[After debuting at the Toronto International Film Festival back in September, this film has been bumped a couple times, more likely than not because nobody know how to sell these type of character and dialogue driven world hopping romps anymore. But finally it arrives as a bit of summer blockbuster counter-programming from the same studio that put out Twilight. I offer a slightly updated version of my original TIFF review below.]
Following the cult success of Rian Johnson‘s debut feature, the stylish high-school noir, Brick, A-list stars and a much bigger budget were sure to follow. The Brothers Bloom was filmed in a variety European and North American locations and things look fabulously bright and breezy on the big screen. Unfortunately, a mild case of the sophomore slump is in place, as the new con artist caper film never quite lives up to the promise of its opening moments and gets mired down a bit by cleverness for cleverness sake. It would be unfair to tag the film with the hubris of Guy Richie’s Revolver because it seems clear that Johnson was aiming for a whimsical light-hearted touch, but the film unfortunately does share glossy posturing and pseudo intellectual chest thumping whilst simultaneously lacking any desired emotional (or intellectual) payoff. Things are fun enough while the film unspools, but there is not quite sense of click accomplished with Brick and the whole affair (forgive the pun) collapses like a house of cards before the end credits start rolling.
The film opens very like gangbusters however. A delightful voice-over narration from magician extraordinaire Ricky Jay, whose interesting speech rhythms (on display in most David Mamet films, but also in the opening set-up for P.T. Anderson’s Magnolia) set the stage for the bubbly confidence caper film to follow. An image of an amputee kitten pushing itself in a roller skate along the candy-coloured main street in small town America makes things clear that the tonal territory is more Terry Gilliam than David Gordon Green. The opening moments have youngling versions of the brothers in full grifter regalia, rumpled black and white suits with hats to match, overcoming their orphan (ostracized outsider) status by swindling the other (”bourgeois!”) children of their dollars and cents. The ‘prestige’ of the opening sting may just be the biggest zing moment of the film. Genius like that (I won’t spoil!) is why the genre exists! But it is a somewhat bumpy downhill ride after that. And there is a big treat for those anticipating Spike Jonze’s Where the Wild Things Are, young Max Records (who will be playing Max in WtWTA) plays young Steven Bloom with gusto and charm aplenty.
Cut to the Brothers in their mid 30s, now played by Adrian Brody and Mark Ruffalo, plying their trade across Europe. Steven (Ruffalo) writes the script and Bloom (Brody) plays the main part of their schemes. This involves ever more elaborate ’stories’ (their terminology for the grift) to insert themselves into and profit from mightily. It seems it is as much about the art and construction of the event as it is the reward. Stephen thinks nothing of incorporating literary references and ‘placement into the frame’ positioning into the construction of his ‘work.’ Somewhere along the way they’ve picked up demolitions expert Bang-Bang (a nearly unrecognizable Rinko Kikuchi who was so vulnerable in Babel and riotously cocky here) who doesn’t speak much, but has a kick-ass wardrobe and and can seemingly disappear and reappear at will which she does. Often. Also, they have alienated their former colleague and mentor, the flamboyant Diamond Dog (Maximilian Schell channeling Christopher Lee). Somewhere along the way their rival has become a full blown enemy. Most critically, all is not well between the brothers tensions cause them to split until Stephen (Ruffalo) comes back with a ‘final job.’ Enter the mark, an eccentric American billionaire named Penelope Stamp, played by Rachel Weisz in a kookier manner than even in the early Mummy pictures. Penelope is a bit of a chameleon herself, she collects hobbies as far ranging as jugging chainsaws on a unicycle to making pinhole cameras out of hollowed out watermelons. She is very hard on her yellow Lamborghini, which serves as the engineered ‘meet-cute’ and start of the convoluted con which will span continents and involve rare books, Russian wire transfers and Steamship voyages.
