates. Strangely it doesn't really do any of these and mostly it just plays as a straight thriller. As such it is perfectly watchable with excessive violence, some tense scenes and a generally well created world of a police no-go area. It is not brilliant by any means but it is fine for what it is. It does all get overblown towards the end and I found it a little too over the top to take seriously, but it is what it is. The lack of anything else going on was a problem for me though. It wasn't that I needed it to take a stand on anything, I just wanted it to be a bit smarter and more interesting than it was. The film doesn't have much to say about anything though; not about society, not about crime, not about policing and not about justice. Of course the film doesn't owe me anything like that nor does it have to have any comment when it is content to just be a drama – it just needed to be a better, more engaging drama to make up for it. Caine is the main appeal and he does hold the screen in this role. His performance is good and it did make me wish the material had given him more to work with in terms of substance. He is a great presence but he is lost in the overblown final third and really deserved a tighter focus on his character. Mortimer has little to do other than be the face of the powerless police while the majority of the cast turn in rather easy "gangster youth" performances although the main ones do have a bit more about them than that. Plan B has done this sort of thing before and he is OK but his character is too simple – compared to the content of his first album it is far too one dimensional but he is solid enough doing it. Overall Harry Brown is a decent enough film as a basic drama/thriller. It is enjoyably mean even if it does just what you expect this sort of story to do. I would have liked at least something in the way of comment or intelligence in the material though, but if it is there it doesn't come through. Not only would this have made the film better but it would have been good for the cast as well. Solid, but no more than that.

This was released at the tail-end of 2009 with a lot of fanfare and Michael Caine made some headlines himself with passionate and unfashionable views that the education system and poor parenting skills were responsible for youth crime . Certainly Caine himself knows what it's like spending formative years in deep poverty . He also stated in the 1970s that " The only reason I do a film is if there's exotic filming involved or if the cheque is large enough " . Has Caine mellowed or is HARRY BROWN , a low budget thriller set in a London estate so powerful Caine sees it as a labour of love ? Certainly the omens are good since he's surrounded by a respected supporting cast including Mortimer , Cunningham , Glen and the criminally under rated Sean Harris Harris appeared in OUTLAW in 2007 and that too was a British vigilante thriller . The faults of HB are similar to the ones in Nick Love's film where it's not enough for the anti hero to kill people for merely selling class A drugs - the criminals must also be unrepentant violent sexual predators who gun down unfortunate passer-bys for kicks or run child prostitution rings . In 1971 American critics rushed to label DIRTY HARRY " a fascist film " and one wonders if the producers were worried about similar accusations . Everything is a little bit too simplistic . Gary Young's screenplay does tend to overstate how bad the villains are . Unlike OUTLAW the narrative doesn't blame police apathy for soaring violent crime it tends to blame the Crown Prosecution Service . The detectives Frampton and Hicock give the film some soul but they never entirely convince . Does it seem credible that the death of a senior citizen at the hands of a gang would result in manslaughter charges than murder ? It's also implausible that during a police interview a suspect would state " I'll give you unnatural sex and you'll enjoy it you saucy minx " ( Paraphrase ) without a lawyer intervening . The narrative shoots itself in the foot in the last 15 minutes that'll have you gasping " yeah right " Director Daniel Barber does rise above the material and he's a director to keep an eye on . He's very much in a post modernist tradition . Harry enters a skunk factory and the diagetic muzak is similar to the opening soundtrack of Gasper Noe's IRREVERSIBLE whilst an ad hoc interrogation involving Harry and a junkie resembles " that scene " from CASINO ROYALE . Barber also makes good use of sound especially gunfire and when violence does happen it's sometimes genuinely shocking . Caine comes across as an older slightly more mellow version of Jack Carter and dominates the film but this is not to take away anything from the rest of the cast , especially Ben Drew who one hopes to see more of HARRY BROWN did suffer slightly in that it started some debate bout youth crime which drowned out the movie itself . It is a very impressive gritty thriller that we see the British industry produce very little of. It does suffer some flaws in the screenplay which unfortunately spoils the ending and doesn't make the film as persuasive as it thinks it is but there's far worse films than this being produced in Britain over the last few years

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.

Michael Caine portrays Harry Brown, an aged honest joe living in a city of chaos, where juveniles are driven into drugs and crime. A new angle of view to the 90s' popular crime genre since Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs(1992) and Danny Boyle's Trainspotting(1996)... Essentially, this movie suggests what can be done with streets when an old chap, who has a medal-of-honor in naval forces, is left alone in his small apartment. It offers an excellent concept through aged Harry Brown's point of view, which is as good as the past summer's animation hit: Up. It's obvious that the film draws huge benefit from its thematic values. First, Harry Brown's wife passes away due to geriatric causes. Then, his close friend and neighbour Leonard Atwoll gets killed by rounder juveniles at a night time. Whilst having a life-time crisis, police come to his door for investigation of Atwoll's murdering. Under a confusion of fear, anger and despair; all of a sudden he finds himself running after the vengeance of his friend Atwoll. Keeping track of the street gangs, he lays a trap to show up as a businessman trading guns with them. Since it's Michael Caine as we know him, he is an expert at fooling people with detracting their attention; so by courtesy of his timing skills and luck, he dishes those young criminals one by one. Above all, Daniel Barber as a director turns this such a run-of-the-mill plot into a great suspense/thriller story. He tries to prove that Harry Brown's first murder was unwillingly just an accident but his last was a psychopathic mincing! Same idea here as the way Brown removing the traces behind him, starts with cleaning and collecting garbage, then turns out to setting fire and sabotaging locations. Besides, characterization is at its best. The criminals were so factual. As an important technical detail the sounds have been captured marvellously (with the echoes of fired bullets being heard behind windows), and this is what makes a crime movie makes sense. Crime/suspense/thriller genre is getting better and better year after year. While we still see a lot of underdeveloped action and shallow crime movies all around, it's obvious that Harry Brown is noteworthy and a must see for the genre followers.

