Mr. Brooks Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
There's something about
The man who has everything has everything to hide.
Everyone has two sides: the one they show... and the one they hide.
Earl Brooks is a highly respected businessman and was recently named Portland's Man of the Year. He hides a terrible secret however: he is a serial killer known as the Fingerprint Killer. He has been attending AA meetings and has kept his addiction to killing under control for two years now but his alter ego, Marshall, has re-appeared and is pushing him to kill again. When he does kill a couple while they are making love, he is seen and photographed by someone who also his own death and murder fetish. In a parallel story, the police detective investigating the murder is having problems of her own. She is going through a messy divorce and a violent criminal who had vowed revenge some years before has escaped from prison and is after her.
| Kevin Costner | Mr. Earl Brooks |
| Demi Moore | Tracy Atwood |
| Dane Cook | Mr. Smith |
| William Hurt | Marshall |
| Marg Helgenberger | Emma Brooks |
| Ruben Santiago-Hudson | Hawkins |
| Danielle Panabaker | Jane Brooks |
| Aisha Hinds | Nancy Hart |
| Lindsay Crouse | Captain Lister |
| Jason Lewis | Jesse Vialo |
| Reiko Aylesworth | Sheila |
| Matt Schulze | Thorton Meeks |
| Yasmine Delawari | Sunday |
| Traci Dinwiddie | Sarah Leaves |
| Michael Cole | AtwoodÂ’s Lawyer |
| Bruce A. Evans |
7.60 out of 10 (30240 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Costner Worthy of Oscar Nomination
posted on 26 Aug 2009For now I will review the movie overall. This movie has some both good and bad parts to it. The good parts of it were the writing, William Hurt and Kevin Costner. The bad were Demi Moore and Dane Cook. When I watched movie it was not really what I expected. It had some other elements to it such as Kevin Costner's thought process and his family. The idea of putting William Hurt in this movie was great and very creative casting him as Kevin Costner's mind. This was very original in many way and displayed something different and unique that has not been really shown in serial killer movies. The best part of this movie was Kevin Costner's performance. His performance was probably the most unique and different compare to other serial killer movies, making his character realistic. The movie was mostly based and revolved around him it allowed for his character to develop and open up. He showed something that I would never expect from Kevin Costner. He was perfect fit because he displayed exactly how many psychopaths are: intelligent, calm and precise. He also fit perfectly because it actually made sense that someone with a personality and status like Costner's could actually be like a Jack the Ripper sort of person. He displayed how he is fighting himself(William Hurt) on whether he should kill or not. But like most psychopaths it eventually becomes repetitive and automatic. He had this obsessive compulsion of just killing people. Costner shows how he is in constant pain and just cannot escape his temptations and paranoia. It was really amazing watching him and William Hurt together. I think the ending perfectly illustrated his performance.What really ruined this movie was Demi Moore. She just did not bring anything at all to this story. She did not seem into the character and was just too average. Dane Cook was just really not a fit at all. When I look at him I think comedy. He was not too convincing and kind weirded me out the wrong way. That could be a good thing though. Believe or not this movie does have a message showing how are temptations can eventually take over us if we give into them. It shows by giving in you are really going for the quick fix and not thinking long term.
