User reviews

This is a murky story of politics, scandal, sex and deception. Sounds like it should have been a great film, but it wasn't. The basic plot was sound as we might expect from Orson Welles. But the way it was presented was too disjointed and abstruse. Without reading the original script, it is hard to tell if the responsibility for this lies with Welles, Oja Kodar (who did the adaptation) or George Hickenlooper, the director. I suspect it is the latter two.

The biggest problem I had was character development. By the end of the film one should reasonably expect the pieces to fit together. Good character development should give us insight into the characters' motivation. I found this lacking. The flashbacks didn't really help us to understand the motivations of the characters as much as they should have. It seems that the brothers voluntarily switched identities, since Billy was wearing a name tag that said "Romero" on his uniform when he left to go to war. So, Blake really didn't steal his brother's identity as it appeared. This wasn't made very clear.

There were lots of loose ends here. What motivated the limo driver to do what he did? Was it a need to be close to power, or some personal vendetta? Who knows?

From a directorial and cinematography point of view, the film was far too dark, that is, underexposed. I'm certain they were trying for that look, but it made the photography look as if it were shot on 30 year old film of poor quality. Also, the audio was very bad. It was very difficult understanding a lot of the dialogue.

William Hurt was miscast in this role. For certain films, his puling, self tortured style of delivery are appropriate to the character (Big Chill, Broadcast News, Children of a Lesser God). However, in this film his character required a more dynamic and confident portrayal, which he was unable to deliver.

Nigel Hawthorne gave the best performance as Kim Mennaker, the Senator who brought the boys up. His ability to portray the old political warhorse, seduced by the trappings of power was excellent.

Irene Jacob gave a good performance as Cela, the reporter with an obsession for the candidate and the truth behind him.

Overall, the whole was less than the sum of the parts. The presentation was ponderous and uneven and the direction mediocre at best. Worth a 5/10. If you are looking for political campaign stories, there are better choices (Primary Colors, The Candidate, with Robert Redford).

William Hurt plays Gubernatorial candidate William Blake, in the final days of his election campaign. Nigel Hawthorne is Kim Mennaker, a svengali figure from Blake's childhood, who lives in Cuba for some reason, and has evidence which can sink Blake's election chances. Actually, by halfway through the movie, half of Missouri seems to have this evidence, and why nobody actually uses it is about as bewildering as why Hurt wanders about all night with a monkey on his shoulder, which he had previously complained had urinated all over him - unless that's a pun on a monkey for his back.

As usual, William Hurt is boring (look, I'm sorry, but he just is). Nigel Hawthorne, on the other hand, is incapable of being less than good, though his character is really quite ridiculous.

An understated movie, which, I admit, has emotional subtleties and plot complexities which keep it above average, but which ultimately don't save it from being a bit soporific. I'll give it 6.0. Worth watching, but don't expect to be dazzled.

"The Big Brass Ring" tells of a Missouri gubernatorial candidate (Hurt) who find himself haunted by guilt, stalked by a beautiful reporter, and the possible target of an assassination plot. A blotch on "Singblade" director Hickenlooper's resume coming on the heels of a worthy little indie "Dogtown", this tale of redemption and regret loses it humanness in a circus of pompous dialogue, overwrought histrionics, vague noir ambiance, and disjointed editing. In spite of fine performances and filming, "The Big Brass Ring" can't manage one believable character much less one reason to care leaving only a sense of detached ambivalence and confusion. A very attractive but passable DVD watch for fans of the players only. (C)

The Big Brass Ring apparently never made it to a movie theater, and doesn't get anywhere else, either. The script, credited posthumously to Orson Welles, takes a number of twists and turns, but they are neither clever or clear. William Hurt portrays Missouri gubernatorial candidate Blake Pellarin, an independent running against another independent, which is unlikely enough. The fact that both candidates sport Southern accents even though it is set in Missouri is another peculiarity that is never explained. Miss it and you'll be better off.

