One might think that a film with a cast as great as The Angriest Man in Brooklyn made up of Mila Kunis, Peter Dinklage, Melissa Leo, and Robin Williams in a leading role, could be at its worst, entertaining. You would be wrong. DEAD WRONG.
The Angriest Man in Brooklyn follows Henry (Williams), a man in a perpetual state of anger towards everything and everyone. Sharon (Kunis) is an equally stress-induced young doctor. Sharon is needed as a replacement for Henry’s normal doctor at a medical check-up, and his sour impatience brings her to her boiling point. Sharon lies and tells Henry that he has a serious brain aneurysm and that he will die within 90 minutes. At first skeptical then frightened, Henry swiftly leaves the hospital with the intention of making amends with everyone he has wronged in his life before his 90 minutes are up. Panicked, Sharon searches the streets of New York accompanied by Henry’s brother, Aaron (Dinklage), searching for Henry after discovering that due to his actual diagnosis, Henry really could die at any moment.
This movie is so predictable that I can say with 95% certainty that almost any impression about what happens in the film along with every cliché that you can possibly think solely from reading the synopsis is probably correct.
I tend to characterize the movies in the See Them While They Are Still In Theaters section of Verizon Fios On-Demand as any of the following: low-key indie dramas or comedies, bad horror movies, or bad comedies that draw buyers in with the name of at least one or more well-known actors. Even though The Angriest Man in Brooklyn was released into theaters as well as On-Demand, the film seems much more tailored to an On-Demand-type of audience because of the latter.
I am going to come out and say it in as straight-forward a fashion as I can: The Angriest Man in Brooklyn is really bad. Having seen a lot of good movies this year, I could smell this stinker about 20 minutes in and I wished I had stopped there. I want my money back. This movie is so painful to watch that you almost wish you had the same fate as Henry; after the 90 minutes (the film’s running time as well) are up, you die. This movie is not even the entertaining type of bad (i.e. bad to the point of being comical). That is part of the reason why this “comedy” does not work. I actually wish that there was more at the movie’s expense to laugh at. The Angriest Man in Brooklyn would have be much more memorable and be over much quicker that way.
My first criticism is directed towards the performances of Robin Williams, Mila Kunis, and Melissa Leo. Robin Williams over-acts to the point of no return. He is vulgar, annoying, and cringe-worthy in every single scene he is in. Every single word and face he made me want to punch him. Let me make it clear that Robin Williams happens to be one of my favorite actors. Knowing this, you can understand the amount of wincing I did throughout this movie.
Another thing that it hurts me to do is criticize Mila Kunis; I have a soft spot for Kunis and usually find that she is a charming actor. The time has come for to fess up and say her performance is far from good in The Angriest Man in Brooklyn. Kunis’ character, Sharon, starts off as remotely interesting. She is cracking under the stress of her job and trying to cope with the small tragedies of her everyday life, such as her cat’s suicide. The last part is pretty ridiculous, but I was willing to suspend my disbelief and get behind her character. Yet as the film drags on, Kunis becomes blander and blander and next thing you know, Kunis is just like the audience. She does not care about her performance in the slightest.
Advertisement
Moving forward, Melissa Leo over-acts to the point of melodrama in the few scenes she appears in. An obnoxious impression creeps upon you while watching Leo act. The impression is that she is just screaming for another Oscar win for this movie. This makes no sense, and her performance becomes out of tone with the rest of the movie seeing as it is a mainstream “comedy.” She almost makes Bradley Cooper’s freak-out scene in American Hustle seem poignant. It is a shame to see Leo stoop to such an all-time-low acting-wise considering her fierce and emotional performance in The Fighter.
Click [NEXT] to continue reading The Angriest Man in Brooklyn review.
My second criticism directed towards the film is the dialogue. The dialogue consists of obscenities, melodramatic schmaltz (that’s a double whammy) informing the audience what is going on through expository dialogue, and awful jokes. One such joke consists of Robin Williams comparing sex with his wife to a peanut butter and jelly sandwich (you read that correctly). Like every other joke in the movie, it is as funny out of context as it is in context, not funny at all.