An Excellent Psychological Crime Thriller
posted on 22 Aug 2009Several brilliant moments occur in Mr. Brooks, a deeply disturbing psychological thriller that hits several controversial buttons by speculatively looking inside the schizophrenic mind of a serial killers. The deliciously creepy synchronized smiles that begin occurring on William Hurt's and Kevin Costner's faces midway into the movie is like pouring a smooth, sickly sweet evil coating over the audience smothering them in rich, sticky creepiness. The loud and very realistic gunshots towards the end of the movie are some of the most effective special effects shots from any movie. The beginning, however, missed an opportunity to go for "The Sixth Sense" or "A Beautiful Mind" possibility to make the twist part way into the movie a real treat, thus the beginning was a bit watered down. The musical score of the movie was very effective and the photography great. The entire element of twisted dysfunctional rot was unmistakable, but even more coolly clever was that Kevin Costner's character unlike Hannabil Lector played by Anthony Hopkins who made brilliant evil into something likable, Kevin's performance was much more poignant and power by its incredible polar pull of good, sympathizing, evil and repulsive. In today's black and white society, it is so often difficult to realize the blurry gray. Demi Moore plays it straight in this movie. What was both commendable and confusing was the number of separate plots going on, interweaving, the merely coincidental and deliberate intersections in this movie. There are a number of threads that seem to flail off into more grayness. Overall, this was an effective psychological portrayal of heinous criminal violence along with a richly deep emotional humanity tucked inside with real world elements of unknown endings along the trimmings. It was also fund to watch Lindsay Crouse as Captain Lister from "Buffy: The Vampire Slayer" fame as Professor Maggie Walsh and Reiko Aylesworth who played Demi Moore's husband's lawyer from "24" as Michelle Dessler. Needless to mention the C.S.I. starlet (too obvious) but nice job. Eight out of Ten Stars.
Kevin and William carry this film!
posted on 20 Aug 2009I wasn't sure if this movie would be that good before I saw it. I'm not a huge Kevin Costner fan. However, I was surprised. Kevin Costner is perfect in this role and William Hurt was awesome. I love their characters and development. I am still thinking about it. The two of them carried this movie and really made it worth seeing.I didn't think the other actors did anything for this movie - maybe it was the poor dialog for everyone else in the film except KC and WH. I was surprised that I didn't even like Demi Moore. She just wasn't very believable at all - but again, it could have been the poor script dialog. Marg was good though, and I think it would have been better had she been cast as the cop instead of the wife - but perhaps that would have been too much like CSI.If my rating was based solely on the performances of Kevin Costner and William Hurt, dialog, acting, plot - I'd give it an 8 or 8.5. They were really fantastic. If my rating was based on the acting/dialog of the others in the film, I'd give it a 6 or 6.5. Truly, the scenes without Kevin Costner and William Hurt just weren't worth anything. Therefore, it gets a 7 as a whole.
Wow, A Costner Movie That Is Good?
posted on 20 Aug 2009This film has a recipe for disaster. Dane Cook co-starring in a role that does not call for comedy, Kevin Costner in the lead not playing a cowboy/baseball player/fish. The clichéd schizophrenic serial killer and Demi Moore as the cop hot on his tail. I did not expect to enjoy the film as much as I did. Surprise, surprise this film is decent.Mr. Brooks has it all, a loving wife, daughter in college and he just won an award for Man Of The Year. Everything seems to be good in his life, except the fact that he has a deep a dark secret, he loves to kill people. Trying to shake this disturbing side of him away, he is forced to kill more people or be blackmailed by a young photographer who saw his last kill.Is it weird that Dane Cook's best performance is still pretty bad? He isn't anything special here and is really forgettable, but he is bearable. That is something I can't say for his comedic roles. Moore does nothing special either, her character has her own sub-plot that we don't ever really get much info on or really care about. Costner is the shining star here. I really enjoyed him in this role (one of which he says was suppose to be a trilogy, I wonder if there will be more). William Hurt is Marshall, who is the one encouraging Brooks to kill people. Oh yeah, only Brooks can see him too. This makes for interesting scenes in which he flat out speaks to him yet the other person in the car at the time doesn't see it. Of course this is all happening in his head, but it takes some getting use to.Mr. Brooks is a cool and intellectual character who almost gets to the level of Hannibal Lecter. Almost. The lengths he will go in order to protect his daughter are frightening.The film is well written and helmed by a competent director he doesn't get all flashy and knows how to tell the story, which is the most important thing.
