Young's Review
Some films are universally accepted as wonderful. Critics hail them, audiences flock to see them and the awards shows lavish them with accolades. 'Before The Devil Knows You're Dead' is one such film.
It was because of the praise coming from critics I respect (such as Roger Ebert) that I dragged James and my friends Patrick and Angela McNeil to see 'Devil' with me on the final day of the St. Louis International Film Festival. I had high hopes for this film, which is why I am truly disappointed to to give it a 'thumbs down'.
The film moved at a glacial pace and featured overwrought acting at every turn. Afterwards, James turned to me and put both thumbs down. There have been few films that have been a bigger letdown.
The film focuses on the repercussions of a botched bank robbery planned by brothers Andy (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) and Hank (Ethan Hawke). Andy is in need of money and knows Hank is down on his luck, so he recruits his baby brother to rob their parents' jewelry shop. The job is supposed to go down without any violence, or even a gun. Things go awry, however, when Hank hires his pal Bobby (Brian F. O'Byrne) to do the dirty work. After the plan literally blows up in their faces, Andy and Hank are left to deal with the shattered remains of their increasingly empty lives.
The first half drags considerably, with the exception being the robbery scene. The film does pick up, but not enough to overcome all its flaws.
The characters are not easy to care about or invest in. Andy is self-absorbed and Hank is a desperate loner. Andy's wife Gina (Marisa Tomei) and the boys' father Charles (Albert Finney) aren't any better. Andy practically begs Hank to help with the robbery and then berates him when the operation fails. Hank feels guilty about not being able to provide for his daughter but then blows a $2,000 advance his brother gives him. Gina is so shallow that she asks Andy for cab fare after grandly announcing she is leaving him.
The device of using flashbacks to advance the story works in some films, such as ‘Pulp Fiction’. Here it just serves to bog down an already slow film. Just when Lumet starts to liven the action, he moves the story backwards. Some of the material is just pointless. A sex scene involving Andy and Gina to open the movie adds nothing to the plot, and neither do the subsequent views of a topless Gina.
The acting is mostly overdone, which is a surprise considering Lumet’s involvement. I expected more from a man who helmed such classics as ‘Dog Day Afternoon’ and ’Serpico’. The performances of Hoffman and Hawke, two actors that I normally love, are average. Tomei and Finney both emote as if their livelihood depended on it (which in this case is not a good thing). A scene near the end where Andy cries to Gina about his father’s lack of love is almost laughable when the intention seems to be poignancy.
I just never connected with this film. Every review I have read has said what a great film it is, so something must be wrong with me. I just did not get it. James summed it up best when I apologized to him for wasting two hours of his time. His response: “I am more upset with wasting eight bucks.”
Wilsford's Review
Thumb: Down
Notable Characters:
Phillip Seymour Hoffman - Andy
Ethan Hawke - Hank
Reasons why I didn’t like it:
• Bad story telling. It followed the Pulp Fiction, break the story up formula and it didn’t work. In fact I thought that it hurt the movie. The movie was about the downfall of two desperate men and I think that telling the story chronologically would play more into that aspect of the story.
• The movie was slow and when a movie is slow and bad story telling is amplified. Which makes me look at my watch more, which makes me do math so I can figure out when I get to leave the movie theater and when a movie makes me do more math, no one wins.
• Opening sex scene was worthless and the image of a nude Phillip Seymour Hoffman is scary.
• It cost me 2 hours of my life and 8 bucks.
• It was just a stupid movie.
Reasons why I liked it:
• None.
Final Notes:
Crap. Please don’t waste your time and money. I know that the St. Louis Post Dispatch praised this movie but you should know that they don’t know what they are talking about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I guess I shouldn't say that I liked this movie, but I kinda did. I didn't find the acting as overwrought as you did, Nate, and I liked non-linear timeline. The time jumps were effective in telling the story from each character's perspective, and filling in the gaps as the movie went along. (I think it was a different technique than in Pulp Fiction, where teh jumps were no explained or used to make the story more complete, but actaully to confuse the viewer.)
It's not an especially entertaining or uplifting film, and you certainly don't walk out feeling happy about the world, but I found it worthwhile nonetheless. Starting the story from near the end got me interested in how the brothers got themselves in that situation. As it moves forward by looking back in time, you start to see why things are like they are and it helps explain how and why the rest of the story happens.
I thought it was original, thoughtful, and engaging. While I don't know about the necessity of the opening scene, it was effective in shocking the audience to attention, and setting up the sort of high contrast, realistic, and highly personal story that follows.
Post a Comment