There aren’t a lot of movies out for Gavin O Connor, but if that happens, you can be sure his movie won’t disappoint. By the way, it will be very interesting to see Suicide Squad 2, which O Connor will release in 2019. It would be great if the director managed to make a film that will not spit DC fans. Oh, come on. It will be next year, and now Pride and Glory is a tough and brutal film about police officers and their inner kitchen.
During the match on American football, held as part of the championship between police departments, it turns out that in one of the districts of New York, 4 police officers were killed immediately, trapped. The case is led by Detective Ray Tierney (Edward Norton), whose older brother Francis Tierney Jr. is the precinct chief from where the policemen were. The brothers’ brother-in-law, Jimmy Egan, also works there. In the course of the investigation, Ray realizes that his own cops were involved in the murder case and, quite possibly, the stigma in the cannon of Jimmy and even Francis. Finding himself in an unenviable position - to follow the letter of the law or defend the honor of the family, Ray will have to make a rather difficult choice on which the fate of his relatives and his own life will depend.
“Pride and Glory” is filmed in the inherent police spirit, where the working relationships of people who risk their lives every day, protect each other and are ready to cover minor roughnesses for the sake of everything going as before come to the fore. This is a kind of caste, a kind of society where everyone follows the unspoken rule not to drown their own, stand behind each other with a mountain and, if anything, keep their mouths shut. This was the 1997 film “Policemen” with Sylvester Stallone and Robert Patrick, the spirit of this caste is present in the film “At Strike Distance” with Bruce Willis, and in the film “Patrol” with Jake Gyllenhall and Michael Peña, etc.
Gavin O Connor’s painting shows not only the positive aspects of the guardians of the law, but also their dark, unknown to ordinary people. The film clearly demonstrates how to achieve the desired result, if the detainee does not want to admit his guilt or does not want to give information. He also says that not all cops wear their uniforms with honor, there are those who only hide behind a badge and set their rules on the street. A vivid example is the character of Frank Grillo, who played here, like John Ortiz, one of the secondary roles.
Another area in which the story develops is the family. Not a family of policemen, but blood relatives, who are also ready to stand up for each other and sometimes sacrifice their own interests for the common good. Something similar can be observed in a conversation between the Tierney brothers and his father, Francis Tierney Sr., played by John Voight.
“Pride and Glory” refers to those films in which the director takes his own not due to battlefights, the mass of broken cars, the abundance of blood, but due to the emotional component caused by the fact that the characters have to make a difficult choice. The viewer, by the way, in such cases is also at a crossroads, doubting who to sympathize with – a positive hero who does not bend under pressure or antagonist who does evil, but often pursues good intentions.
Gavin’s films about Connor are different: “Pride and Glory”, “Warrior” about two brothers-fighters (played by Joel Edgerton and Tom Hardy), who met in the finals of the tournament face to face as sworn enemies, “Retribution” with Ben Affleck and John Bernthal, where the interests of the two sides also clash. About Connor masterfully manipulates the mood of the viewer, forcing him to first take the side of one character, and then begin to doubt and possibly change his choice. Thanks to this, you can not just get acquainted with the characters, but try to start thinking like them in order to understand what motivates them.
It's a pretty violent movie that should not be shown to children. All the same, violence, including on the screen is enough, and here it is not that much, but it is present to a considerable extent: torture, murder, fights, a crowd following the principles of the herd instinct - in short, a film for adults. Good, well-made crime thriller...
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
There is such a profession as a policeman. To stand up for justice and truth. Protect the innocent with your breasts, risk your life to save people and fight crime to the last strength. But not always the police follow their oath and sometimes are no better than those they are in fact opposed and this film directed by Gavin O’Connor reveals it in a very decent form.
Throughout the history of cinema, a huge number of films about good and bad police officers were made. Some films willingly occupy a special place in the hearts of the audience and cause only the most pleasant emotions. When there are those who want to forget what they saw as a dream. This film directed by Gavin O’Connor certainly represents the middle ground of two similar categories of police films. It is difficult to call this film outstanding, but also bad, of course.
The plot of the picture is simple as two pennies. Moreover, something similar has already been seen in a huge number of different films and with all this, the film directed by Gavin O’Connor does not even try to bring some freshness to the story. Even if there is some kind of detective storyline, which slightly divides what is happening on the screen action on several parallel plot lines on behalf of the multiple main characters of the tape. Thus, it is in the final weave their fates into one tragic decadence of human relations led by family values.
