Harry + Max (2004)

Two brothers, 23 and 16, who are both teen idols, come to terms with their dysfunctional family past and deep affection for each other.

Director:

Christopher Munch

Writer:

Christopher Munch

Stars:

Bryce Johnson, Cole Williams, Rain Phoenix

1 nomination.

Cast

Cast overview:
Bryce Johnson	...	Harry
Cole Williams	...	Max
Rain Phoenix	...	Nikki
Katherine Ellis	...	Brandi (as Kate Ellis)
Roni Deitz	...	Roxanne
Tom Gilroy	...	Josiah
Michelle Phillips	...	Mother
Justin Zachary	...	Jordan
Max Piscioneri	...	Max, Aged 9
Mark L. Young	...	Harry, Aged 15

Storyline

Harry is a 23-year-old former boy band idol who is watching his younger brother Max, 16, follow in his footsteps. Harry has detoured on his way to a Japanese concert tour to escort Max on a long-promised camping adventure. Their trip begins on a note of camaraderie but quickly turns serious as old wounds resurface, forcing them to come to terms with their dysfunctional past--Harry's drinking problems, his disconnection from the family, and, most of all, his relationship with Max and the emotional dependency that keeps them from moving into adulthood.

---

Plot Keywords:

boy band | dysfunctional family | kissing | fear of commitment | alcoholism | 

---

Taglines:

Brothers like no others.

---

Genres:

Drama

---

Details

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Release Date:

17 January 2004 (USA)

Also Known As:

Harry e Max

Box Office

Opening Weekend:

$5,163 (USA) (18 February 2005)

Gross:

$14,923 (USA) (6 May 2005)

Company Credits

Production Co:

Antarctic Pictures

Technical Specs

Runtime:

74 min 74 min

Sound Mix:

Stereo

Color:

Color

Aspect Ratio:

1.85 : 1

Did You Know?

Goofs

When Harry pours Max a glass of wine the cork vanishes from the wine bottle between shots.

---

Connections

References Perry Mason (1957)

User Reviews

I've seen more interesting walls of paint drying.

This must be a film one either loves or hates. I should imagine the only people that love it were either (a) in it, (b) related to someone that was in it, or (c) think that the actors were 'cute'.

The only reason I saw it through to the end was because I'd paid £3 to rent it; thank goodness it's only 75 minutes long or I may well have had to slash my wrists to alleviate the sheer, utter ennui.

In principle the storyline could work. The actors, I'm sure, are capable of better, even though I've seen less wooden trees. The camera-work isn't bad. But the scriptwriter(s) should be banned from ever using pen, pencil or word processor ever again.

Save yourself the £3 (and the almost overwhelming desire to eat ground glass and end it all) and rent something else instead - anything else, in fact: chances are it will be better than this.