"Mr. Brooks" (2007) - Movie Review

It always fascinates to dig deep into the devilish minds of human beings. Every one sure thinks of insane and dangerous things to do. The people who act upon it and those who do not marks the difference which I remember writing in one of my previous reviews. Here is Earl Brooks (Kevin Costner) who constantly chats with his supposedly another part of his character which he calls Marshall (William Hurt). While introducing this imaginary friend of Brooks, as a thumb rule it is the tendency to believe that Marshall is the part of him which instigates to go on killing. But it turns out both the real one and this imaginary are equally addictive towards killing. In fact at times Marshall makes more sensible decisions.

Having already exposed the “secrets” of Mr. Brooks who is the “Man of the Year”, the movie is interesting and leaves clueless in the end. The movie can be called “American Psycho – 2” only that there are few other extra plots. Brooks wants to stop this killing and he was successful for two full years but it comes back. He goes on killing people for the fun and thrill of it. He accepts that he is addictive. And that reason seems believable with the performance of Kevin Costner and William Hurt. The real story though is the other curious mice who call him Mr. Smith (Dane Cook) shows up at Brook’s office and threatens with proof he got against him. The offer is what makes the plot interesting and it keeps the screen ticking without lot and nothing happening till end.

There needs to be a detective and she needs to be a tough one with ego for break fast and hunches for lunch. That is Detective Tracy Atwood (Demi Moore) and they develop a different plot with her too. The problem with the film is that they make us to expect everything to connect at some point of time. And it does but in a totally unexplainable loose ended way. If director Bruce A. Evans wanted a genre for different interpretation of the ending, it does not fall in that category. Things mix well when it is mixed well. And except for the characterization of Brooks and Marshall, there seems to be no other solid innovations in other members in the movie. And those two characters have been played a lot different ways in different movies too. One thing is that the movie moves quickly and does not produce a moment of uncertainty or uneasiness. It is quite strange to come out of the theatre and have no memory of what exactly the movie generates. Seems like nothing happened at all and they tried to do nothing about it too.

The film does not suffice the internal artistic depiction of “Once upon a time in America” or the normal killer ending similar to “Fight Club” or any movie in that genre. This puts it in a spot where there is no identification and also no justification as a movie. May be there is nothing at all and it is all the imagination of Brooks but still there seems an open door. It is true that some movies are very interesting due to the fact of its open ended sequences. But it needs to be and put with the correct leverage. It should appeal distinctive and provocative for discussions. In this film, it is not new and it definitely is not interesting enough to discuss the ending of it.

There needs to be a sufficient amount of appreciation for the chemistry between Kevin Costner and William Hurt. Their effort is where the whole movie is based upon. It is evident and clear that the developments of their sequences are well thought and highly appealing. The unique approach on the imaginary character from other films of this kind is that they do not always make him the devil’s child. The character does not play dummy but very intelligent. The careful planning and exactly expecting the outcome of the decisions are good. The problem is that it takes more than two people to make a movie work.