Best movie of this year hands down!

Memorable, crazy movie

Better Late Then Never

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

When I see the movie so many feelings and ideas filled my mind. is one of great acting ever saw. but not only acting make the film fabulous, and script too. is about, life about art, about how long way must take to rise to know who you are. is not only about dream, i think is not about dreams at all i think is about the day when you wake up and see your life is somewhere behind you, and can't be reach it. is about one "me" with 2 face, so different in way the so compatibility! i think is about creations when you are full with so many things expected to be shared and somehow you can find the way to share. if was only about the common things used, like dreams, hopes love, friendship, maybe not give in to me that feelings but is much more, maybe is more after all about the felling to impotency when you have resorts. only think is i can talk about movie, about every word from this movie hours. every scene open so many possibility in way how can be receipted

Watching the 2000 film, Chinese Coffee, starring and directed by Al Pacino, I smiled because, yet again a film proved to me the utter primacy of the written word over the moving image, even in an art form that would not exist without pictures. The film is based upon a play written by Ira Lewis, who did the screenplay as well, and, given the superb and realistic dialogue uttered by the two main characters, Harry Levine (Pacino) and Jake Manheim (Jerry Orbach), the play seems likely to be a great one.Yet, the filmic aspects of the movie are almost nil. Pacino's direction is not awful, merely bad. In so many ways this film would have been much better had it followed the My Dinner With Andre route. Proof? I can still visualize the scene in the Louis Malle film where Andre tells Wally about being buried alive in the Polish woods. So what? Well, the scene was never filmed, merely described to the viewer via the words of Andre Gregory to Wallace Shawn. Now, contrast that with the numerous pointless camera angles and even pointless flashbacks that add nothing to this film, and the difference is clear. Even worse is the sometimes frenetic use of cuts that Pacino employs whenever Harry and Jake speak. We do not need to see close-ups for every syllable. Long shots that captured their whole body, and even shots from behind, where tone and inflection could take primacy, would have been a welcome addition. Pacino should have relied more on cinematographer Frank Prinzi's experience to dictate how the scenes would be filmed. The film's score, by Elmer Bernstein, is adequate- not too distracting nor too telegraphic. The low budget film also fails when it tries to show, in flashbacks, the younger pair of men, with Pacino sporting a bad wig and Orbach's hair atrociously dyed. The scenes where Pacino's Harry is supposed to be only 42 fail, as Pacino, then 60, is just far too old and dissipated- wig notwithstanding, to pull off the eighteen year old age difference convincingly….Chinese Coffee is proof that art house films need not be about effete individuals, for Harry and Jake are, if nothing else, vibrant and opinionated men who have simply outlived their utility in the world; or so it seems. This is clearly true for Jake, but whether or not it is for Harry is the crux of the film. Would that more films were based upon works that proved themselves literarily, with realistically drawn characters, rather than works based upon video games, and American cinema might hearken back to its Golden Age in the 1970s, the period that saw the rise of Al Pacino and his generation of actors. Circularity can be a good thing, no?

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.