User reviews

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

For many, the family business is a meat market, or a hardware store, or maybe even a homely little jewelry store. For the McMullen's, the family business is armed robbery. Jessie McMullen (Sean Connery) is an aging yet unabashed criminal who has been in the business for many years. When his grandson, Adam (Matthew Broderick), finds the opportunity to net a cool million dollars, Jessie organizes one last heist with himself, Adam, and Adam's father, Jessies son, Vito (Dustin Hoffman). Vito is reluctant at first, but eventually comes around to pull of the heist. The movie tells the story of some rocky family ties and how the relationship between these three generations waxes and wanes in a very unconventional method.

The film is directed by the late and great Sydney Lumet. Lumet wasn't a consistent director and obviously put out some pretty terrible films, as well as some incredible films. Family Business falls right in between these two poles. It has its problems but it isn't a terrible film. Lumet directs the film very well with some great tracking shots of various New York locations we see in the film. The two funerals that take place in the film both include pans that lay out the characters very nicely in tightly constructed cinematography that isn't exactly flashy or incredible to look at, but adds a very subtle quality to the direction of the film. Lumet also directs his actors with a lot of precision and the performances from the three leads are excellent. All three characters are very different, not only in age but in personality and personal convictions. Each actor plays their character's nuances and attitudes very nicely, delivering dialogue that is at times cheesy and convoluted, yet also sharp when it isn't being silly.

The nice thing about this film is that there aren't any glaring issues. There are a multitude of small problems along the way, but nothing that kills the film's momentum or ruins the story. The issues range from bad chunks of dialogue, to moments that just don't fit well with the story, like Sean Connery singing. There are some pretty ugly plot holes that stick out when present, but thankfully they aren't anything that carry over throughout the film, causing more and more unrealistic problems. Overall the story doesn't exactly tie up as nicely as it could have. It leaves some loose ends and it resolves a few points a little too easily. I can't buy into everything that happened in this film, but I can believe enough to say that this is a decent film.

This is really just a film that sets out to entertain and tell an interesting story. It kept me interested from start to finish, and there were enough good things about this film to allow me to thoroughly enjoy it. The high points would be Lumet's direction and the great performances from the three leads. The low points would be the kinks in the story and some of the forced dialogue. Yet overall this is a fun little film that more or less accomplishes what little it sets out to do.

This movie got a lot of bad reviews and is that well known. I don't know why. Each of the actors (whom I am all big fans of) put forward an amazing portrayal of their characters. The plot was not steady because it was a situational film in with the basis of the plot seems to change from each major occurrence in the film (noticed in many Woody Allen films). I thought that the movie had a lot to say about respect, morals, family values and trying to differentiate right from wrong under tense circumstances. This is definitely a must see if you are a fan of any of the three headliner stars in this film. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll enjoy it.

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?

As far as directorial work, this movie is a mixed bag; the pacing borders on terrible and there are some elements that are either wasted, or are the movie version of a non-sequitor. On the other hand, it has a few really good shots in it, too, and comes across as having some emotional honesty to every character that gives it value. It has funny moments but it's not a comedy, but more a drama. I'm writing this review mostly because the different moralities at play give people very subjective interpretations as to what this entire story is actually about. The three stars each have something to say that comes out garbled in the film's message. Connery is the grandfather, Hoffman the father, Broderick the son.

The real action is within the dynamics between Broderick and Hoffman, the son and his father who cannot see the other's point of view clearly; Hoffman has renounced crime to do well-paying grunt work for the rest of his life to care for his family, pressuring Broderick into a conventionally successful career that the kid doesn't want. But the thing is, Hoffman dislikes his life, and Broderick, as Connery points out, can smell the dishonesty; the boy resents the pressure placed on him to make good on his father's self-sacrificing investment. Hoffman's character, in bourgeoisie fashion, places way too much emphasis on status at the expense of intimacy, and there is a price.

