The Angriest Man in Brooklyn (2014)

The Angriest Man in Brooklyn is a brutal film with a poorly developed plot and a cast that mostly only seems to be there for the paycheck. The only worthwhile performance in this film is from Robin Williams, who embodies the emotions of a man who is expressive with no emotion but anger. You could really feel meaningful rage from him here, and his monologue in the camera is beautifully performed. However, it is simply not funny, I did not give a sincere laugh once during it. Most jokes fall flat and the ones that could have worked stumble due to poor pacing and execution. There is also no excitement, as we are following a man who has been made aware that he has 90 minutes left to live, but we are informed straight after that it is not the case, so we watch him run around like a headless chicken not being able to be a part of his adventure cause we know he will be fine. It also fails at trying to be heartwarming, as it tries to develop a relationship between Williams and Mila Kunis that was very forceful in its attempts to be sweet that it merely comes across as cringe, and the scenes towards the end had me rolling my eyes.They say that great actors can save poor scripts, but I disagree, Williams was perfect here, there was absolutely nothing wrong with his performance, but he simply could not save a badly written, poorly paced mess. Unfunny and extremely forgetful, The Angriest Man in Brooklyn will only leave you as mad as its protagonist. A man with an anger problem tries to clear up all his flawed relationships after learning he has 90 minutes left to live. Best Performance: Robin Williams / Worst Performance: Mila Kunis

the best thing - the cast. a film who presents together Robin Williams,James Earl Jones, Peter Dinklage represents a real temptation.Mila Kunis search to give a decent character. the worst thing - the cast. because good actors seem be enough. the script becomes only a detail. far to be a bad film, it is an embroidery of well known clichés. dramatic, seductive in few moments. but not real convincing. a film about solitude, self introspection, cruel verdict and hope. about family and the challenges who transforms the life. bitter. and supported by the memories about Robin Williams. or by the fears, angry, need to escape from yourself who defines the existences of a large slice of public. one of films who seems have not real clear purpose. but comfortable as remember for a great actor who gives an ordinary gray character.

In the wake of Williams's suicide, it's difficult not to view THE ANGRIEST MAN IN BROOKLYN as a piece where truth and fiction have unwittingly come together.The basic scenario is one that has been well explored in past comedies: Henry Altmann (Williams) is told by his doctor Sharon Gill (Mila Kunis) that he has ninety minutes left on this earth, and resolves to pack as many things into that space of time as he can. Unfortunately his best-laid plans go wrong; his wife Bette (Melissa Leo) hates him, his son Tommy (Hamish Linklater) hasn't spoken to him for two years, and his childhood friend Bix Field (Richard Kind) has an argument with him over an incident occurring four decades previously when both were at school. Henry's main problem is that he cannot help but get angry at any and every little thing, which prevents him from understanding either himself or others.The narrative unfolds as a chase, with the doctor desperately trying to find Henry and explain things, but Henry proves fascinatingly elusive. There are some very funny set pieces, especially one in a store where Henry tries to purchase a video camera from Ruben (James Earl Jones).In the end the movie becomes a little overwhelmed with gushy sentiment, as the doctor and Henry meet up and things get worked out. Nonetheless there is still time for a hilarious piece of trading racist insults involving Henry, the doctor, and an Uzbek taxi driver (Daniel Raymont).Ingeniously structured round parallel voice-overs, with Williams and Kunis telling about each other's lives, their past, present and futures. THE ANGRIEST MAN IN BROOKLYN is worth watching, despite the saccharine moral.

This film was disappointing from the first scene until the last. Robin was not funny. Mila was not cute. The anger was not the lovable kind of Grumpy Old Men, but the disdainful kind of the complaining foreign neighbor. More could have, should have but wasn't done with the talent on screen to make this film work. I wouldn't be surprised if half the audience falls asleep halfway through the picture.It was OK, but, why should I say all of this stuff? Because it was terrible. You should know that before you invest your time. Then, should you watch it for history sake, and out of respect for our fallen comedic hero, you won't say that you weren't warned.