User Reviews

Paul Muni is Dr. Sam Abelman, a frank and abrasive general practitioner whose office is in his apartment in a crummy neighborhood in Brooklyn. A shifty, pill-popping, TV producer (David Wayne), producer of a program called "Americans USA", as opposed to, say, "Americans Canada", persuades Muni to appear on a kind of "Person to Person" live show, with the connivance of Muni's bright and ambitious nephew. (The BHS on the back of the nephew's jacket stands for Bronx High School of Science, an elite school attended by bright and ambitious kids.) Luther Adler is Max, an old friend and classmate of Muni's who has become a famous and somewhat cynical icon in the medical community, a specialist in adjustment disorders of the rich. Everybody wants Sam Abelman to come out of this TV program ahead for a change. "You've got to sweeten the kitty," Adler tells Wayne's producer. Sam, on the other hand, is an iconoclast who cares almost exclusively about his impoverished patients, though he dreams of a modest house in a quieter neighborhood. He'd like to visit Walden Pond someday too. His favorite reading is Thoreau.

SPOILERS.

Alas, there is a run-through of the TV show, witnessed only by the producers, network, and sponsors, and it looks fine. Abelman comes across as a man without guile. He's entirely honest with his interviewer and with the audience. He rises to his feet and tells us that there is kickback to be found in the medical industry. And mental hospitals are terrible. And drugs are invented for which there are no diseases yet. (The professionals watching this seem shocked, and some are amused!) Before the interview is finished, Abelman hears that one of his patients is in trouble and rushes off camera. End of run through.

That takes up the first two thirds of the film, leading us to believe that this is going to be a kind of mild expose of medical practice. But no. The script dumps the TV program entirely when Sam Abelman gets a heart attack while climbing stairs to rescue a patient. The family gather round, and Max comes running over to treat him at home, while Paul Muni gives a good impression of an old man (68) who shoots an embolism, gets sick, and dies. The ambitious nephew doesn't seem to have learned much from the experience but David Wayne has decided there are more important things in life than celebrity and money, and he goes home with his wife, probably to read Thoreau. I forget. Did Thoreau die broke after adzing all that wood? The acting is uniformly hammy but it's not offensive because all the performers are operating on the same emotional level. The characters and their development are drawn simply enough for a kindergartener to comprehend. The director, Daniel Mann, wields the camera like a sledgehammer -- people make speeches at the lens, and there are lots of close ups, and movements are blocked so that no one gets in anyone else's way.

Aside from the legerdemain involved in substituting the long dying scene for the TV show, the story is so simple as to be one step away from being simple minded. And yet it is still gripping. For one thing, it provides us with a flashbulb shot of what medicine was like 50 years ago, when there WERE family practitioners who actually HAD black bags and made personal calls to the houses of poor people. Not any more. I was having dinner at the home of a family practitioner who got a call from a frightened patient whose mother had evidently gone balmy and thought spies were after her. The doc handed me the phone and let me listen for a while, then cupped his hand over the receiver and asked what I would do. I mumbled something about getting over there and shooting Mom full of phenothiazines. "Wrong." Instead, he instructed the patient to take mother to the ER and let them handle it. That's where all the facilities and staff were now located -- not in a black bag. Further, house calls had been dumped in the dustbin of history because they were inefficient. Why have a doc waste time driving around when the patients could be lined up in appointments and treated serially? Of course being sick and treated in a hospital is vastly more expensive that lying in bed at home, but balances must be struck.

I won't argue that the balance is out of whack but I miss the Sam Abelmans. They had a genuine place in the community. And despite the primitive story, characters, and techniques on display here, the passing of Abelman is an honest, if inevitable, tragedy, as is the passing of a way of life filled with such intimacy, or the passing of an old and noble iconoclast.

