1138 REPORT CARD: 5/10 (C+) Can Do Better!
Why would you want to see this film? The short answer, Michael Caine! The long answer, because Michael Caine is in this movie! Over the years Caine has provided some seminal performances; some have been performances that go a long way to define British cinema. Zulu (1964), The Ipcress File (1965), Alfie (1966), Get Carter (1971), The Man Who Would Be King (1975), Educating Rita (1983), Mona Lisa (1986), The Quiet American (2002) all stand out as iconic films in cinema history, which is something I suspect will never be said of Harry Brown (2009).
Caine’s performance in Harry Brown (2009) is competent and compelling, but really, only on a par with his performance in Sleuth (1972); it attracts empathy and allows an audience an insight of the character Harry Brown. Yet unlike previous decades, Michael Caine is now fraying at the seams, greying at the edges, wrinkled and slower. The dialogue is not delivered with the crispness and sharpness it once was; but he can still offer audiences an acting master class: not bad for someone who can’t really act!
Harry Brown's younger nephew
The performance in Harry Brown (2009) is reminiscent of Jack in Get Carter (1971). If there was a family tree with all of the Caine characters on it, Harry will appear as the older uncle that is never quite happy at the attention attained by the young premier league villain Jack; but there are family resemblances. Both characters have a deep and confident anger born out of pain and frustration. While Harry has none of the confidence or swagger of Jack, the grimaces say in both faces, ‘and now, you bastard, I am bloody annoyed.‘ Yet for all of the family ties, the violence that exists in Harry seems too misplaced, too artificial and too staged, whereas in Jack it is fluid, natural and very real.
Violence is too misplaced in Harry
Being a heavy is no longer ‘a full time job’ for Caine and is better suited for more gentile roles, The Cider House Rules (1999), while ten years ago, being a case in point. It is the lack of verisimilitude that shows to an audience that what we once saw in Jack Carter, we will not see again. Harry Brown (2009) tries in vain to recapture the bright golden days of Caine’s youth, but fails to make the past become present.
Far too quick for a pensioner!
Where this film does score points with an audience is with its readiness to show the ‘real inner city streets’. Reality Police shows have brought to a wider audience a familiarity with real life, real boorish behaviour, real violence, and the real aftermath of both. Harry Brown (2009) appears to capture this audience and willingly plays to their narcissism. After watching this film twice in private I went to a local cinema and paid to watch it again. The Theatre was filled with youths, aged 18 – 27, loud and confident. Feet on the chairs and mobile phones lighting up like a firework display. I found strange that they were not appalled at the treatment of Leonard (David Bradley) but cheered and laughed and seemed to support the villainy. They wanted to associate with the villains of the film and were disappointed when they got their comeuppance; but were still entertained by the violent way this comeuppance was shown.
Harry Brown (2009) seems to revel in the public perception of inner city gangs, and uses this stereotyped violence as a backdrop for Harry’s existence within the story. Violence drives Harry from one scene to the next. Violence justifies violence and killing the villains is somehow justified as for ‘the greater good’. It is OK to shoot someone as long as they are not very nice! You know for certain that Harry will never be prosecuted for the crimes he commits. Retribution only come to the villains. All this is far too simplistic, too predictable and it is this predictability that forms the main reason why you should stay away from this film.
In short, Harry Brown (2009) is exciting and yet predictable with little in it to try and make it a good British Gangster film. Its worth is simply that it offers a reflection of what may be modern British inner city gang culture. I’m just not convinced that there is anything worthy here to bring attention to, bring to the screen, and certainly pay to watch.
I’m not going to totally slam the film. There are positive points: the look of the film for example. Martin Ruhe makes this film look beautiful. The lighting in the dark scenes was perfect and in the light scenes, the sinister darkness was always around! Alison Rainey and her make-up team also deserve credit for their work, which was first rate.
So, should you go and see this film? If you like ‘Road Wars’ this film might just appeal to you. Go ahead if you want to see a slightly impotent, British, Gran Torino (2008). If you want to see Michael Caine give a solid acting performance then again, this film might appeal to you. If you want something more than predictable nonsense wrapped up in a blanket of violence, then stay away. Maybe by staying away, the viewing public will send a message to the film industry that it really should, and really can do better!
