comment #1

Devin Faraci says ...

I fully think that Maguire should get an Oscar nomination. Amazing performance, and he really changes throughout the film, even physically. He's so gaunt and hollow at the end.

As for what he did... well, the movie leaves you to kind of decide or wonder what's next for him. I don't think it's a totally happy ending, since it could potentially go any way. But he's making an effort.

comment #2

George Prager says ...

"Maguire's is one of those acts that require only one of two responses -- suicide or abandoning your family and country and going off to Asia to live like a Joseph Conrad character...."

...or becoming LexG.

I haven't seen any print ads with critic's quotes, so I was assuming this was BEWITCHED bad. But it gets a 57% on Rotten Tomatoes. So what we're dealing with is another READER. And with Jim Sheridan in the director's seat, I expect that this will get a Golden Globe nom for Best Picture.

comment #3

actionman says ...

seeing this tomorrow, very much looking forward

loved the original

comment #4

Chase Kahn says ...

I think the final scene will certainly help Maguire's recovery - taking care of that, "they don't understand what I do, what I had to do" stuff - but yeah, there's almost no way that the Cahill family could get back together again, especially after what happened between him and their two daughters.

I also don't think that scene is meant to imply that the family will, in fact, get back together and Maguire will see be watching orchestra recitals with his daughters and everything will be rosey. But, I believe it is meant to suggest that Maguire is on the way to recovering into a half-livable realm of acceptance and tolerance for his actions.

I thought the film was okay for what it was, not bad. Performances all around were good, although I would contend that Maguire's performance wasn't quite "amazing".

Wanted more Sam Shephard, I thought he was interesting, flawed character.

comment #5

Ray says ...

This is a movie called BROTHERS yet the two brothers in question barely have any screen time together.

This film's center is the supposed love triangle that develops during Maguire's MIA period and in his return. Yet the film instead focuses on post-traumatic stress, something I guarantee 90% of this film's audience has no interest in watching.

I find it hard to believe that Devin can give a half-formed and cliched film like this a pass.

http://sammyray.com/762/brothers/

comment #6

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Perhaps someone can explain why both BROTHERS and EVERYBODY'S FINE were able to avoid crediting the actual creators of the stories they are based on (Susanne Bier, & Anders Thomas Jensenfor Brodre/BROTHERS and Giuseppe Tornatore. Tonino Guerra and Massimo De Rita for STANNO TUTTI BENE/"They All Fine")? At least in yesterday's LA Times (although the EVERYBODY ad does say that the credits are final, which is pretty ridiculous on opening day).

I'm guessing this might be fallout from the last Writer's Guild Strike, but it still strikes me as really bad form for David Benioff and Kirk Jones, respectively, to take sole credit.

comment #7

Big Blue says ...

WHAT?!

Not a word about Sheridan, Portman and Gyllenhaal???

comment #8

Ray says ...

Even more bizarre: In his review, Devin calls the script for this film "subtle and smart." Hilarious.

Yeah, it's a really smart move to make the father character a cliched jerk who angrily berates the Gyllenhaal character continuously, never even showing the slightest bit of warmth or humanity toward him ... just like every other cliched bitter father figure in movie history. Totally overwritten. Proof of this can be found in his first scene at the dinner table, when the script concocts a ludicrous argument between Gyllenhaal and the father. DUMB.

I love how the Gyllenhaal character is able to transform Portman's dumpy kitchen into an exquisite gourmet kitchen worth $50,000 when, several scenes earlier, Gyllenhaal doesn't have the money to pay a $45 bar tab. Even though the labor was free (presumably), the equipment was what - stolen?? Materialized by God? Of course this stupid script doesn't explain any of it.

The promised triangle never materializes. SPOILER - Gyllenhaal and Portman never do it, so the entire fight at the finale is pointless except for whatever is going on in Maguire's head ... which is uninteresting.

