Chinese Coffee

I just watched this on DVD, and although it offered some interesting moments and insights, the dialog felt forced and the two main actors, both of whom have done great work in other projects, didn't seem to click. On the DVD, there's an epilogue in the "features" section in which Pacino, who also directed, wondered whether there were too many flashbacks. Actually, I thought the flashbacks were enlivening, enabling the story to be more involving than it might otherwise have been. Pacino also mentions that because of Orbach's "Law and Order" shooting schedule, they were forced to film 84 pages of dialog in 21 days, perhaps explaining, at least in part, why the film feels a little undercooked.

A Broadway play turned into a film starring Al Pacino and Jerry Orbach. Think of this script as sort of a "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf" between two heterosexual men. In the span of two hours (with flashbacks) layer after layer of their relatively short friendship is peeled away to raw feelings and pseudo-honest expressions until a few truths may have been reached. My only problem with it is in the style of the dialog – much of the time feeling the scripts are invisible but right in front of them. The timing is too "ready" and snappy, the comebacks polished, the exchanges sculpted with care. Had it (they) been relaxed, awkward, slow to respond, overly fast to respond, etc., I could've believed it. As it is, I never lost awareness this was a staged play.

Harry Levine (Al Pacino) and Jake Manheim (Jerry Orbach), two unsuccessful writers, spend a cathartic evening arguing about money, aesthetics, their friendship, and Harry's new manuscript.

This film, based on a Broadway play (which had starred Pacino) is well-adapted by director Al Pacino (it helps that there was minimal stuff to direct). The origin as a play is fairly obvious, given how much is talk and how little is action (and I wonder if they had to add or modify scenes to create additional movement and scenery).

While not one of the greatest films ever, and not even one of Pacino's best, it has its moments and it is a great interaction between two people. If you like a lot of dialogue and bickering (think "Clerks" without all the dirty talk) and miss Jerry Orbach, this is the film for you.

This movie will require many revisits to fully appreciate it.

Tempted to call it 'My room' or heh - 'My room with a view'.

No spoilers here - not that this movie has any.

Do not miss this experience.

Forget waiting for Godot - I think he shows up in this one.

Just a masterpiece.

I really don't have any words beyond that, short of Thank you Al Pacino for working on this and bringing it to light.

All I can say is - watch this, maybe watch it over some period of time - in pieces.

Eight-time Oscar-nominated, Tony-winning master actor Al Pacino draws from off-off- Broadway this semi-autobiographical character study and boasts a cast of actors who've proved themselves before and after, a Greenwich Village setting, and thus the world of floundering poets, bartenders, belly dancers, photographers, jealous doormen, haughty Shakespearean quotes, urbane coffee shops and French restaurants. And yet not all of these intermingle naturally within the story, but are forced by a tug-of-war between the play Ira Lewis had written and the film Al Pacino wanted to make.

The narrative is almost exclusively as a one-on-one conversation between the two main characters, yet it is littered with various ineffectual camera angles and at times redundant flashbacks that add nothing to the story, which apparently relates the rapport, romance and failure in the pathetic mid-life of a failed writer barely making ends meet as a doorman, that is, until he is fired. It does so as if such cerebral notions of life would pull the emotional triggers they do here between the writer, Harry Levine, played by Pacino, and his friend Jake Manheim, a photographer played by Jerry Orbach. The result is that, yes, some arresting moments and observations are produced, but they feel nonetheless forced. As director, Pacino brings to bear a periodically overwrought utilization of cuts in the dialogue scenes with Harry and Jake, and so perhaps it is not the words themselves, but the prevention of their taking priority that causes them to seem contrived.

Harry visits Jake impulsively because he is desperate for money and Jake owes him some from a long time ago. He doesn't have the money, so the two engage in an all-night conversation about the aesthetics and troubles of their separate trades, past and present loves, and the directions their lives are taking. The play and film are set in New York City circa 1985. Why? I don't know.

After years of withholding it, Pacino allowed it to be released as a part of a three-movie boxed set called Pacino: An Actor's Vision. Though I see why he might not have been happy with his work, the film stands as testimony that art-house and independent films need not be about overrefined individuals, for Harry and Jake are, from what I could tell, animatedly high-handed men who have merely outlived their functions in society. This is decidedly the case for Jake, but whether or not it is for Harry seems the question of the film.