Massachusetts Cop Forum banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
7,237 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I plan on seeing this flick soon, perhaps tonight. Coming across this "police review" of the film in the NY Daily News this morning I thought I'd share:

BY ROBERT DOMINGUEZ
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Colin Farrell stars as Jimmy Egan, a New York City police officer trying to cover a trail of corruption, in 'Pride and Glory.'

Is "Pride and Glory" true to the men in blue?
The new police drama, starring Edward Norton and Colin Farrell as New York City cops enmeshed in a murder and corruption scandal, prides itself on being a gritty, realistic depiction of life in the NYPD.
Writer-director Gavin O'Connor - the son of a former city cop - filmed the movie on the streets of New York and used real police officers as consultants and extras in an attempt to capture the right look and feel.
But the effort may not have totally translated to the screen. Although it's up to audiences to decide whether "Pride and Glory" ranks among such classic New York-set cop stories as "The French Connection," "Serpico" and "The Naked City," the Daily News turned to its own experts - a pair of NYPD veterans - to gauge the film's authenticity.
"Tony" is an undercover detective who specializes in drug and gun cases; "Frank" was a high-ranking police official who recently retired after 25 years on the job. Both men say several key scenes in "Pride and Glory" are loaded with "only-in-the-movies" inaccuracies:
Daily News: The plot has a chief of detectives asking his youngest son Ray [Norton] to investigate a multiple cop killing at a precinct commanded by Ray's older brother - and where their brother-in-law [Farrell] is a sergeant who served with the slain officers.
Tony: That's not likely to happen at all.
Frank: That's a big-time conflict of interest. You have a father, two siblings and a brother-in-law involved in one case? No way [Ray] would be allowed to be on this investigation.
DN: A bad guy is horribly tortured by crooked cops, who then execute him and make it look like he was shot in the line of duty by another cop.
Frank: No one was walking away from that saying it was a clean shooting, especially when it was so obvious the guy was tortured. And then it just cuts to another scene. The shooter wouldn't have been allowed to go back to work.
Tony: He would have been there for hours, answering questions and talking to supervisors.
DN: In another scene, a cop goes before an Internal Affairs board and refuses to answer questions, then goes back on duty.
Tony: Once you don't answer questions to those guys, he would've walked out of there in handcuffs.
Frank: With no gun and shield. If he refused to talk, he would have been suspended.
DN: Was anything realistic?
Frank: They did a great job with the city. I recognized the streets in [Washington Heights] and the Bronx where they filmed. The weapons and the uniforms all looked good. And the way Norton dealt [with witnesses] was on the money.
Tony: The pictures he showed [of suspects] is exactly how they look straight out of the computer.
DN: Thumbs up? Or down?
Tony: If you're a civilian, it's a typical cop movie: over the top and far-fetched. In this day and age, that stuff's just not happening.
Frank: It's entertaining - if you don't know the inner workings of the Police Department.
 
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
Top