Mr. Brooks

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

I wish they would just take one of Costner's head shots and wrap it around the package for good measure.

[Gold Trumpet]

This movie just came out on DVD (meaning a few hours ago). I picked it up at the midnight hour and watched it again. It wasn't my second time seeing it because I had seen it a few times off www.movieforumz.com. The best news is that I still enjoy it.

The one thing I wish I didn't do in my original thoughts and analysis is over indulge the film with too much commentary and categorization. It's easy to do so because of a lot of this movie feels familiar, but it also feels like a complete new spin on an often told tale. The disparity made me want to make sense of the movie. I never was happy with any of my chances to adequately review this film, which is why my best attempt is still not on Green Screen.

The more I watch it the more I'm just happy to let the different parallels in the story wash over me. The film makes references to a David Mamet viewpoint and also postmodernism, but when I dig at those subjects in context to the film, I'm not satisfied with what I find. There isn't much to be found because this movie does want to just be entertaining. I have to remember comedies today rip and lampoon numerous films and styles in the course of 90 minutes and can still look like just another comedy. Mr. Brooks is just dealing with the thriller and applying a few new methods to a genre that hasn't been as exhausted in numerous methods and formulas.

Since I've never made much of Hollywood's futile attempts to innovate its movies with retreads of older stories and combinations of other styles to get to the same ends as before, I won't start now. My total enjoyment of this film just made me want to. I still enjoy the movie very much. I recognize it's good writing and ability to be refreshing, but I want to stay away from large talk. It's been said good entertainment is harder to find these days than good art. If that's the case then that is the best explanation to why I attached myself to Mr. Brooks. If I didn't explain myself and instead put this film in a top ten list for best of the year, it would be assumed I looked at the film with more loftiness. I'm grateful I no longer do top ten lists and that I did, somewhat, explain myself.

[SiliasRuby]

Ya....but how do you like coverart?....joking....bleh.

[Gold Trumpet]

Ya....but how do you like coverart?....joking....bleh.

Funny, but it's still a worthwhile question. I don't like it. It's the studios attempt to make a cover that is different than the theatrical version but also not completely terrible. This new cover isn't terrible in the standard DVD fashion, but it also doesn't distinguish itself either. A vague design of Costner's face set against a white background makes the DVD likely to be passed up in video stores. Movies like the Bourne Identity and Shawshank Redemption became classics at the video store. Mr. Brooks has a chance to become a bigger hit, but not only does this design have nothing that stands out, but it makes it also look like a typical thriller.

The theatrical poster is a rip off the famous painting and The Thomas Crown Affair, but it's a better rip off. It would make the film stand out to someone.

[john]

Tomorrow night, I'm going to give this film a shot.

Regrdless of my response to the film, this recommendation makes me very happy - and is why I return to this message board.

There are films I will see anyway, based on either the director or, to a lesser extent, the commodity of the film. Something like No Country For Old Men, or Live Free or Die Hard, I will see no matter how many positive or negative reviews I read here or elsewhere. I enjoy the Coen's work and the Die Hard films have always provided a good time in a dark theater. In short, I really feel like most of my moviegoing decisions are predisposed, much further than the example given.

Then there's something like this, which I had no interest in based on the plot synopsis, Dane Cook, and Kevin Costner (whose performances I've enjoyed - in films by directors I've already established I am a fan of.)

So, tomorrow, I'm going to watch this. Which I would never do otherwise probably - even late at night, on cable - and, you know what? I'm actually anticipating it. I am looking forward to watching Mr. Brooks.

I can't even imagine typing that a week, or an hour, ago.

[Gold Trumpet]

Now I'm nervous because while I like it, I can see how others may not. The last review was my attempt to bring this movie back down to earth, but I took five paragraphs to say that. The sheer length of my posts probably still make the movie look like greater than it is. But hey John, if you absolutely hate the movie, I'll buy you dinner.

[RegularKarate]

I'm curious to see it too...

Mostly because everything I've heard outside of GT's opinion (as far as opinions I actually listen to go) has been "it's so bad that it's funny".

So, I'll either really enjoy something I thought I would hate or I'll laugh a lot at something miserably bad.

Can't wait to find out which.

[MacGuffin]

GT owes me a refund if I don't like it... Oh, who am I kidding? I would have bought it anyway.

[Gold Trumpet]

I think a million words could be written about how different RK's taste and mine are so I can't expect anything there, but I'll be a little hopeful Mac likes it and sink into a small depression when he doesn't, haha.

[john]

But hey John, if you absolutely hate the movie, I'll buy you dinner.

Save your money.

I loved this film. I don't regard many reviews, and try to avoid them, but following my viewing of this film, I looked up a few. I'm baffled at the middling response most critics have written. Even the positive reviews are somewhat backhanded, essentially calling it enjoyable trash. It is not.

There's something much more intricate and lingering than simple escapism or a contrite twist. I don't think I can fully articulate it yet, or here, without spoiling certain elements of it.

The fact that this film would have otherwise escaped me without your positive remarks makes the film even more of a treasure.

So, I do plan to say more - or at least, what I can.

But right now I'm going to see if those special features are worth anything.

[Gold Trumpet]

I loved this film. I don't regard many reviews, and try to avoid them, but following my viewing of this film, I looked up a few. I'm baffled at the middling response most critics have written. Even the positive reviews are somewhat backhanded, essentially calling it enjoyable trash. It is not.