I have a real soft spot for con-artist movies, both funny and serious. The genre is pretty flexible. I also love the films of Wes Anderson, whom the tone and aesthetics of this film cannot help but evoke. In the most facile way, I might be tempted to describe The Brothers Bloom; with the short hand of The Royal Tenenbaums meets Dirty Rotten Scoundrels meets Joe vs. The Volcano. But it lacks the human heart of Tenenbaums, the saucy cruelty of Scoundrels the aw-shucks of Joe. Familiar yes, as good, no. Some folks may end up loving this movie dear to their hearts and forgive it its glaring flaws. While the movie was interesting enough as it chugs along, the strain caused by the mixture of silly and serious was a hindrance. In Brick Joseph Gordon Levitt and the supporting players managed to be convincing as rugged noir-ish burnouts, vixens and other low lives in the context of the high-school cliques. The grim overall tone meshed with teenage angst had a leavening effect on the arch high concept. Adrien Brody, and a particularly low-key, laid-back Mark Ruffalo (more abacus here than human being) do not fare as well in The Brother Bloom’s attempted fusion of breezy and gloomy. Like the pristine costumes they wear, the leads are all surface gloss and no lived-in texture; too shallow for when the film springs from a mediation on the narratives we craft to spice up our lives, to the consequences of living the lie ad infinitum. When it goes for fable the film flies, when it goes for drama, it sinks.
The supporting players fare better (fans of Chris Smith’s Severance be on the lookout for a sweaty Andy Nyman in a tiny role) and Rachel Weisz’s Penelope is endearing yet somewhat underwritten in her actions and intentions. In most cases the film says the words, but fails to convince with the actions of its ‘tortured heroes.’ It aims for a weighty conclusion on a framework made out of balsa-wood. (Mint flavoured) Attempts to dissect story telling devices by using metaphor and symbols as sight gags yield middling success. The film clearly aims for an epiphany or two involving identity, storytelling and living life in the fullest (and most honest) manner. It reiterates that is easier, sometimes, to play the part than be the part. Yes, Bottle Rocket with a budget. I was never bored or angry or even disappointed during The Brothers Bloom, but I left the picture wanting both less and more.
I thought this was coming out this week in Toronto but apparently not. That sucks.
Left with Angels and Demons to justify my existence.
I liked it, its not perfect but i liked it. Rachel Weisz on the other hand is extraordinary. If you see this film, see it for her. She’s worthy the movie ticket.
Bloom is coming out in Toronto the following week, I believe.
And 100% agreement on the Weisz thing. She totally brings her “A” game to this movie and is delightful. As is Rinko Kikuchi, who does so much without saying much (lack of dialogue for a character in a con man flick is rather rare.)
The ladies carry the film in the scene stealing department.
Ugg, I hated Weisz in this film. Her part is over written and over acted as Penelope bleeds quirk even more so then the rest of the film, which is saying something.
I never did get sick of Bang Bang though.
Sorry but outside of Rachel Weisz’s great performance, which i do agree is the best thing about the film, the movie is not as good as she is. Did not buy Adrian Brody and Mark Ruffalo as the brothers and i think they were both miscast and i found Rinko Kikuchi to be one note. She’s funny but her stick gets tired very quickly and that’s not good. The movie itself seems to wander aimlessly during the last act and the ending is very disappointing. It tries to be kind of magical but ends up a bit stale towards the final lap.
“I was never bored or angry or even disappointed during The Brothers Bloom, but I left the picture wanting both less and more.”
That’s a good summation Kurt. I felt pretty much the same. I really wanted to get on board, but it just never quite gelled for me.
Matt, too bad you didn’t like Weisz – I go along with the rest and think that she’s the absolute best thing about the film. Charming as all get out. Bang Bang may have been one note, but I thought it was a great one and they used her time on screen just right. But the brothers didn’t work (I like both Ruffalo and Brody, but I think Kevin is right in saying they were miscast), the story didn’t pull me in and there seemed to be too many mixings of style.
