Davalon-Davalon
The first problem with this "movie" is the endless opening long shot that takes us over a NY street and buildings and traffic. We keep waiting for something to happen. While this shot is going on endlessly, we are forced to listen to a bizarre Cy Coleman score which sounds like it was salvaged from an off-Broadway show based on the "That Girl" TV series. It's ghastly. When the shot finally ends, it ends on the top of a building and it looks like it is focusing on either pigeon sh*t or cocaine -- it's hard to tell.The second problem with the movie is the casting. We are asked to believe that Dustin Hoffman shows up with his wife at a Seder--and yet, he's not the Jewish one! Oh, come on. So, they named him Vito so he'd be Sicilian? And then his father is supposed to be Sean Connery? And Dusty's son is supposed to be Matthew Broderick? What a joke! Maybe that was the joke.Matthew Broderick is a rude, obnoxious, ungrateful brat and there is one fabulous scene in where he keeps telling Dusty, after he's made his grand plan to rob someone, "There's nothing you can do about it." Dusty says, "There's nothing I can do?" And then he SLAPS him as hard as he can. It was gratifying, it really was.But then, later on in the movie, Dusty is seen brutalizing some poor Hispanic man who's been caught stealing meat while on the job at Dusty's meat factory. You have to see it to believe it. Is that Dusty's "Mafia" blood coming out? In the midst of this "film" there is this ENDLESS funeral scene with all these people we don't give two flying f's about because we don't know who they are. We watched this film and kept staring at each other: What's it about? When does it start? Has it started? Why is Sean Connery Dustin Hoffman's father when it's obvious that there's no way in hell that he could be? We nodded off half way through to the "delightful strains" of Mr. Coleman's "they should have used this score the first time I wrote it!" score -- which only made me think of a 60s TV show... oh, right, "That Girl." Except -- that isn't what this movie was supposed to be about - - unless it was. Don't waste your time--unless that's what you like doing.
Jerry Bank
Since this movie has been commented upon dozens of times there is no need to repeat the plot. I am a fan of Connery and Hoffman and usually enjoy their acting. They did OK in this one.I did not like the attitude expressed by the Broderick character. It is really not the most wonderful thing in the world to be a petty criminal. Connery seems to think it is, and Hoffman thinks it is not. We, the audience are meant to believe that criminality=freedom in this case.What I hated about the ending was that Connery, a Scot is given a traditional Irish wake, complete with Danny Boy. Would a good Scot put up with that, even while dead?!
orocolorado
I watched this movie without reading the cover... however it is sure not funny. Sean Connery slowly dies in prison...what a big laugh.The movie has that feel of trying to turn Novel into Movie....it is very talky and has gaps in the plot. (Why would a kid with no offenses face 14 years with no parole for a nonviolent burglary? What happened with the payoff from the corrupt Chinese scientist?). In trying to cover the novel cover to cover it jumps from vignette to vignette in a choppy stiff manner. My impression is that it was trying to show that non violent "clean" burglary is better or at least no worse than legal tricks like buying condos that terminally ill cancer patients live in (something Broderick's girl friend does). OK, I can be twisted into this noir idea.However because of the choppiness the movie doesn't flow well. What exactly is the purpose of the Jewish household at Passover?? I realize it is the in-laws...but it seems like a sort of isolated island from the rest of story and this happens a lot. Who exactly was Connery's girlfriend? I guess they had to put that in because it is in Chapter 26 of the novel.This is the second bad movie I have seen Connery in. This one is light years better than Zardoz (the other terrible Connery movie)...but I am beginning to lose faith none the less.Rent something else.
bob the moo
Jessie McMullen is a career thief. His son Vito runs a meat processing plant but has criminal links but has made sure that his son, Adam, has had the best education and not turned to the life of his father and grandfather. However this privilege has caused a rift between Adam and Vito and has drawn Adam to Jessie. When Adam brings Jessie in on a job, Vito reluctantly joins in as his only way of protecting Adam. However when Adam is arrested it causes conflict between the three.It is clear that the cast is the major draw for this drama, that is very talky but still reasonably effective drama that relies more on generational tensions than crime hi-jinks. The film sees a job planned and executed midway in the film, with the second half being the fallout for the failure of the job. The build up is pretty good and the second half just about manages to be involving even if it more or less talks itself to death.The director keeps it very heavy, but could really have done with developing the characters in a more entertaining manner, this would have made the heavier emotional conclusion a sweeter pill to swallow. As it is it is still pretty enjoyable as a drama and the cast do well to deliver the rather weighty material. Connery and Hoffman are far too close in age to play father and son and, even with makeup to make Hoffman look younger, it doesn't really work. However both are alright in their roles and carry the material. Broderick makes up a talented trio that make the film worth seeing. They interact really well and rise above the material.Overall this is a heavy but enjoyable drama. The material isn't great and it could have done with being a bit shorter or a bit lighter on it's feet. As it is the drama doesn't totally work as emotions aren't totally allowed to let rip until the end, but which time things are a little slow to be really gripping.
AD