Is there something about Mr. Brooks?
posted on 20 Aug 2009This is not a bad movie with a good idea that just doesn't start flowing; this is a good idea that's well developed but misses in managing every detail. If you're going to deal with something as complex as "Mr. Brooks'" main idea, you have to keep it complex all the way through. The film, directed by Bruce A. Evans and written by Raynold Gideon ("Stand by Me") and Evans, fights between complexity and simplicity during its whole ride. After we meet Mr. Brooks (Kevin Costner) and we see him kill, which involves taking pictures of the people he kills and burning them after standing naked and praying to God, there's no doubt that the story contains heavy issues. "You're an artist", says a voice looking at the photographs. This is Marshall, Mr. Brooks alter ego, played by William Hurt with an amount of mischief that's always on the verge of exaggeration but never reaches it. An alter ego… heavy issue. To reveal anything else about the plot would be unfair for the viewer, but it would also be unfair not to express my complaints. For example, is it possible that time always stops when someone's talking with their own conscience? The alter ego (let's call him Marshall) is one of the film's highest points, because he moves almost exactly like Mr. Brooks and seems to know everything that's going to happen. However, Marshall's discussions with Mr. Brooks are too many and we miss the experience of watching Mr. Brooks trying to give excuses because he talks to himself. Therefore the film chooses the easy way out and develops this mechanism: the one that automatically stops time whenever Marshall and Mr. Brooks are talking. Another case. Not every character is completely developed, but the screenplay is so faithful to the ones they are that we can predict their actions and make accurate guesses before the movie presents answers to us. In this aspect, I've got to give it to Gideon and Evans, because even when they settle for easy mechanisms, in every little moment full of tension where they could take the easy way out, they don't. But again they disappoint when they have opportunities to create a great spoken scene, and surprisingly they skip it; filling it with close ups and music (pay attention to the 'interrogatory' scene). We've realized they're good with words; why not taking advantage of that? As you may realize, "Mr. Brooks" is full of contradictions, and I'm not trying to be a conformist here but that could be a good thing because it would mean following the nature of its main character that is, indeed, a complete contradiction; and in this way Evans would be embracing his best achievement: the faithfulness towards his characters. If that's not enough; even being regular, "Mr. Brooks" surpasses recent similar thrillers like "Derailed" and it features Kevin Costner's best performance of this decade, after his pitch- perfect work in "The Upside of Anger". It's really hard to imagine someone else for the role, it's hard forget the character he creates after the movie is over and he plays it, unlike you may think, as a man with true evil inside; as a man who, on the outside, doesn't seem so normal after all if you take a good look. I didn't find a way to mention them because it would mean revealing plot details, but in the acting department comedian Dane Cook delivers an impressive performance and the young and beautiful Danielle Panabaker continues to show great promise; Demi Moore fiercely takes on her first major role since the sequel of "Charlie's Angels" and for true "CSI" fans (I'm not one but I know), you have Catherine.
Demi Moore spoils the movie
posted on 20 Aug 2009I enjoyed most of the film. I really did. It has every little bit of a great cinema a buff can enjoy: great script, which delicately develops a wonderful plot, good directing and camera, and great actors, for the most part. Except for the police woman played by Demi Moore. Her character is utterly pretentious, and hard to believe. I think her presence on the screen kinda ruptures the smooth way the story is going, in a bad way. Big mistake: she doesn't belong to the role and the role does not belong to her. I swear from now on I will never watch any other flick with her participation, for the most part because of her inferior performance in this movie, which has made her character lose all credibility and made us feel like we forcibly watch Striptease for the first time in a row. Other than her, the movie is great, the plot is deliciously sophisticated and the final scene will blow you away.
Ouch
posted on 18 Aug 2009This was one of the worst movies I have seen in a long time. I was seriously about to walk out halfway through. Incredibly predictable and horribly acted, this one should have been nixed before it ever got to theaters. Of course, when the star is also producing, it's gonna get made. I've never been a big Demi Moore fan, and she just confirmed my disgust with this one. I thought for a while that maybe it was just the lines that were written for her, but you have to read the script before you agree to do a movie, and she's in the movie, so... And don't even get me started on Dane Cook. How is he still getting work?! The one bright spot in the movie was Kevin Costner's acting. It was refreshing to see him playing something besides a post-apocalyptic baseball player. And of course William Hurt is always good. Makes me wonder why he would agree to do such a waste of film. But those two aren't enough to save this tripe. Save your money and rent a Talented Mr. Ripley flick instead.
