User Reviews

This movie has me split. The acting was incredible... The three main characters and the daughters. The plot was also on point. It wasn't overly dramatized. It felt real, as haunting as it is. I'm not a fan of 3 hour movies, but I felt this should have been one. At 2 hours and change, it felt even a little rushed for me. It could have used 20 minutes more before Sam arrives back home to drive home the relationship and 40 minutes more after to delve deeper into the PTSD. More interaction with Tommy and Sam after Dam's homecoming could have helped also. It might have been perfect. The ending felt a little forced. The acting was amazing...this was perfectly cast.

Brothers is something we may have seen before - if not in its original incarnation from Denmark in 2004 then The Deer Hunter - then it is something that surprises just on the vulnerability, subtlety and ferocity of the actors in their roles. It's not about what the trailer pushes, which is an affair between a guy (Jake Gyllenhaal) and his sister in law (Natalie Portman) while the one guy's brother (Tobey Maguire) is away at war. There is one scene of that, but that's not really what the film is 'about' per-say. It's about the personal affects of war on one man, a horrific tragedy that befalls him, and how he has to live with that the rest of his life, specifically in front of his wife and children. Maguire's Sam says it simply towards the end: "Only the dead see the end of war. I have seen the end of War. How do I go on living?"

If I may have spoiled the message of the movie- and in its own microcosm way it's as anti-war (or perhaps just anti-torture) as it could get in modern movies- it shouldn't detract from the pleasures of Brothers. This is seeing the actors- Portman, Gyllenhaal, Sam Shephard, especially Maguire- fill in these characters with enough depth and passions and fears and desires and ghosts that make them more than real to us. That's not just their achievement but director Jim Sheridan's. He lets his players breathe life into characters who, while not wooden or two-dimensional by any stretch, need that extra push as seen in David Benioff's characterizations and scenarios. Family life, its fragility and it's equal amount of love and self-torment, is what counts (again, Deer Hunter), and it's this that works in the film.

A word though about Tobey Maguire. I'm not the only critic pointing him out, and it goes without saying he's not the only worthwhile actor in the cast (there's even performances by the girls playing Sam's kids that are extraordinary). But it's the transformation that really counts. Perhaps it's noteworthy that both brothers do transform in the film, as Tommy, the ex-con, goes from being a drunken nobody to stepping up to help his brother's barely-holding-it-together wife after the news that her husband is dead, while Sam is in the downward spiral. It's crucial too that Sheridan shows those scenes in Afghanistan that cause Sam to change so radically as he does (the way they're inter-cut in the at-home narrative is a little uneasy, one of the flaws of the film), so that we see a good person shrunk down to his deepest, darkest depths.

When that last third comes around, it's electrifying how intense Maguire can get, even when he's just in his insinuating mode ala Jake LaMotta of accusing his brother of adultery. For anyone just looking at Maguire as Spider-Man's Peter Parker must give this a look to see his range; indeed a double feature of Brothers and Seabiscuit will show how Maguire is one of the most underrated actors under forty in Hollywood. If the role calls for it, as it does here, he goes to town, a you-can't-blame-him Oscar bait performance.

Most war films, particularly those made decades ago, glorify war and seldom, if ever, talk about the true cost. Think about it....it's hard to imagine John Wayne or Jimmy Stewart breaking down and sobbing after a battle! But there is a reality to war, the psychological trauma, that just isn't talked about enough...especially since it doesn't just hurt the soldier but their families as well.

In "Brothers", the film begins with a real black/white situation. There are two brothers...a good, honorable one and the other a jerk who's just gotten out of jail. But life is rarely black and white...and over time, the 'bad brother' (Jake Gyllenhaal) manages to do something with his life while the 'good one' (Toby McGuire) goes off to war and it emotionally damaged to such a point that he's a danger to his family.

This is a tough film to watch. If you've been through war or had family members affected by PTSD, this film might even be tougher to watch...to the point where you might want to watch this with someone and have some Kleenex handy. But I think this is a good thing. The film is wonderfully crafted and acted...but brings attention to our veterans and their plights.....plights which are certainly understandable considering what they've been through. A very good film...well worth seeing.

By the way, this is a remake of a Danish film...which I have not seen but plan to see.