Why do a film from an Orson Welles' script and then change it so much that it might as well be a regular bad film only it now looks worse, if that's possible, because it will be compared to Welles real films. Nothing about it feels like Welles so what was it they found in the material that made them excited about making a film of it. It doesn't hold a candle to any "real" Welles film on any level. William Hurt and the rest of the cast seem to have been encouraged to make as little of every scene as possible. Boring, listless, pointless film that should earn it's writer and director special places in hell for blowing the opportunity for a famously un-produced script to get made.

Many viewers have raised the issue about how true or false this film is to the original screenplay Orson Welles developed in 1982 with Oja Kodar. Because I wrote the many final drafts of the screenplay directed by George Hickenlooper, I can comment with authority. (Fear not -- I'll avoid spoilers.)

On the surface it is a very free adaptation. Underneath, it is highly faithful... Welles's original script was set in Spain and the Congo. We set ours along the Mississipi and in Cuba. Nevertheless, the characters have kept their original names and essential personalities through the many adaptations George and I devised (whether separately or together) between 1991 and '98.

Welles's tale centered on a Presidential hopeful who escapes his wealthy wife's yacht and pursues a clandestine adventure with his aged political mentor (a part Welles wrote for himself). This grand sage, a fallen Lucifer of American politics, was a candidate for President in his own prime -- until he was outed as a homosexual. In Welles's original, the two old friends engage in a psychological chess match involving a long-vanished woman they both know. In ours, they play an equally rough game over a long-lost brother.

(Welles himself had a troubled brother, Richard, who shadowed him throughout his life. THAT felt like a deeper wound to explore in Welles's wake than the ghost of a missing mistress.)

In both versions, the reunion between the hero and his old mentor sparks a dark merry go round of busy pursuits. An ambitious reporter modeled on Italy's Oriana Fallaci chases Blake and flirts with him, and tries to penetrate the secret of his soul, particularly his connection to the old man. The candidate's wife (jealous of the mentor) schemes and looses a murderous espionage agent on the old man's tail.

Details vary, sometimes wildly, between what Welles conceived and what we executed. My wish in retrospect is that we had played certain cards face up in terms of story secrets. (I won't say which ones here -- no spoilers!) More and more, I'm convinced that Hitchcock was right to keep as few secrets as possible from HIS audience. Less confusing AND more suspenseful!

Were we wrong to take liberties? No. A film must be a living thing. As Welles always advised young filmmakers, "Be Bold!" He is after all the guy who conflated five Shakespeare plays into a single new one centered on the character Falstaff -- CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT.

I'm giving this movie only a "7 out of 10" out of respect to everyone who adds posts to this board yet is NOT one of the filmmakers. (I'm too close to be objective: My heart says, "Give it a ten." Flaws and all, I'm very proud of it.)

I can offer one bit of impartial praise: William Hurt, Nigel Hawthorne, Miranda Richardson, Irene Jacob, Jeff Mayes and Ewan Stewart all give superb, multi layered performances. Welles could have asked for no better group to embody the characters he originated.

Some interesting backgrounds and roots. A deliciously sinister performance by Hawthorne, and an earnest one by Hurt. And professional Murder-She-Wrote-killer-and/or-victim Gregg Henry is perfectly cast as Hurt's brother.

Too bad that the writing and direction are so miserable, and the flashbacks interjected so randomly and pointlessly that I couldn't follow it, and didn't care to.

This may be a flawed masterpiece or perhaps a mediocre movie with a lot to recommend it. I enjoyed it and would like to see it again, partly to make sure the plot worked and partly to catch some nuances that I missed. And also because, as my esteemed colleague, flickjunkie, notes below, the audio is atrocious and my ears are not as sharp as they once were. But life is short and the entire opus of film is long...but maybe I can edit with the fast forward!

