IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,7/10
14.384
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Ein Ex-Professor bietet Adam 1.000.000 Dollar an, um etwas Plasma aus dem Labor eines High-Tech-Unternehmens zu "besorgen". Adam bittet seinen kriminellen Großvater um Hilfe.Ein Ex-Professor bietet Adam 1.000.000 Dollar an, um etwas Plasma aus dem Labor eines High-Tech-Unternehmens zu "besorgen". Adam bittet seinen kriminellen Großvater um Hilfe.Ein Ex-Professor bietet Adam 1.000.000 Dollar an, um etwas Plasma aus dem Labor eines High-Tech-Unternehmens zu "besorgen". Adam bittet seinen kriminellen Großvater um Hilfe.
Rosanna DeSoto
- Elaine
- (as Rosana DeSoto)
James Tolkan
- Judge
- (as James S. Tolkan)
Isabell O'Connor
- Judge
- (as Isabell Monk)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
Good acting. I was quite surprised with the end result. Three blockbusters with an excellent supporting cast.
Seeing that this was Connery and Hoffman, billed together with Broderick, I was expecting a real thriller. Ouch! Sitting way out in the audience, even I had to think. This film is a brain-teaser from start to finish, and gently plucks at the emotions. When you rent it, or go to see it, pay attention.
A criminal family, torn between right and wrong? How could this be?
Cute, innocent Victoria Jackson, as Christine, plays Matthew Broderick's, Adam's, fiancée, and is revealed to be someone even lower than this three-generation family of thieves.
Fascinating, ironic, clever, well done . . .
Seeing that this was Connery and Hoffman, billed together with Broderick, I was expecting a real thriller. Ouch! Sitting way out in the audience, even I had to think. This film is a brain-teaser from start to finish, and gently plucks at the emotions. When you rent it, or go to see it, pay attention.
A criminal family, torn between right and wrong? How could this be?
Cute, innocent Victoria Jackson, as Christine, plays Matthew Broderick's, Adam's, fiancée, and is revealed to be someone even lower than this three-generation family of thieves.
Fascinating, ironic, clever, well done . . .
Looking back now, we can say that this is the kind of films Hollywood should be doing now. Put together three big stars from different generations and make a good film about a good subject; in the case of "Family Business" about a family united in criminal activities. A material like this could rescue the career of many veterans actors.
In 1989, having Sean Connery (after Oscar for "The Untouchables"), Dustin Hoffman (right away for his Oscar in "Rain Man") and Matthew Broderick (still on the wave from hits like "Biloxi Blues" and "Ferris Bueller Day Off") as the cast from this film directed by Sidney Lumet was solid gold, a real bait to attract audiences, and even know when you hear that those talents were together in a picture you rush away to see it. Those are the expectations but expectations always differ from reality. Given a better script these could be a better picture than it is, more memorable.
"Family Business" tells the story of three generations of a problematic Jewish family involved with robberies. It starts when the bright college student Broderick (Hoffman's son and Connery's grandson here) decides to get involved in a sure thing business related to robbing a laboratory and he calls for his family to help with. But all of this triggers a crisis among father and son and grandfather, when Hoffman's characters wants at all costs protect his son for doing this, he doesn't want his son to get caught and arrested while Connery thinks they must do it, because nothing can go wrong. From here, the movie is more about family issues than dangerous and illegal activities.
It lacks substance to this being a great film, it lacks something to make us involved with their problems. The main problem was the that there were times when the film required of its viewers a certain seriousness but when we knew this was also a comedy. It gets stranded in never being really funny and never being awfully dramatic as some situations tend do be. The good news about this project is that Sean Connery has an incredible timing for comedy, his punchlines were amazingly funny, not to mention that his character is very problematic yet very amusing. His best scenes are when he defends himself on court for beating a policeman and when he beats another prisoner during their transfer, to what the guard asks what happened and the other prisoners reply "He felt!"
A path should be decided by the writers in what type of film they were looking for, a goofy comedy or a powerful drama about family relations, and that was a deficiency that almost ruined the film for me. Regarding the most awaited moment of this, the robbery was pretty good, funny and tense at the same time but the whole situation involving Broderick's arrest was poorly made, unconvincing that he couldn't run away and cross the street to his family car or run to any other direction when it was clearly enough that the police wasn't so close to him, that scene is bizarre. One final complaint: the soundtrack was totally wrong for this film, hauntingly dramatic.