This is one of those situations that bedevils families in the real world all the time, just exaggerated. If you don't have a taste for what the world considers the right way, then do you suck it up and pay it forward to the next generation? Do you deny yourself to create a more conventional environment for your kid? Even if it basically costs you a sense of identity that the kid might not respect you for losing? Or do you go your own way, accept the risks, and take your lumps? Sometimes, self-sacrifice is the best thing to do in the bigger calculation; sometimes, it's just stupid, a chip turning into a huge burden maintained by delusional self-righteousness.

There's an interesting, and thoughtful, code of ethics going on here. Connery's criminal morals are interesting: the risk, for him, makes crime honest, like any other business venture. As an economist and one who understands enough about the ethics behind property rights to know how fuzzy all this is, I can understand. It's not exactly inaccurate, and I share Connery's disdain for the idea that the law defines morality. So the movie raises some interesting questions, and that I like. Call it a C+, verging on B-.

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.

Sean Connery, Dustin Hoffman, and Matthew Broderick have talent to spare and they manage to make an impossible story jell on the screen in Family Business.

The three men play grandfather, father, and son of the McMullen clan. Connery is an unregenerate criminal who offers to apologies for the life he's led. Hoffman is someone who went into that life during his youth due to Dad's influence, but he leaves that life and now works in the wholesale meat business which he hates, but more than pays the rent.

Matthew Broderick is his son who absolutely idolizes his grandfather. He's middle class and a Westinghouse scholar to boot, but lives for his time with his grandfather and the criminal tales he tells of his past.

Broderick's life as a Westinghouse scholar is about to intersect with Connery's habitual criminal background when Broderick's professor, B.D. Wong offers him a scam. He's to break in to a laboratory in Nassau County and steal the results of his research for a million dollars. Hoffman also goes along for the ride, mainly he says to watch out for his son.

These three have tremendous chemistry together and it is what makes this story float. Especially Connery because you have to believe in his character in order to enjoy the film.

Family Business is one of those movies that after I come away from it I say this is completely ridiculous. Yet when you watch you feel guilty enjoying it so much.

Sidney Lumet did a wonderful job showing the background of the Hell's Kitchen area where Connery resides. I recognize a whole lot of the neighborhood. Interesting that this area a decade later served as the background for the much more serious film Sleepers.

Look also for a good performance by Rosanna DeSoto as wife and mother to Hoffman and Broderick. What she puts up with in that family.

A grandfather, son and grandson all conspire together to rob a research lab to get rich quick. Along the way, the grandfather and son argue constantly and the film follows them from planning to executing to the aftermath of the burglary.

Casting Sean Connery, Dustin Hoffman and Matthew Broderick in the leads was a huge casting coup. After all, the three of them were pretty hot back in 1989 and it must have cost the studio a fortune to get them. But, just because you CAN get these three doesn't mean you SHOULD....as the chemistry was lacking and I could never accept that the three were related. Surely, three more disparate characters would have been difficult to find!

In addition to the problem with casting, the other big problem I had with "Family Business" is that it was very dry and a big influx of humor would have helped it tremendously. I remember back when the film was marketed back in 1989. It was marketed as a comedy and it's about as funny as cancer.

Overall, it's a film with a big-name cast but not a whole lot more. Fans of the three might like it...but others will probably, like me, wonder why the film wasn't better than it was. It also is a film that simply didn't know when to end...and by the closing credits it was a maudlin mess. A total downer and a film that didn't even come close to being a satisfying viewing experience.

If you're a jerk with little sensibility that knows nothing about the process of making movies but likes to pick apart films as if a professional ..then by all means believe the bad reviews here and skip this movie.

As many problems as this film may have, god, i sure wish they still made them like this. Real human to human relationships and interactions without dumb sensationalized curve balls thrown at you to ruin the reality and truth of the experience. i thoroughly enjoyed it despite any minor disappointments with the story along the way. decent writing, great acting, and sure handed direction.

Don't pay any mind to the many laymen naysayers sittin in their recliner snarfflin down popcorn who assume a position of expertise above these tried, proved and truly talented professionals.

Sean Connery, Dustin Hoffman, and Matthew Broderick play grandfather, father, and son respectively in a heist movie that is less about the heist and more about the family that pulls it. Matthew Broderick is the good son, smart, squeaky clean, and destined for the good life beyond the criminal past of his father and grandfather, except he wants nothing to do with that life and instead dreams of being a thief. To help him on his way is the original thief of the family (Sean Connery), much to the dismay of Broderick's father (Dustin Hoffman) who is eventually pressured into helping with the heist against his better judgment.