Okay, let's look at the evidence. Script by Orson Welles: somewhat amazing since he died in 1985. His last work. That alone may make this worth watching. William Hurt plays a southern pol, Blake Pellarin, running for governor of Missouri. Miranda Richardson plays his rich, alcoholic wife, and she is very good. Nigel Hawthorne is Kim Mennaker, Blake's one time mentor, a shadowy, behind the scenes political figure, a cynical character who is writing a 27,000-page memoir, which no doubt includes much about his love for the Pellarin boys. Irène Jacob plays Cela Brandini, a TV reporter fascinated with Blake. The one-time protégé of French-Polish director Krzysztof Kieslowski is not shown to advantage here. I'm not sure why, but there is little subtlety in the way she plays the part. To really appreciate what she can do, see her in La Double vie de Véronique (1991) or Trois Couleurs: Rouge (1994), both directed by Kieslowski. She is very beautiful and very winning.

William Hurt, contrary to some opinion, was excellent. His characteristic laid-back, almost languid style works strangely well for a southern pol. He is certainly different, but believable, although I don't think his style would have worked had his character been running for president, as in Welles's original script. (Incidentally, they really wanted Louisiana, not Missouri, for the locale.) Hurt's performance reminds me in some ways of his work in the outstanding but now somewhat neglected, Kiss of the Spider Woman (1985), for which he won an academy award.

The Big Brass Ring never had a theatrical release, and it is not hard to see why. The print is too dark and the story too murky and hard to follow. It appears that the brothers changed identities when young and never bothered to change back. Apparently Blake's brother and not Blake was the subject of the homosexual photo, but I'm not sure. To make this movie work for a mass audience, the true status of the boys then, and during the time of the action, must be made clear.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

This film's one source of interest is that it is based on a screenplay co-written by Orson Welles. Sadly it is quite simply a bad script - convoluted, pretentious, and unmoving. There is nothing here to dispel the fact that in his latter years Welles was a tragic figure who had long since lost the brilliance he had exhibited in the first half of his life. The script, bad acting, and low-budget conspire to give this film turkey status.

I never knew running for governor was so leisurely. Plenty of time for extra curricular activities...

The movie was interesting but confusing. I like a little mystery in my movies, but it was tough to keep all the balding white guys with multiple names straight -- especially in the flashbacks.

However, CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour (Irène Jacob) never looked so good.

I recently saw George Hickenlooper's "The Big Brass Ring" at the Toronto Int'l Film Festival, and was generally disappointed. I should have been wary of a film based on an unproduced Orson Welles script. William Hurt, Miranda Richardson and Nigel Hawthorne give solid performances, working with what they have. Irene Jacob is horribly miscast, however. The film is essentially a reworking of 'The Man in the Iron Mask' with references to two brothers with divided fates, and a floating night club called the "Louis Quatorze." There are hints of the late master's genious. However, the plot is ultimately muddled - perhaps in the adaptation, and the film is amateurishly directed. I wonder if this film will see the light of day before it inevitably ends up on cable tv.

I haven't seen such a textured, layered piece of work in a long time. Granted I had to watch it twice to get everything in it. But I've had to say that about "Touch of Evil" and "The Big Sleep" as well. This film is a masterpiece about American politics and character. I would recommend this movie to anyone as one of the best films of the year.

The screenplay should have been buried with Mr. Welles. I actually can't figure out which was worse, the story or the overacting by the international cast (I use the word loosely) of characters. It was like watching a bad High School play. I think the director was trying to do the movie as if Orson Welles was directing it. He failed. I wondered what had become of Mr. Hurt. Now I know. There must be a serious lack of scripts coming his way in order for him to take this part.

It might seem hard to imagine that a movie based on an Orson Welles script, starring William Hurt, Nigel Hawthorne, Natasha Richardson and Irene Jacob couldn't get a theatrical release. Get a snootful of ten or fifteen minutes of this flatliner and you'll understand why. The movie does make one contribution to Welles scholarship: it proves once and for all that in the case of the superhuman Welles, the words of the page were not the main event.