What makes me like of this film, except the reunion of stars involved even though they're not at their best and they are somewhat mediocre, is its way of showing us the importance of family and caring about them whether through good times or bad times. When it comes down to present how Hoffman suffers for his son, wants the best for him, is when the movie really hits the target, family is family and business are business and sometimes they should not be mixed, otherwise is problems to both sides. And that's the ruin for everyone involved.
A good film from the 1980's, deeply flawed but completely watchable. I'm positive that Lumet has better than this. 6/10
In 1989, having Sean Connery (after Oscar for "The Untouchables"), Dustin Hoffman (right away for his Oscar in "Rain Man") and Matthew Broderick (still on the wave from hits like "Biloxi Blues" and "Ferris Bueller Day Off") as the cast from this film directed by Sidney Lumet was solid gold, a real bait to attract audiences, and even know when you hear that those talents were together in a picture you rush away to see it. Those are the expectations but expectations always differ from reality. Given a better script these could be a better picture than it is, more memorable.
"Family Business" tells the story of three generations of a problematic Jewish family involved with robberies. It starts when the bright college student Broderick (Hoffman's son and Connery's grandson here) decides to get involved in a sure thing business related to robbing a laboratory and he calls for his family to help with. But all of this triggers a crisis among father and son and grandfather, when Hoffman's characters wants at all costs protect his son for doing this, he doesn't want his son to get caught and arrested while Connery thinks they must do it, because nothing can go wrong. From here, the movie is more about family issues than dangerous and illegal activities.
It lacks substance to this being a great film, it lacks something to make us involved with their problems. The main problem was the that there were times when the film required of its viewers a certain seriousness but when we knew this was also a comedy. It gets stranded in never being really funny and never being awfully dramatic as some situations tend do be. The good news about this project is that Sean Connery has an incredible timing for comedy, his punchlines were amazingly funny, not to mention that his character is very problematic yet very amusing. His best scenes are when he defends himself on court for beating a policeman and when he beats another prisoner during their transfer, to what the guard asks what happened and the other prisoners reply "He felt!"
A path should be decided by the writers in what type of film they were looking for, a goofy comedy or a powerful drama about family relations, and that was a deficiency that almost ruined the film for me. Regarding the most awaited moment of this, the robbery was pretty good, funny and tense at the same time but the whole situation involving Broderick's arrest was poorly made, unconvincing that he couldn't run away and cross the street to his family car or run to any other direction when it was clearly enough that the police wasn't so close to him, that scene is bizarre. One final complaint: the soundtrack was totally wrong for this film, hauntingly dramatic.
What makes me like of this film, except the reunion of stars involved even though they're not at their best and they are somewhat mediocre, is its way of showing us the importance of family and caring about them whether through good times or bad times. When it comes down to present how Hoffman suffers for his son, wants the best for him, is when the movie really hits the target, family is family and business are business and sometimes they should not be mixed, otherwise is problems to both sides. And that's the ruin for everyone involved.
A good film from the 1980's, deeply flawed but completely watchable. I'm positive that Lumet has better than this. 6/10
I can't believe the reviews for this!
If anything is open for critcism here, its the casting of Connery, Hoffman and Broderick as grandfather, father and son, but no one seems to mind that. Hoffman's wife is a Jewish woman, played by Rosana DeSoto, who was Richie Valen's mom in "La Bamba" and Edward James Olmos' wife in "Stand And Deliver". All the casting choices are questionable but I think someone along the way decided to be sarcastic about it, which of course makes the movie that much better.
Broderick is not a criminal but his elders are (or were) and he brings them all together to do a robbery. It makes perfect sense, since he's in that family and has their blood. Without even trying hard, he's a product of his environ, just like we all are. Matthew was a whiz-kid who got bored with that and doesn't seem to have any guilt about this caper. His girlfriend (Victoria Jackson) has extremely questionable morals and practically brags about that fact at dinner one afternoon. But is also in keeping with Broderick's character. He's like a wanna-be lowlife.
Hoffman is working in the meat-packing district in the West Village of Manhattan and is trying very hard to do the right thing after having served time and having had an on-again, off-again relationship with both his father and son. He demands honesty and even fires a guy (Luiz Guzman) who is caught stealing from him. The movie is also very realistic from his point-of-view since he gets involved mostly to keep an eye on the other two. Father and son do not get along and always seem to be arguing about one thing or another.
Connery is a life-long trouble maker who was never much of a father but loves his grandson very much and has some pride about their all working together. He argues with his son..father and son do not get along, again.