Moreover, it is the family that is the main catalyst and driving force not only of the story itself, but also of the picture as a whole. Throughout the film, we are shown a family, for whose members the concept of strong family ties is not just a word. They stand up for each other, and the men of the family willingly serve in the police without any returns or alternatives. But it is the family that is the source of some kind of dilemma in the decision of the main characters about what they should do, and this perhaps holds some interest when viewing the picture. Since until the last it is interesting to observe in order to find out what the main characters of the picture will choose - conscience and honesty, or lies for the good and cynical spit in the face of justice?
"Pride and Glory" is certainly a collective product and when watching the picture, you can involuntarily feel the influence of such films as "The Departed", "Narcobaron", "Serpico" and "Police" on everything that we see on the screen. Moreover, the director of the film Gavin O’Connor made the film in the traditional style and format for such films. At the same time, not trying to take the viewer with an abundance of spectacle, but rather with a high intensity of drama, which alas lacks a slightly stronger grip. That is why when watching the picture involuntarily creates the feeling that with the proper approach, the film could be even better.
The real delight for the audience is certainly an impressive cast, for which perhaps you watch the film willingly on the final credits and which, in truth, gave this tape a more tenacious image. Colin Farrell is simply magnificent. Once again, I am amazed at how Farrell gets used to his roles and in the end shows just an incredibly natural and realistic game. It’s like an actor on the screen, but a real person. Equally good is Edward Norton, who may have stayed a little in the shadow of Farrell, but certainly proved himself as magnificent and dignified.
Separately, I would like to note the magnificent performance of Noah Emmerica, who may be a less stellar and eminent actor from the trio, but how I created the most powerful and worthy image for the entire film. Including John Voy, who perfectly closes with his magnificent game such a strong quartet of strong male characters of the picture. It can not but please the presence of such artists as John Ortiz, Frank Grillo, Shea Wigham, Lake Bell and Carmen Ejogo. True, the plot of the picture is built in such a way that, with all the desire of the actors themselves, they failed to play out to the fullest. Hence, it is not surprising that their characters do not seem fully revealed.
6 out of 10
Pride and fame is a film from that rare category that turns out to be very difficult to call unequivocally bad and definitely good too. Of course, a rather interesting story about a strong family union and an impressive cast catches the eye, but when viewing the picture very often something is frankly lacking and this slightly dulls the overall impression of the action seen on the screen.
Police are armed formations designed for protection and complicity.
The police are in no hurry to investigate the murders of drug dealers, illegal immigrants, prostitutes and just homeless people. No, of course, they are likely to get to the truth and in most cases find the real killer, and even if not, there will always be a scapegoat on whom you can blame all the snipers. But if a policeman dies, then the officers of the pistol and badge take up the case seriously and woe to the one who gets in the way of angry cops. But what if the police were behind the killing? Does this mean that there will be a showdown within the “family” or will the police try to hush up the case? This question will be answered by our guest today. So this is "Pride and Glory."
Here is another film about the difficult everyday life of the police in front of us. The film, which, like dozens, if not hundreds, of its predecessors, raises a rather topical topic: what is the difference between a criminal and a police officer? Is it just a gun and a plaque on your belt, or is it a much deeper question? This film does not answer these questions. And in a good way he does not seek to ask the viewer leading questions, or rather to strive, but ineptly. As if a ten-year-old child decided to argue with a PhD about a topic in which he does not particularly understand. Examples? Oh, there are dozens. But I'm going to focus on the main ones, namely the corrupt cops and those associated with them. So, the dishonest police officers who, working in the police, repeatedly encountered evil in the streets of their hometown and this most evil penetrated into their hearts, making four policemen no better than bandits, or worse, because they believe in their own impunity. In general, these should be ambiguous characters, capable of evoking a whole range of feelings and emotions, as it was... yes, in the same “training day”. They should, but they don't. Why? And everything is very simple: the audience is shown only one side of the coin - scoundrels who maim and kill everyone who looks at them obliquely and receive money from the sale of drugs. No, of course, you could argue that the cops should feed a sprawling family and pay debts for a yacht and a country house, but again this does not elicit a response in the soul, since the sprawling family came from a comfortable life, as well as material goods. The behavior of Ruben Santiago, nicknamed “Sandy”, does not elicit a response. After all, his remorse is imaginary and he does not regret what he did, he is afraid of losing his job and that the truth will be revealed from here and his candid conversations, not because he realized that bullying and killing Mexicans is bad. And looking at these four corrupt cops, I desperately tried to see something good in them, but I didn't succeed, thanks to the writers for not bothering to properly work out the characters of antiheroes.
