MovieChat Forums > The Brothers Bloom (2009) Discussion > Lazy writing = stupid movie

Lazy writing = stupid movie

posted 14 years ago by Rupert__Pupkin
12 replies | jump to latest

Let's just all be honest for a moment, and admit that the writing in this was awful. This movie is classic "style over substance." The clothing was ultra-hipster, the guys wore nifty hats, and the gang rode trains all over Europe, which is of course super cool. Give me a break.

It was obvious at numerous points that the writer (Rian) painted himself into a corner and just made up something ridiculous to move the plot forward.

First of all, Rachel Weisz's character was somehow released from the police...WITH the book no less. The seemingly important detail of how she was released was never explained. This twist of events lead the audience to believe that her character was a super con artist as well, but as it turns out she was just a bumbling rich airhead. So we're left with the question: How did she get way with the book? No explanation. But then, how could it have been explained? It would/could never happen.

Second, the movie never explained why Steve hired Diamond Dog for the final con. Earlier in the movie, he attacked Diamond Dog with a broken beer bottle because the mere sight of him threw him into an uncontrolable rage. A few scenes later, Steve hires Diamond Dog to help him with a job - a guy he admitted he couldn't trust. Huh?

There were also little things that were never explained. For example, Weisz's character blowing up her mansion. Neato explosion, but why? And what's the explanation behind the Diamond Dog character? Apparently he trained the brothers to con, but what was the falling out about? Why was Diamond Dog pursuing the brothers? What was the bad blood all about?

And were we supposed to feel for Bloom? He appeared to have a conscious when it came to conning, yet he continued to con throughout the movie. Brody does a good job playing the likeable male lead, but his character was written so poorly that it was difficult to like him. He supposedly loved the Rachel Weisz character, but this didn't stop him from trying to dupe her and ditch her. This makes him more despicable than Steve. Steve never pretended to care. He was what he was with no apologies. But Bloom, he pretended to be this caring guy who wanted out of the biz and refused to con women. But then he goes back into the biz and cons a woman that he supposedly loves. When Weisz's character tried to get back with him, I just rolled my eyes.

I could go on, but I think I made my point. Good cast; big budget; stupid script.

[–] lnschlandt 14 years ago

I agree with some of your points such as there being no explanation to how she got out of the museum with the book, but this is what I got in answer to the rest of them.

Steven hired the Diamond Dog because he knew it would end in his death. Essentially the con of the whole movie was Steven killing himself in one final hoorah. I agree that the movie didn't do very well in explaining it, but I think the Diamond Dog raped or molested Bloom when he was little, causing the falling out. In the scene where Diamond Dog talks to Bloom, he mentions "other boys fighting when he went for the belt" and then he put his hand on Bloom's knee which could be taken in a sexual way. The whole idea of Steven's perfect con was everybody getting exactly what they want. Bloom got his girl, Penelope got freedom, the Diamond Dog go revenge, and Steven got to go out with a bang, which is what he wanted too.

Penelope blowing up her mansion was just her way of releasing her past and all the bad memories she had of that house. It fits with her character, because she wasn't a planner, so she probably just decided to do it and did it.

In the first part of the con, Steven is falling in love with her, not actually in love with her yet, and by the time he realizes he is they are in Mexico. The reason he goes on with the con is because all of the other cons they had done ended with a clean finish, with them never seeing the mark again. He goes along with the con because he knows it will protect her from being involved in the life he leads. His main goal was to get Penelope as far away from him as possible, even if it meant giving up someone he loved.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 14 years ago

I like the movie a lot more through your eyes. It appears that you either have more insight than me, or an extremely vivid imagination. Either way, I thoroughly enjoyed your explanations. If your explanations are correct, then I think it was a good idea for a movie. However, the points could have been much more clear. Thanks again!

[–] mrs_m_norris 14 years ago

I don't have an explanation for the book either. But as for the Diamond Dog question, I agree that Steven chose him because he knew it would end in his death. When Bloom and Penelope were talking in the car earlier, Bloom told Penelope that going out with a bang was Steven's ultimate wish.

I think she blew up the mansion because she was "finished" with it. Referring back to Bang Bang's tattoo which basically said, when you're done with something, blow it up. So Penelope blew up her mansion and went to Montenegro to find Bloom.

Lastly about Bloom's behaviors... throughout the movie I was looking at the sibling relationship and the dynamics between older brother and younger brother. How many siblings have you known where the older sibling is basically the boss and pretty much runs everything? A lot! I just believe that they were fulfilling their roles that came about due to birth order.

Just my two cents.