Some of the dialogue is very funny and there are always great character actors in Sidney Lumet's movies; this one is no exception. In very small parts are Marilyn Cooper, Deborah Rush and Marilyn Sokol. This is in addition to a great trio in the leads, all of whom register great work in this little-seen flick.
Movie has a real NYC feel to it. I'd recommend it to anyone.
If anything is open for critcism here, its the casting of Connery, Hoffman and Broderick as grandfather, father and son, but no one seems to mind that. Hoffman's wife is a Jewish woman, played by Rosana DeSoto, who was Richie Valen's mom in "La Bamba" and Edward James Olmos' wife in "Stand And Deliver". All the casting choices are questionable but I think someone along the way decided to be sarcastic about it, which of course makes the movie that much better.
Broderick is not a criminal but his elders are (or were) and he brings them all together to do a robbery. It makes perfect sense, since he's in that family and has their blood. Without even trying hard, he's a product of his environ, just like we all are. Matthew was a whiz-kid who got bored with that and doesn't seem to have any guilt about this caper. His girlfriend (Victoria Jackson) has extremely questionable morals and practically brags about that fact at dinner one afternoon. But is also in keeping with Broderick's character. He's like a wanna-be lowlife.
Hoffman is working in the meat-packing district in the West Village of Manhattan and is trying very hard to do the right thing after having served time and having had an on-again, off-again relationship with both his father and son. He demands honesty and even fires a guy (Luiz Guzman) who is caught stealing from him. The movie is also very realistic from his point-of-view since he gets involved mostly to keep an eye on the other two. Father and son do not get along and always seem to be arguing about one thing or another.
Connery is a life-long trouble maker who was never much of a father but loves his grandson very much and has some pride about their all working together. He argues with his son..father and son do not get along, again.
Some of the dialogue is very funny and there are always great character actors in Sidney Lumet's movies; this one is no exception. In very small parts are Marilyn Cooper, Deborah Rush and Marilyn Sokol. This is in addition to a great trio in the leads, all of whom register great work in this little-seen flick.
Movie has a real NYC feel to it. I'd recommend it to anyone.
Jessie McMullen (Sean Connery) is a professional thief. His son, Vito (Dustin Hoffman), is a reformed thief who got involved in some theft apart from Jesse when he was a very young man, did time, and has been doing very well in the meat packing business though it is an occupation he hates. He has sworn that his son would get the chance to do what he loves, and so Adam (Matthew Broderick) is on the threshold of getting a master's degree in biology and seems to have a bright future ahead. It seems to be something he is passionate about.
But then Adam just drops out because the future looks all too safe and instead decides he wants the excitement of a burglary that has the potential for a big payout. Adam offers to let both Jessie and Vito in on the deal. Jessie accepts. Vido says no initially, but then decides to go along mainly to protect his son, Adam, because he knows he is completely green about such things. Complications ensue.
I think I understood Jessie and Vito, as to where their characters are coming from. Jessie is a hard guy straight out of The Asphalt Jungle who thinks "crime is just a left handed form of human endeavor" to quote said Asphalt Jungle. Vito just wants a better life for his son than he had. But Adam is a whiny selfish brat who does not appreciate what his father is trying to do for him at all. And he never has an epiphany at any point.
There is an odd situation that the film puts forth - Jessie and his girlfriend as well as Adam and his girlfriend are eating dinner at Vito's house. The girl Adam is dating, played by Victoria Jackson, reveals a way she has of cleaning up on real estate. She has a connection at Sloan Kettering who tells her who the really sick patients are so she can be the first to bid on their apartments since they usually die or are too ill to continue living in their homes. This disgusts Jessie, who has some kind of sideways morality that seems to include that it is not nice to steal from sick people or people who are down, but if they are doing fine stealing from them is AOK. If this is supposed to make me admire Jessie, it really doesn't do it for me.
And that is what this film lacks - somebody - anybody - to root for. You'd never guess going in that a film with Lumet directing and Connery, Hoffman, and Broderick acting would land with such a thud, but you'd guess wrong.
What does it do right? It has some great scenes of working class New York City as it existed around 1990. From the 80s forward, to watch most American films, you'd think everybody in New York City lived in a professionally decorated tony brownstone.
But then Adam just drops out because the future looks all too safe and instead decides he wants the excitement of a burglary that has the potential for a big payout. Adam offers to let both Jessie and Vito in on the deal. Jessie accepts. Vido says no initially, but then decides to go along mainly to protect his son, Adam, because he knows he is completely green about such things. Complications ensue.