Well, what about the heroes of the movie? You know, you can't. The actors play very well and their emotions do not look either played or excessive, but the fact is that they have nothing to play. There is the hero Noah Emmerich, who is good if given twenty minutes of screen time, although it would seem - one of the key roles, the head of the 31st police department. But no. Emmerich's hero will stand in the frame, shout at dissenters, talk about duty and honor, in which he himself does not believe, and all he cares is to clean up other police officers. Yeah, family is sacred, so you better let the cops keep killing and maiming the people they're supposed to protect, but they need to be covered. Oh, yes, Emmerich's hero has a wife dying of cancer, so he spends all his time with her. Obviously, this was done with one specific purpose to get sympathy for his hero, but you know, it does not work. Because a man who has sworn to defend the law but by his inaction indulges in the commission of crimes deserves not sympathy but general confinement cells. Or the hero of Edward Norton, thanks to which most viewers and drew attention to this film. It seems to be a character who is overcome by doubts and who is torn between family and higher duty, but the problem is that the other characters do not play along with the actor and because of his efforts are in vain and in terms of empathy, Norton’s hero does not reach the hero of Sylvester Stallone from the “Policemen”, what can we say about more “impressive” films on the same topic. John Voight, who got the role of the head of the family in this film, does not save the situation, but what a thing, all I can say about Voight’s character is that he is a coward and a drunkard, and not a man with an iron rod in his chest. Do you want to empathize with such heroes? I don't.
In the end, I did not see any pride or even fame in this film, I saw only hypocrisy and lies, but let’s be realistic, a film with this name would sell extremely poorly, and the mass audience would not notice this craft in light of the fact that such films were more than enough. Is this film worth your attention? Only if you have nothing to spend your free time on, and only a disc with Pride and Glory is at hand. In all other cases, I would recommend everything to pass by.
5 out of 10
Drama without drama, thriller without thriller and only crime more or less succeeded.
I do not think that anyone who watches modern cinema could safely pass by the film on the cover of which such surnames as Norton, Farrell, Voight, and Emmerick are written, but also a very famous actor. Against this background, the fact is somewhat lost that the director and screenwriter in one person - Gavin O'Connor can not boast of something really significant, but this was the underwater stone on which Pride and Glory swarmed.
The movie is boring. It has everything: heroes, villains, shootings, and experiences. Even the temporite is not spoiled, but at the same time, it really does not attract attention to itself, forcing with locking of the heart to follow the plot moves or empathize with the actors. I didn't even watch it the first time, just turned it off and went to bed.
That doesn't mean he's bad. The actors played at the proper level, everything is well filmed in their places, but there is no fire that makes an ordinary passing movie the pearl to which you want to return again and again. Such thrillers cannot be counted and this one differs from hundreds of others only in that it stars eminent actors, and the budget exceeded the eight-digit figure.
I think the main drawback is, let me say, the two-dimensionality of the characters. Flat figures, which unsuccessfully try to give three-dimensionality to various cosmetics like wives and children, joint holidays, etc., but all attempts suffer a natural defeat. There is no sense of sincerity and fullness in what is happening.
For example, we can compare "Pride and Glory" with not the most outstanding "Kings of the Streets" with "Keanu Reeves" in the title role. It seems that both films are not something iconic, but the latter is really chained to the screen, and the events taking place in it are really interesting to watch.
In general, it can and should be seen, but not in the first place.
6 out of 10
A great movie, in my opinion, showing how honesty, duplicity and courage interact and why it is dangerous to be a bad cop.
Yes, something has already been seen somewhere, but, as Uncle Descartes said in his years: “I learned in school that it is impossible to invent anything so original and unlikely that it would not have been already expressed by any of the philosophers.”
Predictability of the plot is not a minus. The film’s task is to prioritize everyone, not to test the “psychic ability to predict the next frame.”
So the movie was pretty good for me. If you are looking for a strong sense, you will find it.
“Once betrayed, he will betray more than once.”
If you lie once, you lie twice.
Although the lie is not exposed,
But no one can avoid it.
(E.N. Atkina)
Once upon a time there was a man. He was young and had grandchildren, so I’ll call him Grandpa. He was a very good police officer and had a great career. By the time we met him, he was retired. But the work to which he devoted his life is continued by his two sons. They're very different. The elder is very prudent and knows how to act in order to steadily advance in service. The youngest has a very lively mind, but is intemperate and hot, and therefore does not even think about a successful career. The elder has a large family, but his wife is mortally ill. The youngest is so hot that he does not even have a family, being in a state of constant internal struggle. However, we do not yet know about this, but we see an ordinary loser, a very talented person, but “not prudent enough” to realize his abilities. At least that’s how it looks at first glance. Our friend Grandpa also has a daughter. She is now an adult woman, has three children and is pregnant with a fourth. Guess who her husband works for? Right, police, too. This is a law enforcement dynasty.