If you can't find a friend, make one.
-May (2002)

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Shuya_Nobu 13 years ago

I think you're missing the point of the genre. It was meant to be cheeky that she got away and they never explain it. Indeed the point of questioning her directly is addressed with Stephen remarking that the question itself is obtuse. I love how anyone these days with stylishly dressed characters is labeled 'hipsterish'. And since when is riding the train around Europe a 'hipster' thing to do? The brothers dressed the way they did because it was classical, refined, and it was low profile. As well, it added to the visual style of the film. When did that become a bad thing?

Stephen's whole motivation was to pull off the perfect con and to make a con so believable it became real. As detailed the perfect con was one in which everyone got what they wanted, well that meant that Diamond Dog needed to be pulled in to get his revenge. Stephen's death allowed the con to become real and allowed DD to get his revenge thus making it the perfect con (since Penelope ended up with Bloom and Bloom finally stood up and no longer needed his brother).

It doesn't matter what the falling out was about, all we need to know is that something happened and it caused Bloom to be scared of Diamond Dog. Sorry it's not spoon-fed to you, but not all movies will reveal what they hint at. Especially when it's not THAT important to the story, since that's not the POINT of the story.

Penelope blowing up her house is two fold, on the one hand it cheats the audience. A good con flick is one where no character can be trusted. So during the final con, we're wondering if indeed she's been in on it and blew up her house to make a clean exit the way Bang-Bang did. A possible in-story reasoning could possibly be that she wanted to pick up explosives as a hobby and it went terribly awry.

And Bloom and Stephen were brothers. He fell for Penelope during the course of the con, but didn't want to disappoint his brother who protected him...except for the time when he didn't which is the incident with Diamond Dog. But it's established that Bloom almost relied on Stephen for protection. When the choice had to be made, he thought he couldn't be with Penelope and therefor continued the con and used it to push her away. However, she came back because she loved him, she WANTED him (which is her reward at the end of the perfect con). Him pushing her away was his misguided attempt to save her. He says as much. Women stay with men who abuse them in real life. Her falling for, and going back to a man who really only wanted to keep her away from his deceitful life AFTER falling for her isn't that strange.

Girl, it ain't my fault you lack the flavor.

[–] Not_An_Exit 13 years ago

All of your problems with the script are addressed in the script. This is not lazy writing, this is lazy comprehension. Watch the movie again, and pay attention to what the characters say. Some things are ambiguous, but that is done on purpose. Not everything needs to be spelled out. It's also a fairly whimsical story, clearly, so everything should be viewed through a storybook lens.

"Have at me you ham-handed bastard!"

[–] dogout43 13 years ago

Can someone talk a bit more about why they think that Steven wanted Diamond Dog to backstab them and kill him? I understand that he wanted to "go out with a bang," but he was still a young man, and I don't understand why his death was necessary. Even if he wanted things to turn out the way they did, he could have easily faked the ransom part of the con. I know he wants "the perfect con" to be real, but again, he's a young man, and I don't know that I buy that he'd be willing to go that far for the perfect con.

[–] Dungbeatle 13 years ago

I think that while the glory of it all was definitely a part of it, mostly he did it for Bloom.

While Stephen was clearly an *beep* you could see that he cared about Bloom (in his own slightly messed up way). They really hammer in that point when he says to Bloom "you were all the audience I ever needed." The beginning of the film is kind of patchy to me, but I do remember that as children the brothers were bounced from foster home to foster home. Obviously, this kind of instability affected them (feelings of worthlessness, rejection, and alienation). I think for two small boys who felt like the world was out of their reach, they had to find a way to make something of themselves.

For Stephen, he quickly found that his way was stories. Notice that it started out with a plan to HELP Bloom. I think in the beginning, it was just his way of helping out his utterly self-conscious, insecure brother (and who can blame him, being family-less and poor?). Over time, his obsession with stories overcame him like an obsession, and it became his only way of relating with the world. It kind of took him over, and in the end I think he remembers that all that matters to him is his little brother.

[–] sunflowerlaw 13 years ago

Uh, people DO ride trains all over Europe. The hipster *beep* was taking the steamboat. But I expect it was part of the con of romanticizing a recluse, on top of being hipster *beep*

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Manton29 8 years ago

Along with the terrible script, peopled with nonsensical inconsistent characters (even the actors appeared to think so), we have awkward cinematography that fails to adequately allow access to the characters and action, and disgraceful editing that compounds the bad cinematography. A total mess, and a waste of a decent cast and apparently quite a lot of money.

Manton

If to stand pat means to resist evil then, yes, neighbour, we wish to stand pat.

[–] franzkabuki 8 years ago

Riding trains all over Europe actually is pretty cool.

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan