Barrymore (2011) User Reviews

Christopher Plummer is brilliant

[blanche-2 · 8/10 · 9 February 2014]

Christopher Plummer is "Barrymore" in this 2014 filming of the two-person play by William Luce, which was first performed by Plummer in 1996.

In the play, Barrymore has rented a theater in order to rehearse for a backers audition of a Richard III revival. The play had been one of his great triumphs in the theater. He can't remember his lines and is drunk, so he needs the rehearsal. Offstage is a prompter, Frank (John Plumpis) who feeds him lines and puts up with the erratic actor throughout.

During rehearsal, Barrymore confronts his growing up, his marriages, his brother and sister, his friends, his successes and his failures, every once in a while coming out with something that's actually from Richard III, with some other Shakespeare thrown in.

Christopher Plummer is phenomenal. He sounds just like Barrymore, and he is superb at bringing out the humor and pathos of the script, as well as reciting some of the beautiful Shakespearian speeches.

I realize some people didn't care for this, and probably seeing this on stage is a different experience. One poster mentioned that this is "dated material and a subject long forgotten." The name Barrymore is not forgotten, and there's nothing dated about Shakespeare. John Barrymore was a fascinating person, an important part of theater, and a presence in films. And Christopher Plummer is a treasure.

Not for everyone, but great for others.

[onumbersix · 8/10 · 8 June 2012]

Christopher Plummer, what a great actor, he is known mainly to the world as Capt. Von Trapp in the Sound of music. It seems as though he has heightened his acting skills on film since he has reached his early eighties, with a 2011 Oscar for Beginnings and his touching role in Millennium, among others. This filmed One man show gives him the opportunity to show us the scope of his titanesque talent. His subject: John Barrymore, from a family dynasty (his parents, his brother Lionel and his sister Ethel) that marked the classical theatre and cinema of the late 19th century through to today, with grand- daughter Drew. Plummer takes us along the route this person who tasted inaccessible glories and a proportionate decline. This is theatre on film. Definitely not for everyone. Excellent on the other hand, for those who have some knowledge of classical Shakespearian theatre and the golden age of American cinema.

Powerful One Man Show

[gavin6942 · 8/10 · 10 February 2014]

As John Barrymore (Christopher Plummer) reckons with the ravages of his life of excess, he rents an old theater to rehearse for a backer's audition to raise money for a revival of his 1920 Broadway triumph in Richard III.

I am not as familiar with Plummer's work as I should be, or the work of John Barrymore for that matter. But this (almost) one-man show with dirty jokes and running commentary is great. Few films feature just one person (the only other jumping to mind right now is Robert Altman's film on Nixon), but sometimes these are the most powerful, letting the actor test their range.

More people should see this... and I should make a point to see more of Plummer and Barrymore's work.

Mostly for select audiences.

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 14 May 2013]

Unless you have seen John Barrymore perform, then you probably won't want to see this one. That's because today, very few even know exactly who Barrymore was. Practically everyone who saw him on stage has since died and unless you are an old movie fiend (like me), then you've probably not seen him in films. As for me, I am very familiar with him and his life--so it was natural that I'd get this DVD. But for the average person, I just can't see it being of a lot of interest.

Christopher Plummer plays the great actor in this film. As to the style, it really looks like a one-man play (with a second person offstage speaking a few lines) that has been filmed and released on DVD--and that's exactly what it is. Back in 1997, Plummer starred in the play "Barrymore" and he received the Tony Award for this performance. The play is set just before Barrymore's attempted comeback in 1942--the same year he died from the effects of alcohol.

As to whether or not this seems like John Barrymore, Plummer really doesn't look much like Barrymore. However, he does act like him--with some of the same mannerisms as well as the ability to play a genial drunk--which was what Barrymore generally was. But it's also very sad seeing a man playing a guy who WAS a great actor but who is only a step away from the grave due to his heavy drinking. Memory lapses, an inability to function without liquor and many reminiscences, this is basically what you'll see.