Much of the film is spent exploring the familial relationship of the three men. The grandfather is an unrepentant thief who thinks his son is a quitter. The father is angry at the grandfather for never giving him the opportunity to be anything other than a criminal. The son is angry at the father for not giving him the opportunity to be a thief like his father and grandfather before him. The actors are talented and the premise is good but the movie lacks a certain intangible aspect that prevents it from being anything other than mediocre. The movie is just too......ordinary, for lack of a better word. There is no real flair for the dramatic, no golden comedy moments to remember, just a story idea that is dragged forward by the strength of the cast, and little else.

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.

How can you say it is a Disappointingly Flat Comedy. There was absolutely NO ATTEMPT WHAT SO EVER to make it funny. I don't think you got the point of the movie. The storyline falls a little short, in terms of action, but the actors did a great job, and most of all, Sidney Lumet's camera work and other technical things made this movie a lot better than it would have been. For those of you who rate movies without discussing the technical point, please don't. You just make yourselves look stupid.

Sincierly,

Andrew.

Connery, Hoffman, Broderick, oh my! OK, it should have been an Oscar contender, but it wasn't. Vince Patrick's work will never rival Tolstoy, but it isn't intended to. This is classic Connery chewing scenery with acid tongue dialogue and more than a few memorable moments. Hardly a talent waster, lets call it an under achiever, just like the main characters here.

The stars in this one! Sean Connery, Dustin Hoffman. on the younger side, Victoria Jackson and Matt Broderick. turns out, the men are three generations of the same family. while Jessie (Connery) keeps getting in and out of trouble, his son and grandson have stuck to mostly the straight and narrow. Jessie is just getting out of jail, and now Adam, the grandson, has found an "opportunity" for them to make some quick, easy, money. a caper for the whole family! but of course, it all goes wrong. adam gets caught, but helps dad and grandpa get away. and what comes next is a study on family respect and relationships. it's dysfunctional, but they all really do love each other. who will tell the truth? and just what is the truth? and who has the stolen property? it's good. directed by the talented, multi nominated Sydney Lumet. Written by Vince Patrick.

This was not your typical heist movie. The thieves weren't typical, they were three generations of thieves and one of them didn't really know the first thing about being a thief. Their mark also wasn't typical. They were supposed to steal some platelets and log books then sell them to a guy for $1M. How things went down also wasn't typical, but I won't play spoiler.

With heist movies you always expect twists and turns and elaborate plans. This had all that, but the twists and turns came in the form of the complicated relationship between Jessie (Sean Connery), Vito (Dustin Hoffman), and Adam (Matthew Broderick) who were grandfather, father, and son. Jessie was an incorrigible thief who raise his son to steal. Vito long since abandoned that lifestyle and gave his son the most normal law abiding life he could muster. Adam wants nothing to do with the stale constricting lifestyle Vito has carved out for him and he'd like to follow in Jessie's footsteps.

I liked "Family Business." I liked that there were no easy answers or easy resolutions because life is like that most of the time. We pine for the perfect solutions and the perfect relationships, but we hardly ever get those. "Family Business" showed just how complex and difficult family business can be.

Sean Connery, Dustin Hoffman, and Matthew Broderick play an unlikely combination of grandfather, father and son in a family held together more by larceny than love. It might be little more than a miscast Hollywood star package gift-wrapped for the holidays, but the otherwise routine caper scenario is given added depth in the script by Vincent Patrick ('The Pope of Greenwich Village'), showing his affection for offbeat New York City characters and allowing a full hour of screen time before the big heist to establish each relationship. Young Broderick idolizes crooked granddad Connery, forcing a reformed Hoffman to reluctantly accompany them on one last job, to protect his overeager, amateur son. The fun and games end when the robbery begins, but under the typically efficient (if unstylish) direction of Sidney Lumet the film never quite sinks to the expected level of melodrama, despite going for the sentimental chokehold in the final scenes.

