web
counter
 

His Welfare Is of My Concern

By Daniel Carlson | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (19)



Brothers_review.jpg

Jim Sheridan’s movies have always been about the costs of assimilation, from his stunning debut with My Left Foot to the immigration story In America. His latest film, Brothers, is the kind of meaty melodrama that’s ideal for his kind of story. It’s a tightly focused character study about the toils of war and the emotional scars that come with physical ones, and though it’s not a great film in the sense of one that will become a classic for the ages, that has more to do with the fact that it strives to be a smaller human drama instead of trying to be the defining war film of its time. An inordinate and unfair amount of pressure is put on films about the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to somehow be epic, all-encompassing, and representative of our era in a way we didn’t think possible. But Brothers is a well-acted and compelling film that’s refreshing because it simply treats the war and its attendant arguments as a way of life. In other words, it’s a prime example of what it means to tell a story instead of preach on a treatise.

Capt. Sam Cahill (Tobey Maguire) is a quiet but happy member of the Marine Corps, with a wife, Grace (Natalie Portman), and two young daughters, Isabelle (Bailee Madison) and Maggie (Taylor Geare). He’s based at the (fictional) Fort Mahlus, which is in some generic Midwestern state given to heavy snows in winter and pickup trucks all year round. There are American flags everywhere and signs that support the troops, and the vaguely electric score from Thomas Newman helps Sheridan walk a fine line between selling the gung-ho atmosphere and seeing it for the marketing it is.

Sam’s first mission is to pick up his younger brother, Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal), who’s just been released from prison after serving a brief stint for armed robbery. Tommy’s first meal out of prison is a fine example of what Sheridan wants to do with the film: namely, push the actors together and let the scene build on its own energy. Sam and Tommy’s father, Hank (Sam Shepard), and stepmother, Elsie (Mare Winningham), are in attendance, and though Tommy and his ex-Marine dad eventually, predictably, get into a shouting match that ends the dinner, Sheridan isn’t in any hurry to rush things. The tight, industrious framing from cinematographer Frederick Elmes keeps things slightly uneasy, and Gyllenhaal’s physical tics — like the way he unconsciously guards his plate with one arm on the table — are excellent at labeling him the outsider still adjusting to a new world.

Soon enough, though, Sam ships out to Afghanistan again, leaving Tommy to fend for himself and occasionally check in on Grace, and this is where the story really begins. (I rarely feel the need to issue a spoiler warning, but the nature of the film is such that it’s impossible to analyze without discussing basic plot points that some people would rather not know, so there you go.) Sam’s helicopter crashes and he’s reported dead, sending Grace and Tommy into a spiral of grief that consumes their lives and redefines everything, but the truth is that Sam and a private from the chopper have been taken prisoner by a group of Afghan soldiers, who proceed to torture and starve them for three months. This is the bulk of the film’s middle third, and the most wrenching in every way. Watching Tommy and Grace learn to deal with their grief separately and then together, forging a new kind of family to take care of the girls, is heartbreaking, and Sheridan avoids what must have been an easy temptation to inject too much falsely manipulative drama in their relationship. Perhaps it’s because the film, adapted by David Benioff, is based on a 2004 Danish film by Susanne Bier, and Sheridan’s loath to wreck an already good story.

The film’s international origins keep it from unfolding with the neat beats of American moviemaking, too. Brothers has the pacing and staggered revelations of a novel, and Sheridan’s focus is never on what will happen next but how it will affect the constantly shifting equilibrium. Sam’s trials in Afghanistan are gruesome, but Sheridan doesn’t push the film to make any easy judgments about the situation or to label one side more or less right or victorious than the other. It simply embraces the chaos and horror of being tortured and seeking revenge. The inability to pick a clear enemy is reflected in that first dinner conversation when the little girls earnestly inform Tommy that their daddy “only shoots bad guys,” and when he asks which ones are the bad guys, Isabelle considers a moment before responding, “The ones with the beards.”

And I really have to stop myself from talking more about what happens, and to whom, and why, because I just want to give it all away and hold this story up to the light for everyone. But I won’t. Suffice it to say that things do not play out the way you would expect them to, at any point, and that Sheridan’s film is a worthy examination of grief and forgiveness, as well as the casual moments that wind up destroying our lives. Gyllenhaal and Maguire are believable enough as brothers, though it’s Gyllenhaal’s chemistry with Shepard that provides the most energy. It’s nice to see Maguire stretching his legs with better material, too; you have to go back to 2000’s Wonder Boys, years before he ever became Spider-Man, to find him paired with a really good script. He’s got a few moments here that feel close to overheated, but then, Sheridan’s shooting for something a bit melodramatic even as it’s rooted in a very real story of loss.

Brothers might not be a knockout — there’s a question about whether a remake could ever top the emotional punch of the original — but it is a strong, solid movie with some genuinely good moments. It’s well-told, with Sheridan capturing engaging performances drawn from Benioff’s screenplay. Benioff’s wonderful novel City of Thieves evoked the vast grimness of war and the joy of survival by focusing on a small set of characters, and that’s the tack he, Sheridan, and the rest of the cast and crew have taken here. Sheridan isn’t setting out to make the be-all of modern war movies, but a good movie with a war at its heart. And by not trying to be all things, it speaks to everything.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a TV blogger for the Houston Press. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.









Pajiba Love 12/07/09 | The Top Grossing Films of the Aughts













Comments

Definitely sounds worth watching instead of the yearly Christmas tripe. The best movies about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are still to be made. We're still making movies about the World Wars, Vietnam etc after all. Today's audiences expect more immediacy though.