The family man Marine Captain Sam Cahil (Tobey Maguire) is happily married with his beloved Grace (Natalie Portman) and adores his two daughters Isabelle (Bailee Madison) and Maggie (Taylor Geare). His younger brother Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) has just left prison on probation for bank robbery and has issues with his father Hank (Sam Shepard). Grace does not like him either but Sam invites Tommy to have dinner at home with their family. When Sam is sent back to Afghanistan, his helicopter crashes and he is considered missing in action and presumed dead. However, he is captured with friend Private Joe Willis (Patrick Flueger) and they are submitted to all sort of tortures, culminating with Sam killing Joe with a bar. Meanwhile Tommy comforts Grace and the children and he becomes close to Sam's family. When Sam is rescued by the American soldiers, he comes back home completely paranoid, psychotic, introspective and without feeling or affection for his family. Further, he is convinced that Grace and Tommy have had sex during his absence. When Isabelle lies during a family dinner about the relationship of Grace and Tommy to upset her father, the disturbed Sam triggers an intense paranoia jeopardizing his family, Tommy and himself.

"Brothers" is a powerful drama about family dynamics destroyed by war. I discover that this good movie is based on Susanne Bier's "Brødre" that I have not seen yet. Jim Sheridan shows again his ability to work with children, the same way he did in "In America" and the girls Bailee Madison and Taylor Geare have awesome performances. Tobey Maguire, Natalie Portman, Jake Gyllenhaal and Sam Shepard have top-notch performances, giving credibility to the story. Now I expect to see the original Danish movie to compare with the American version. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Entre Irmãos" ("Between Brothers")

Revised review after watching "Brødre":

"Brothers" is actually a teen remake of "Brødre". Tobey Maguire is completely miscast in the role of a marine captain despite his great performance. In the original movie, Ulrich Thomsen is a mature man with face of man in the role of a major, and not a "babyface" in the role of a captain. Jim Sheridan filmed practically frame by frame the film of Susanne Bier, but replacing adult and realistic situations with shallow trivializations to adequate the story to the American society. In his version, just as an example, Grace and Tommy smoke marijuana when they kiss each other instead of the emotional situation of the original story. Or the motive why Sam is forced by his captors to kill Joe Willis in the Afghan camp. The open conclusion in the original movie is another plus. The impact of "Brothers" is totally different for those that have not seen "Brødre" My vote is six.

I am not really a fan of war themed movies and especially the American "hero" farce where America is always portrayed as the saviour of the world as opposed to what it really is, the instigator of wars. I realise that there will be numerous readers who will take exception to that statement because they have been successfully brainwashed into believing otherwise. But the fact is that American citizens pay taxes to ensure that their country is the most powerful military force on earth. But what does that mean? It means that little impoverished countries either march to America's tune or pay dearly for not doing so.

OK, what has this to do with Brothers, the movie? Well, no one who hasn't experienced being cannon fodder for what their government's propaganda convinces them to sincerely believe to be "right" can possibly have any idea what those brave (but, to their government, dispensable) human boys go through at the hands of desperate people clutching at straws of violence and terrorism to attempt to exert their independence can possibly even attempt to know what that can do to a person psychologically - and everyone is different.

However, the behaviour of what are supposed to be "normal" people with whom those soldiers come into contact is a totally different thing. For example, when Sam (Tobey Maguire) quite understandably asks his wife, Grace (Natalie Portman) if she has been "f**king his brother", why on earth did she take so long to emphatically assure him that she had not? He told her that he would understand if she had and all she needed to say was that, whilst she had sorely needed to be loved when she believed he was dead, she simply couldn't do it and so it had not happened. That way, Sam's fears would not have been ridiculed but they would have, in a few words, have been dispelled. There were several other examples of similar instances where the rationally thinking members of the family could have easily relieved tension by simply saying something sensible but they didn't. Whilst people do, of course, sometimes fail to say the right words, it shouldn't happen as often as it does in this movie.

All of this added up to make the film much sadder that it need have been. Where was the psychiatric counselling that Sam and Grace (and the family) so obviously needed? Whilst it may have been provided, we weren't shown any of it. The way that a severely traumatised soldier was just dumped on his family's doorstep tended to make me even more angry at what I have already referred to as the way American politicians see their men a cannon fodder. Oh yes, when they return home from tours of duty or come back in a coffin draped with the stars and stripes, lots of ceremony accompanies them but it's all for show and it disgusts me because they shouldn't have been sent to fight in the first place. As the Afghani told Sam, "This is OUR country and you shouldn't be here!"