I happened on The Big Brass Ring on Showtime while channel surfing, knowing none of its background. I commented to my wife about the wonderful acting and stunning script. I was a little embarrassed to find out it was written by Orson Welles, but I would pay that price anytime to see such a wonderful film.

Does Welles have any other material hidden somewhere? One can only hope. In the meantime, if you haven't seen The Big Brass Ring, do see it: superb acting, terrific direction, a thought-provoking plot. TV isn't all drivel, after all.

I found this a moving and refreshingly upbeat "take" on the "flawed hero" theme. The pursuit of power has led all the characters to make ruthless and morally dubious choices yet they still strive for some sort of decency in their relationships and by the end of the film have just about achieved this. Yes it's a bit melodramatic but unrealistic? - the more I learn of American politics the more real it seems ( Clinton? Kennedy?) Don't be put of by those reviewers who claim the plot isn't clear. If you pay attention it is! Pellarin's body guard for example is a Vietnam veteran & turns against Blake when he discovers he draft-dodged. The performances are all excellent, particularly William Hurt's as Blake. For the first time I realised I may actually have something in common with these larger than life politicians and they may be as interested as I am in making the world a little better for us all.

This is a movie that someday will be remade so that it can be understood by those who haven't read the script. The premise of the movie is that a guy switches identity with his brother (I think) and proceeds to live their lives as one another.It is not convincing as to the reason why both would want to do so or how this would be pulled off for those who knew them. Overall most viewers should find this something to avoid.

Very well done feature film based on an unfilmed screenplay by the late Orson Welles. Although Hickenlooper has put a fair deal of original ideas into it, you can *feel* Welles' touch all over it. A politician running for the senate as an independent tries to stifle a dark shadow from his past. A must for Welles fans as well as for all those who enjoyed clever entertaining movies.

If you want to see the short that inspired the feature,take a look at a DVD called SHORT 2: Dreams. Apparently it's the only place where the short can be seen. There's also an exclusive interview with filmmaker George Hickenlooper. Fun name, no? And there's also alternate video tracks with clips from the feature. Check it out. I bought it at Amazon.com. Enjoy...

Good film. Very close to what could be called a tragedy as most of the characters can't escape their destiny. Not many loose ends, dots connect pretty well into an interesting picture. You can feel Orson Welles genius (or genie) underneath. The role suits Hurt and Hurt gives the film an interesting flavor, makes you think without making you tense, a tragedy with a subtle hint of hope, quite a rare blend. It could make politicians and Hollywood alike uneasy if they weren't so convinced they can control everything.

I liked this film, particularly at the beginning. The acting was great and it had interesting ideas and some great dialog.

Also, there were some very interesting plot twists, but unfortunately the plot didn't hold up overall. About halfway through, its credibility began to decline seriously. The William Hurt character began to act in a completely unbelievable way for someone who was running for governor. So you kind of had to forget about the story and focus on the mood, the emotions and relationships, which were enough to keep things interesting.

Orson, we hardly knew ye, thanks to this rendition...Well, we THINK we know what you were trying to say (put a diaper on pet monkeys?), but how will we ever be sure? How disappointing to have to sit through what could have been a great plot, ruined by overly dramatic accents (from French and Southern U.S. to Spanish) and the actors' mumbling/poor movie sound value in general. It made this film impossible to follow, let alone let viewers differentiate who was who and how to sort out each connection. That detail alone leaves a viewer playing with the remote's volume to try and catch all the insinuations and/or real plot points. These actors ALL need diction lessons, and the mix of the "cast"--bad choices--was annoying, annoying, ANNOYING. NO chemistry whatsoever, especially with that French reporter--UGH--she needs to find a new "career." What a waste of a powerful vehicle. And don't get me started on the incontinent monkey--WTF was THAT all about??