Good thriller providing a fair amount of thrills
posted on 18 Aug 2009The story has some (not too many actually) twists and works, despite some contradictions. Hurt and Costner are a sensational team, their performances are outstanding and also make the story ultimately laughable. Their plausibility is pushed to the limit but the plot has also some (low) psychology as well as some high concepts. I might not give it high grades only because Demi Moore/Detective Atwood is quite uninspired and because overall it's not easy to decide whether it's more about a thriller, a comedy or a noir. I'd have expected a different finale, not a happy ending, but not even a nightmare followed by an awakening leaving things unchanged.
By all means, "Mr. Brookstner" is a THRILLER movie!
posted on 16 Aug 2009Sometimes when you watch a movie, you think you know what's going on, or you might predict the end, which eventually why you wouldn't be so thrilled while watching the movie, but with Mr. Brooks, that's not the case (although there are things that I could see before they happened).There's no doubt about it, Kevin Costner is a perfect choice for the movie, when you have an actor that in a way or another identifies with the character, you get the best out of your movie, and I believe that's what Bruce Evans got.After the first quarter of the movie, you'll feel the real thrill, you go into a certain course, you think that you're going somewhere you know, but suddenly the movie takes you to another course, which makes you more thrilled to know what will happen next, then the same thing happens again, until you go nuts and become impatient to know.After the end, I said to myself there must be a sequel, but my only hope - if that's to happen - is that it won't ruin Mr. Brooks.If you love thriller movies, or want to know what a thriller movie is like, take my word and watch it, 120 minutes won't be a waste.
Sooooooooo BORING!
posted on 13 Aug 2009Please, someone wake me when this is over! But no one did, I fell asleep and woke up sometime after the movie. I tried to re-watch it, but this movie was just way too BORING. Yes, I understand the director was taking an "intellectual" spin on the whole serial killer genre, but I think I've just reached my limit to the whole genre of serial killer movies. People that kill other people for sport, revenge, or because they are mentally unstable are just not all that interesting. There is no exception here. And when there was "action" it seemed so out of place with the main plot which was much slower and methodical.
No External or Loyal Readers are responding to Brooks' Dream..Why?
posted on 12 Aug 2009Given that most professional and others have summarized the movie's plot,with descriptions of the main characters, I'll restrain my summary to ask the following questions. Why has NO critic even mentioned the 'significant' dream at the end of the story in which Brooks' ,presented first as reality, enters his college aged daughter's bedroom, and plants a kiss on her face. With that ,she whirls around from under her sheets, holding shears in her hand,and proceeds to stab him in the neck, apparently leading to his death..Then, we see his wife roll over from her side of the bed, stir Brooks awake, and alludes to his 'bad dream'.. I am seeing a 'strong' correlation between this father- daughter conflicted relationship, Brooks' being pursued by Moore's character,Detective Atkins, and her revealing to the Thumbprint killer that 'she became a cop because her father rejected her as a daughter...having preferred her to be a him, following him into his multi million dollar company..YES, we learn that Brooks rejects his daughter's goal, to enter his multi million dollar company,even on the ground level,preferring that she return to college...the last place she wants to be. Meanwhile, Brooks adopts male protégé Smith, and is willing to train him to become another addictive serial killer, for the 'sexual thrill of it', when Smith demonstrates trust and faith in Brooks. YES, this all becomes very thick with ancient Greek Sophoclean tragic themes, but,then again , I didn't write this plot,develop these characters, and plant a significant dream at its conclusion...So, HELP!