I find the comments about this film having the feel of a teleplay rather odd. Made in the fifties, a good many directors were trying for that kind of look, thought to be more realistic than gaudy Hollywood color shoots. I hardly think that that detracts from the intrinsic artistry of the film. A previous reviewer has commented on the performances of Paul Muni and David Wayne. Muni was much more comfortable on the stage and his acting style never quite made a full transition to the camera. Stage performances have to be bigger in every aspect to be effective. Muni's performances on film may have tended to be a bit larger than life but they were never without honesty. His peers chose to vote him an Academy Award earlier in his career and to nominate him for The Last Angry Man. This would seem to indicate that actors who worked with him admired his work. A pretty good recommendation. David Wayne was also more successful on Broadway than in Hollywood, to some degree because he wasn't given material equal to his talent. (With the exception of Adam's Rib). A measure of his talent and ability would be his three Tony Awards: 1968 best actor in a musical (The Happy Time), 1954 Best Actor in a Play (The Teahouse of the August Moon) and 1947 Best Featured Actor in a musical (Finian's Rainbow). Not bad for an actor who was "never any good". The Last Angry Man is not available on DVD, but anyone who appreciates good film should keep an eye out for it on TCM. It is worth the time.

The "Last Angry Man" directed by Daniel Mann is a human interest story of a doctor practicing medicine for the pure well-being of his patients. That is to say this is the story of a doctor who eschews profit to help those who otherwise would not receive good medical care. Dr. Sam Abelman, an elderly physician came to America and wanted to give more than he received. Abelman's office is in his home located in one of the poorest sections of New York thus being assured of a steady stream of patients who can give him little compensation and even less notoriety. He wants it this way as he firmly believes in taking the oath of his profession to an absolute level - remaining in a level of poverty while doing so. He has the support of a wife who understands, admires and loves him for his wise outlook and compassion. This is the the core of "The Last Angry Man"…Dr. Abelman a well read and highly educated curmudgeon who prefers his life of giving and invisibility. He has little toleration for those who "want something for nothing" yet he selflessly gives to those who have nothing.

The story of a man healing the poor is the core, but not the vehicle which this movie uses. The "Last Angry Man" revolves around a TV producer who is trying to save his career at a nameless (NBC?) network by creating a fresh (reality based) news magazine show showing "unsung heroes" who contribute to others in refreshingly unconventional ways, enriching American life. The show must please both a smarmy TV executive and a sponsor who happens to be the owner of a large pharmaceutical company. If the producer can get the show approved he can keep his job which in turn will allow him to secure the mortgage on the house in the suburbs. When all seems to be lost for the producer, he comes upon the idea to profile Dr. Abelman after reading a newspaper article written by the Dr.'s aspiring nephew. The show gets a green light at the last minute if Woody Thrasher, the producer, can somehow get Dr. Abelman to come out of "hiding" and let his story be told. Dr. Abelman has no interest in cooperating in something that serves to glorify him setting the stage is set for a "battle of wills" between Thrasher and Abelman. Everything works against Thrasher yet he tirelessly pushes forward, but as he gets to know Abelman he respects him and chooses not to compromise only to solve his job-related dilemma. As the show becomes less important, the ideal of service and humility overrides Thrashers career path at the network. Thrasher is a changed man.

Paul Muni came out of retirement to make this film. It was a fitting celluloid swansong as his performance carried it earning an Academy Award nomination for best actor. His performance was such that it made an otherwise maudlin tear-jerking story breath life. Stories abound if one cares to read that Paul Muni was a difficult actor to work with. Exactly why is not known, but he left film and returned to stage as a result. It is good to see that he got the chance to prove the powers that be wrong, he still had the chops. He was a jewel in this role and fit it like "hand-in-glove". It is also notable for the strong supporting roles by David Wayne (Woody Thrasher), Luther Adler (Dr. Max Vogel), and early roles by Billy Dee Williams and Cicely Tyson (un-credited, non-speaking). The movie is entertaining and worth the viewers time. No, they don't make them like this anymore and it's a great capsule of a time gone both in the world in which we live as well as the film making industry. It is a small movie that does not overreach and as a result is well-done. Recommended.

Yes, this film is a bit odd. I don't mean that in a bad way. I don't mean that in a good way. It's just different. And, I'm not exactly sure what the point was. And yet, even after saying that, make no mistake -- it is a film worth watching.

