Timecrimes - Interview and Review
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

dj4our Blog

Middle-Age Stars shine!

Under discussion:

Mr. Brooks  (2007)
MR. BROOKS
***
rated R (for strong bloody violence, some graphic sexual content, nudity and language)
2 hrs.
written by: Bruce Evans & Reynold Gideon
produced by: Kevin Costner, Reynold Gideon & Jim Wilson
directed by: Bruce Evans
There are certain actors out there that I consider "aversion actors" these are those actors that you see in a movie trailer or on a poster for an upcoming movie and he or she just make your skin crawl and not in a good way. Nicholas Cage and Alec Baldwin are a couple actors that fall into this category for me. These guys are just kinda slimy to me, I dunno what it is. Once in a while, I'll like them in a role but that's usually cuz the characters they play are slimy, usually. It's not like I won't watch movies with these actors, it's just that I'm a lil more hesitant. I need to be won over. I mention all this cuz I'm certain that Kevin Costner and Demi Moore are "aversion actors" for many people but I happen to like them. No, I don't like all their films. Please. But, they've done enough good work to peek my interest each time a movie comes out with either one of them. I left a free screening of this movie last night pleasantly surprised and glad that I saw it.
Earl Brooks (Kevin Costner) is a loving family man and a local business icon in Portland, Oregon, recently names Man of the Year. Yet he is deeply flawed and very aware of it and often finds himself whispering the serenity prayer to himself almost as if he is keeping something within him at bay. Indeed he is because Mr. Brooks is addicted to killing. Struggling with his pathology, he tries to quit, but his id personality, Marshall (William Hurt), has an altogether different idea. Marshall enjoys his "existence" and his "work" is quite persistent that Mr. brooks continue to scratch his itch.
Meanwhile, tenacious Detective Tracy Atwood (Demi Moore) is extremely frustrated at the lack of clues left by Mr. Brooks meticulous killings. He's laid dormant for almost two years when he was know as "the Thumbprint Killer" cuz of how he would leave his victims thumbprints in plain sight at the scene of a crime. She was on the case back then and is struggling with solving it now as well as going through an ugly divorce with her ex, Jesse (Jason Lewis) and getting some "tough love" console from her superior (Lindsay Crouse). At the same time as this mess divorce, she also has to contend with an escaped serial killer (Matt Schulze) trying to get revenge on her for putting him away.
When Brooks is compelled to perform one last murder, despite his strong reservations, he delivers the goods with trademark ritualistic style. But this time he gets sloppy and is seen by a voyeuristic neighbor. Unexpectedly excited by what he sees, the prying neighbor, Mr. Smith (Dane Cook), has an unusual and disturbing blackmail demand. To complicate matters, Brooks' daughter, Jane (Danielle Panabaker), has announced to him and his wife (Marg Helgenberger) that she is dropping out of college, but "Marshall" suspects there's something about the scenario that she isn't telling. With the determined "on-the-edge" detective on his trail, Mr. Brooks and "Marshall" are forced to play out an increasingly elaborate game.
William Hurt and Kevin Costner in MGM's Mr. Brooks 
This is a hard film to classify to the average moviegoer. It's a movie about a serial killer but you don't really see him kill serially. There's a violent double kill in the beginning but after that the focus is on Brook's internal struggle to stop this behavior and all of the elements that add to that fight. Because it's a story about a serial killer it does have some depraved elements but not much more than some of the material on cable nowadays. That's just the desensitized world we live in. I was drawn to this movie not because I knew it was about a serial killer but rather the whole inner struggle angle was intriguing to me. We often hear and read what peoples are saying about someone they knew that was found to be a murderer. They often say "what a nice person" he or she was and how they just can't believe it. That's exactly what intrigues me, in this case finding out what goes on underneath the man who has everything to make him do such monstrosities captivates me.
Watching this movie, I realized I really didn't care too much about Brook's motivation for killing. I was curious enough about him trying to stop his murderous urges and how the other characters effect his problem. Costner and Hurt are a joy to see work together. They shared screen time before in "The Big Chill" but Hurt's character was attending Costner's characters funeral. This is obviously different and it's great to see middle-age actors (Moore included) get some good work. I can't say much about Cook (besides bein' kinda weird-looking) cuz I dunno too much about him. Apparently, he's some kinda comedian or something. He played his role well enough actually although I wanted to know more about his motivations then I did Mr. Brooks. I gotta say it was great to see the wonderful Lindsay Crouse too.
This film marks the return of co-writers Gideon and Evans and it's been a full 15 years since their last film, the bizarre cop comedy "Kuffs," failed to catch fire. ";Kuffs" is kind of a guilty pleasure of mine and it's fun to see the team back in the saddle. They have an quirky visual style to their films which is good cuz this film needs a unique kick in the pants to better bleed into the brain and make it stand out a bit. The team sets the mood early with the creepy blood brotherhood Brooks/Marshall relationship and the poison spreads quickly from there, taking the story to extremes that are not easily predicted and completely welcome.
 
Some oddly staged shootout aside, Gideon and Evans recognize that "Brooks" has a difficult tone to maintain, so they slip in and out of horror carefully. The trick of the movie is an age-old one: get the viewer to sympathize with evil. It's not easy to do and once it's done, it's not like the viewers are sympathetic to the protagonist, moreso intrigues if anything. "Mr. Brooks" succeeds in selling this partially due to the layered writing of the character and his moral woes, and the rest is Costner and his sly performance. The audience can't help but be drawn to Brooks, even when his thrill-kill ways are shown in lurid detail. He's a common man with ordinary family problems, yet is consumed with a taste for murder that even he finds revolting, but can't bear to be without.
 
 
The filmmakers do an equally exciting job tackling Atwood's story. Clearly the lesser of the two plots, the audience is at least permitted to understand her frustrations and obsessions, paying it off in the end with some light twists that satisfactorily connect the plot with dilemmas that Mr. Brooks finds himself in. It's also the best work Moore has offered the big screen in some time. It seems almost a shame that Costner and Moore don't share screen time they seem perfect for, that woulda taken the film to a different level, methinks.
 
Everyone seemed to be into the film at the screening last night, my buddy Kelly and I liked it well enough. There was some laughter here and there and a lil jumping as well. Part of that jumping coulda been from the sound of the film. Whenever guns were blaring it seemed like the shooters had canons in their hand, it was jarringly loud. It brought to mind the ear-splitting gun sounds of another Costner film, ";Open Range". Sure, some of the plot is a tad convoluted and unresolved but I was okay with it. The amazing interplay between Costner and Hurt was absolutely golden and it was great to see Moore get a role that I didn't have to laugh or roll my eyes at. I especially like the ending which almost ruined it for me.
People are gonna look at this movie and see Costner and Moore and roll their eyes. Fine, I know. I understand. They've made their share of crap movies. I still like them both and am interested to see the type of roles they take as they advance in years. Honestly, If I didn't see this for free, I'd probably wait to rent it. But, I'm glad I liked it cuz even when I see free movies and they suck I still feel like I was robbed my time. Overall, it's quite an idiosyncratic film and not for everyone, meant to disturb rather than delight, and it deserves a special level of attention to best extract the delectable wickedness within.

posted on Thursday, June 21, 2007 11:21 PM by dj4our


Was this review helpful?
Yeah Yeah Nope Nope



Comment    Email me new comments.


Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<June 2007>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
1234567


Categories
 


Advertisement