VAGUE SPOILERS

That makes me so happy! I know, I've looked up some reviews too. I think critics take too much exception with late twists to the plot. They dislike a few questionable subplots and lambast the rest of the film for those small grievances. I said before the Hitchcock love in the cinema world makes people more focused on the build up and climax to a thriller instead of how it is told. Mr. Brooks isn't about build up. It's about the interaction between the characters and their wonderful dynamics.

But you said it, this a genuinely good film. There is some wonderful writing. When an average thriller connects the dot between two plot points, Mr. Brooks immerses itself in wonderful conversations and characterizations that go a little longer than normal. Gene Siskel said Pulp Fiction was a gangster film that had scenes that would go on five minutes longer because of the conversations. Mr. Brooks is a structured example of Pulp Fiction with the scenes going on longer than normal. Instead of five minutes, it's more like one minute in Mr. Brooks. The best part is that you get an idea of the supporting characters because of things that happen to them, but all the characterization between Costner, Hurt and even Cook is based on the genuine good writing between them. It was excellent illustrations of the characters. 

I don't mind the subplots because the whole film has an unrealistic air to it. The tone is realistic, but there is an air of something more. The existence of Marshall makes the film somewhat magical. I say that because any other term would require an explanation of Marshall. Mr. Brooks isn't concerned with what he is. The subplots kept me in the story because they made sense with the theme and the actors were wonderful. They were the glue that held everything together. Sam Peckinpah once said a film's success was based 70% on the actors. I don't think that's true for every film, but its certainly true here.

Also, I looked at some of the extras. I liked them and this DVD was a good purchase for me.

[john]

I don't mind the subplots because the whole film has an unrealistic air to it. The tone is realistic, but there is an air of something more. The existence of Marshall makes the film somewhat magical. I say that because any other term would require an explanation of Marshall.

Absolutely.

Marshall doesn't need an explaination. Neither do the overblown, or unrealistic elements of the film.

It's clearly established that everything we see, really, is from Mr. Brooks' perspective. I love this about the film. It helps create a much richer, fuller character, and it enriches everything that happens within the film.

I'll need another viewing still to elaborate on that in any further detail without sounding silly or presumptuous.

William Hurt's performance was terrific. Even Dane Cook's was commendable. I don't even need to talk about Costner's performance. Really, some of his best work. But, Hurt, Jesus... the minute he came onscreen... his delivery, everything... I had such a wide smile on his face.

[MacGuffin]

Hitchcock loved to cast handsome, charming men as his killers because he felt that that was the allure and part of why they were able to get away with what they did. That being said, Costner is perfectly cast in this part, and one that goes perfect with his killer in A Perfect World (an underrated gem). It adds so much sympathy for his character who time again wrestles with what he is. He knows right from wrong, but admits it is an addiction. That added with a visual 'voice inside the head' in the flesh of Hurt, also brilliant, makes for a very interesting, fully-rounded character. He doesn't come off as just some psycho who talks to 'himself,' but instead he is someone you could know, and that's what makes Mr. Brooks creepy. The film itself is smart, and kept getting better as it went on as pieces that don't feel connected started falling into place. Again, with a nod to Hitchcock, you end up rooting for him to get away with it.

The only hiccup, I'm a little conflicted about the ending.

*SPOILERS*


The whole "it was all a dream" falls into cliche. I liked that he was still concerned about his daughter, and if she really is a "daddy's girl," but I think had it been presented in a way that was so done all the time (having just seen it again the day before in Hostel II), it would have played better.

[Gold Trumpet]

SPOILERS,

Costner intends for this film to have a sequel. He's already said it. I think the dream (a very small scene) is mainly a set up for what will come in the next film.

[RegularKarate]

Well, I saw this finally.

I was re-reading everything GT and company wrote here, looking for clues that it was some kind of inside joke that this movie was good.

Well, I had fun laughing at how horrible it was... that's for sure.

Best parts:

-Shitty lines that they toss in to try explain things like "For all the taxes we pay, you'd think they'd make it more difficult to hack into the police personnel file." (as they look at classified information on an iMac) and the fact that they keep adding really awkward bad lines to keep driving  points into the ground: "I don't enjoy killing, Mr. Smith. I do it because I'm addicted to it. "

- Dane Cook's ability to be Dane Cook even when he's trying to be serious... even moreso at points... flailing around, mugging, looking like a total clown.

- Costner over-acting the worst of lines and the most unbelievable of emotions.

- Demi Moore's non-character... layers and layers of attempts to make her character someone and then after a whole movie of her clearly not knowing who her character really was, trying to wrap the whole character up in one quick dialogue exchange at the end.

- and the absolute BEST part: When Mr. Brooks has to leave town in a disguise and he wears the most ridiculous costume... I wish I could find a picture of it online... it's like a bad halloween costume and the scene is done so seriously.


HEAVIER SPOILERS

- the idea that being a serial killer is hereditary "Oh, God. Oh, God. I was afraid of this since before she was born. She has... she has what I have."

- REALLY clumsy lines that are supposed to be button-points: "Before I was the Thumbprint Killer, Mr. Smith, I killed a lot of people in a lot of different ways. "