Director: Jim Sheridan (My Left Foot, In the Name of the Father, In America, Get Rich or Die Tryin’)
Screenplay: David Benioff
Producers: Ryan Kavanaugh, Sigurjon Sighvatsson, Michael De Luca
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Natalie Portman, Tobey Maguire, Taylor Geare, Bailee Madison, Clifton Collins Jr., Sam Shepard, Mare Winningham
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 110 min.
(3.5/5)Melodrama:
–noun
1. a dramatic form that does not observe the laws of cause and effect and that exaggerates emotion and emphasizes plot or action at the expense of characterization.
Within this category, from this definition, Brothers certainly does not fit. Simply because the reactions and emotional motivation expressed by these characters in light of their situation are not exaggerated nor does it diminish the characterization for the sake of plot. Some quite brutal, confusing and varied circumstances surround these characters throughout the picture and quite certainly the emotions can be sympathized with. If anything, the performances almost don’t go far enough in portraying the sadness, heartbreak, confusion and traumatic stress these characters undergo.
War is hell. Someone once said that only the dead see the end of war. This isn’t entirely accurate. Lots of people see the end of war and for most of them the reasons are extenuating, life altering and likely bring about negative emotions and memories and might even involve physical disability. For Capt. Sam Cahill (Maguire) this is exactly the case. Though not physically debilitating, the emotional impact and torment of what he suffered while in Afghanistan was enough to change him so much so that his family barely recognizes him and indeed, have difficulty tolerating his seemingly irrational and unpredictable behavior when he comes home. Believing Sam is dead, the family carries on as best they can without him in their life. They struggle to move on while Sam’s brother, Tommy, instinctively takes over some of the household responsibilities which slowly evolves into becoming somewhat of a father figure for the two little girls. A bit of sexual tension also builds between Sam’s wife and Tommy as they deal with their loneliness and loss; though nothing overtly sexual ever takes place.
Finally arriving home, Sam is unable to talk about his ordeal with his loved ones, he mentally retreats into self punishment and paranoia about his wife sleeping with his brother while he was away. Dealing with post traumatic stress, a brother out of prison, distrust of his wife and two children who grow increasingly afraid of him may be slowly driving Sam to a mental snap that could jeopardize everyone he loves; including himself.
Although plenty of events transpire outside of Sam’s immediate world, everything that takes place is a direct result of him and his choices. This is Sam’s story. This is his journey through hell and we’re the onlookers of both his ordeal and the misery that his family suffers under their loss. The things Sam sees and participates in are almost unmentionable and these acts devastatingly multiply his grief and internal horror when he returns home and must face other characters. As an audience, we “get” to see everything that is going on from all angles while everyone else must suffer through the excruciating pain of simply not knowing.
As for Sam, his ordeal in Afghanistan is, while horrific, well within the bounds of tolerability for a main stream audience. The sweltering, dusty climate of the mountains in Afghanistan and the vicious warriors that dwell within them seem realistic enough and not merely caricatures of an unseen enemy. The torture doled out to Sam and his compatriot is certainly brutal and hard to stomach but is mostly inferred. There is little blood or physical pain actually shown on screen. Arguably this is worse on our psyches however, since what is happening is somewhat left up to our imaginations; and we know it’s bad.
The film comes dangerously close in succumbing to pretentiousness, eye-rolling cheesiness and an anti-war preacher’s pulpit. Mostly due to director Jim Sheridan’s commitment to staying focused on the people and their thoughts, experiences and emotions we generally stray from those grounds. Although it’s Natalie Portman et. al., we really do get the sense that these are just real folk struggling with something that no family or individual should ever have to deal with. The only thing I could sense from a technical standpoint that was a tad on the heavy-handed side was some of the musical cues and score. It felt like by-the-book, pop rock garbage that not only does no one want to hear, but just doesn’t fit right with the tone of the film. U2 entering the scene at just the “right” moment was distracting and a little bit eye-rolling.
The script at times too, can feel a little bit contrived and unbelievable; particularly when the children are involved. The young actors here actually hold their own quite well while sitting at the cinematic table with the likes of three A-listers and two seasoned veterans like Mare Winningham and Sam Shepard. The problem is that some of their lines are far too convenient and smart to be coming from a five year-old kid. I’d give the kids in this movie about a 50% success rate in keeping within the story. The rest of the time they were a little distracting and took me out of the story somewhat. Of course interacting with Portman throughout most of their screen time helps as she tends to be able to carry the scenes on her shoulders.