I can honestly say that I have absolutely no idea what I would have done if faced with the choice of either making a comrade's wife a widow or my own wife a widow and, as I have said, I don't believe anyone else who hasn't actually experienced such a horror, could know either. However, had Sam not taken the action he did, the most likely result would have been both wives becoming instant widows. Perhaps the best solution to all of this would be for America to send the multitudes of serial killers they seem to have to war. They would flinch at whatever needed to be done and it would be a multiple tax-saving - less jail expenses, less widows' pensions and, of course, less military pay packets!

Finally, I felt that the film was very prematurely ended. Did the producers run out of money?

Have you ever watched a new film and felt as if you've seen it replayed over, and over, and over again except in a different era?

Coming into this movie completely oblivious to its existence, since it was a quick decision after "Avatar" was sold out, I was surprised to find that this film had both Maguire and Portman in it, both top-notch choices. However, if it weren't for the precise execution of the script, this film would have fallen flat, forgotten, and collecting dust on a shelf with the rest of the 'soldier comes home and isn't the same ever again' motif films.

Having said that, the first half of the film was fantastic. Benioff's subtle humour and slow character development made our characters personal, the Cahill family could be any American family, mind you... if your family is perfect with the exception of the unloved brother (think Everybody Loves Raymond).

We grieved for Grace when she lost her husband, we saw the sadness in her children's eyes, we even fell in love with Tommy for being a bad boy... and then something went desperately wrong.

What should have been the climax of this film left us feeling as if time had stopped, and indeed, it did.

Instead of feeling joy that the protagonist has made it home, every moment of this film makes us feel anguish that Grace has to deal with him, and the children, (whom, by the way, started getting on my nerves by the birthday scene).

Portman's performance was consistent through out, as was Gyllenhaal, who I found myself having more sympathy for.

By the time the psychologically and emotionally impaired soldier finally snaps, the acting becomes almost laughable on Maguire's part, and hardly worth taking seriously.

When this far-too-long clichéd saga was over, we could finally finally breath, and rest knowing that no, grace didn't really have an affair when she should have, Sam didn't kill himself when he had been a ticking time-bomb for over an hour, Tommy still got the short end of the stick, and the little girls clearly had some unresolved jealously issues.

Was it absolutely horrible? No. Was it a masterpiece? No. Would I watch it again? No.

I finally figured it out. I finally realize why I felt a bit unsatisfied after the conclusion of Brothers. I should first say that all that has been said about the acting is spot on. It is a tremendous display of acting ability from all involved. I will not be surprised if nominations fall on all three of the leads. And the story seemed solid. Indeed, up until the end, I was completely engrossed in what was going on. Jim Sheridan had crafted what seemed to me to be an almost flawless movie. It was beautifully filmed, and very well written. The characters were strong, and I came to care for each one of them. It really isn't even about how the film ended that bothered me. I don't know how it could have ended any other way. Tobey Maguire's character had obviously become very affected in a deeply disturbing way by the events that occurred while he was in captivity. It was quite apparent that he was going to have to spend a substantial amount of time in a psychiatric hospital. So I was not disappointed in the way the film ended, but in what we, as the audience, already knew when the film reached it's concluding scene. When Maguire's character finally confesses to his wife what happened, there should have been a much more powerful emotional punch. The audience should have felt as if they had the breath knocked out of them. But we didn't. At least I didn't, and from the lack of any real reaction from those around me, I would venture to guess that no one else felt that way either. Again, it had to do with what we already knew. Had what happened in Afghanistan stayed a mystery to not only Natalie Portman's character, but to the audience as well, the conclusion to Brothers would have possibly been one of the most powerful endings to a film that I've seen in some time. But it wasn't a mystery. We already knew. And that is the reason I was left a bit unsatisfied at the end of this otherwise well made film.

The trailer for Brothers (which, by the way, basically gave away 5 second chunks from every important scene in the movie) had me waiting for it: I usually really like these kinds of troubling melodramas. This film does have the intended effect of the genre -- however, in a very small dose. It delivers only in the last quarter. The first 2/3 seem confused as to how to make things interesting until the major player returns, and time is spent away in an uneven and often flat tone.