So is it any good? Well, if the film was about 30 or even 45 minutes, it would have been excellent. However, seeing a ruined, drunken wreck of a man talk and talk for 83 minutes is simply too much--even for a John Barrymore or Christopher Plummer fan. It becomes depressing and a bit tedious after a while. Worth seeing for the right person but difficult at the same time due to the subject matter. It's really a shame--Plummer is great in the role and should be commended for his performance.

A Tour de Force from Christopher Plummer

[ChrisB13 · 10/10 · 17 April 2022]

In 1997 Christopher Plummer too the world by storm in his "One Man" production of "Barrymore" on Broadway. It was recreated for film in 2011 and what a film it is. A new "profile" has emerged from the ashes of the much celebrated John Barrymore and that is the profile of Christopher Plummer. Here we see the full spectrum of his remarkable talent. It is an unusual piece since it does not depict his life span or years in the sun. This is Barrymore at the end of his career seeking that one last role that will catapult him, once more, into lost fame and footlights giving him an opportunity to redeem his reputation and his craft. It is a must see for all who remember him and an absolute for those who treasure great performances...thank you Christopher Plummer and John Plumpis, who plays Frank, his much needed prompter, offstage.

One Great Actor to Another

[marylois-788-910304 · 6/10 · 5 July 2015]

In BARRYMORE, Christopher Plummer, one of the greatest stage actors living, essays the role of John Barrymore, one of the greatest stage actors of a previous generation. Delicious, I thought. I can't miss this.

I've been a fan of Plummer forever, seeing him in minor films and minor roles in major films, and always wishing to see more of him. I'm also a fan of Ethel, Lionel, and John Barrymore, and have read a great deal about their lives. I read Plummer's memoir a few years back and enjoyed it immensely just to learn of the verve with which he approaches life, however alcohol-induced that verve may be; and also to read the tidbits about famous actors he has known and worked with.

The movie should be of interest to fans of old-school theater, but I suspect it will leave most audiences cold, or at least more than a little confused. Plummer is excellent--squeezing the juice out of every second he is on stage--but I was never convinced he was John Barrymore, even though he was telling me stories as if he was. I never heard how much young John hated his father, and somehow I cannot quite believe it. He saw the man's descent into hell through syphilis and was probably too young to understand or forgive it, but I never read that he was the one walking the old drunk into whorehouses. It may have happened, and it would have been traumatic, but I hadn't heard that one. I'm certain he would have treasured memories of his mother as he was 11 when she died, but in this play he says he hardly remembers her. It has often been stated how devoted he was to his grandmother, Mrs. Drew, until the day she died. This play doesn't capture that, but maybe I'm asking too much. To be as complex and confounding as John Barrymore was, one could not have had good memories of childhood, could one?

John Barrymore was indeed a garrulous drunk, and probably a fiercely angry one, which we didn't see. Somehow there were too many digressions to silly songs like "I Got a Gal in Kalamazoo," and "When the Midnight Choo-Choo Leaves for Alabam", getting in the way of the picture of the classical actor we know he was. One silly song, I could have accepted, but two is one too many. The real John Barrymore did refer to his marriages as bus accidents, and his grandmother did call him her little Greengoose. She also is known to have said she loved him so much because he was "a bad boy--like my husband." The script is interesting, but it doesn't quite capture the bad boy, or the madness, or the self-loathing that caused Barrymore's retreat into the bottle. And Plummer is missing the main tool Barrymore had in his actor's bag of tricks--his magnificent, multidimensional voice. I was aware every moment that I was hearing Christopher Plummer relating Jack Barrymore stories, and it only made me want to find a DVD of a movie with John Barrymore.

Extremely good film, brilliant performance by Plummer

[elect_michael · 7/10 · 14 February 2021]

Christopher Plummer plays John Barrymore, the legendary silent film actor who transitioned into talkie movies in the 1920s & 1930s and starred in legendary films like Grand Hotel & along with Charlie Chaplin was considered by some film historians as the most talented actor in Hollywood during that time period, and of course he is Drew Barrymore's Grandfather. It takes place in 1942, right before John Barrymore died. It is an extremely good movie, I give it 7 of 10 stars, but Christopher Plummer's performance is a Masterpiece and I give his performance 10 of 10 stars. I would recommend this film as it is extremely good, but if you want to see the brilliant acting of Christopher Plummer it's a must see!

Overrated

[rgcustomer · 6/10 · 20 October 2012]

If you want to watch a movie about a man past his prime, I recommend The Last Command (1928). I was lucky enough to enjoy live accompaniment by the Alloy Orchestra, but I'm sure it will be as good with a recording. That film is still screened for audiences 84 years later. This film won't be.

It seems that this is what we do to our elderly stage actors. They all seem to get around to it at one point or another, appearing in some role where they have to pretend to be shaky and senile (not very convincing at either) and reminiscing about what once was, and can no longer be. Once you've seen one, you really don't need to see the rest. But audiences applaud because they just can't separate the actor and character: Barrymore disappears, and it's Plummer.

I don't like this use of John Barrymore. He was a real person. He did not attempt a return to Richard III at the end of his career. I'm left doubting very much not merely whether this actually happened, but even if it could have ever happened. I blame the playwright (and all playwrights). They have no shame.

I also took a dislike to the direction. In the beginning, and I think also later in the film, it is supposed to look like we're in an old movie palace, watching a black and white film (in widescreen, a format used only for a handful of films prior to Barrymore's death, and I don't think Barrymore was in any of them). This effect is so obviously fake it's really distracting. You can't just take video, and apply consumer-level lines and spots and shear to it, and pretend it looks like a movie screen. You have to consider frame rate, the imperfect flatness of screen, the sparkle of a real screen, how things further away don't look exactly the same as they do close up, etc. I guess I wasn't expecting Scorsese here, but I was expecting something better than Windows Paint.

Watching the accompanying documentary "Backstage with Barrymore", about the making of this film, disappointingly didn't shed any light on John Barrymore at all. It was primarily various people gushing about Christopher Plummer. You know, I can make up my own mind about Christopher Plummer. I don't need several people who appear to be in dire need of psychological counselling to tell he how awesome he is. And having watched the film itself, I don't need another long trailer for it. I'd like to know about John Barrymore, how the play came to be, the performances at Stratford (more than just a passing mention), etc. So this was a missed opportunity. The most telling thing I learned was that the director seemed picked solely based on the stage production's people being able to control him. Canuel has directed far more television than film. The only film I recognize is Bon Cop, Bad Cop.

I've got nothing against filmed plays. Whether you literally film an actual performance of the play, or adapt it in some way, the results can be amazingly good. This is not the play, nor the film, for that. I expect Les Misérables later this year will be much better.

A Broadway DUD

[ronlax556 · 1/10 · 1 December 2011]

I saw this at TIFF last Fall and was very disappointed. Although Plummer was wonderful, the film is an overproduced mess that never gets past its bad writing. The choice of director was wrong versus some one that had the biopic chops. The use of flashbacks and added film montages makes the film look cheap and takes away from Plummer. My sense is that this film will not find a distributor as it is sadly boring, slow and dull. This was a case of leave a good Broadway one off alone. Why Plummer would do this is puzzling. He won the Tony and now this is a sluggish tarnished effort. I wanted to like the film given Plummer's ability to command a stage but would bogs the film down is the pacing and cliché dialog. The other problem is that approach and art direction looks like they threw anything they had from the "theatre warehouse" at the film. Producer Garth Drabinsky (now in jail)has the theatrical chops but his return to the dated material and a subject long forgotten was a bad mistake.

Christopher Plummer is God but this movie is a Dud

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 11 December 2013]

It is 1942. Barrymore prepares for a backer's audition as he dreams of a triumphant comeback. This is Christopher Plummer reprising his one man play as the alcoholic John Barrymore. There is no doubt that Plummer is an acting God. He shows it here in spades. But it doesn't add up to be a compelling movie.

It's one of those age old question of how to adapt a play onto the big screen. This felt like a slightly drunk old grandfather telling the young'uns about the old times. Sometimes it's funny as Barrymore and CW Fields try to sign up for WWI. But it's mostly a series of never ending stories. He is alone with Frank who is just off stage. It doesn't really allow for great interaction. We don't get the full power of Plummer's presence that I assume we would get from the play. For Plummer as an actor, I would give him a 10. But as a movie, this is only a 5.