The film mostly just comes down to great actors doing their thing and doing it well. Nobody is phoning it in, so to speak, on this one. Portman is as radiant as she always is and plays the grieving, but strong, mother type particularly well. Two actors I personally am not especially fond of take the reins here and snap the proverbial horses into overdrive; impressing me fully. Gone is Peter Parker; Tobey Maguire is outstanding in this picture (easily his showiest) in which he essentially plays three different people. He’s a loving, quiet, family man, then a strong, courageous, honorable, unbreakable Marine fulfilling his duty to his country and finally a man shattered by depravity and neglect. He’s a zombie-like, broken man one minute then temperamental and maniacal the next. This is juxtaposed sharply from his loving every-man and the Oscar buzz we’re likely to see isn’t without merit.
While Maguire, Shepard and Portman are all fantastic and likely some Oscar buzz coming for Maguire, I found it to be Jake Gyllenhaal who is really proving his chops here as his character must exercise his own demons and take on a responsibility that he’s probably not ready for and taking flak from all domestic sides which might either break him down, only proving his father right in his loser status or really coming into his own and manning up when needed. Gyllenhaal keeps the melodrama in check, but turns on the angst, sadness or love when needed. It’s a striking performance that although we’ve seen before in other characters, I can’t remember one with as much depth or as believable as Gyllenhaal brings to this role.
Brothers plays with our expectations as it appears it may be a bit on the preachy side and looks like it might be more action-packed than it actually is. When in fact, there is almost no actual war scenes in the movie and while Sheridan is clearly giving us an anti-war message, it’s not the message you might expect. There is nary a political message to be found in the slightest. Instead, this is a story about familial relationships and how that structure is altered because of war. The fact that the film takes place within our current war in Afghanistan is almost irrelevant and is used simply to give the audience something more immediate and home-hitting that they can relate to. In reality, this story could’ve been told within the context of almost any conflict in history.
In the end, the film is completely captivating and engrossing mostly due to the terrific performances turned in by nearly everyone. It’s got some rough edges and some might argue that it delves into the melodramatic too much. But this author personally doesn’t see that and even if it is there, I don’t see how it’s a weakness. Brothers is never preachy on a political level and though dealing with lots of characters and lots of different relational dynamics never is unfocused or forced. The story flows mostly smoothly and quickly and not as dark and depressing as it might seem. Plenty of humor and heartwarming moments are sprinkled throughout the film nicely to keep the audience from collectively slitting their own wrists. Two hours really seemed to fly by without the slightest hint of a dragging weight holding me down. Maybe not worth many more subsequent viewings, but well worth taking the chance on a trip to the theater at least once.
Movie laboratories are one of my favorite things ever. Metropolis,...
” Someone once said that only the dead see the end of war. This isn’t entirely accurate. Lots of people see the end of war’
thanks for the clarification there Drew.
It sounded like, in the other thread, you really liked this movie. Out of 5?
The kids bugged me, the music bugged me and some of the script was a little wincing. The rest made up for it and I really liked it.
Like I said I thought the material was really elevated by the actors and by Sheridan. He’s really good at intimate / homey environments. They always feel very lived in and authentic. Loved all the actors, especially some of the supporting ones. Like the Kids and Al Queda.
Out of 5? I don’t know 4 I guess. Do people ever give 4 1/2′s ?
The kids were the strength of the film. WORST. TOBEY MAGUIRE. PERFORMANCE. EVER.
I am going to go back and watch The Ice Storm when that dude had serious potential. If this is the culmination of Maguire’s promise. Shoot me now. Sure much is due to the script (David Benioff was clearly brought his X-Men Origins game and not his 25th Hour game, shit this movie isn’t even up to Stay), but it is wince-worthy to see a bad Taxi Driver impression on the screen in front of a suburban home. Fuck that.
The movie had me reasonably well until the final half hour which is mouldy-cheese. Seriously terrible.
They should have cut all the Afganistan footage to give them more time for an ending. Ouch.
More to come on the Cinecast. I have a big feeling that Andrew & I will disagree on this one strongly. We at least agree that Gyllenhaal was solid though.
@ They should have cut all the Afganistan footage to give them more time for an ending. Ouch
seriously!? The Afgahn footage is awesome. And I don’t think this story needed more on the ending although I had my own issues with it.
This film’s spiritual kin is Deer Hunter. It’s evil mirror verse twin is Pearl Harbour.
I disagree Kurt, I thought Tobey was untalented and this was his best performance ever.. and the film sucked. I don’t know why I even saw this.. ok I’m lying. I’ve got a crush on Portman.
I can see why one would remind you of the other, but THE DEER HUNTER this ain’t!
@quietearth.
Definitely one of the strengths of BROTHERS is to get Ms. Portman in as many ‘girl-next-door’ winter ensembles as possible, and I agree, she’s never been more luminous, but I’ll take her in something a little more challenging like CLOSER over this.
I still contend that the films strength is the little girls, the causal intimacy of the family unit. Not unlike In America, this is certainly Jim Sheridan’s strength as a director.
The Deer Hunter sucks shit btw.
The Children were the strength!?? Ugh. They were cute and bubbly and running all over the place – just like kids do. But some of the things that came out of their mouth was preposterous and totally took me out of the movie. It’s not the kids fault I admit, it’s the script; but still, when they spoke it was cringe-worthy.
“Everyone likes Izzy”
“Why?”
“Because she’s lovable.”
Give me a break.
no joke, that may’ve been my favorite part of the movie.
I didn’t say it WAS Deer Hunter, Kurt. I was drawing a parrallel.
“Everyone likes Izzy”
“Why?”
“Because she’s lovable.”
That is a script problem. The film as a script is an unholy mess of talking down to its audience. I’m saying that the performances and overall direction of the kids and domestic side of things (actually when neither of the Brothers are ‘together in conflict’ is the strength of the film. To bad about plot and stuff ruins the whole thing.
Why is that a script problem? What’s wrong with that exchange?
I wouldn’t say it is the chief problem with the script, the above exchange that is, but there is a ‘spell it out’ attitude that seems to blunt the material. The actors (except Maguire) manage to over come the ‘obvious dialogue/show repeats’ and ‘hitting narrative points’ that the script seems to demand, but only barely.
nah, i think it’s fine.
@ The film as a script is an unholy mess of talking down to its audience.
I really don’t agree. It’s definitely pretty obvious most of the time. But I never felt talked down to. Its just that the story is very straight forward (in some regard).
So yeah, it’s obvious. The older daughter is the sullen one. And Jake Gyllenhall steps in, the black sheep of his own family and is able to connect with her.
So it’s obvious but I think that’s a problem because it’s true. That’s what brothers are like. In fact the reason it’s obvious is because it’s so identifiable.
It’s not just the Gyllenhaal/Oldest Daughter connection (which I agree was wonderfully done), it is the script doesn’t leave anything to chance, its a swiss watch that chimes in with ‘underscore this point’ every 10 minutes on the dot.
I feel talked down to when that happens. Could have been easy to fix too. Ah well.
I guess we pretty much agree because I also think the script is pretty by the numbers. But I guess it’s weird that you acknowledge the actors all work but then kind of dismiss the movie anyways. It seems like you’re making a really big deal out the script. When, in my opinion (and it seems like we agree) it’s biggest fault is that it’s basic.
And did you not like the Afghanistan stuff? I thought it was all good. And I especially appreciated it because it was the only part of the movie that wasn’t in the damn trailer.
@ it’s biggest fault is that it’s basic.
and the whole movie isn’t basic. There’s actually a lot of subtlety to the acting and directing. It’s really just in the script. If it makes sense to draw such a distinction.
I thought the Afgan stuff was OK, but really, the story could have benefited from the audience not witnessing the specifics. After all, it is about the family dynamic, and I thought the parallel cutting was facile at best. Also, Maguire’s hammy acting didn’t help matters much. It was shot OK, but I really thought all of that could have been jettisoned…
“it is a script problem” – which is exactly what I just said. The script seemed worse for the kids though than it did for anyone else.
As for removing the Afghan parts, I don’t think so for two reasons (three if you consider the fact that it looked awesome):
1) without our knowledge of specifically what happened to Sam while he was there, his behavior when he gets home would be hard to understand. Sure, everyone sees and does bad things in war, but the audience needs to know specifically what that is – especially for the scene where Carrie Mulligan shows up and thanks him (that scene was awesome – Sam looking into the kids eyes; petrified).
2) I liked the juxtaposition of going back and forth from the domestic, family side and then to Sam’s ordeal, then back to home, then back to Afghanistan again. It worked really well and wasn’t clunky at all.
@ but really, the story could have benefited from the audience not witnessing the specifics.
Oh big BIG disagreement here. The intensity of the specifics is what gives his story meaning. Otherwise it’s just Stand Plot Cliche No. A5780
Because I saw what he went through I can empathize with how he got to this place in his psyche. Without that empathy I’d have no reason to give a fuck.
I bet you somewhere there’s another cut of this movie where McGuire’s story is moved to the back end of the film as some kind of emotional payoff. Pretty much exactly like what they did in Castaway.
This difference explains why I was able to connect with McGuire’s character but not Hanks’.
@ I liked the juxtaposition of going back and forth from the domestic, family side and then to Sam’s ordeal
Actually Devin addresses this exact point really well in his excellent review.
Interestingly the trailer is cut with out the war footage. If you remember the Gyllenhall/Portman scenes play out like some treacly romance cliche with heavy handed music. The war scenes keep the movie from going there.
@andrew: ” without our knowledge of specifically what happened to Sam while he was there, his behavior when he gets home would be hard to understand. ”
Uh bingo. That is part of the point isn’t it? We could have had Sam’s confession 20 minutes prior to the end of the film (with Afgan parts removed) and then we could dig a little further into the consequences. Sure the audience would have the Carey Mulligan scene explained AFTER it happened, but that would make things better not worse, eh? No harm in making the audience think a bit. The mystery would have heigtened the film remarkably.
I’m anxious to check out the Danish film, which I can imagine is more complex with Anders Thomas Jensen screenwriting. Funny that I like David Benioff’s script for the 25th hour (even with the dog scene) but loath his work here, perhaps it is because he is adapting his own novel for the Spike Lee film and merely adapting another film for this one. Never saw the Kite Runner which he also wrote, to confirm this (as much as this can ever be confirmed).
I’m not sure what you mean there. I wouldn’t want the Mulligan bit BEFORE we find out what happened to him in Afghanistan. The impact of that scene would be zero and confusing. I wouldn’t want to have to think back and go, “oohh. That’s why he was acting so strange.” No. I want the emotional impact right there. Trying to illicit that response after the fact would be a failure.
I suppose if you were hoping for a mystery, then so be it. I prefer the drama – to each his own on that one I guess.
Oh, and vets having a real difficult time talking about what they witnessed is pretty typical. Had he just made the confession earlier, it would’ve been pandering and given the audience what they want (“why doesn’t he just tell her!?”): removing the frustration and drama.
It’s much more believable and tense for him to keep that info bottled up inside and instead be focused on the paranoia of his wife and brother sleeping together in an effort to retreat into his own psyche.
The danish film is structured the same way, from what I understand of your comments.
I am curious as to wether what he has to do in Afghanistan is the same in the new one, but I imagine it is. The danish film pretty much derails into a hollywood movie by the end.
Faraci’s review is well written and all, but I disagree with every point he makes (with the exception of Natali Portman). I wanted a more subtle film, I wanted more of the Jake Gyllenhaal side of things and far less of the Maguire side. I wanted the consequences to be considered, instead of a huge blow up, a forgiveness, end.
Brothers has one of the most slipshod and terriblly lazy endings for a drama like this in quite some time. I positively hate the ending.
Henrik, you should see what the Hollywood movie derails into. Movie-of-the-Week bad. bad. bad.
He confesses in this? I guess they did pussy out. The danish film ends with him in an institution, with the wife coming to visit, and I’m pretty sure she never actually gets an answer out of him.
@ The mystery would have heigtened the film remarkably.
I just wouldn’tve cared.
@ with the wife coming to visit, and I’m pretty sure she never actually gets an answer out of him.
mm. That sounds pretty close. I don’t see why confessing = pussyin out. Either action is consistent with the character. Why does the film have to condemn McGuire to derangement? He can’t take a steop forward? Why is that the “right” ending?
It’s not like the film ends with them in love again and everythings fine. It ends on a single note of hopefullness. Not a symphony of triumph.
Furthmore, I don’t really get Kurt’s problem with the ending. By “ending” everything after McGuire returns? Or everything after the daughters birthday partu (great scene but there’s some really sloppy resolution going on there.)?
I think the ending is a success in at least one regard. When McGuire puts the gun to his head I was genuinly unsure if he was gonna pull the trigger or not. And I was relieved he didn’t.
The cliche “hollywood” ending would be to turn McGuire into the one note villain to be vanquished by Gyllenhall. Afterward he and Portman live get married and live happily ever after. But the film always reminds us that McGuire is a real person, a survivor of a horrible experience who needs the support of his friends and family.
If I didn’t know any better I’d think that what Kurt was really advocating was a heavy handed political ending. Something that condemns war or American imperialism or something. And wraps up with a pat message.
I think the film should have gone on for a couple more months in all of the characters lives, instead of the ‘moment of hope’ that it exits. I think the complications of that family were just getting started, and I’d have loved to see how things panned out. Again I think the strength of the movie was any time it focused on the family, and not on the Post-Traumatic Stress over-acting. I can’t believe there are people praising that Maguire performance, it is strained and not in a good way.
“Again I think the strength of the movie was any time it focused on the family, and not on the Post-Traumatic Stress over-acting.”
But isn’t the PTSS what gives the family moments more poignancy and depth? It’s what makes you care. I don’t get the “remove Afghanistan and Maguire and then you have a better movie” frame of thinking. You take away that stuff or try to “mellow it out” a little bit or make it more of a mystery, as you put it, all of the emotional impact, believability and story are gone.
I’m not saying some things couldn’t be tweaked, it just sound like you wanted or expected a completely different movie.
And for the record, no, I don’t think politics have any place in the movie, beginning, end, or otherwise. This is a people story not a political one.
Well I haven’t seen the film, but when you guys said confession, I just assumed she talked him down outside the house with cops pointing guns at him and he broke down crying on the frontporch telling what he had to do and gave himself and the audience the emotional resolution – in what Terry Gilliam calls (I saw him talk on TCM about various things wrong with Hollywood, it was good) the answer. (He said Steven Spielberg is popular because he always gives the audience the answers, even if the answers are stupid, the audience wants them and feel satisfied when they are given to them) At least in the danish film, to a certain extent, you are left to fend with the emotional stirring (if the movie succeeded in stirring anything, it didn’t for me) for yourself, without the movie offering much resolve before the lights go on and you’re stuck back with your doofus friends and family.
@ The danish film ends with him in an institution, with the wife coming to visit, and I’m pretty sure she never actually gets an answer out of him.
you know what, that ending lets the audience off the hook more. It implies an ending that is pat and obvious. Whereas this films ends on a note of uncertainty.
I don’t think you are given “THE ANSWER” in the Hollywood version of Brothers, either. It is certainly fraught with moral complexity, except just as the dynamic is starting to get interesting (ignoring the bombastic kitchen destruction hystrionics) in how everyone is going to find a way to live with these issues, the film just ends. The ‘hopeful note’ is both facile and profoundly depressing, because there is such a mess left on the table. I’m not saying I wanted everything tidied up or anything, but I would have liked to see the further family consequence of Maguire in the Mental institution and the family dealing with the fall of the graceful son, and the step up of the disgraceful son. I would have liked to see the Mom/Dad side of things play out and most importantly, I’d have liked to see how this affected the kids, which as I said before are the heart of the story as much as Natalie Portman’s suffering-gorgeous-strong mom.
Probably better to go watch Sarah Polley’s AWAY FROM HER, which handled a lot of the same tones and subject matter in a much much much better way.
And as for why it is the right ending, I can’t say for sure of course, but in generel, emotional payoffs seem cheap and overdone in film.
That being said, I don’t want to come across as in support of Gilliams statements, I just found them amusing. I think there is something to be said for telling your audience something. Having something to say and saying it, I get pretty frustrated with movies that try and outdo themselves with asking questions and never answer them (ie. Lost Highway, Solyaris). But of course, unless you’re a genius, it’s probably better not to answer things. What is the saying? It’s better to shut up and let people think you’re an idiot, than open your mouth and remove all doubt?
I agree with that criticism of Speilberg and it’s why I think even though he’s cinematically brilliant his film’s often fall short.
SPR being he most obvious example.
I’m not getting into another Spielberg debate here (they’re always the same). But I do like to preach my love for SPR. Amazing piece of film making and it gets me “right here” every time. It’s flawless.
Brødre
Free streaming on Netflix right now to our American friends:
http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Brothers/70024097
Well, in the institution he just sits there, it’s not a very hopeful ending.
One of us really should watch both versions.
“I’m not getting into another Spielberg debate here (they’re always the same). But I do like to preach my love for SPR. Amazing piece of film making and it gets me “right here” every time. It’s flawless.”