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.

The greatest tragedy of this film is that its a wasted opportunity. There are only so many films that can be told about the chav situation in Britain before it becomes a cliché, and this film could have become the classic. But its simply far too flawed, it just doesn't 'add up'. The story itself is not new. People cite Gran Torino and Death Wish, but I felt Jodie Foster's 'The Brave One' was the closest - especially with the subplot of sympathetic police on the tail of the vigilante. Here are the problems: Although the direction feels paced, thoughtful and subtle to begin with, there is nothing beneath the surface here, no depth. The chavs are shown as pure-and-simple evil monsters trying to evoke the hatred of the audience, but this is irresponsible in my opinion and will actually only add to the fear, misunderstanding and divide of social groups in Britain. Eden Lake hinted at the parental influence and peer pressure, This is England showed the misguided human at the centre of a skinhead. But in Harry Brown, all the kids carry armed weapons which the police don't seem to notice even when they're arrested. The scene involving a couple of drug/weapon/girl dealers in their marajuana filled 'abode' was a ridiculously over-the-top attempt to be 'gritty' and 'real' but felt more like a spoof of the Drexl scene in True Romance. Really, as if such drug dealers would happily invite someone like Harry Brown into their home to witness what he did. Its this kind of unbelievability clashing with 'realism' that ruins Harry Brown. Towards the end, a character twist reveals someone Harry knows to be related to one of the youths, who then tries to kill two police officers and Harry. Its just ridiculous, and all of a sudden, the weak and vulnerable 'realism' gives way to Hollywood style nonsense. The policework feels ridiculous and TV drama style. A riot that features at the end feels like it is from another film altogether, is completely ludicrous, and doesn't fit at all with the supposed messages of the film. The final shot shows Harry waling under a subway that was previously dominated by chavs. The message - its all OK now. No more chavs. What an absolutely ridiculous and dishonest conclusion to the film. Basically, its OK for old men to go stabbing and shooting people. The police will overlook it if they agree with your motive. Chavs are just a temporary problem. The way to deal with chavs is to simply launch a police riot against them, then they will all stay at home. It has nothing to do with parenting, socio-economics, a government that ignores youth, or a country that has lost its pride and self-esteem. Ultimately, this film has no point at all. Its too depressing to be a thriller, too dishonest to be a social commentary, to stupid and shallow to be thought-provoking. To be perfectly honest, the most accurate way I can describe it is as a chavspoitation film. I would have loved Shane Meadows to rewrite and make something worthwhile out of this.

To herald Harry Brown as a film that every person should see is a watershed moment for the way the UK likes to portray itself. When I was younger, I was told about what's good and bad, right and wrong and perhaps more importantly, how to deal with injustice and how not to turn a blind eye to it. Only last week, a film with similar 'citizen turns vigilante against thugs' was banned from cinema screens in its home city of Nottingham for fear of a violent backlash and reprisals, such was the brutal, yet unsparing depiction of Nottingham's gang culture. And the difference between that and Harry Brown is? Earlier this year, I had the honour seeing the debut film of a largely unknown award-winning filmmaker based in Stratford - the home of the 2012 Olympics - the shiny side of London. Stick with Me (directed by Bernard Kordieh) is an uncompromising tale about brotherhood, confronting the viewer with the brutal reality of life in London's inner cities – very much in the mould of Harry Brown. Judging by the hype surrounding Harry Brown and the record attendance who saw Stick with Me make its' premiere at the British Urban Film Festival last month, what is clear is that Harry Brown (and similar films) has a far more prominent role to play in public life, making us all think about what our roles as citizens are. Simply put, Harry Brown is very much a film which does exactly what it says on the tin and Sir Michael is magnificent.

Saw this film last night and wanted to applaud the British film-makers for producing this great film. It is a film which made me literally jump from my seat with excellent filmotography.I feel this is a film well worth watching and as mentioned in the trailers, it has to be the best British film of the year. I do not think any more British releases will be able to compete with this film. Michael Caine's acting is as usual superb and he has once again showed his professionalism in a different way.

Watched this at a London preview screening This is an enjoyable, and often tense vigilante film. But don't look for a radical plot line or unpredictable twists because this is simply a straight forward and predictable Death Wish style vigilante story. I'll give absolutely no credit to the screenplay writer for that. But full marks to the director for turning up the high tensions to make this still an exciting film. Having lived in a council estate myself, I know how frightening some youngsters are and can be more terrifying than the recent flurry of zombie films. However, this is Michael Caine's show and is a fine addition to the recent surge of old tough guys fighting back movies such as Gran Torino. Caine was brilliant as usual. He makes the most of a pitifully typical script. That is of a widower seeking violent vengeance on the youths who killed his friend. He played it subtle and his vigilante transition was done just right. He isn't turned into some unrealistic slick killing machine or a Rambo. He has typical elderly obstacles such as breathing problems, slow reflexes and old bones but some of his military skills give him a chance. There is a also a sub plot involving a female detective on his trail but it so underwritten, I just didn't care. The actors playing the youths were very very convincing and help to root for our pensioner hero even more. So it is satisfying to see our legendary cockney actor clean up some really nasty bad guys.