I think I understood Jessie and Vito, as to where their characters are coming from. Jessie is a hard guy straight out of The Asphalt Jungle who thinks "crime is just a left handed form of human endeavor" to quote said Asphalt Jungle. Vito just wants a better life for his son than he had. But Adam is a whiny selfish brat who does not appreciate what his father is trying to do for him at all. And he never has an epiphany at any point.
There is an odd situation that the film puts forth - Jessie and his girlfriend as well as Adam and his girlfriend are eating dinner at Vito's house. The girl Adam is dating, played by Victoria Jackson, reveals a way she has of cleaning up on real estate. She has a connection at Sloan Kettering who tells her who the really sick patients are so she can be the first to bid on their apartments since they usually die or are too ill to continue living in their homes. This disgusts Jessie, who has some kind of sideways morality that seems to include that it is not nice to steal from sick people or people who are down, but if they are doing fine stealing from them is AOK. If this is supposed to make me admire Jessie, it really doesn't do it for me.
And that is what this film lacks - somebody - anybody - to root for. You'd never guess going in that a film with Lumet directing and Connery, Hoffman, and Broderick acting would land with such a thud, but you'd guess wrong.
What does it do right? It has some great scenes of working class New York City as it existed around 1990. From the 80s forward, to watch most American films, you'd think everybody in New York City lived in a professionally decorated tony brownstone.
Besides the three main characters reading like the beginning of a bad joke: "A Jew, A Sicilian and a Scot walk into a bar..", this is not a terrible movie.
Connery, Hoffman and Broderick all were mis-cast. Connery just does not look like a con man: He looks like the president. Hmmm. Maybe a bad analogy.
Why not get three people who look somewhat similar, maybe like Nick Nolte, Alec Baldwin and Christian Slater?
So, as I said, this movie is not god-awful. It is rather good, but there are one or two major complaints I have:
Why is Broderick's character (Adam) angry at his father (Hoffman as Vito) after Vito turns himself in to the police.., since Adam was the one who got him involved in the first place?!
Why does Vito apologize to Adam towards the end, when it should have been the other way around?
There is an inconsistency in the plot, too: The judge would have thrown the book at Adam, not his grandfather (Connery as Jessie), once they realized that he was recently a graduate student of molecular biology, and obviously the brains and impetus of the caper.
Jessie was infuriatingly arrogant and persuasive, and I was not sorry to see him go to the slammer. Vito should have gone head-to-head against Jessie, in an attempt to save his son from a life of crime and/or punishment. Now THAT would have been worth watching.
I'm not even going to ask how the Jew, the Sicilian and the Scot became Irish. McMullen? Anyone?
Connery, Hoffman and Broderick all were mis-cast. Connery just does not look like a con man: He looks like the president. Hmmm. Maybe a bad analogy.
Why not get three people who look somewhat similar, maybe like Nick Nolte, Alec Baldwin and Christian Slater?
So, as I said, this movie is not god-awful. It is rather good, but there are one or two major complaints I have:
Why is Broderick's character (Adam) angry at his father (Hoffman as Vito) after Vito turns himself in to the police.., since Adam was the one who got him involved in the first place?!
Why does Vito apologize to Adam towards the end, when it should have been the other way around?
There is an inconsistency in the plot, too: The judge would have thrown the book at Adam, not his grandfather (Connery as Jessie), once they realized that he was recently a graduate student of molecular biology, and obviously the brains and impetus of the caper.
Jessie was infuriatingly arrogant and persuasive, and I was not sorry to see him go to the slammer. Vito should have gone head-to-head against Jessie, in an attempt to save his son from a life of crime and/or punishment. Now THAT would have been worth watching.
I'm not even going to ask how the Jew, the Sicilian and the Scot became Irish. McMullen? Anyone?
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesSean Connery, who played Dustin Hoffman's father, is only seven years older than Hoffman.
- PatzerWhen Vito leaves the lawyer's office in the parking lot he asks the attendant if he saw a Cadillac Fleetwood leaving. The car they were driving was actually an Eldorado.
- SoundtracksDanny Boy
Written by Frederick Edward Weatherly (as Frederick E. Weatherly)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Family Business?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Offizielle Standorte
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Ehrbare Ganoven
- Drehorte
- 2 Jericho Plaza, Jericho, Long Island, New York, USA(The laboratory where Jessie, Vito and Adam steal the plasmids, on the N. Marginal Road side of the building)
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 12.195.695 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 2.130.024 $
- 17. Dez. 1989
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 12.195.695 $
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 50 Minuten
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.85 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen