I'm as old as Dr Abelman (68). I've heard of this film many times, and was expecting something special. It //is// special... e'specially bad. It's irritating from the start, and one wishes it would just go away.
Dr Abelman (note his obvious name) has been a physician since 1912. He tends to the poor and needy, "without a thought for himself", but has no trouble condemning everything wrong with the world -- and everyone, including his patients. Is it any surprise he suffers a fatal heart attack while attending to a "rotten" young man who, on a merely personal level, doesn't deserve it?
The director has no idea how to set or maintain tone. Is this supposed to be a straight drama, or a subtly comic satire? Nor does he understand that one can be angry or impassioned //without raising one's voice//. Though Daniel Mann directed several successful films, my reaction to "The Last Angry Man" is that I (who have never directed a film) could have done better. Much, much better.
The acting is mostly loud and amateurish, especially from Muni and Joby Baker. How Paul Muni -- a distinguished actor and Oscar winner -- could have been nominated for another Oscar for such an unconvincing and unsubtle performance, is hard to understand. David Wayne -- whom I normally think of as a rather "broad" actor -- underplays his role as a TV producer. But there isn't a single //really good// performance.
The dialog rarely rises above exposition, and when things get serious, we mostly hear boilerplate text. As director, I would have rewritten the script.
This is a film that wants to speak Important Truths about the world (which haven't changed in 60 years), but can't find a way to do it much beyond speechifying. (Contrast it with "A Face in the Crowd" and "Network".)
The use of the framing device of a TV producer wanting to make an honest TV show about Dr Abelman mostly distracts from Abelman's war with the world. What could have been a moving story about one man's struggle to make the world a better place, ends up as a sad and soggy "drama of the week".
Dr Abelman (note his obvious name) has been a physician since 1912. He tends to the poor and needy, "without a thought for himself", but has no trouble condemning everything wrong with the world -- and everyone, including his patients. Is it any surprise he suffers a fatal heart attack while attending to a "rotten" young man who, on a merely personal level, doesn't deserve it?
The director has no idea how to set or maintain tone. Is this supposed to be a straight drama, or a subtly comic satire? Nor does he understand that one can be angry or impassioned //without raising one's voice//. Though Daniel Mann directed several successful films, my reaction to "The Last Angry Man" is that I (who have never directed a film) could have done better. Much, much better.
The acting is mostly loud and amateurish, especially from Muni and Joby Baker. How Paul Muni -- a distinguished actor and Oscar winner -- could have been nominated for another Oscar for such an unconvincing and unsubtle performance, is hard to understand. David Wayne -- whom I normally think of as a rather "broad" actor -- underplays his role as a TV producer. But there isn't a single //really good// performance.
The dialog rarely rises above exposition, and when things get serious, we mostly hear boilerplate text. As director, I would have rewritten the script.
This is a film that wants to speak Important Truths about the world (which haven't changed in 60 years), but can't find a way to do it much beyond speechifying. (Contrast it with "A Face in the Crowd" and "Network".)
The use of the framing device of a TV producer wanting to make an honest TV show about Dr Abelman mostly distracts from Abelman's war with the world. What could have been a moving story about one man's struggle to make the world a better place, ends up as a sad and soggy "drama of the week".