I had always avoided Paul Muni films because I associated him with Warner Brothers gangster films...a genre I dislike immensely (with a very occasional exception). The only Muni performance I had seen prior to this week was his portrayal of Dr. Louis Pasteur. With TCM's retrospective this week, I suddenly watched 4 Muni films in 2 days. Two things struck me, overall. First, Muni was a master of disguise. You could have almost watched the 4 films and not realized the lead in each was the same man. The other thing that struck me was that he played the characters so thoroughly that I could get no sense of who Paul Muni was. We may not always be right, but usually, audiences have a sense of who a star is as a person. With Muni, I can't get a grip on that, and I suspect that means that he was a true actor, rather than a star.

As I said earlier, I'm not sure what the point of the movie was, but the plot involves a television producer (David Wayne) who stumbles upon a humble doctor (Muni) living in a declining neighborhood. He realizes the doctor would be perfect for a new television program sponsored by a drug company. Meanwhile, the doctor is attempting to treat an irascible young Black man who is having occasional seizures. Things come to a head just as the show is about to go live...but doesn't because the doc saves the soul (well, sort of) of the young Black man, but has a fatal heart attack while doing so.

This film is a good example of how good an actor David Wayne was. Wayne typically played the best friend type of role, but every once in a while got a top role himself...as he did here. He's excellent as the somewhat cynical television producer.

I remember Betsy Palmer as a television personality back in the 1950s and 1960s; can't say much for her acting her as the wife of David Wayne. Luther Adler was good as a doctor friend of Muni. Billy Dee Williams...his first film role...a bit of overacting...but interesting to see. Godfrey Cambridge has a forgettable role as a young Black punk.

I think the title of this film is all wrong. Paul Muni's character is not an angry, he's a frustrated man. Nevertheless, and despite probably not being what you think it's going to be, this is a film worth watching for the quality of several performances.

The film's themes of ethical integrity, personal responsibility and devotion to duty remain as relevant today as they did a half century ago when the film was released and the novel it is based on was published. Unfortunately, because of cinematic limitations, the film can only give a somewhat superficial treatment of these themes, along with many others that are in Gerald Green's novel but are omitted from the film altogether.

The most glaring examples are the background material on the doctor's life gathered by Thrasher as part of the research for the show. This series of vignettes include his immigration to America, his life as a youth and young man, his studies in medical school, early days in private practice, his betrayal by a trusted colleague, his struggles with depression and attempted suicide, and his deteriorating practice coupled with neighbors who are totally devoid of ethics and scruples. They give a much more complete picture of why the doctor stubbornly clings to his high personal morals at the expense of material betterment, plus Thrasher's ultimate own embracing of these values.

The novel also expands on the power of the new medium of television and the immense power of the spoken word that can be used for good or evil. The little subplots of corporate politicking and backstabbing still have a ring of truth to them some 50 years later.

Finally, the novel offers good social commentary on the changing morals of postwar American society and the emergence of problems that still have eluded solution to this day. Examples include the troubled marriage of Woody and Anne (the pressures to succeed and changing morals of their contemporary sophisticated urban world drive both of them into extramarital affairs, including one between Thrasher and Alice Taggert) plus the expanding juvenile delinquency, drug addiction and social squalor that had started to transform many urban neighborhoods, including the doctor's Brooklyn neighborhood.

Overall, I would heartily encourage those who liked the film to give the novel a look. It will greatly enhance the experience brought by the film and provide a read that although dated, still has a fresh message for today.

Paul Muni is outstanding in this one as the lead, a Stubborn Doctor, General Practioner, whose life is his patients. He gets excellent support with a great cast. David Wayne is particularly outstanding as the last angry television producer who feels a responsibility to what he puts on the air- the truth. It is the best role I have seen from Wayne besides Inspector Richard Queen on TV series Ellery Queen.

While the script, taken from a real book about the type of doctor that no longer existed in 1959 (much less now), does get a little soapy towards the end, the handling of the script, the direction, and the cast make you care about the story and pulled me as the viewer in deeply into wanting that last angry man to succeed. It is a story in which it was not intended to make Patrick Wayne's character a rare television producer but the actor is more than up to the task.

Munis doctor is just what any patient would order and almost never get though I think a Doctor who had been in a long term relationship with his profession would feel like this one. Kudos to Luther Adler as Dr Max Vogel who is excellent in support and game show staple Betsy Palmer and Billy Dee Williams (much better here than in Earthquake). Daniel Mann's Direction here is outstanding in how he takes a talented cast and puts together a fine film.