Do I meant to write Family? Or was I referring to something else? Do I know the answer to that? I would like to believe I do. Jokes aside (though there are quite a few incorporated in this one), the movie is more than decent. I did expect more from it I admit, with those actors involved. That's not to say I am dissapointed in them, they are quite fine in what they are doing.

The story though is not as gripping as it could be. And you could think it's good or bad, but it is quite straightforward too. Predictable not just by the title, but by expectations. Still there is fun and entertainment in here and even in the slower places the actors do shine through.

Jessie (Sean Connery) is an old timer criminal. His son Vito (Dustin Hoffman) is trying to stay straight after a shady past with his father. The grandson Adam (Matthew Broderick) is the golden boy and has the hope for a respectable future. So it's shocking when Adam approaches Jessie with a burglary plan.

While I see Dustin Hoffman as Matthew Broderick's father, Sean Connery just doesn't look related to them. It's distracting. Directed by Sidney Lumet, it makes little sense that they drag Vito into this knowing how much he hates the family business for his son. It seems easier to do this behind his back. Once Vito got all the details of the caper, he could easily end this right there and then. Call up the company and tell them their ex-partner's plans. Then tell Jessie and Adam the jig is up. The company doubles and triples security. So it was really stupid for Jessie and Adam to get Vito involved. Vito has to want to do the job, and not just to keep Adam safe. He could do that easily without doing the job. The simplest solution is to have Vito need the money. The caper is really boring. The only interesting thing is Jessie's story when they were buying the supplies. The sad thing is that it showed it show the potential of these actors together. What we have here is great talents being wasted.

Watched this movie long time ago and rewatched recently . I think it's a little uderrated . Obviously, the storyline is not perfect but acceptable, and filming was good for a low budget movie in 1989.

Predictable events and cliches took the opportunity to become successful. Trying to become rich by robbing tons of money , become rich and help family is what we have seen in many movies, but differences in details made this movie a little better.

Inspring relationships like father-son and grandfather-grandchild is one of the positive facts in this movie and we can see how crime can inhibited in 3 generations of family while they still have thier red lines is discussable.

We have to know that we are not watching crime film like heist (2001) or family mafia like godfather series but this movie gives you fresh view point of crime world (like old tradition about father's job inhibit to his son). If you're into comedy or crime movies, Family Business (1989) is worth watching.

When I see this film reviewed, over and over, as a comedy, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. This is one of the most brutally cynical, agonizingly tragic films I've ever seen - the story of a family caught up in the romance of crime, trying to help at least the youngest generation escape its inevitable fate.

Perhaps it helps to know Sidney Lumet's other work, especially his previous bitterly brilliant collaborations with Sean Connery: The Hill, and The Offense. Family Business is a similarly scathing attack on preconceptions. Lumet takes what looks like a tame little 'heist comedy' scenario and shows just how poisonously evil it really is. He gives us the charming scoundrel (Connery), and shows how destructive his devil-may-care attitude can be.

One might as well criticize Othello or Macbeth for having no laughs. This film is, in fact, Shakespearian in its tragic dimensions. Connery starts out with the classic Tragic Flaw, and must pay for it in the end. (There is a heroic dimension in his ultimate realization, at least.)

I can easily understand that many people won't enjoy this film. It's a nasty, venomous, painful piece of work. But it's also quite brilliant. If you want easy answers, by all means, rent Ocean's Eleven. But if you're up for a challenge, don't overlook Family Business.

Matthew Broderick plays Adam, a 23 year old who abandons academic pursuits in favor of a burglary proposed to him by an ex-professor. The job is to steal six plasmids and a notebook from a lab. Adam brings onto the job his grandfather Jessie (Sean Connery), a career criminal. Adams' father Vito (Dustin Hoffman) has strong misgivings about this proposed heist, seeing that he's forsaken his own criminal past and gone straight for the last 20 years or so. How soon will Vito be lured by the prospect of a caper and a hefty payday?

