Film critics are having a hard time processing “Harry Brown.”
The new film, which opens in select cities (just not here in Denver) April 30, is drawing curious reactions from critics who aren’t comfortable rooting on an old chap (Sir Michael Caine) taking the law into his own hands.
Citizens lashing out against criminals can get audiences lost in a moral thicket – in theory. But vigilante films typically stack the deck in our hero’s favor.
Here’s guessing “Harry Brown” operates on a similar level.
But New York Magazine critic David Edelstein’s beef with the film is that it dares to be … wait for it … good.
The chief problem is that Caine makes a grave, soulful vigilante avenger, and first-time director Daniel Barber gives the film a dank, streaky, genuinely unnerving palette. Moral artists have no business making a fascist, reactionary movie this effective. To hell with them.
Fascist? Does Harry Brown wear a “Mitt Romney in 2012″ T-shirt when taking out the trash?
It’s one thing to disagree with vigilante violence in toto. But would Edelstein have preferred the film be slipshod and bland?
Well, probably yes.
(Photo Credit: Harry Brown Productions Ltd. / Samuel Goldwyn Films)
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
He’s employing the term “fascist” in it’s 1960-90s usage – meaning “anything a leftist doesn’t like”. Which is ironic since as he writes for the New Yorker he’s probably a
MussoliniObama fan.I guess “Inglorious Basterds” was a fascist movie.
He’s taking a cue from those infamous reviews of the original Dirty Harry in the ’70s: both Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert explicitly called the movie fascist.
Because if there’s one thing Mussolini was known for, it’s avenging murder.
Pauline Kael’s name leaped to mind when I read this, too.
While I struggle to balance ideology and criticism in my reviews, my peers often don’t even bother.
There’s no point in liberal critics bothering to tone down their ideology when the more liberal their reviews are, the more they get rewarded with lucrative book deals, literary awards, and people sucking up to them at cocktail parties.
While simultaneously being praised for their bravery, of course.
Could be, JimmyC. Other factors could also be in play:
* In our media saturated age you have to be bolder, and louder, to get attention.
* Older, not wiser. Roger Ebert’s work is getting more ideological … maybe a function of the passage of time?
* Job insecurity – Today’s film critics could be tomorrow’s job seekers, and they’re nervous and angry – and it’s reflected in their writing.
Vigilante film? Now I MUST go and see Sir Michael’s new film.
It’s really a bit sad that at some point some on the left got this idea that a heroic figure extracting revenge on bad guys equals fascism. Incidentally, this must also mean that their view of a benevolent society is one that treats its most evil elements with gentleness and understanding.
Wonder if it hurts to be psychotic..David?? For crying in a bucket..it’s only a movie..
Well, good, the candya** didn’t like former Royal marine Commando Sir Michael Caine in a vigalante/revenge flick! Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
I’ll go see it for sure .
corrected Marine… vigilante
Fascist? Goody! This will be the first film this year that I’ll actually venture out of my house to see in an actual theater.
So I guess Bronson was totally waving the Facist flag in the Death Wish movies.
Every time some lefty groupthinker defaults to the “fascist” smear, I am reminded of Mandy Patankin’s immortal line from The Princess Bride: “You keep using that word. I don’t think you know what it means.”
I happened on this site by accident. What a revelation!. There are still people in America who can think! My gosh, you probably actually realize that Bill Maher and Jon Stewart are not great intellectuals!! (You will never get a job at Newsweek.)
Thanks for making my day. I’m glad to realize I’m not alone in my perceptions of Ebert’s declining trajectory.
I absolutely hated this movie, but it would appear that I’m very much in the minority. The thugs were such stereotypes; all they needed were boiler-suits and they could have been the nameless henchmen spoofed by Austin Powers. I defy anyone to name any realism whatsoever in the drug-dealer and his den. For me, the movie was designed to appeal to those people who regard all youth as enemies.