"Finding someone you think would be fun to kill is a bit like, well it's a bit like falling in love" (Mr. Brooks (DVD))

Name: missixty

Hello doyoo user, You have to be logged in to use these functions... Login or register Close window

Send message to member

Product:	Mr. Brooks (DVD)
Date:	26/08/08 (87 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Unique angle on the serial killer type movie

Disadvantages: Lacks the thrill/intrigue/mystery to make it interesting, what of any worth actually happens?

Earl Brooks is business man of the year, but also fighting a terrible addiction; murder. He has kept his addiction under control for the past two years but now his alter ego Marshall is back on the scene encouraging him to kill again. On his return to killing, he makes a mistake, leaving the curtains open he gets photographed during the crime but instead of going to the police, the photographer comes to Earl with a proposition.

Earl is played by Kevin Costner (Rumor Has It), who I have to hang my head in shame and say, I had no idea this was him. In fact I spent most of the film, thinking, this guy looks a lot like Bruce Willis! Okay so I'd heard the name Kevin Costner, but I don't think I'd ever particularly paid the guy much attention! His performance was fine, there's no part I could pick out and say was weak but I wasn't blown away or anything, I felt it was a fairly standard performance. Nothing bad about it whatsoever, perfect in fact, but not with that extra special 'thing' to make it stand out. Demi Moore (Ghost) plays the cop who is trying to find out who the serial killer is. Her performance is as you would expect from Demi Moore, it had her written all over it. It was, again fine, but nothing special, all very standard. Her character was actually really irritating, it had a whole little sub plot of it's own that didn't add anything at all to the movie, and would have only worked if we had cared about her character, which we didn't. It was all a bit pointless and irritating. Dane Cook (Good Luck Chuck), as the photographer who caught Earl on camera, Mr Smith, is perhaps the most interesting performance here. I have only ever seen Dane Cook in comedy roles such as Good Luck Chuck and Employee of the Month, and had always mainly referred to him as "the one who looks a bit like Ryan Reynolds". He couldn't be further away from his standard characters here, and I was impressed with how well Dane Cook played this very different character, and it shows versatility to him as an actor that I perhaps wouldn't have expected. Earl's daughter Jane also has a fairly large role, she is played by Daniella Panabaker (Yours, Mine and Ours) and whilst her character added an extra intrigue to the plot, I felt perhaps Daniella Panabaker gave the weakest performance, perhaps down to not having as much experience as the rest of the cast, it was still an acceptable performance but at times flawed.

To be honest, I'm always a little wary of a film that says "2007" (or anything from about 2005 on) that I don't recall being advertised at the cinema. Since getting my Unlimited card I have virtually lived at the cinema, seen more trailers than you could imagine, and checked the listings every week. I don't remember Mr Brooks ever being advertised, or played at our cinema, which initially led me to believe, this couldn't be that great. I have to say my fears were somewhat founded, in that whilst this wasn't a bad film, it wasn't that great, and was one you wouldn't be too sad to have missed. It was a time passer.

It is quite different from a lot of films in its set up. We know who the serial killer is from the beginning; in fact we are living the story through him. As well as this, we know that his alter ego is just that. There is no big "he's not real!" revelation moment. If there had of been, I would have felt a bit like this has all been done before but the new take on it didn't make it particularly interesting. It was a bit like oh there is his alter ego, so what. It felt like if anything a bit of a cop out. Whilst I don't mind voice over's, there is a big tendency for people to look down their noses at them, in a "if the film is made properly, we won't need a voice over to spoon feed us the blanks" way. Well, I felt that this was a poorer version of a voice over. The only purpose for us seeing this alter ego, was to spoon feed us, this is what is happening, this is what Mr Brooks is thinking, etc. I don't know, it felt like a bit of a corny route, I would have preferred it without the alter ego I think.

Whilst the angle of knowing all along who is doing the killings and why, is more original than your usual slasher film, it took away what is usually good, intrigue, mystery, thrill. We know everything from the outset, so what is going to happen over the next two hours that we can't already guess from the blurb? Sure Mr Brooks is going to kill some people, we know that, if you're looking for more than that I'm not sure you're in the right place. It's almost like a painting by numbers film. Without watching it I'm sure you can map out the start, the middle and the end, and personally I like to be taken by surprise sometimes, watching a story going to happen, happen.

Perhaps the most intrigue is in Earl's daughter Jane. There is at least some things left a little ambiguous, have your own opinions, work it out for yourself (unless you watch the directors commentary where I'm led to believe you will be spoon fed this info too). There was at least a bit of lee way with this story though. Has this happened, has it not. Will this happen, will it not. Unfortunately, given her character added most interest to the film, Jane wasn't on screen enough, and had the weakest acting performance.

The role of Mr Smith is mildly interesting and was played well but again, all cards are laid on the table from the first time we meet him, so where exactly can the story go with him? It can run through the motions sure, but don't expect it to take you on an unexpected diversion.

Demi Moore's character irritated me almost every time she was on the screen. Here we do have I guess a bit of "what is going to happen" regarding her messy divorce (who cares?) and a newly released criminal who is a bit angry at her that she locked him up (again who cares?). Cue loads of pointless scenes with woe is me Demi Moore battling through these issues, whilst we couldn't care less what her husband's done, how much money he wants off her or if some criminal comes back and kills her. It would have been a far more satisfying film, if the criminal came back within the first whiny "ooh I've got so much money but you're not having 1% of it" (maths isn't my strong point!) divorce proceeding scene, and killed her character off right there and then.

The storyline was of course a little silly. You could argue it could be done, of course it could, but it did seem a bit of a stretch of the imagination. There was no thrill in this thriller, no mystery in this mystery and not an awful lot of drama in this drama. What does that leave us with? Well it's also classified as crime, and I guess there's plenty of crime in it, but with the lack of spark in the criminal/detective plot it didn't feel like a crime movie. It felt like Demi Moore's character was interested in everything else but Mr Brooks.

All in all it was okay, I was entertained throughout and I wasn't waiting for it to end but it didn't leave any kind of lasting impact on me. It was a time passer, it moved along well but there was just no special spark there for me. It was different from most of it's genre, but then, there is a reason some formula's work well, and a reason some films fall just short of being good. This was an interesting premise, and it could have been great but it just wasn't, it was okay, but okay isn't going to make you recommend it, or want to watch it again.

Summary: "I don't enjoy killing, Mr Smith, I do it because I am addicted to it"