The film begins with the fact that we get to the slaughterhouse ... more precisely, to the apartment where the massacre took place recently: everywhere there are corpses, blood on the walls, shot shells ... Here we see three key players we already know. Two brothers and their sister’s husband (I will call him Son-in-law, who he is, in fact, our Grandfather). Three cops, three strong men, relatives. But they behave differently. The brothers are depressed but restrained, each in his own way. Son-in-law's furious. At first glance, it seems that he is very sensitive by nature and unable to contain his grief - after all, his colleagues, his friends died ... but this is only at first glance.
In fact, the son-in-law is an ordinary “scumbag”, “werewolf in epaulettes”. And I fell into despair for a very different reason - because "everything went wrong." The creators of the film, without daring slyly, laid out everything honestly and immediately. And then it became clear that this picture is not a detective with eternal questions: “Who is the killer?” and “How to find him?” It's a very different genre. I think it’s best to define it as a social drama. And the questions that we're going to have to answer are very different. Yes, and each viewer will ask his questions - according to his life position, experience, worldview. Here are some of the possible ones:
How can people who are supposed to keep order and protect be worse than bandits? How can seemingly incompatible things coexist in one person - love for his wife, children and beyond, unimaginable cruelty, cruelty "beyond common sense"? What is debt? What's an honor? Is it possible in this situation “half”? What about compromising? What to do when there are no easy solutions? Don’t wait for answers...at least not for all questions.
I didn't accidentally start with Grandpa. Although he is not the main character, I think he is a key figure in the story. First, because he is the head of a large family. Even a clan of three families of three policemen. Secondly, although he is retired, he remains a significant figure in certain circles and is able to actively influence the development of events. Third, Grandpa needs to make a choice. But most importantly, he can and wants to influence the choice of his sons. Will he succeed? Will he continue to be proud of his sons after they have chosen their path?
It's a choice. This is a question that each of us poses to ourselves over and over again. This is the question on which our whole life depends. Once you fail, you can correct your mistakes. But for that, you have to make the right choice. And then there's a line that you can't fix. When you cross that line, you become different. Not only you, but the whole world around you. Laws and concepts, ideas about good and evil, lawlessness and justice are changing. The film “Pride and Glory” tells about what is beyond the line and how not to cross it.
Betrayal in betrayal will die.
And lies about lies will someday be broken.
And only the fate of the bill -
You will have to pay for everything.
(Same)
Lately, when choosing movies to watch, I inadvertently get into a story about corrupt cops. “Masters of the Night,” “On the Edge,” “Kings of the Streets,” and now “Pride and Glory.” And it seems that the topic is already traveled along and across, but it still does not become less interesting.
In my opinion, this is one of the most dramatic pictures about cops. Gavin O’Connor clearly shows how low the guardians of the law, those who guard our sleep and bring order to the streets, sink. From the beginning of the film, we see Jimmy's squad slowly and surely sinking. Lies, violence, robberies - these guys have lost the brake pedal, and there will be no way back. After all, you have to pay for everything, and even a police badge does not save you from violence. This is clearly demonstrated in the film. The path of corruption and violence will sooner or later lead to a sad end. The creators of the film clearly showed this.
As for the main character, Edward Norton reliably showed how the cop is tormented, standing at a crossroads - on the one hand family, on the other law. And throwing a hero back and forth. In the end, he made his choice, but he was simply unable to change anything. The shaft of corruption and venality could both swallow and break it.
Very good, deep film about corrupt cops. Some people will find it boring and uninteresting due to the long timekeeping and not a lot of action, but fans of the film genre will certainly have to taste. The actors are all in place, but Noah Emerick somehow lost, and it is not clear that the reason for this is the relatively short screen time, or the shadow cast by Farrell and Norton.
The film is generally not bad... But let's start in order...
And we start with the obvious drawbacks of the plot. It was too weak and not very convincing. From the first minutes it becomes clear what is what, what the campaign of the film will happen, who is to blame and who is right. The whole movie was too long (130 minutes). The whole film is built on a kind of "good cop" choice between the ideals of honor and family. Also clearly in the film can be traced such a phenomenon as cover for bad police officers by colleagues and superiors. This phenomenon is quite vital and is observed in all areas of our lives.
The pluses are primarily the cast: Colin Farrell and Edward Norton played very well. Such a duet will make anyone pay attention to this film, but not everyone he will please.
A well-made picture and quite a good musical accompaniment allows you to watch this film comfortably.
Still, I tend to recommend watching this film, personally I put 9 largely because of the fact that I am a fan of this genre and largely because of the cast.
Have a good time!