While there is some highly questionable casting here (Connery, Hoffman, and Broderick aren't the most convincing family you'll ever see, and you've also got Rosana DeSoto from "La Bamba" and "Stand and Deliver" playing Vitos' Jewish wife), the story isn't as bad as some reviews would have you believe. It's not a great one (Vincent Patrick scripted, from his own novel), but it entertains well enough. This viewer would also disagree that the Cy Coleman score is absolutely terrible - it's not particularly great itself, but it was rarely bad enough to be truly distracting. The climactic caper is reasonably enjoyable, if not that tense or lively; it takes its sweet time playing out.

The main reason to watch are three charismatic performances by three capable actors. Connery, in particular, is wonderful as a cheerful old rascal. The three of them are well supported by DeSoto, Janet Carroll, Bill McCutcheon, and Deborah Rush, and in small roles there's other familiar faces like Victoria Jackson, Luis Guzman, James Tolkan, Rex Everhart, Marilyn Sokol, Wendell Pierce, Tony DiBenedetto, and BD Wong.

There are certainly more potent teamings of Connery and filmmaker Sidney Lumet out there - "The Hill", "The Anderson Tapes", "The Offense". This is definitely a lesser one. But that doesn't mean that it isn't at least watchable for the duration.

Seven out of 10.

You would think with this lineup, this movie would be a sure thing. I mean look at it! Where else in the history of cinema has there been this much talent on the same screen?

Knighted in 2000 by the Queen of England herself, Scottish born Sean Connery broke the Hollywood trap of typecasting from his many successful James Bond films, and is now known as one of the most consummate motion picture performers of all time. Oh, and he got an Oscar in 1987 for The Untouchables. Dustin Hoffman impressed the world early in his career with The Graduate, and has quite a consistent track record with at least one successful film every year since 1967. He was nominated for the Oscars seven times and won twice. Just Hoffman and Connery alone on the screen together should be enough, but throw into the mix the comparatively youthful Matthew Broderick and the screen should be supercharged with guaranteed nonstop drama, action, humor and raw memorable entertainment.

Should be.

Broderick's career on the big screen was solidified with "WarGames" in 1983, just as Hoffman's work on "The Graduate" or Connery's first Bond picture "Dr. No" permanently put those men on the map. Even compared to these more experienced and mature talents, Broderick's resume is comparatively impressive, with easily a dozen critical or financial successes under his belt. Though not yet an Oscar winner himself, his work in films like "Glory," "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" and Neil Simon's "Biloxi Blues" have rewarded him with awards and respect among his peers. Able to dance flawlessly between drama and comedy, he was easily a suitable match for Hoffman and Connery.

This should be one of the greatest films of all time. Three talents this impressive should still cause a buzz among movie fans everywhere. This should be a film that is heralded as the greatest production ever. It should be. You would think on the surface that it was. I've watched this film more than once. I can't put my finger on why exactly, but it is terrible. The dialog is stiff. The performances do not match men of this caliber. They seem to be going through the motions instead of emoting anything. The pacing is slow. The plot is flawed with an amoral and apathetic approach to having a theme, or a moral, or even a desire to be about anything in particular. There is no purpose to the storytelling. It goes out of its way to speak volumes of nothing about anything. It's difficult to even believe these men are remotely related to one another. The chemistry between the actors is diluted. They might as well be playing golf together. And most of all, it's a tired premise for a film: three generations of a family blood line, separated by the generation gap, cultural differences and various past events which caused a strain on relationships are inevitably drawn together because of one thing: family blood. It's predictable. There's no suspense. There's no emotional attachment to the characters by the audience. The end result of this film is like a brightly colored clown forgetting to inflate the balloons that he uses to create balloon animals.

Watching these three men interviewed by Barbra Walters about what they each ate for breakfast would be more exciting than this film. This film isn't even a car wreck. At least with a car wreck there is something that causes one to do a double take. The potential for a head rolling out of the glove compartment. Something.

This film is one of the most forgettable and regretful moments in twentieth century cinema, and the real tragedy is that it didn't have to be this way. These three men are three of my favorite creative talents of all time. Together they should be unstoppable. I pray that one day an attempt is made to put these three men on the screen together again, but this time the script must be wholly unique, made to measure up to the challenge, and everyone needs to leave their egos outside the studio door.