Having said that, I still kind of want to see it again…
Saw it yesterday in fact and i loved it, Rachel Weisz really is the heart of the film and she gives the best performance. Love Rinko Kikuchi as well.
This is a good entertaining summer movie. I loved Rian Johnson’s sleight of hand storytelling and visual gags. He showed a good understanding of the con man genre and brought a lot of himself to the table.
[spoiler:]
So did Bang Bang really die?
Bang Bang is one of those great immortal tricksters. No Way Sir!
I tend to agree. There was a classic sleight of hand bit there with the truck that passed through our line of vision.
But what does that mean for the story? Did she fake her death for Bloom’s benefit? Was she part of DD’s con?
I think she just likes to make a dramatic exit. Her works was done. She is the mysterious sprite of the film, and is above the petty cons of the brothers. More like a dream. That’s my take anyway.
The charm lied in how quirky and unconventional this movie was. I haven’t seen anything like this movie before; it blended old and new styles, sent characters into different levels in a balance of depth and humor, with a dash of camp thrown in to keep us guessing. Although at times Penelope did get a little annoying, I think it was intentional to express how naive and inezxperienced (but still genius) she was. The opening sequence wasn’t that great. The kids were cute, but it was very out of tone with the rest of the movie.
I thought the entire thing was fuckin brilliant though.
I don’t see the problem so many had with this movie. No its neither high drama nor outright silliness, I found its tone hit my sweet spot pretty well.
And as much as I like Bang Bang, I find it odd Gamble singles out Penelope as drowning in quirk. Overall Bang Bang is about as indie quirky as Penelope, if not more, and on top of that, the silent cute but deadly Asian girl character is the bigger cliche – see Kill Bill, Sin City, etc. And Weisz is just awesome, but i love her in pretty much everything she does.
Weisz steals the show here, my issue was mostly with the performances from the brothers and some of the plot sidetracks. The tone and look of the film are darn near perfect. And that intro. Oh. So Good! (http://www.rowthree.com/2009/05/05/finite-focus-tender-confidence-the-brothers-bloom/)
anything specifically wrong with the brothers? Or is it just because they only have so much depth? I never felt it was intended for them to be more than a certain level of ‘human’.
The performances, simply the performances. It simply did not work for me. And I like both actors (particularly ruffalo) in almost everything else. I didn’t think too much of the Diamond Dog/Maximillian Schell sideplot either. But the movie was fun. I’m chomping at the bit to see how LOOPER turns out.
I thought it was a satisfying summer blockbuster in an older classic hollywood tradition.
Exotic locations, fun capers, laffs, glamorous people, magic tricks, good times.
Yep, except it tries to get a little ‘heavier’ (perhaps clever-ier is a better-ish word) in the end that kinda sort separates it from something like Charade or To Catch A Thief.
Is it any question that Rian Johnson has a long career ahead of him after Brick and this though?
I liked it. It was like a modern-day The Sting. This approach the conman movie was much like Brick‘s approach to the film noir (although less tongue-in-cheek). I look forward to seeing what genre Johnson tackles next (western?!?!?!).
Next is science fiction with LOOPER.
Oh, I forgot all about that. I remember the idea of it sounded very cool. Johnson is turning into a regular Danny Boyle here, hopping all around these genres.
I’m on board with anything he does, even if I think Bloom doesn’t quite live up to the idea of the genre (where as Brick is indeed a top shelf film).
And he debates Coen brothers films with us via email, which is always cool.
I found copies of the Brick DVD for $5 at a local store. Couldn’t believe it, so I bought all five copies and gave them away like the generous man I am, with the only stipulation being that they pass it on the other friends after they have watched it once or twice. I’m absolutely in love with the movie and what it aimed to do. Brilliant.
Bloom isn’t on the same level, but they weren’t trying to do the same thing as Brick and I really appreciated where they went with it. I’ve talked to some who thought the ending was a bit hokey, but I don’t think it could have gone any other way and been as effective. It left plenty open for discussion.