EarDelightBase Waste of Money.

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Donald Seymour This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

NoPantsBatman The Angriest Man in Brooklyn, directed by Phil Alden Robinson, has a story that revolves around the emotional journey of Henry Altmann (Robin Williams) after he found out he has 90 minutes to live and the emotional journey of Dr. Sharon Gill (Mila Kunis), after she delivered the bad news. My opinion, this is an average movie.With 83 minutes (1 hour and 23 minutes) of movie I wasn't allowed to have a deep familiarization with all the characters, although there are some moments where I could feel the pain and/or frustration Henry Altmann and Dr. Sharon Gill felt, since they are the most focused and developed characters.The title alludes to Henry Altmann being an extremely angry person. I personally didn't feel it that much throughout the movie. He has some outbursts during his journey, and some characters mention his deep anger issues, but it made me a little distant towards his angry persona.I noticed some inconsistencies during the pace of the movie, when sometimes I felt the actions were rushed (which was a good thing since he had 90 minutes to live), and other times it looked like the place had slow down to the point that it looked like more than his 90 minutes had passed.There are some funny moments, not enough to be considered a comedy, and, although a little bit of a cliché, you can feel the drama surrounding the past and present of the characters.I could see that they tried to juggle the rush of the characters and the details of their actions. Could've used a bit more work towards a better combination of both, but overall it's a 6 out of 10.

hilbertjl Let me say first off that the acting all around was solid, as one would expect from the likes of the film's cast. The trouble is, it doesn't quite feel like they had a lot to work with in a script that lacks depth.It may seem strange to ascribe a story about mortality and the dying process with an adjective like 'shallow', but there it is. I can't quite put my finger on the missing element, but something just keeps the situation from having substantial emotional impact, or even deep philosophical implications. Of course, it's somewhat of a dark comedy as well - and it does have some humorous moments (James Earl Jones, thumbs up!). The pacing is right. You really do feel that 90 minutes, in a good way. Yet somehow the humor isn't quite as big as I feel it needs to be, and the sentimentality seems a bit spoon-fed. Maybe it's the neatness of the plot; maybe it's the setting or the dialog, I can't say, but I just never really connected with the characters. Then again, having experienced the loss of close family and friends throughout life has left me with my own experiences and expectations.Certainly worth watching as long as you know going in you're not going to feel invested in the story and will probably not dwell on it for long afterward - "Angriest Man" is what it is: enjoyable but verging on maudlin.

Uriah43 "Henry Altmann" (Robin Williams) is having a bad day. On top of that he hasn't been feeling well lately so he goes to the hospital to see his doctor. When he gets there he waits for over two hours and is then informed that his regular doctor isn't in and he is seen by "Dr. Sharon Gill" (Mila Kunis) instead. After getting quite upset by this turn of events she proceeds to tell him that he has a severe brain aneurysm. This news causes him to go into an hysterical rage whereupon he demands to know how long he has to live. Not accustomed to being treated in this manner she gets mad and tells him he only has 90 minutes. Upon hearing this he storms out of the hospital. Now rather than reveal any more of this movie and risk spoiling it for those who haven't seen it I will just say that although it only runs for 83 minutes it seemed like it would never end. Although it is billed as both a comedy and a drama I personally didn't think it was very funny and the drama didn't hold up well either. In short, it had the necessary components to be at least an average movie but it struggled with its identity and ended up being a complete mess. I have rated it accordingly.

pmustangpilot I don't understand why this film only grossed 500k and practically went straight to video. I also wonder if the under appreciation for Robin's performance didn't contribute to his depression and ultimately his untimely demise. One trait of a movie that I would rate a 3.5 out of ten like this one averaged is poor acting and no suspension of disbelief. Other traits might be: Unbelievable unsympathetic characters, poor plot, shoddy filming, lousy music score. This film had none of these characteristics. Robin's acting was superb, as was that of his attractive co-star. Both characters were perfectly believable and affable (if flawed). Their eccentric behavior is based on understandable life events in their past. Despite the dark topic of the movie, it still manages to raise a variety of emotions including laughter, insight, relief, joy, thoughtfulness, love, reflection and many more. I guess for a film to have any appeal to the Hollywood crowd or insightful "critics" these days it has to be written for teenagers or by (yawn) Woody Allen. The rest, no matter how endearing or how many redeeming qualities they have, wind up in the straight to video dumpster. Anyway, if it isn't apparent, this is a worthwhile movie I recommend, even though the car crashes and special effects are limited in number. Robin Williams could be proud of his performance despite the horrible reception and reviews the movie received.