Good, at best, mediocre at worst
posted on 08 Aug 2009There's nothing really bad about Mr. Brooks, but there's nothing really great about him, either. Say what you will about the main character, he does manage to be a likable persona on screen, whether he's stabbing, murdering, or dealing with his box company.The plot seems basic on the surface: Mr. Brooks, a psychotic businessman in Portland, Oregon is having trouble keeping his bad side under control. But, as the movie goes along, it adds a few twists and turns, such as a pregnant daughter, a suspicious investigator, and Mr. Brooks' own private fan.While the story is good enough, the film is lacking. Fairly dull cinematography, flat dialogue, struggling characters and a boring soundtrack all add up to severely soften the blow that the film should have had. This is not to say that Mr. Brooks is without its moments of genius, which include the scariest gunshot noises I've ever heard, a very inventive shootout, and a harsh stabbing scene married to a mellow song.Still, not even such nuggets of brilliance can save Mr. Brooks from it(him?)self, and the film falls flat; perhaps, in the hands of a more able director, things would have been different, but that is not the case.Overall, while missing the zing of similar and better films (see: American Psycho, Falling Down), Mr. Brooks is worth watching.7/10
Excellent
posted on 08 Aug 2009This film was very good. I have always liked Costner, and this is a change for him - as a serial killer. It is scary how calculated and yet twisted he is with his alter ego Marshall always at his side. The characters are well done, and suspense is great. Some scenes are pretty gruesome but that's what makes the film a cliff hanger to me. I generally do not like Demi Moore, but she does pretty well in this movie. There is a scene at the end in one of Costner's dreams that is pretty awesome, and unexpected. It's amazing what a cool and calm person Costner portrays when he is such a twisted and manic serial killer inside. I would definitely recommend seeing this film.
Brilliant Brilliant Film!!
posted on 08 Aug 2009This film is amazing i went into it thinking it would be a good time passer but was totally blown away - Costners performance as a troubled Psycho is excellent and it even makes you like him despite his crime - Moore is excellent and still amazingly gorgeous for a 45 year old. Dane Cook is also great in his role and makes you want Brooks to kill him at the end!!This film could do for Kevin Costner what Pulp Fiction did for John Travolta it really is his best performance that i can remember and let him showcase all his incredible skills as an actor. Now I'm just waiting for Tom Hanks to play a serial killer or a darker character!!
Loved the movie but let's consider another avenue of thought:
posted on 06 Aug 2009Loved the movie...rooting for a nice(?)serial killer like Kevin Costner was a deliciously dark pleasure...thought the idea of William Hurt playing Earl's darker side could be somewhat too cutesy but it worked well...anyhow, to the movie: Actually, I think it'a a metaphor for the Iraq war...Earl is really Congress, the daughter the new incoming freshman House of Representatives, Wm Hurt is really Cheney, the photographer really the American Public, and Demi Moore is really our conscience chasing Bin Laden (other serial killer)...played that way, the movie is brilliant in conception but then, that's my twisted mind working overtime...see it and make up your own mind!
Most under-appreciated film of the year
posted on 06 Aug 2009I didn't remember hearing anything about this film when it first came out other than Dane Cook was in a serious film. I think that's what happened with a lot of people and why the film only made a profit of $8 million. Its a twisted take on the serial killer genre that really raises the bar for me. The plot suffers a little from the fact that it was planned as a trilogy so many character arcs are left unfinished but that doesn't make much of a difference to the amazing script. The whole idea is very darkly dreaming dexter, you know the serial killer with a heart, killing is an addiction, etc and so forth. William Hurt's character steals the whole film for me. I think it was a good call to make him more of Mr. Brooks conscience than some kind of alter ego, Mr. Hyde deal. One of the main criticisms I heard of the plot was that it was hard to follow because of the way it branched off, which I don't consider a problem at all. Demi Moore's character doesn't have enough background given in the film to justify many of the character traits which is part of what keeps you watching...well Demi Moore. Mr. Brook's daughter possibly being a killer came out of left field, I mean I guessed the end of The Usual Suspects an hour into the film. The idea that she's only visiting to kill her father's pretty creepy. Could have done without the dream murder where she kills him with the scissors though. They should have just ended with Demi Moore walking past the broken cell phone. Mr. Brook's and Marshall have a complex relationship and are two of the best character I've seen in an original film this year. I hope that the DVD does better than the film did at the box office so that the writers can justify a sequel and finish the story.
