On paper, this film seems to have all of the elements of a successful comedy, so it’s no question that I walked into the screening with high expectations. It’s been a while since Robin Williams was last seen on the big screen and emphasized by the fact that co-star Mila Kunis is always solid comedic relief, it seemed like a no-brainer for potential indie gold. Unfortunately, as I found out very soon into the film, The Angriest Man in Brooklyn is anything but.
Henry Altman (Williams) is an angry man. Living in New York City where nothing seems to go his way, his temperament gets the better of him and causes him to lash out at family, friends, and random strangers. During one particular fit of anger, Henry finds himself at the doctor’s office, where substitute doctor, Dr. Sharon Gill (Kunis), has the unfortunate task of diagnosing Henry with a brain aneurysm. Just like a toddler throwing a tantrum, Henry demands Dr. Gill tell him exactly how much time he has left to live, and despite her admittance to not knowing, Henry continues to yell and scream. Fed up, Dr. Gill blurts out “90 minutes,” and Henry’s life (so he thinks) is changed forever.
The Angriest Man in Brooklyn is surprising, but for all the wrong reasons. Starting with the crew, director Phil Alden Robinson is the Academy-nominated director of the Kevin Costner baseball winner Field of Dreams and the cult classic Sneakers. His experience alone should have propelled the comedic vet Robin Williams and Mila Kunis’ performances into genuinely memorable moments, however, the lack of authenticity and passion by all parties is very apparent; it’s hard to root for a film that doesn’t even seem to believe in itself.
I’m guessing all those involved in this film are hoping for The Angriest Man In Brooklyn to get quickly swept up under the rug and forgotten amongst the flood of soon to be released summer films.
The lazy attempt this film makes to be taken serious as a comedy is transparent. For starters, the jokes are poorly set up which results in a lack of laughter (and for a comedy, that’s obviously not good). The sentimental moments seem off-timed and out of place. However, solid performances from Peter Dinklage and Melissa Leo help balance out the kookiness of Williams’ character. I’m guessing all those involved in this film are hoping for The Angriest Man In Brooklyn to get quickly swept up under the rug and forgotten amongst the flood of soon to be released summer films.
If a different editor was attached to the project, I’d be curious to see how this film could be reworked. The potential is there, but it just doesn’t quite make the cut here. Although, I have to give credit to Kunis- any actor that can pull off a half believable performance in front of a completely obvious green screened New York City bridge deserves acknowledgement.
There’s no denying the film is getting a lot, and I mean A LOT of negative press and I hate to jump on that bandwagon, so here’s a positive takeaway. Criticism aside, The Angriest Man in Brooklyn does provoke thought through Henry’s character. We internalize his existential crisis, asking ourselves ‘What would we do if we knew when we were going to die?’ We may not have the perfect answer to this question, and to each his own, but one thing’s for sure; I’d be disappointed if this was the last film I saw.
