Pride and Glory --- reviewed by Craig "The Movie Geek" Silliphant
Sound Off!
Got something to say?
Sound off in Comments
Sound off in Comments
Share This Blog Post
Can't see the 'ShareThis' icon? Reload your page view by pressing Shift and clicking Refresh at the same time.
Dir: Gavin O'Connor Stars: Ed Norton, Colin "The Greasebag" Farrell, Jon Voight
Synopsis: After several NYC cops are killed, one brother must investigate his own family.
Pride and Glory doesn't do much to distinguish itself from other cop procedural dramas. We've already had the very similiar Joaquin Phoenix / Mark Wahlberg movie "We Own the Night" this year. Pride and Glory sat on the shelf at New Line Cinema for a year or so before finally being released --- never a good sign.
There are some interesting scenes here and there, as well as some gritty moments of brutal violence, but the film eventually folds in on itself. It's well directed, and intense in places, but the predictable plot and truly horrible dialogue stop it dead in its tracks. There's also a cringe worthy scene where Colin Farrell threatens a baby with a hot poker, so some of it was over the top.
The Director's father was a real life cop, so the police parts of the movie feel genuine, but the movie too often indulges in hilariously implausible acts. In one scene, they are surreptitiously burning a car underneath a bridge --- sure it looks cool, but don't they realize that there would actually be hundreds of possible witnesses? Some people got no sense!
Ed Norton is good as usual, but Jon Voight and Colin "The Greasebag" Farrell are both guilty of overacting. There's a lot of shoving guys up against the wall and shouting exposition at them. I think theis movie could have been something good, but it was totally mishandled, mostly from the writing end of things.
2 Dorks out of 5 on the Geek-o-Meter!
Comments
Too bad. When I initially
Too bad. When I initially heard about this one, I was hoping something good due to who's all involved. I feel like Colin Farrell is a very polar actor. In some films, he's really great: "Minority Report", "The New World", "In Bruges", but then he has so many bad movies to counteract these ones. Anyways, not a very good weekend overall. Nobody needs more "High School Musical" and "Saw".
I am in total agreement with
I am in total agreement with you Aren, in regards to Mr. Farrell. Sometimes I like him, sometimes he's totally unwatchable. Don't get me wrong, the film had some great moments, but it was weighed down by a lot of the family scenes and bad dialogue.
Here's a question for you --- when I mentioned the cliched dialogue to Jeff Rogstad (who I do the CTV News at Noon with in Saskatoon), he pointed out that perhaps the dialogue was cliched because that's how these characters would talk. Do you agree that is valid or not? I think Jeff has a good point, but I would argue that (unless they make a particular point out of showcasing a character who does speak in cliches) a movie, even a realistic one, is a heightened reality. You have to write specifically for that reality. The same holds true when you adapt a book for the screen. Some things don't translate from medium to medium, so you have to cut or adapt them. Am I making sense, or just rambling now?
Your thoughts?
Craig the Movie Geek
I get what you're saying,
I get what you're saying, and I partially agree with the point that many people in real life speak in cliches, and that to properly reflect them in films, it's occasionally necessary to use cliches. It doesn't always bother me in films, but it needs to have a purpose. Ultimately, dialog in films is never realistic, but it has to consistent within its own context. Quentin Tarantino films are the perfect example of this. His characters don't speak realistically, but their dialog seems real within the world he has created. Movies are not the real world, but if the dialog is making you aware that you are watching a film, than it is doing a disservice. It's an incredible balancing act, and I have to say that writing dialog for a film is easily the most challenging part of it.
Yes! Tarantino is a very
Yes! Tarantino is a very good example of what I'm getting at. You put it very well when you said, "movies are not the real world, and if the dialogue is making you aware that you are watching a film, than it is doing a disservice." That's how this movie made me feel --- but that being said, I have also seen movies with worse cliches that I bought into anyway. Dexter the television show is sort of like that for me. Some of the acting drives me to suicidal thoughts, as well as some of the cliches and on the nose dialogue. But the show, and Dexter himself, are so damn cool, that I'll over look it. Really bad (read: really good) B-movies are like that too. I've seen some zombie movies where I was more scared of the dialogue than the monsters, but it's all part of the aesthetic, and I love them anyway. In fact, if real life ever turns into a lo-fi place with bad production values and zombies everywhere, I expect everyone to talk in cliches and exposition.
C the MG
Add New Comment