Advertisement
My third criticism is directed towards the lack of originality presented in the film’s plot. Anyone reading this review or who has seen more than one movie, read a book, or watched TV in their lifetime has seen variations of this plot a hundred different times. The Scenario: an angry character must change their ways, must rights all of his/her wrongs, learns a lesson in the end, blah, blah, blah. This plot has not been original since A Christmas Carol was written by Charles Dickens in 1843. The worst part about this is that the film does not at least offers any new spins on this tired formula. To make it even worse, the execution is not very good to begin with. Another movie on VOD, The Double (Check out Jon’s review here) – unlike The Angriest Man In Brooklyn – succeeds largely because of its execution. Richard Ayoade makes you believe The Double is incredibly original not because it does anything very different from any other movies (It is almost a mix between Brazil and Fight Club), but because his directing style and storytelling is so damn excellent that it makes you feel like you have never seen any of the plot devices before. The Angriest Man In Brooklyn offers nothing spellbinding in the plot department. Maybe it is unfair to expect that from such a “comedy.” However, my view is that if a screenwriter and director wants to spit out an overdone story, fine, but put a new twist on it for the audience’s sake!
My fourth criticism is directed at the film’s character development. The character development is clichéd, corny, and done all through clunky exposition. An example of the dialogue’s corniness is when it is revealed that part of why Henry is estranged from his son (played by William’s The Crazy One’s co-star, Hamish Linklater) is because his son wanted to go to the Brooklyn School of Dance, and Henry shot down his dreams and said dancing is a stupid career choice. What’s next? Dancing is outlawed, and his son goes to dance alone in a warehouse to blow off steam? This scene really made me wonder, “Is this movie trying to be as clichéd as possible?” It was the only time I found myself laughing during this movie, and let’s just say I was not laughing along with the movie.
Phil Alden Robinson, the director of Field of Dreams, chose The Angriest Man In Brooklyn as his first directional venture in 12 years. This movie is proof that he should never have returned to be the director of anything professional ever again. He should probably not even man a camcorder. Maybe that is a bit extreme. The film looks like a high budget TV movie, the transitions and cuts are downright juvenile, and every flashback sequence looks like a Hallmark Channel Christmas movie.
However, all of these criticisms disturbed me less than the complete lack of empathy I felt towards anything in The Angriest Man In Brooklyn after the first 20 minutes. I tried to give this movie a chance, and alas, I simply could not. I did not care about anything it had to offer. Robin William’s could have been violently run-over by a steamroller for an hour of this movie’s running time with his screams done in an Alvin and The Chipmunks sound effect, and I would not have even made a peep. I am not heartless. About Time made me cry my eyes out. The reason I am spewing so much vitriol towards this movie is because I actually expected something good to come out of it. Or maybe I am just bitter that I cannot get that hour and a half of my life back.
Advertisement
To be quite honest, I found very little good to outweigh the bad in the The Angriest Man In Brooklyn. I am stunned at how much hatred I have towards this movie. It is not the worst movie I have ever seen…but it could be one of them. It is simply agonizing to watch. Crude, predictable, badly acted, poorly written, and unprofessionally directed.
I had to rack my brain for any good qualities that this movie had and I truly only found one great thing about it. Peter Dinklage. Peter Dinklage can save practically anything. Dinklage’s role as Aaron is without a shred of doubt, the best quality that this piece of garbage has to offer. The character of Aaron is not very well written, but Dinklage’s overwhelming appeal as an actor and energy of his delivery of dialogue more than makes up for this. The only admirable thing about this movie is that much like in X-Men: Days of Future Past, the fact that Dinklage has dwarfism has no attention brought to it. Aaron is just a normal man. The lack of attention toward Dinklage’s condition not only proves how respected Peter Dinklage is as an actor, but it shows that extraordinary talent has the potential to outweigh physical appearance. Could a tide be turning in Hollywood? Maybe. Admittedly, I am just fooling myself into believing that that was the film’s intention in order to give the film a rating slightly above the very harsh 1 out of 10. If this is the only think available to watch on VOD, you should just go to sleep.
Rating: 1.5 out of 10
The Angriest Man in Brooklyn is available for rent or buy on VOD, Amazon Instant, and iTunes. It will be released on DVD and Blu-Ray on July 22nd. Rated R.
Advertisement