Harry and Son

1984 "Two men with nothing in common... except the blood in their veins."
5.8| 2h0m| PG| en
Details

Widower Harry Keach is a construction worker who was raised to appreciate the importance of working for a living. He takes a dim view of his sensitive son Howard's lackadaisical lifestyle and has a strained relationship with his daughter Nina as he does not approve of her husband. When Harry is fired from his job, his life changes drastically as he is made to focus on the relationships around him.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Dorathen Better Late Then Never
Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.
Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.
Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.
moonspinner55 Harry was once an ace crane operator for a construction company, but failing health in his older years has weakened his eyesight and, after a near-miss on the job, he's unceremoniously canned. Harry's son, Howard, in his early 20s and still living with "Pa," has a goof-off job detailing and washing cars, which leaves him most of the day to surf at the beach or type his short stories. Unable to hold a steady job with regular hours, the kid eventually gets the boot by Harry; meanwhile, the best friend of Harry's deceased wife--who works in a bird store and talks to her parrots--has a pregnant daughter with eyes for Howard (she doesn't seem to notice or care that he's unemployed, so naturally the kid wants to marry her). Co-written, co-produced, directed and starring Paul Newman, "Harry & Son" can't help but be a disappointment. Where has Newman's artistry gone? It's as absent here as his talent handling actors. This is a one-dimensional family drama with unconvincing characters and arguments and situations. Harry pecks at his son like a jealous lover, which is rendered even more unpleasant by Robby Benson's penchant for acting without his shirt on. Benson gives a wet, mildewy performance, the kind of plastic acting that cancels out all interest in a performer. Directing himself, Newman doesn't fare much better. Joanne Woodward, Ellen Barkin, Ossie Davis and Judith Ivey should be a strong supporting ensemble but the baleful writing doesn't help them. Playing a warehouse supervisor producing cardboard boxes, Morgan Freeman (shouting over the machines) has the most ridiculous sequence--who wouldn't walk away after a nightmare like this? There's another scene involving cardboard boxes (that's two too many), wherein vindictive Newman tries making his daughter and her husband look foolish by packing dishes in a wet container. There are no conclusions to these episodes; Newman is only interested in setting up the circumstances and then bulldozing his way to the next chapter. It's a depressingly pedestrian piece of work. *1/2 from ****
wainscoat-1 While I thought the movie was good, I had a very hard time with the scene in which Harry's daughter visits. Harry was so unbelievably cruel to his daughter in this scene, that I really wish I hadn't seen it. It actually depressed me for days.Harry's daughter visits Harry and his son with her husband and newborn daughter. Her husband, a life insurance salesman, shockingly tries to sell Harry life insurance, which Harry takes great offense at. The daughter then very nicely asks if she could possibly take her dead mother's china if Harry and his son aren't using it.Okay, so maybe this was a bit insensitive, but it struck me that the daughter seemed like a very hard worker with a full time job and a new baby and, maybe, just maybe it was really tough for her without her mother and that's why she wanted the china.Harry says that she can have the china, but then he maliciously wets the bottom of the box he gives her to carry it in. The china then falls out and breaks in a million pieces. The daughter then sees that the bottom of the box is wet, and she becomes very hurt and angry. She then exits with husband and screaming newborn.Harry finds this funny. I did not.My mother died when I was four, and I must confess that I have always wanted her china as well. It has sat in the china cabinet since her death, one of the few relatively unchanged items since. There are many times when I have missed having a mother and perhaps illogically have associated the china too strongly with her presence.Perhaps wanting the china is materialistic, but it seems inhuman on a Father's part to not understand why his daughter might want something from her mother.I really had a hard time caring about Harry after that scene.
