MovieChat Forums > The Brothers Bloom (2009) Discussion > Too self-consciously 'cute';I Just Didn'...

Too self-consciously 'cute';I Just Didn't Care about any of them

posted 14 years ago by film_ophile
32 replies | jump to latest

I am a fan of all three of the leads in this film, and the director's previous work, Brick, is on my favs list for greatness. But this film just did NOT work for me. I've tried to figure out why, and I guess it comes down to a director unwisely toying with too many genres. I'm thinking that maybe if he had just left out all the cute- Wes Anderson-like quirkiness, and focussed on a serious story,maybe I would have cared about the trio. I like quirky when it's a director's authentic,consistent personal style.In Anderson's exposition of his quirky-to-the-max sensibilities, The Royal Tennenbaums, I DID care about the characters.
But not in The Bros. Bloom. Did anyone else sense that the actors were not comfortable w/ this screenplay? Adrien Brody was the best at keeping a persona; in his case, the most consistent persona of the three, one who was serious and melancholy and grounded in reality. But Ruffalo and Weisz just seemed to feel conflicted about whether they were supposedd to play kooky or serious.
Bummer. I was hoping this would be better than Ebert's final summary.

So many good films about cons: The Grifters, Confidence, Snatch, Sneakers, House of Games, Spanish Prisoner,9 Queens, etc. etc. etc.; don't waste your time w/ this one.

Ad hoc, Ad loc, Quid pro queeee,
So little time and so much to see

[–] gratwicker 14 years ago

You are absolutely on point. I hated every moment of this film. I couldn;t understand how the actors took it on. The writer/director Rian Johnson (Rian's cute, isn't it?) should never be allowed near a typewriter or a set again. I want my money back.

[–] Kylesa 14 years ago

I disagree on nearly every front. Just because an actor doesn't throw him or herself at the picture doesn't mean they aren't comfortable with the screenplay. The characters were reserved, but quirky in the same way. The whole point of the movie was not to make them look like amateurs, they were supposed to sell their cons--not make small talk and impress you with their dedication to the screenplay.

[–] brunodutch 14 years ago

Unbearably twee. The kind of tripe that seems 'deep' when you're 17. This kind of cutesy-poo nonsense seems to be epidemic in American 'indy' films. The whole premise and execution reeked of film school.

[–] sunbatt50 14 years ago

I have to agree.

The con within a con genre, the too, too cutesy theme and the convoluted dialogue combined with the actors not seeming to really be into it made the whole exercise almost unbearable.

The editing was weak as well, and a good 30 minutes could have been easily chopped. It might have helped - it couldn't have hurt.

[–] Johnny_Wrong 10 years ago

Unbearably twee. The kind of tripe that seems 'deep' when you're 17. This kind of cutesy-poo nonsense seems to be epidemic in American 'indy' films. The whole premise and execution reeked of film school.

What a load of pretentious twaddle.

[–] TheBeardedWonder 9 years ago

Great way to describe this movie, spot on...

'Get yourself a real dog. Any dog under 50 lbs is a cat and cats are pointless' - Ron Swanson

[–] freshboy3001 14 years ago

The film was a waste of time.

Never let others dictate your opinion on a film: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=13340299

[–] whoooooopi 14 years ago

Brothers Bloom wasn't meant to be an edgy heist film.

It's a throwback to films such as "The Sting" : cute, convoluted to a fault, but rooted in a sympathetic anti-hero. The Sting included setups that bordered on comedic farce (the bathroom chase), juxtaposed with moments of intense loneliness (gazing at an window; "Solace" playing in the background).

Truly enjoyed Brother's Bloom. Perhaps not as successful as "The Sting" in its goals, but a welcome change from a lot of what Hollywood puts out these days.

[–] DD-931 14 years ago

Congratulations. You've reached a level of cynicism guaranteed to make you miss out on pleasures like this film. Since your anger at how crappy this makes your lives has to generated against anyone but yourselves, you will dismiss what I'm saying just like you've dismissed this film.

And that's okay with me. It helps remind me why I shouldn't be like you.

[–] whoooooopi 14 years ago

erm... DD - 931 ... did you actually read my post?

I really enjoyed the film.

::blink::

[–] sixpetite 14 years ago

I love The Sting but I just didn't like BB, .

I agree with the OP -- seemed like a mix of too many genres. I still like the director, I'll give him another chance for sure.

[–] jonjosejamora 14 years ago

I avoided this film for quite sometime since i was never really a Brody/Ruffalo fan. I am however a very big Rachel W. fan. After finally seeing it last night on HBO, i'd say it was an okay film. (Not bad but not exemplary as well)

I guess a lot of you could not avoid the Wes anderson similarities. Yes i can surely see the similarities with the obscure characters and seemingly surreal plot and relationships.

I don't think it's fair to judge this by using the other referred films as a criteria, since first of all, the W. Anderson films do have mixed criticisms as well (i liked them, but i am sure a lot of persons stand with a different view)

Basically, you either loved this film or not. It is apparent though that from the direction of the film, it was not meant to be a serious one much less a straight up comedy. So for those of you expecting some serious award winning acting, i think you are wasting your time. BB was more of a mixed bafg that was to be enjoyed casually. (w/c reminds me of Big Fish)Don't try to take it too seriously, or you'll just flat out hate it.

By the way, Rachel Weisz was great, but i am biased all the way for her. Never really respected Ruffalo's acting but the casual feel of the film turned out okay for him. Was never a fan of Brody as well, and i concur with a lot of the posters here who thought that the Bloom part did not fit him. As for the W. Anderson references, i loved Bang Bangs character as kind of like an icing on the cake; she does make this movie more memorable.

