The revenge thriller is such a common plot that it deserves to be raised above sub-genre and simply become a genre. Most revenge thrillers are about a seemingly weak man, rarely is it a woman, who after failing to get the right people, i.e. the cops, to stand against a menacing threat, takes the matter into his own hands. The only thing that changes in these movies is the actor. Mel Gibson has done a lot of them: “Mad Max”, “Payback”, and most recently “Edge of Darkness.”
Well, the latest actor is Michael Caine as “Harry Brown.” Now this isn’t the first revenge thriller for Caine. In 1971 as Jack Carter he chased down his brother’s killers in “Get Carter.” The difference between the Carter of 1971 and the Brown of 2010 is that watching Brown might make you cry.
“Harry Brown” plays more like the British version of Clint Eastwood’s “Gran Torino.” But Caine can act. I know, I know, some of you hold Clint Eastwood up on a very high pedestal. I do too. He is an amazing filmmaker, minus “Invictus.” But the man can’t act. He plays one character. That’s all he does.
Richard Benjamin was talking about directing Clint Eastwood in “City Heat.” Originally in the script his character had a lot of monologues. He was always pontificating about this or that. Eastwood took one look at the script and he said, “That’s not what I do.” Eastwood himself is aware of the fact that he’s not a talking actor. He makes faces. He fumes. He erupts. He doesn’t act. So don’t get angry with me.
Anyway, back to “Harry Brown.” Harry is a retired war hero with a sick wife and he happens to live in a rundown London housing estate overrun with crime. Harry and the other residents of the estate live in constant fear of the young, drug-dealing hoodlums who have overtaken the area. The cops are of course useless.
Harry’s only solace is a daily game of chess with his friend Leonard at their local pub. Unfortunately, the thugs have taken a liking to poor old Leonard. They like to throw dog shit at him and do other abusive things. Leonard decides to retaliate but fails and Harry must step in as the savior of the estate.
See the “Gran Tarino” similarities? Like I said, the difference is in the acting and “Harry Brown” is also a lot darker. There is one particular scene, where Harry obtains a gun that is insane. The actor who plays the gun seller freaked me out.
The subtlety of Caine’s performance grounds the film in human drama. In a genre like revenge thrillers it’s easy to forget the people in the story, and focus on how the next person will be killed. On the surface that is all the movie is, but for first time director Daniel Barber, I think he made the right choice in casting Caine. If he hadn’t, I’m pretty sure this movie would have been a tragic failure.
Related posts:
