Mr. Brooks

(2007)

Cinematic Review

Short

Kevin Costner in one of his best roles yet. Though many aspets of the movie are average, there are a few things that are exceptional, one of them being Costner's performance. The movie is about a serial killer with a seemingly split personality who finds himself in a disturbing situation that has the potential to ruin his life. Though I enjoyed the film (as I do most movies), this one isn’t for everyone. Be cautious if you don’t like realistic violence, the concept of serial killers, or slightly disturbing situations.

---

Full

This movie isn’t 'American Psycho' (of which it will remind you), but it’s pretty disturbing none-the-less. I hate the idea that a killer could just choose me randomly off the street, learn about me and my daily routine, and then kill me for pure enjoyment. Sick. With Costner's portrayl of Mr. Brooks, a character ten times more deep and complicated than the plot he’s stuck into, you might develop a paranoid view of passerby on the sidewalk.

The plot

Mr. Brooks (Costner), a man who has a split personality named Marshall (portrayed by William Hurt), is a retired murderer once called the 'finger print killer'. However, after temptation hits too hard to resist, he finds himself back in the game. Unfortunatly he has become sloppy in his old age and leaves a trail that is not only followed by Detective Atwood (Demi Moore), but is photographed by a Mr. Smith. When Mr. Smith (Dane Cook), a photographer that has evidence linking Mr. Brooks to his latest kill, threatens to blackmail Brooks unless he teaches him the ways of murder, Mr. Brooks has to do what he knows how to best to escape both the cops and the hair-brain wannabe (Cook). Can Brooks keep his alter ego hidden from his family, or will this last kill be his undoing?

Reasons to see it

Kevin Costner's performance is phenomonal and deserves an Oscar nomination. His portrayl of the conflicted serial killer is beyond credible and really shows the depths of his acting ability as no movie before has demanded of him. How good is it? How good would it have to be to make you hope for the success of a cold, calculated, serial killer that murders lovers for his own sick pleasure? Yeah, that’s how good.

The story. Though it was not particularly well written or well thought out, it was very original. I’m not sure if that is 100% the word I’m looking for, but of all the killer thrillers that have been put out there, I don’t think I’ve seen one with a premise quite like this. Without a solid formula to stick to, the movie actually ended up being sort of unpredictable. And in this day and age, unpredictable is a godsend from the boring formulas that are being factory made every month.

The Negatives

Unfortunately, as great as I thought this movie was, there are enough downfalls to make me question my opinion.

Demi Moore is not good. I’m not sure if I’ve ever noticed this before, but for having such a strong name, she isn’t a particularly convincing actress. She isn’t bad, but she isn’t good. She’s just average. So what? I found that at many points in this film her character was rather unbelievable. In only two instances was this a script writing flaw, the rest were all Demi. Her strong feminine dialogue often fell flat and her true interest in the case was never detectable. Though it didn’t detract incurably from the movie, from her first appearance on screen the movie was removed from the candidacy list of 'top 10 killer thrillers'.

Danielle Panabaker, another actress that had no clue what she was doing on screen. Her only bit of great acting comes toward the end when it was very necessary for her to be believable, so I know she has the talent in her. But for most of the movie she is a rebelious child without conviction. Again, not the end of the world, but another notch down from the best.

Though direction choices were questionable at many points, there are two very sore thumbs that stick out in this film. To be honest, my heart sank during both scenes (especially the second one), they were atrocious. I don't know why the director choose to completely deviate from the style that the rest of the film took and do what he did. The details aren’t important, what you need to know is that the entire movie was 'blue' except in two spots where it was 'red'. When movies are expected to stay one color, it is usually not a good thing to deviate. I'm sure that was a terrible metaphore, but did you get it? Another notch down.

In summary…

A pretty good movie that has flaws too strong to warrant an overly positive rating. Thus it is a movie not wroth rushing to, but defintely worth renting.