07-06-09 Mr. Brooks (2007)

Seen: June 5th, 2007
Format: Theatre
Rating: 7

I really had not idea what I was in for with this film. I had the afternoon off, I was near the theater and decided to catch a flick. This was ready to start when I walked up.

Lucky me.

This is one of the more unorthodox films I've seen in a while. That's a very good thing. I appreciate film makers willing to take a chance, regardless of how the film actually turns out.

This film doesn't fit any genre. Brooks plays a killer, but the police chasing him really isn't the focus or point of the film. Costner is a family man, and his relationship with his family is a crucial element, but it's not about that either. Someone gets the upper hand and he deals with that, but the film's not about that either.

What is it really about then? The best I can guess, it's about dealing with your demons. Brooks' demons a pretty serious. They drive him in ways that are far outside the norm and far from acceptable. But no excuses are made. Brooks never claims to be innocent. He never infers that his sickness alleviates him from responsibility.

This objective view of the character and his assumption of responsibility are what make this so interesting. We sympathize with him because he has failings that he admits, failings he tries hard to overcome, and they cause difficulties he must deal with as well. He shouldn't be a sympathetic character. But we recognize ourselves and our own struggles in him, and we pull for him, as we hope that we too can overcome our shortcomings and problems.

Costner does a remarkable job here. He plays Brooks very straight. At the very start of the film, I was lulled rather completely by his characterization. As things begin to unfold, his sheer nonchalance at the things which unfold is striking.

Hurt too, is remarkable. His role is fascinating, and his interaction with Costner riveting. Marshall is perhaps the most interesting character in the film. He, like Brooks, seems to be pragmatist. While perhaps less sympathetic, we're lulled by him a bit as well. He has his own ethical standard, his own mores. While not the same as Brooks', he lives by his as well.

Marg Helgenberger was underused, in my opinion. She does very well in this role, but it's a small and undistinguished character.

Writing and directing are great here. The way the story evolves is interesting. While there are certain things that we expect, that are clearly telegraphed, there are other moments when our expectations are reversed. The moments keep the film fresh and keep us guessing. There are also simpler, unexpected moments as well. While the film isn't really "twisty", it does play on it's associated genres well and offer a reasonably fresh perspective.

This is one of those films I actually want to watch again. It's not outstanding in any fashion, but it's insidiously interesting. It makes you think, and a second watch may help solidify it.

Postscript: I understand that this may be the first film a trilogy. I'd be interesting to see any followups. This film is complete, and really doesn't leave much hanging, but there's definitely material aplenty to kick off a follow up.

The Good: A new twist

The Bad: Genetics

The Ugly: Fighting your nature