The People vs. Larry Flynt

The People vs. Larry Flynt

Milos Forman's biographic drama, though a little dragging and momentumless towards the middle, is a well-made movie, with incredible acting to steer it through. The movie misses the point, and tries to portray Mr.Larry Flynt as such a likable honest man. Larry Flynt, who had countless number of wives and divorces, whose ex-wives claim he was a beater, whose own daughter accused him of sexual abuse, who disowned his own daughter, whose magazines are a bit too sexist... is idealized a bit too much in the movie. But for what purpose? Why not show him the way he is? The whole point is to concentrate on the importance of the first amendment; no matter what kind of person it is, and what he/she is trying to express, the amendment gives them the freedom to do so. If the story was told from the neutral point of view of the lawyer (played by Edward Norton), with the magazines and the religious institutions on either side, it would have made a more compelling point. The acting is top-notch, and the only thin which holds the movie together. Woody Harrelson is a delight to watch, and Courtney Love is surprisingly good in her acting. Mr. Nortan does a charming supporting role.

We sometimes have trouble in our patri(matri)archal political and social structures thinking outside of dualisms. For example, if a person is shamed and repressed by the archy, it often seems like the only way to freedom is through rebellion. Thus, in movies like "The People Versus Larry Flynt" and "Quills" we get sexual acting out, sexual excess and sexual abuse presented as sexual freedom. The archy loves this: It needs an "enemy" to continue thriving. The archy creates the conditions for rebellion to thrive. The archy also secretly likes to glorify this "rebellion." So, in movies like "The People" and "Quills", we also get stories glorifying * in such a way that strips it of its true ugliness and tragedy. These movies make * seem "cool." "The People" operates on the premise (even if it is supposed to be done with humor) that Larry Flynt, our flawed "hero," is standing up to sexually repressive American Christian Fundamentalists such as Jerry Fallwell. Flynt does this by exploiting and victimzing young women who are victims of the very system he is supposedly trying to "liberate" everyone from. I am all for more openness and less shame in the handling of sexual matters on a mass cultural level, but I do not see * and the exploitation of women's bodies as the best means of doing this. On the contrary, * is merely the flip side of sexual repression: It is sex seen as "dirty", tainted with the stink of patri(matri)archal shame. Hopefully, in time, we can all move beyond such dualistic ways of thinking and realize that true freedom lies in respecting everyone's needs and values from the time they are brought into this world and not getting lost in this eternal game of repress-rebel that has been responsible for so many of our world's ills over the last two thousand years. Long live empathy and compassion!

it is unfortunate that when one thinks of the movie 'people vs. larry flynt' the first person to come to mind is courtney love. not that she does an less then stellar job, rather by focusing solely on her, the rest of the richly deserving cast are overlooked. woody harrelson is genius as larry flynt. despite my liberal leanings, before seeing this movie i had made peace with the fact the flynt was a scum, but i would support him on the basis of free speech. after seeing this movie i was able to gain insight into the parts of his character which make him whole person. instead of seeing what Christian-right zealots, or bleeding heart liberals, tried to force upon me, i saw the entire man and all he brought with him. granted this was shown primarily thru scenes written and directed by milos forman, however, it is harrelson who brings them to life and convinces me of their sincerity.

This is a movie about first amendment rights? Okay, I guess if you consider Son In Law a film about farming then it could be. Anyone who's even glanced at a copy of Hustler knows that girls showing their "you-know-whats" is not the only thing that's offensive about it. The magazine is filled with racist and sexist cartoons and jokes that the movie conveniently never mentioned. Also, I'm not a big Jerry Falwell fan, but could they have villified this guy any more? What is the movie saying? If you are a reprehensible human being you deserve to be made fun of? They play the sympathy card enough with Flint (who had sex with a chicken, "not that there's anything wrong with that") that you consider him the hero and never truly question "Should he be allowed to do that?" This movie is just a white wash of Flint's questionable actions during his prolific career filled with melodrama and devoid of meaning. BOMB out of FIVE STARS