Good review (though I skipped the spoiler bit). Will watch out for this.

Posted by: barf at December 7, 2009 2:16 PM

The story doesn't go places you'd expect it to? That's good to hear, because the trailers really seem to want you to think it follows a pretty standard course.

Posted by: Snath at December 7, 2009 2:26 PM

Saw this movie yesterday. It definitely doesn't follow a standard "cookie cutter" approach.

Posted by: watchedbrothersyesterday at December 7, 2009 2:28 PM

I really liked the original Danish film. I think it is was a bit, well, obvious to relocate the setting to the U.S., but to a wintry Scandinavian part. Plus I thought the actors were cast and coiffed to mirror the Danes. So, I guess my question is did you see the original and how does this hold up?

And I guess a larger question is how much of a statement about ANYTHING does a remake really hold? It seems like the power of the remake (especially an update of an old film) is in the differences, but when there aren't any...

Posted by: The Wandering Parakeet at December 7, 2009 2:34 PM

Man, I really want to see this...but the "captured and tortured while in Afghanistan" stuff might be too close to home, with a son there myself right now. Looks awesome, with Toby chewing some serious scenery......looks like I'll wait till next summer.....

Posted by: dammitjanet at December 7, 2009 2:34 PM

Completely off topic, but I had no idea you wrote for the Houston Press. I read that every thursday. Very cool.

Posted by: kylers at December 7, 2009 2:45 PM

dammitjanet... I wish you and your son well. I am an orphan of Vietnam; I don't pray, but I send you my best and warmest thoughts.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at December 7, 2009 2:48 PM

excellent review. any movie buff should rush to see this. the story
is not told in an overwrought manner and is compelling without any
of the usual hollywood drama. the acting is superb across the
entire ensemble and extends even to the 2 young daughters. sheridan gets bravura performances from each of them as well as
oscar worthy efforts from portman/maguire/gyllenhall/shepherd.
cary mulligan of " an education " also has a small role and it is hard
to match the precocious oxford bound schoolgirl with the bereaved
marine wife. dan nailed this one.

Posted by: snake at December 7, 2009 3:20 PM

Is is just me, or are all of those spoilers in the very first trailer?

Posted by: Anne (in Reno) at December 7, 2009 3:34 PM

The Wandering Parakeet - As I understand it, the woman who made the first film is the one who came up with the idea of remaking it. She liked the idea of setting it in America since we avemore soldiers overseas than Denmark, and the Danish film focused more on the triangle rather than the effect of war and that sort of thing.

Posted by: Jo at December 7, 2009 5:35 PM

Whoever cast Maguire and Gyllenhaal as brothers deserves a medal. Perfect.

Great review Dan, you've got me really excited to see this film.

Posted by: Daniel Hall at December 7, 2009 5:56 PM

Thanks, Jo. I guess that's a valid reason to remake it. I'm not really pissed about the remake; it's certainly not against the rules to re-set films in different cultural contexts (hell, I love all of Kurosawa's adaptations.) What I mean to say is that I think it might have been more interesting to separate the original from the remake in terms of geographies and the looks of the characters.

I guess I question what credit we give to a director like Sheridan in this situation. What's he bringing to the table here that wasn't in the original? I don't mean to dump on the guy, I'm just curious. Dan here seems to give him a lot of praise, and so I wondered if he'd seen the original.

Posted by: The Wandering Parakeet at December 7, 2009 8:06 PM

While this film was decent, it pales in comparison to the original. I really wanted to give it a try, seeing as the actors and director attached are quite excellent, but it is in no way as good as the original. I'm actually rather disappointed that they remade this film, and I hope it won't discourage others from seeing the Danish version just because it has subtitles. Bier's film is original, fresh and superbly acted. I recommend it to anyone, specifically if you thought this version lacked a little something.

Posted by: Lena at December 7, 2009 9:12 PM

After reading this review, all I can say is THANK GOD. There has been nothing that's caught my eye, and I was so hopeful this would be reviewed well. I'm glad.

Posted by: duckandcover at December 7, 2009 10:09 PM

After reading the review, I guess I'll have to give this remake a chance. I loved the original Brødre, and was kind of wary of what this remake would amount to. Especially since the clips and trailers I've seen seemed a bit heavy-handed compared to the original.

Good to hear this is at the very least watchable.

Posted by: Hakobus at December 8, 2009 3:25 AM

I'm not the kind of guy who looks for mistakes in a movie, but when Jake Gyllenhaal's character got walked out of prison, the shot from behind was a guy with long grey hair. It cut to the front and he had short black hair. Made me laugh.
Great movie though.

Posted by: AMDS at December 8, 2009 7:05 AM

Just like the Wandering Parakeet, I loved the Danish Brødre. The story does focus on the triangle created, but the subtlety and quiet nature of grief so well portrayed by the Danish cast does set the bar pretty high...

Posted by: Wren at December 8, 2009 11:51 AM

Yeah, the desire I had to see this particular movie was negated by how the trailer seemed to reveal a good 90% of the plot. When will studios realize that if you can effectively encapsulate a movie's story into a 20 second spot, and the story's the main thing you're going to see, you've just ruined the experience for most of your audience. Even the mediocre summer blockbusters usually get that right.

Posted by: Leftylad at December 8, 2009 5:07 PM

Great review. This movie totally blew me away. By the time the end credits rolled, and that U2 song "Winter" came on, I was almost speechless. And I don't think the trailer gives the film away. I mean, it sets up the plot, but what happens in the end is not at all predictable from the trailer.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 10, 2009 8:10 PM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time