First and biggest complain: did a robot shoot and edit the movie? The camera work is completely static throughout. Now, that is great in the last and very intense quarter, such as the dinner scene, where you are so intensely concentrating on the characters all gathered in a small, uncomfortable space and their interactions. But through the initial 2/3, when Tommy and family is getting close, and Tommy and Grace are getting close, and when the kids are playing in the snow, people are mourning, Sam is suffering, etc, the totally still camera and abrupt scene changes felt really clunky and reluctant, often edging on boring. One second I'd see Tommy playing with the kids, then, blink, Sam's starving in a ditch, then, blink, Tommy's talking to the father. Let me feel something, let it sink in first!

Natalie Portman. I'm not the biggest fan of her, having seen her only good performance way back in Leon. But in this movie she was definitely miscast and at about 10% of her potential-- in other words, her acting is awful here. Her character is already underdeveloped, saying little of the kind of important stuff you feel that she should say, or, heck, say anything at all, since she's pretty quiet throughout of the movie (well, it's not a very loquacious movie after all). But Portman's eyes and face often show no feeling or don't show feeling appropriate to the scene. In one scene Maguire's character, on the verge of breakdown and rage, asks her something like 'do you know what I did?' with a little bit of the psycho in him, and she replies in a very wooden and robotic tone, 'no, I don't'. Similar problems abound when her husband is either trying to vent or reach out. You can't see if she's disappointed in her husband, saddened by his transformation, or yearning for his old self. Often I just didn't see anything there. No thought, no emotion. It's not all bad though. There is one great scene when an army widow admits to having a disturbing dream about Sam. Grace (Portman) notices Sam in the next room, goes up to see him, but she leans against the corner wall so that only some of her face is visible, like she is hiding. It completely shows how she is somewhat frightened of him and that their bond is lost.

Tobey: Hard to believe it's the same actor who played the adorable character in Cider House Rules. And the movie picks up dramatically when he reappears (it seems as if the creators were more excited about the downward spiral than what was happening before it. They should have balanced matters more evenly in the first half, and really formed a full life for the family w/ and w/o Sam). Maguire's face, generally used for cuteness and innocence in CHRules, pleasantville, and spidey movies, has been transformed with great effectiveness here. His large, round, blue eyes surround an emaciated, scarred, shaved head, giving them a bulged, surprised-angry look. When he's come back and is with his family, listening to his daughter telling jokes he can no longer find humor in, he has this stiff, fake smile like he's trying to be kind and good humored under a pretense of total anger and loathing. Visible also when he asks his brother and wife the impossible question. The dinner-balloon scene is where Maguire really shines. You are almost scared for the older daughter, the one Sam is directing his quiet anger towards. And yes, the older child actor is amazing.

Other complaint that I won't go much into: the titular theme of Brotherhood wasn't really established much with relevance to the experiences of each (again, something they could have done more of in the first half). There was also a connection related to this theme with the daughters: how the younger is beloved and spoiled, while the older doesn't get the same showering of affection for whatever reasons. The inadequate foundation on their brotherhood also takes away from the resolution. We know that one rises while the other falls, and that their ties finally save them, but their ties aren't really established fully in the important beginning scenes.

Still, beside the complaints, I thought it was pretty good and the last part saved it for me. I would recommend it for the melodrama, a raging and paranoid Maguire, Jake Gyllenhaal whom I always like, and depiction of war anguish including the fight for survival and the trauma of killing on a normal, sensitive human.

I watched the original Danish version of this film some time ago. Connie Neilsen was stunning as the wife, Nikolas Lie Kaaj was good as the brother, and Ulrich Thomsen fitted the role of the Captain like a glove - mature, grave and, upon his return, with a sense of foreboding. In this remake, Natalie Portman is superb, while Jake Gyllenhaal, Sam Shepard and the 2 kids are all excellent. But Tobey Maguire is no Ulrich Thomsen. It's not that he's a bad actor, it's just that casting him as Captain Cahill of the Marines was akin to picking Russell Crowe to play Rudolph Nureyev in the film version of "Swan Lake".

The other aspect in which seeing the Danish version first somewhat spoiled the remake was that a number of scenes were changed, some in only minor ways, but none for the better - the killing, the rescue, the post-rescue de-briefing and counselling (omitted here), the visit of the Captain to the private's wife and son. Most of all, in the Danish film, the whole movie was geared towards the revelations at the end, and when they came, they were emotional and powerful. In this film, it seems as though the producers ran out of time, or out of money, or out of interest. "I killed him." That's it. The End. Major disappointment.

Pity, because it was quite a good story and quite a good film. I'd have given it 7, but that ending dumped it down to 5.