dailysteals.squirrel-productions.com

5 Comments on “Brothers”

1. Frank Sellers
   May 25th, 2010 at 11:09 am

   In her review of “Brothers” Kathleen C. Fennessy writes, “Back in New Mexico, Grace and Tommy grow closer, stopping just short of a full-blown affair (in [Danish director] Susanne Bier’s original [Danish movie "Brødre" starring Connie Nielsen], they take the plunge).”

   No they don’t! Just as in the American re-make, brother- and sister-in-law come close but they never actually have sex! They both love their fallen brother and husband and would have betrayed the soldier’s love, making them both unworthy of his sacrafice in Afghanistan! (I’m sure that if the American version came first they would’ve slept together.)

   Ms. Fennessy should actually WATCH the movies she writes about on Amazon.com!
   
   Rating: 1 / 5

2. Felix Gumby
   May 25th, 2010 at 12:37 pm

   First, this is a horrible movie. . . a total waste of time. But, why would it be anything but a HUGE waste of time?

   The 3 lead actors, McGuire, Gyllenhaal and Portman don’t agree with anything this country has done with regard to the muslim animals (you remember them, they are the ones flying planes into our buildings, blowing up our embassies, bombing our ships, strapping bombs to their women and children, and beheading other human beings for the world to see. . .)and hate the US military. SO, how could 3 America haters be expected to act credibly in a movie that has the US military as a major part of the story.

   My advice is to NOT buy this DVD, not pay to watch this movie and NOT support these 3 actors in anything they do now, or ever. JMHO Rating: 1 / 5

3. Mohamed F. El-Hewie
   May 25th, 2010 at 3:32 pm

   Brothers [Theatrical Release:
   
   he plan of linearly telling a multifaceted, long story diminished the joy of engaging the viewer. The movie attempted to cover too many places and scenarios in a short space, but to end up circumstantial on most themes. By the time the viewer gets a feel of the family life prior to the marine’s leave to Afghanistan, the viewer is exposed to the brief and intense scenario of getting captured by the enemy. The scenario shifts back to the family adjustment after the news of missing the husband, father, and son marine.

   Here the movies touches on multiple scenarios on relation to the missing father of two daughters, the feeling of his widow, the struggle of the father of the missing marine, and the reaction of the community to such loss. In this complicated third scenario, the brother of the marine stands up to support the family of his lost brother. The troubled brother appeared saner than his prospering marine’s brother.

   Then the movie shifts gears to explain the whereabouts of the war prisoner, with no clear idea why he was compelled to kill his mate other than making a video tape. The return home that surprised the unexacting family was cold and lacked any appropriate preparation. By then, the viewer has already been shuffled back and forth between three disconnected family situations, three disconnected marine personalities, and very sketchy capturing drama.

   The viewer is thus witnessing the two sides of totally disconnected theaters of events in total defiance of real life experience. Such improper and unreal feeding of news could only happen long after discovery completes. With the simultaneous reporting of events, the viewer already expects the reaction of the characters since their prior inducing experiences were told in advance.

   The display of the posttraumatic struggle was very brief and tense and should have been more elaborate to allow for reasonable outcome. It was not clear whether the returned marine injured by his own incarceration or his suspicion of his wife’s betrayal or otherwise.

   The choice of the actors and their roles was spotless. Yet, the attempt to squeeze very long story, in monotonous chronic sequence, made the scenario predicable and diminished the excitement of thought exercising. The producer was able, but did not attempt, to depict the scenarios of capture, torture, and release of the marine as flash back nightmares, while expanding of the posttraumatic struggle of the returned marine. Instead, the producer was explaining every event, on both sides of the world, between home and the war zone, with only one goal in mind, of the producer of course, of reciting a sequence of affairs.

   Rating: 4 / 5

4. K. Allen
   May 25th, 2010 at 4:07 pm

   Brothers could have been a very moving story. For me it fell short, as the story seemed under developed, even though the intended message was clear. The ending was sudden, and left me feeling a bit cheated. It is really too bad, as this movie could have been a power house with more elaboration. For me it was just ok. Rating: 3 / 5

5. TastyBabySyndrome
   May 25th, 2010 at 6:46 pm

   Two brothers – one a screw-up and one a man that serves his country. The soldier has a family of his own that loves him, and the brother that is a screw-up only has his brother to love him. Things change, however, when the world falls apart and the soldier appears dead. Then the other brother brings in people to help with the house, to help with the family, and to try to heal. He screws up some, too, and moves in n his brother’s wife by mistake. As this is happening, the soldier is held captive with another soldier and finds himself having to do some horrible things to stay alive.

   Still, he lives and comes home.

   When he comes home, he has some horrible things in his mind and, worse still, he sees what his brother has done for his wife. He notes the house and the happiness of the kids and thinks that he has been traded in for a different model. This leads him to think that maybe the world is broken and that maybe the one thing that kept him alive no long needs him.

   It is horribly sad.

   The problem with this movie is not in the build or the things that happen as the soldier has to survive or the things that the family does. The kid’s acting is great and the things that are done have a natural flow to them. The nightmares make sense, too, as do the things that seem to haunt the jealous clouds. I could see how that could easily play out when a man had only one need when it came to home, and how mistrust would show its head when he found himself needing.

   The problem I have is how it all comes to a conclusion. you expect one thing and, well, you won’t get what you think. You will instead have a happy movie that the commercials lied about and you will think “why.” And perhaps the reason is to say that happiness can be secured and perhaps it is to thwart the flow of ugly movies that have soldiers going mad. It has been shown that soldiers are the one type of person we see as going mad more than any other in movies, after all, and maybe that is bad. Maybe, but I still wanted it to get gruesome because it was what I thought I was being promised.
   
   O well.

   Should you rent it? Maybe, if you seem to think this is for you. I would not suggest it, liking it enough to give it a 2.8 or so, but not really happy with that ending. It bothered me a lot, more than I normally let a segment get to me, but I wanted something.
   
   Take your chance – a lot of people liked it and maybe you will, too. i simply found it lackluster and, if nothing else, more like an MTV production than anything. I can see the “remake” stamp all over it. Rating: 3 / 5

Leave a Reply