Awesome movie!
posted on 05 Aug 2009This is not your typical killer/thriller movie it does keep you focused the whole time and has few twists which is good. Kevin Costner was awesome in his role but the movie didn't do too well in the box office because as always lack of promotion. Anyways defenetly getting this movie the day it comes out.
I hate Kevin Costne...wait, what?
posted on 05 Aug 2009I hate Kevin Costner. I hated his smug romance-figure status from the 90's; I hated his arrogance and his acting and his hair and all of his movies post-Dancing with Wolves. This made me doubtful about watching this movie, despite my general liking for clever murder in the movies. So it took em a good long while to get this movie, and then another long period of looking at it doubtfully every time I walked past my DVD's before I actually got bored enough to put it in.
And it was fantastic. There's only one real flaw, and that's the loose end of his daughter; it's not a bad plot device but they leave it hanging there like an Irish pennant on a fine suit. It begs for a sequel which will never occur.
The rest of the movie is wonderful. Of course it bears no resemblance to reality as far as serial killers go, but as a story it's a success, with engaging characters and excellent acting. Even from Kevin Costner. Especially the way he and William Hurt play off each other... those scenes are the best in the movie.
Makes serial killing (and killers) almost nice
posted on 04 Aug 2009GREAT movie. I had thought it looked interesting, but was genuinely surprised at how good it was. Thoroughly enjoyable, great twists, worth a year's worth of SVUs. Very well done, great cast -- Kevin Costner, William Hurt, Demi Moore, Marg Helgenberger, Lindsay Crouse, and even REIKO AYLESWORTH.Kevin Costner was excellent, succeeding in making a serial killer totally sympathetic (and making you root for him). William Hurt was brilliant, and great chemistry between him and Costner. Demi Moore gave a feisty, captivating, and very effective performance. Everyone else was very good, too.A must-see. The best twisted tale since Hitchcock's "Psycho". Totally a pleasure. I'm plotting my next crime as we speak. "I just wanted you to know."
AN INTERESTING TAKE ON THE SERIAL KILLER FILM.
posted on 29 Aug 2009With all of these different versions of slasher and serial killer films out there today, "Mr. Brooks" is an overall breath of fresh air. Rather than focusing on the victims of the killer, the film focuses on the killer himself. This gives Kevin Costner, an underrated actor in Hollywood, a chance to play a character that is different from any he has played before, and does so surprisingly well. While the crimes he commits are truly horrible and unforgivable, Costner's performance allows us to empathize a little bit with the character. At the same time, there are scenes where he really creeps the audience out. While his performance isn't perfect, it is overall powerful and chilling.
The supporting cast for the film is also worthwhile. Dane Cook's Mr. Smith is great, while Demi Moore turns in a surprisingly good performance as Detective Atwood, who is hell-bent on bringing Brooks, who is known only as the "Thumbprint Killer" by the cops, to justice, while also struggling with personal problems, and another killer bent on destroying her. Marg Helgenberger and Danielle Panabaker are good as well. But the real treat among the supporting performances is William Hurt as Marshall, Brooks' alter ego. He is at once chilling, but frighteningly likable at the same time.
The script itself, which focuses on the power of addiction, is a bit of a let-down in some places. There are some slow passages that drain the tension at times, and there are some truly unbelievable moments as well. But the fantastic performances, coupled by some truly shocking and surprising moments, make up for these slower passages. Overall, "Mr. Brooks" is a fascinating look at one man's addiction to murder, and how he tries to hide it from his loved ones while fighting the urges. Even if you don't typically watch this kind of film, it is still worthwhile to check it out.
Movie/DVD Grade: B+