THE PEOPLE VS. LARRY FLYNT (1996) **** Woody Harrelson, Courtney Love, Edward Norton, James Carville, James Cromwell, Richard Paul, Crispin Glover, Vincent Schiavelli, Miles Chapin, Brett Harrelson, Donna Hanover, Norm MacDonald. Superb biographical account of smut publisher Larry Flynt (portrayed by Best Actor nominee Harrelson in arguably the role of his career) whose bouts with the courts regarding libel, * and ultimately first amendment rights to the freedom of speech are captured like a tempest in a teacup that depicts the rise and near fall of Flynt (who was paralyzed in an assassination attempt) and the uncomparable love affair with his doomed yet dedicated wife, bisexual, drug-addicted and tragically AIDS afflicted wife Althea Leasure (Love in a toweringly brilliant turn at acting that deserves all the recognition she mustered) who stood by her man as she withered away. Funny, insightful, important and some masterful filmmaking overall thanks largely to the cleverly constructed screenplay by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski ("Ed Wood"), costumes by Theodore Pistek and Arianne Phillips, and all too believeable production design by Patricia von Brandenstein. And yes that is real-life Flynt as one of the judges passing sentence and yes it is real-life brother Brett of Woody playing siblings. Kudos to Best Director nominee Milos Forman (who was sorely passed over in the Best Picture nomination as well as practically getting shut out come to mention it) for pulling off a difficult hat trick: making scum respectable.

Before watching this movie, I had nearly no idea who Larry Flynt was. I read a quick summary a few minutes before watching it, but I hardly knew any specific details. After watching it, I know exactly who he is, and what he stands for. He stands for freedom of speech. Some might call him a pervert. Others call him a patriot. I believe he is the latter. While I don't know the exact story of Larry Flynt from any other sources than this movie, I don't know if it's completely accurate. The plot is great, for a biographic piece, the acting is superb, by most actors, especially the three main characters. Most of the cinematography fits the movie perfectly. The only thing that bothered me a little, was there was relatively little information about why Larry Flynt did what he did, believed what he believed so strongly. I sympathized with his character in several scenes, but I never fully understood him. The director should have had at least a few more emotional scenes with Larry, to explain his actions better. Overall, a very good drama. Recommendable to most fans of the genre, as long as they can stand what the movie shows them. If you have an open mind, you're not too easily offended and you're into autobiographical dramas, this is a good film to watch. 8/10

"The People vs. Larry Flynt" is already 8 years old, and the subject it talks about is even older, but it still hasn't lost anything of it's relevance. This isn't a movie about Larry Flynt, the * king. It's more a movie about the right to say what you want to say, without having to think of every person's opinion first. You may not like the man or what he stands for, but at least he has the guts to stand up for what he believes in. He defends his right to speak freely and doesn't mind kicking against the shins of the ultra conservative Christians. In a way today's America needs more people like him instead of acting like a bunch of sheep being brought to the slaughterhouse by their government... The acting in the movie is very good, but especially Woody Harrelson as Larry Flynt and Edward Norton as his lawyer were excellent. Courtney Love isn't really an actress, but still did a good job (not that hard to do when you play a role that you are quite familiar with in your own life.) All in all this is a very enjoyable movie that will be loved by some and hated by many. Personally I liked it and I give it a 7.5/10

Idealized biography of Hustler magazine mogul Larry Flynt (played superbly by Oscar nominee Woody Harrelson) which finally ends up focusing on his legal battles to publish his * via the free speech laws of this land. Along the way he marries a bisexual wild woman (Courtney Love) who shares his unconventional views on free love, priced * and drug abuse. The character also survives an assassin's bullet, paralysis, imprisonment, endless court battles against the Reverend Jerry Falwell and even his own destructive nature. Edward Norton (a relative newcomer when this was released) shines as Harrelson's young attorney who tries to overlook and overcome his client's tirades. Director Milos Forman (Oscar-nominated) does a good job creating a cinematic story about a man who is hard for most in mainstream society to understand or relate to. Flynt is humanized and so are those who cross his path throughout the picture. The movie is not as wild and crazed as one would think. Instead Forman uses well-timed comedy with drama to get the major points across effectively. Overall one of the better films of 1996. 4 stars out of 5.

source: The People vs. Larry Flynt