Oh how wrong you are. THe movie is sloppy in the same way that Brothers is. ON this we disagree mightily. I’ll take THE THIN RED LINE as the superior 1998 War Movie. Sure SPR may have invented the visual language to film warfare in the first 30 minutes of that film, but the rest of the movie is so painfully conventional and blunt that it is kind of embarrassing (as in Forest Gump or Million Dollar Baby).
@ I think the complications of that family were just getting started, and I’d have loved to see how things panned out.
huh, that’s your big complaint with the ending? That’s why you think it’s “movie of the week bad”?
I think your ending smacks of too much resolution.
Well, the rest of us can preach whatever we want then? Without the passive-aggresive judgmental comments in between (“it’s always the same” “it’s gotten old”)? That would be nice.
@ it just sound like you wanted or expected a completely different movie.
Kurt criticisms are definitely veering into different movie territory.
“Sure SPR may have invented the visual language to film warfare in the first 30 minutes of that film, but the rest of the movie is so painfully conventional and blunt that it is kind of embarrassing”
Let me see what I can do with this.
Sure, The Thin Red Line may have had a unique visual style throughout the film, but the rest of the movie is so painfully conventional and blunt that it is kind of embarrasing.
@ THe movie is sloppy in the same way that Brothers is [...] but the rest of the movie is so painfully conventional and blunt that it is kind of embarrassing
but that’s not the flaw of Brothers at all.
Your criticizing the film for being too conventional. But the changes your calling for are more handholding.
You want McGuire to tell us about his war stories instead of letting us see them and form our own conclussion. You want to see more resolution at the end. You want the film to be more of a mystery with the answer revealed at the end.
you’ve got remember when addressing Henrik that he hates all war films that don’t espouse a pacifist ideology.
So he’s going to insist that TRL and Deer Hunter are complete shit.
That’s not true, I love Gettysburg. I like Enemy at the Gates. I like Starship Troopers (though it does preach pacifism to some extent, it certainly indulges in violence and I like those parts just as much). Dr. Strangelove? What does that preach? Barry Lyndon. Hell, I just said The Patriot with Mel Gibson was an awesome movie.
@ I just said The Patriot with Mel Gibson was an awesome movie.
that’s true.
It’s true that I said it, AND it’s true that it is awesome.
Gibson: Hey I’ve got an idea for a movie!
Columbia Pictures: Really? Great! What is it?
Gibson: I wanna remake Braveheart.
Columbia Pictures: Uh… didn’t that movie just come out like two years ago or something?
G: Yeah, but this time it will be set in America and during the Revolutionary war.
CP: Ok, that might work. Can we make it really violent just for the sake of being violent?
G: Fuck yeah!
CP: And we’ll get Roland Emmerich to direct.
G: Well… ok. He’s not Jewish is he?
FAIL.
Ok I know Gibson wasn’t the creative genius behind Patriot, but still. That’s not the point.
Actually, I can go on for a little bit about it, since somebody else brought up SPR – they are written by the same guy, and share a lot.
The reason why TP is good, and SPR is bad, is that SPR thinks that it’s a serious look at warfare, and tries to be a loveletter and homage to militaries and grunts everywhere. Roland Emmerich embraces the big emotions, he doesn’t try to be gracious and relevant, he just does the shit big, huge, awesome. Entire sequences in slow motion. Bright colors, rows and rows of troops marching, production value coming out the ears – no bullshit “This is so serious, people cry for mom! Now thank them”, just playful warfare that looks brilliant. And it has better actors, I mean Tom Hanks is great but has nothing to do, but Heath Ledger and Mel Gibson have good scenes in TP, they embrace the words, give them weight – comparable to Nick Nolte in Hulk, believing in the words rather than trying to connect with the audience.
I pretty much swallow all the clichés and lame stuff in TP, there is quite a bit of lame stuff. One saving grace for it is that most of the completely outrageously over-the-top scenes are centered around the young idealists, who actually believe in the nonsense of a new world of freedom, whereas the adults don’t have these high-swelling scenes. And what do you know, all the young idealists end up being brutally murdered by an awesome villain, who reminds me of Scar in The Lion King. That’s fucking great, no bullshit hollywood there, we’ll save that for the end where Mel Gibson can ride along an army with an american flag, and at that point you just go with it and have fun with it, because americans can be so adorable at times, especially when a non-american director plays with them. They look like toy soldiers for crying out loud. It’s a movie made for adults who still play with their trainsets and their toy soldiers. SPR is made for teenagers who think guns are the shizzle (as is Black Hawk Down, another movie I hated).
