There are 2 strongly opposed views of "Pride and Glory": apparently, if you've watched every cops-and-robbers movie that has ever been released, plus the steady diet of police procedurals served up on television nightly, this film might seem like too many others you've already seen. but if, like me, you haven't seen a crime story since, say, "The Departed", then you'll find "Pride and Glory" 2 hours and 10 minutes of ever-building, positively riveting tension that climaxes with satisfying catharsis.
perhaps the nytimes reviewer of this film is in the first category, in which case he might be better off (and readers trying to decide whether to see a particular movie would clearly be better served) if, like the nytimes's incomparable reviewer Janet Maslin, he were to realize that it is time to move on to another subject; one to which his not inconsiderable critical insights and stylistic skill could bring freshness -- rather than cranky ennui.
let's review this movie by unpacking the nytimes review:
"'Pride and Glory,' ... plods across familiar ground .... It's yet another movie about ..."
Partially true. admittedly it's a genre film. (by now, aren't they all?) but, "plods" is as inaccurate as writing that Barack Obama has merely been 'plodding' across the political landscape for the past 2 years. 'tour de force' is more like it.
"Jon Voight -- his face as pink as a Christmas ham, his acting in the same food group ..."
Silly. Voight, as Francis Tierney, Sr, plays an up-from-the-ranks retired Irish cop who's rather fond of bending his elbow. as such, the role calls for someone melanin-challenged who leaves no doubt about what he's really feeling. this was not a part for, say, Ben Kingsley.
"... this highly male-dominated movie ...."
True. movies about rough-and-tumble Irish cops do tend to be "highly male-dominated".
"... Colin Farrell -- jittery displays of misdirected intensity."
Odd. just where *should* a rogue cop whose whole world is coming down around him "direct" his "jittery intensity"?
"... whose hobbies include breeding ..."
Translation: as Tierney, Sr's son-in-law Jimmy, Farrell plays a man with a normal family life.
"'Pride and Glory,' ... is not especially good ..."
False. "Pride and Glory" is *exceptionally* good. in fairness, this particular nytimes review is not especially bad (at least not by comparison with many of the others).
"And the story, while none too fresh ... has a certain rough potency."
Damning with faint praise. being forced to choose between forsaking honor or forsaking family is, indeed, a "none too fresh" dilemma (eg, "On the Waterfront", "High Noon", etc). so what? "Raging Bull" and "Fight Club" also have "a certain rough potency", but to describe them as such would suggest a certain delicate lack of potency.
".... relies a little too much on expository shouting, ..."
True. much too much, for my liking. but then, this movie wasn't intended to be an episode of Masterpiece Theater.
"there are nonetheless some fine details and powerful, tense scenes ... "
actually, there are *a great many* "fine details and powerful, tense scenes". (one wonders: what is that reviewer's *real* problem with this movie?)
"The best stuff can be found around the edges of the main family drama, in subplots and in the supporting performances ..."
Not really. the domestic drama on the suburban home front is great stuff, but the interplay between brother-against-brothers and the life-and-death struggle for hearts and minds in Washington Heights is dramatically greater still.
"Mr. Norton and Mr. Farrell, unfortunately, play to their weaknesses."
Simply wrong! this movie is a perfect vehicle for the enormous *strengths* of both actors: Norton as Tierney Sr's conscience-plagued son Ray, and Farrell as Ray's brother-in-law Jimmy, who is running a crew of drug-dealing cops.
".... the full measure of Mr. Norton's vanity, by far his least appealing attribute."
Wrong-headed. Norton is one of the finest practitioners of his craft, in this or any other time. as such, he's entitled to some vanity (unlike certain movie critics).
"Mr. Farrell, meanwhile, once again indulges his blustery mixture of menace and charm, overdoing both."
Wrong-headed again. a "blustery mixture of menace and charm" is *precisely* what the role of a cop-gone-bad calls for. *Farrell* delivers. the role of a movie review is to accurately describe a movie's intentions and the degree to which these were successfully realized. this nytimes review delivers *neither*.
having gotten virtually everything turned on its head up to this point, the nytimes review attempts to run the table, thus:
"{Noah Emmerich} quietly and guilelessly steals the movie."
this is painful to write. as Ray's brother, Frannie, Noah Emmerich is absolutely superb portraying a loving father of young children and a loving husband to their dying mother (see below). but, if Tierney, Sr seems to be a Frank Sinatra kind of guy, and Ray a Fiddy Cents type, and Jimmy is The Three Tenors sort, then Frannie comes off as an Andrea Bocelli fan. not that there's anything wrong with that (certainly not in my book), but, to this viewer at least, somehow Frannie felt more like a close friend of the family than a member of the clan.
"If only it were worth a little more."
get a life.
"It has violence, swearing, drug references and a bit of pointless nudity."
Partially true. it has too much gore for my taste (possibly because of insufficient "rough potency" on my own part). the verbal vulgarities number in the hundreds, sometimes risibly, as when Jimmy is sitting on the hot seat in an Internal Affairs hearing that he knows is being videotaped for review by higher-ups.
however, the love scene between Frannie Tierney and his wife, Abbie (Jennifer Ehle), is as exquisite as any ever filmed. Abbie's head is shaven; yet, she is still gorgeous on the outside -- while being consumed by terminal cancer on the inside. the couple knows this will be their last 'Christmas present' to each other. the scene was so moving that i honestly forgot that it contains just a smidgeon of nudity (notwithstanding that, *pace* Chris Matthews, while watching Miss Ehle "i felt this thrill going up *my* leg").
within this context, to dismiss the whole scene with only 2 words, "pointless nudity", is to give Ebenezer Scrooge a run for his money.