Brothers (2009)
Last night I got a private screening of “Brothers” at the theater with some of my buddies. I must admit that I had not read any reviews about this movie and had paid zero attention to it since it’s theatrical release on December 4th, 2009. Now, while writing these reviews I will attempt to be as discreet as I possibly can so I don’t ruin the movie for those who haven’t seen it yet.
First and foremost, what we have here is an attempt at another love triangle story. The story was an almost identical one to Pearl Harbor, just less interesting and non-emotional. At least in Pearl Harbor when Danny & Evelyn hear that Rafe has died in combat, they actually do something about it–and it’s believable. In Brothers, you know Jake Gyllenhaal’s character is all about jumping Natalie Portman, but it never happens. Not to mention the only action of the movie revolves around Sam (Maguire) being forced to kill his friend and fellow soldier. Nothing can match the hour-straight action scene in Pearl Harbor.
The message of the film reflects on those who come home with post-traumatic problems from war and combat. In the first 15 minutes of the film we can already tell what the plot is. Guy goes off to war, is thought to be killed in action, his wife starts a new relationship with soldiers brother/friend/cousin, and then soldier turns up alive later. Side story is, the brother’s father continuously reminds Gyllenhaal’s character what a worthless piece he is, just because he wasn’t a solider like he and his brother. When Sam (Maguire) is found and brought back home his mentality has obviously changed for the worst, which reflects on his childrens desire to make Tommy (Gyllenhaal) their father figure. Sam is confused, traumatized by what he had to to in Afghanistan, and convinced that his wife (Portman) and Tommy had a romantic affair while he was away.
The film relied far too much on classic clichés that we have seen played out over and over in American Cinema. Father holds a grudge against son because he didn’t follow his footsteps, soldier leaves for combat and his spouse cheats with another loved one, ect. ect. We can see these things coming a mile away. Tobey Maguire was absolutely awesome in this film, making it one of his best yet. I like that the directer, Jim Sheridan, didn’t make Maguire’s character complex until he returned from being a prisoner of war. It was then that you were on the edge of your seat because you weren’t sure what he was going to do next. Kill his wife? Kill his brother? Throw his daughter through the wall? (I wish he would’ve) Maguire really nailed this part. Portman and Gyllenhaals supposed romance was non-believable for me, especially since all they did was go skating and kiss once. Gyllenhaal had the simplest character of all, playing his usual passive, quiet, doesn’t care about things role. Hell, I might be mistaken but that role was originally written for Ben Affleck. Like Family Guy says, he could’ve prepared for his role in 15 minutes.
Ending scene was very well done, Maguire was dynamite! Beginning was dry and slow, middle was dry and slow, last 45 minutes was good. I would recommend seeing it once, but you won’t like it enough to watch it again. An overall depressing and dark story that many live with today in society. Maybe the viewer could’ve lived without having to have repeatedly beaten into their head that the story is about brothers, I think we got it.
Rating: 5.6/10
Tags: Brothers, Brothers (2009) Review, brothers movie review, Jake Gyllenhaal, Natalie Portman, Tobey Maguire
Good review, I thought the premise was an interesting one, and I plan on seeing it at some point, whether on DVD, or at the cheap theater for $3.50 around town.
Hey man thanks for reading, there are alot more to come! Yea, I would go with the renting route or even Redboxing it. I mean, it was worth seeing once, but you’ll feel like terrible afterwards.