How on Earth did the older daughter manage to cough up that little revelation about sexual relations? She's what - nine years old tops? But she not only understands sex, but also the inner workings of adult sexual relationships, as well as her father's hot button issue. HOW IS THIS REALISTIC? IT's not.

This movie is a mess. You're totally wrong on this one, Devin. I can't believe you msised the boat here.

comment #9

Colin says ...

@ Ray

Why would the triangle materialize? They realized what they did was just out of sadness, got past it and moved on entirely.

And kids aren't as stupid as you would have them be. 9 year olds now know as much about sex as most teens. And how hard would it have been for the daughter to overhear what Sam ranted about?

If your flaws are about a kitchen remodeling and Sam Shepard you don;t have much to bitch about.

comment #10

Colin says ...

@Deathtongue

The credits acknowled the Danish film.

comment #11

reverent and free says ...

Hands down the worst trailer of the year. Putting aside the fact that it gives away the whole movie, it starts off trying to sell it as a date movie and then it goes all insane. What the hell were the editors thinking?

comment #12

Ray says ...

@Colin- you must not have seen the film if you're saying that about the scene with the nine year old. People were audibly laughing at its absurdity when it happened.

You also must have missed the ads for this film, too. It's being marketed as a love triangle, not a poor mans Stop Loss. Besides, I don't think they just refused to give in to temptation ... It appeared that the interest remained but they hadn't YET acted on it when Maguire returned. But since they had done nothing, where's the tension?

Oh yeah ... There isn't any.

comment #13

Chase Kahn says ...

I think the point with the Sam Shephard character was that he WAS a terrible, confrontational, yet distant-when-it-matters father figure.

He even notices that Maguire is upset and mopey/showing signs of post-traumatic stress, yet all he does he give him a pat on the shoulder and a, "if you need anything, let me know."

I thought it was a waste to obviously insinuate that Shephard, a former Marine, influenced Maguire on some level to join the Marines and then never bring it up again, especially after he comes back.

I also agree with Ray that it seems like thefilm is more about Maguire's post-war insanity than his relationship with his brother. It would be like calling "Raging Bull" by the title, "Brothers".

The kitchen was embarrasing - I didn't get it, either - but it's just a trivial detail it's not really worth mentioning.

comment #14

reverent and free says ...

The thing that got me was when Gyllenhaal refuses to answer Maguire's question on whether he slept with Portman. Maguire was absolutely correct that they were falling in love, and while they hadn't slept together YET, by all indications in the film they would've steadily developed an intimate relationship had Maguire not returned. So why doesn't he take the question seriously?

comment #15

reverent and free says ...

Also, there's a scene of Maguire being treated in the trailer "I want to talk to my wife" that's not in the final film. Perhaps there were more scenes prior to his homecoming that were cut.

Some of the cuts in the film felt abrupt, for instance when Clifton Collins (another wasted actor in the cast) is telling Maguire how things are going to be hard for his family, there's a sudden abrupt cut to a dinner table scene. I wondered for a second if a reel had been skipped. Carey Mulligan makes an appearance in closeup at Portman's birthday party without being identified, and then only appears for one minute in a later scene, which is joined during a conversation in progress. Gyllenhaal's girlfriend comes out of nowhere, is established as a nurse, starts conversation up with Shepherd, and then...gone. Mare Winningham, nothing to do. Was it drastically cut down from a longer running time?

comment #16

dkaye says ...

I saw at least one trailer that almost made this damn thing look like a slasher movie, using mostly footage of Maguire rampaging.