Poseidon-3 Fans of Newman and/or Benson or of undemanding, character-driven films may enjoy this examination of a father-son relationship. Newman plays a wrecking ball operator who is experiencing jarring pain and vision issues, which cost him his job. His pride won't allow him to accept just anything else. Benson is his son, an aspiring writer, who is content to detail cars and go surfing, not worrying about what the future holds for him. Despite an underlying affection between the two, tension arises because Newman wants to work, but can't, while Benson is able-bodied, but doesn't seem to want to hold on to any sort of job. Newman, a widower of about two years, considers the affection of a quirky pet shop owner (Woodward) and conflicts with his married daughter (Borowitz) over her drippy husband and her own selfishness. Meanwhile, Benson is being seduced by a horny secretary (Ivey) when he's not pining over his lost girlfriend (Barkin) who is pregnant with some other man's child. Newman is genial and engrossing, even though his character is rather curmudgeonly and sometimes cantankerous. He plays a workaday everyman and plays it well (although very few everymen look like Paul Newman!) He has a very different sense of humor and those who enjoy it should enjoy him. Benson, who almost wears clothes in the film, is more of an acquired taste with his whispery voice and overstated expressions. He is amiable and shares a palpable chemistry with Newman despite the fact that they don't exactly look as if they could be related. (To be truthful, their relationship, on more than one occasion, reads as a bit homosexual!) In any case, the actors work hard to put across the father-son dynamic and it manages to emerge. Barkin, in one of her earliest roles, does a nice job. Woodward seems to be enjoying the wackier aspects of her character. She shares a few telling moments with her real-life husband Newman. In another spot of bizarre casting, Brimley turns up as Newman's brother (!), who offers him a spot in his surplus business. Ivey is interesting to watch, but not particularly believable. Several of the actors, such as Borowitz, reveal their stage background through their over-emoting before the camera. Some compelling supporting roles are filled by Davis, as the target of a car repossession, Freeman, as one of Benson's bosses, and Chaykin as the head of a repo gang. The film opens vividly with footage of a building demolition and the episodic nature of the piece keeps things moving for the most part, but there is also a disjointed feel. The script seems almost like brief sketches instead of progressive scenes. There are odd continuity instances, punctuated by some of the more distinctive costumes. It looks like the storyline was played with a little in the editing room. (There is also a very obviously tacked-on or re-shot ending, in which Barkin has freshly trimmed hair and the terrain is Californian instead of Floridian.) It's surprising that Newman would direct a film with so many divergent story threads, lack of attention to the details and pat situations. Still, there are enough charming or touching or amusing vignettes to satisfy most viewers who merely want to enjoy a movie.
patandkris The reason I have such fond memories of this movie is because I remember how I felt (and still do - but it's not the same as the first time) the first time I saw it on video, in maybe 1993, and the feelings it provoked in me.I graduated from high school in 1984, the year the film was made, and my mother had passed away earlier in 1979, leaving me to grow up after 13 years of age with my father and younger sister. My older brother was soon to go into the Air Force, and my older sister was already away to college. While there were many differences between Paul Newman's character and my own father, the fundamental relationship he had with Robby Benson was right on the mark with me and my father. My father died when I was 26, in 1993. I think that Robby Benson's character was a few years younger when his dad in the movie died, but it was close enough to hit home with me. I, like the Benson character, was a little aimless after high school, and my father did seem to have more patience with me at times, he could give me some harsh input at other times. And my father went for 10 years without dating anyone after my mother passed away, but towards the end of his life he did find a woman that he had a lot of fun with, and we all did things together at times as well. My father was also about the same age as Newman's character when he died, and I was present right after he had his final heart attack and died at home.Now that I have explained some similarities with my life and the movie, I'll get back to why I liked the movie so much. It wasn't because of the coincidental similarities between my life and the movie, but because my life is real, and many people have many of these same basic father-son dynamics, and the writers(half Newman), actors (big part Newman), and director (Newman again)somehow pulled off an amazing dose of reality with this film that is common to all of us. Newman just commits himself so honestly. He has that seriousness in his character that at times is how many capable, grounded, but real fathers are; sometimes mixes it up with a humor that is just as honest and bold, maybe even irreverent, and then other times when they're with their sons and they have a 'comradery'. And then other times when fathers are just plain irritated, and the son knows he's on his father's bad side at the moment, and he should be worried, but he also knows that his father is a softy down deep. However a son would never challenge him and expect that soft side, and the son also instinctively knows that his father isn't perfect but he is much wiser than the him, and he certainly knows the father really does love him and has the son's best interests at heart.To summarize, first of all the performances in this movie are of a Team who were in touch with the bareness and essence of our life, of our American society and family reality. And then secondly, they somehow manage to give it back to us for us all to see on the screen, and allow us to see ourselves in a new and deeper way. I understand myself and my relationship with my father, and his relationship with me, a little better because of this movie. And that is the goal of any art, and should be the goal of people intending to make good movies. Because this movie taught me so much, I have to say that it I value it is a great movie, it (the whole Team) delivered what might be expected from the title and beyond; it was heart breaking and heart warming, it was meaningful, and I had fun watching it!. Thanks to the whole Team, but a very special thanks to Paul Newman! Pat Wilson