I mean the free-spirited empowered female love-interest who has a swelling speech in a church – telling the men to put action behind their words of independence ends up being burnt alive. That’s a plus in my book.
Mel Gibson riding along the army with the flag in his hand, is like Simba walking up Pride Rock. It’s good stuff.
And the score is amazing. Even in working with John Williams, Emmerich gets one shot at it and devastates all of Spielbergs chances, except for one or two (I would say Jaws and Jurrassic Park are up to snuff). Just listen to this, you won’t this unapologetic celebration of time, culture and emotion anywhere near Saving Private Ryan (you can ignore the image, including the ROGER EBERT ENDORSEMENT):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-kWiDTFaPU
“Mel Gibson riding along the army with the flag in his hand, is like Simba walking up Pride Rock. It’s good stuff.”
No, it’s like Braveheart.
Andrew, if you have no proper arguments then shut the hell up and go back to preaching nonsense. I refuse to let this parade be rained upon unless it’s exposed to some serious acidrain!
“Can we make it really violent just for the sake of being violent?”
Are you fucking serious?
I love preaching nonsense. The hatchet to the face: classic.
“This is so serious, people cry for mom! Now thank them”, just playful warfare that looks brilliant. And it has better actors, I mean Tom Hanks is great but has nothing to do, but Heath Ledger and Mel Gibson have good scenes in TP, they embrace the words, give them weight “
What?
1) I still maintain that Emmerich takes his pictures very seriously. They just come off as corny – which is why some people love them; fair enough.
2) Gibson and Ledger are better than the roles in SPR (Pepper, Davies, Goldberg, Sizemore, Ribisi)? Shit, throw in Danson, Farina, Giamatti… even Burns and Diesel are tolerable in this.
Oh yeah and Leland Orser in his typical, scared shitless role = awesome.
whoa! I just realized is celebrating the Emmerich patriot-fest and Andrew is attacking it. Bizarro!
I hate Emmerich except for ID4; so not that bizarre.
He isn’t really attacking it, he’s just saying stuff like “It’s like Braveheart” without backing it up, and complaining that the war was too violent.
“without backing it up”
I didn’t think I need to.
- Pacifict guy (who looks just like Mel Gibson) just wants to be left alone and raise a family.
- Evil dictator dude starts some shit. Town/village/clan wants to fight back – Gibson pleads no war.
- Loved one dies and Gibson goes psycho apeshit.
- Puts a rag tag army together and goes off to ambush small patrols and stir up trouble and garner support.
- Begins to become like a mythical being (“10 foot tall and shoots lightning out of his ass” – “ghost warrior” (or something)).
- Atrocities happen where more civilians die and/or repressed.
- strange foreigner joins rag tag army (can he be trusted?).
- an epic battle
- another epic battle
- Gibson cries freedom
- the end.
And it wasn’t the war that was too violent. I’m talking about stupid shit like Gibson going postal on the wood dude and smattering his face into oblivion with a hatchet while blood sprays all over his face and into the camera. And because Gibson is so intense, the scene is rather disturbing.
I would say Roland Emmerich in ID4 and The Patriot takes his movies the right amount of serious.
“because Gibson is so intense, the scene is rather disturbing.”
Yeah we don’t want violence to be intense. We want it to be fun!
You said that I said that “war is too violent.” Which I never stated. If anything, I think the war footage in Patriot should be more violent. Instead they take a stupid throwaway scene and make that one violent instead. Thus, my original statement that you completely misread and twisted into your own bullshit (which I’m starting to get used to now) was that they make things “violent, just for the sake of being violent” still stands. The parts that should be violent aren’t, and the scenes that shoudn’t be, are.
I’m not saying violence should be fun. I’m saying it should be necessary OR fun. Not just there to be there – as it is in The Patriot.
It’s a character trait of Mel Gibsons that he was once a savage. How are you going to make your audience believe that if you do not show him go over the line?
It’s not just there to be there, it’s there because of story purposes, and because atrocious, gratuitous violence is part of war.
Actually, some would say, that is all war is.
Take that Rusty, snidy.
Better than I expected, but I’ll probably forget about it by the morning.