I agree with lots of the flaws pointed out above, but another one bothered me -- when Maguire asks Gyllenhaal straight up if he's fucking Portman, why doesn't Gyllenhaal look him in the eye and say no? He's not (even though they shared a kiss), so what's the issue? Instead he gets all shifty and doesn't answer -- totally contrived only to keep the plot moving forward.

comment #17

teeem says ...

for the guys who want Jake to "look him in the eye and say no" ... Jake knows that it's beside the point. you can't convince somebody going through that that nothing's happened, because something DID happen; the wife and the brother have begun to be intimate. this returned veteran is extremely alientated. he's out of touch with everything but his extremely compromised ideals... he's lost every meaningful connection to the world, and the slightest taint to his relationships is too much. it's the trigger he desperately needs to prove that the whole world has betrayed him in response to his disgrace.
have none of you ever even had to face a distraught girlfriend who was accusing you of some kind of emotional infidelity? you think you can fix it when you just "look h[er] in the eye and say 'no'"? -and when it's basically not true? yeah; easy fix? these brothers, as fucked up as it is, have a better, or at least more respectful and truthful, relationship than that.
Shepard's character is an improvement over the original: it's a bit patched on, but he provides motivation for both of the brothers's anti-social (!) behavior.

comment #18

teeem says ...

hey Jeff... "best" ever for Maguire? (yeah!) "more" than what Dern did? um, wow.
i'd say apples and oranges, except that the two parts possibly have more in common than any other two cinematic characters ever written. high praise, but no Oscar Balloon?

comment #19

thatmovieguy says ...

reverent and free: I had exactly the same feeling. I'm guessing there's at least a good 20 minutes of the film missing. The Carey Mulligan insert caught my attention, too: Who's this? And her monologue does seem to start midway through; the poor woman isn't even properly introduced. The last half-hour is so herky-jerky all I could guess was that it didn't play well at test screenings and they started cutting out anything people griped about. The movie doesn't end -- it stops, which is particularly jarring since the set-up is so leisurely. I thought Portman and Gyllenhaal were both very good; Maguire did the best he could, but that character is by far the most predictable of the lot and most of the movie is so low-key that when he finally explodes it almost looks like he's overacting. I was really hoping for something more substantial, given the talent attached to it. I wouldn't stop anyone from seeing it, but I wouldn't give it a rousing recommendation, either.

comment #20

Ray says ...

@ teeem - Where does this movie establish a "respectful, truthful relationship" between these brothers? The movie's called BROTHERS yet they spend approximately two scenes together prior to the final blowout. The film's structure and pacing are way off.

It just goes to show how some critics will give a movie a pass simply based on their surprised reactions to a performance, rather than look objectively to the movie as a whole.

comment #21

Colin says ...

@Ray

Well maybe the people in your theatre are twits. I've seen people laugh at scenes in The Road, some people are just fucking idiots who cannot comprehend not being able to laugh at something.

It isn't being marketed as a love interest film here, but I don't watch a lot of tv so you might be on to something on the tv ads. But I highly disagree with you on the interest still being there, they decided it was a mistake. Gyllenhaal said as much when he came over to fix the cabinets he didn't want to ruin his relationship with his nieces.

comment #22

Mark says ...

Maguire should've returned by the 25 minute mark, and the whole thing turn into a realistic Body Snatchers flick.

Bad music, bad trailer that showed every turn. Many scenes felt genuine, but the only interesting ones involved Tobey peaking out windows and drawing a gun.

comment #23

Ray says ...

@Colin- um, look at the damn POSTER for the flick. That doesn't look or feel like an advertisement for a romantic triangle film? If you try to disagree you're a liar.

comment #24

teeem says ...

Ray... the movie doesn't establish it; the scene establishes it.
and "Brothers" is a plural. it doesn't denote whatever it is you're expecting. try it on as Portman's point of view.

comment #25

qq520 says ...

The street everywhere took off the BALENCIAGA, CHANEL, gucci, LV who believed that in domestic took no sign replica Balenciaga handbags, than strong!Things are so easy as long as you come and see our louis vuitton outlet.Each louis vuitton handbags is carefully inspected for cut, stitching.

comment #26

jamalinkoo says ...

Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of download youtube videos mp4 and iscsi windows 2008 server