It's an average movie, but it's not a bad one by any measure.

[–] aer71367-313-155069 11 years ago

I loved the film. Bought the DVD. Watch it often.

[–] dcw-12 14 years ago

The Sting worked because it had big time stars with big willpower to drag the audience along.

This film had possibly the weakest male lead in the history of film. You just want to punch Brody in the gut to toughen him up a little.

[–] Gheelnory 14 years ago

dcw-12 wrote: "The Sting worked because it had big time stars with big willpower to drag the audience along."

Maybe. The stars certainly didn't hurt. But to my mind "The Sting" worked and is still enjoyed because it was written with care.

I don't think the same can be said of "The Brothers Bloom." There are many things in the movie that I enjoyed (chiefly Rachel Weisz's performance). But the screenplay's many implausibilities keep this one from being on my personal favorites list.

[–] thelostboy2007 13 years ago

OP is spot on. This was a film written by douchebags for douchebags.

[–] Johnny_Wrong 10 years ago

OP is spot on. This was a film written by douchebags for douchebags.

So are you saying you loved it then? ;)

[–] louloutrixiebell 14 years ago

I totally agree - I like all the leads, was encouraged by the good reviews BUT just could not get into this movie. Despite the odd good scene (Peneleope's hobbies; Penelope writhiing+thunderstorm+train workings; Penelope in the ventilation shaft... hmmm, all involving Weisz I've just noticed), I feel this film was just trying too hard, but missing the mark.

After Bloom tells Penelope that they are con-men and Stephen gets 'shot', I was hoping the film would end there, but it continued to painfully drag this story out EVEN FURTHER.

I found Bloom frustrating actually - if he really wanted to give up and do his own thing, what was really stopping him? Did his brother need to die for this to happen? Rubbish. And I found Bloom/Adrian SO MISERABLE. Argh, feeling wound up just thinking about it...

[–] Ambrosia-I 14 years ago

I actually enjoyed the film quite a lot, but I thought Adrian Brody was miscast. I couldn't buy into him being the younger brother. He looks older than Stephen and he just didn't look innocent and vulnerable enough, which I think was why Bloom's character was supposed to be so dependent on his older brother. There's just something too knowing about Adrian Brody and, for me, that undermined the premise of the film.

I enjoyed the cons-within-cons idea, though none of the twists were entirely unexpected. I thought Mark Ruffalo and Rachel Weisz were wonderful in their roles, as was the Japanese girl whose name I can't recall. But I agree, loulou, the film did drag on too long.

[–] pmathewson 14 years ago

"Everybody gets what they want."

If you want to be cynical and analytical about a form of entertainment and you hated it then you got what you wanted.

If you suspended your disbelief, relaxed, and enjoyed it for what it was then you got what you wanted. Personally, I'm more fulfilled that I "found beauty in every moment".

[–] Ambrosia-I 14 years ago

In my view, people become analytical about a film when, for whatever reason, they have not been completely swept up by its story and characters. That is not the same thing as being cynical, which is a rather insulting term. Have you liked every film you've ever seen? If not, does that make you a cynic or does it just make you entitled to an opinion?

[–] mleprkr 11 years ago

"I thought Adrian Brody was miscast. I couldn't buy into him being the younger brother. He looks older than Stephen"

funny you say that, because the movie's website says: "Originally Ruffalo was considered for the role Bloom, but after Rian Johnson met with him and saw his personality he realized that Ruffalo was a better match for the role of Stephen."

so i guess they got switched after casting.

[–] ionian 14 years ago

I don't know - I just saw it as a film that didn't take itself too seriously. Almost like a comic book turned into a film. I didn't think the director was trying to write any deep kind of a movie. Just a fun movie with some funny characters who have a good time with some quirky moments - like when Bang Bang appears in Adrien Brody's kitchen.

I watched it not expecting anything - it didn't really deliver anything other then a fun, lighthearted story. The movie version of a Watermelon Jolly Rancher.

I thought it was a fun watch. There's a lot worse movies to blow 2 hours on. This one wasn't bad...

Frank

"...For every man who has ever lived, in this universe, there shines a star."
-Arthur C. Clarke

[–] morganpwnstehnoobz 13 years ago

I dont really agree with anything you said about the movie, I liked every part of it myself, but of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Maybe your over analyzing it a bit? When I first watched it I did not know any of the actors or the director, had never even heard of the movie, just picked it up at blockbuster in the bargain bin and it is now my favourite movie. I thought the subtle humour in it was amazing as were all the characters. I think if you watch this film expecting anything your already not going to like it because I think it has its own thing going on, I have watched tons of movies, including some you listed in your comment and the brothers bloom is one of the only ones I can watch over and over again.

[–] ElCarnal 13 years ago

Yeah you pretty much nailed it. The only thing I liked about this movie was the change of perspective towards the end, when the older brother becomes during the time of one scene the hero of the movie - instead of an obligatory support character meant to highlight the path and fate of his younger brother (who was rather unlikable anyway).

[–] WarmSemenCannon 13 years ago

Why do people defend this film? I was wondering if anyone defending this film had anything relevant to say but all I hear is people saying "It's meant to be bad!" and for me that's not good enough.

[–] Dantès 13 years ago

all I hear is people saying "It's meant to be bad!"

What? You obviously haven't even read this thread then.

Saying "it's meant to be bad" is incredibly stupid and that doesn't count as a defence.

I think the reason a lot of people didn't like it is because they were expecting a heist/con movie. That's what I thought too and I didn't love it when I first saw it.

But I rewatched it recently and realized that, even though the cons seem central, it's really about the characters, particularly Bloom's desire to have an "unwritten life."