User reviews

Okay, first off I went into this film totally raw. Hadn't heard a word about it until right before I went in (over dinner with friends, who had complimentary tickets - thanks A and D) I was told that it was Costner's comeback film. As Pulp fiction was for Travolta. And reading the comments here I think that for many it was. But no, no, no. It's not. Doesn't come close and when the dust settles and we are 2, 3, 5 years down the road - this film will be largely forgotten. Costner was good, but the unbelievable plot let him down. He was also surrounded by wooden performances from Moore and Cook.

In Cook's defense he was playing a character that had NO BASIS in reality. However, I can only defend him so far, as he did read the script. I'm sure if I read the book that I could be persuaded that such a person exists in the real world. And maybe they do. But if that is the case they certainly haven't pulled it off in this film. As for Moore? What has happened since the days of her holding her own in a movie with Nicholson? Long gone. Her pivotal moment in the film - swimming.

*******************Warning - Spoilers*********************************

In saying all that, there are some nice moments, even some great moments. Opening sequence in the car with Costner talking to his alter ego Hurt (who is great) was amazing. I actually thought that he was going to kill his wife then and there, the tension was so great. The first kill we see - brilliant. After that, wobble, wobble, all the way to a great scene at the end when Costner is unexpectedly stabbed in the throat by daughter, only for that great scene to become a dream. Way the go.

Overall - disappointing.

This movie represents a bit of a different type of role for Kevin Costner, who doesn't often get cast as a "bad guy" sort of character, and I have to say that while he was all right as Earl Brooks, I thought he at times came across as unconvincing. Earl is a double personality type. By day he's a successful businessman who's been named as Portland, Oregon's man of the year. At night he becomes a ruthless and cold-blooded serial killer, who kills for no particular reason except that he's addicted to killing. At one point he says he doesn't even enjoy killing - it's just an addiction. The addiction angle was stressed by having Brooks as a member of AA. "My name is Earl, and I'm an addict." Of course, he never tells the group what he's addicted to! The double personality is represented by Marshall - a character who exists only in Earl's head, and who constantly spurs him on to the next killing. William Hurt was quite good in this role.

Had the movie focused more clearly on the psychological aspect of Earl's problem, this might have been much stronger. As it was, I thought the plot got a bit muddled by introducing too many stories within the story. Yes, they do all interconnect eventually, but they kept taking the focus off Brooks. There was Det. Atwood's divorce which only served to bore me quite frankly, partly I suppose because Atwood was played by Demi Moore, who's not exactly at the top of my "A" list of actors. Then there's the serial killer out to get Atwood, and the creep who blackmails Earl and the problems faced by Earl's daughter. As I said, thankfully in the end it all got tied together, but I still would have liked the focus to be more squarely on Earl's addiction.

One thought that also occurred to me was that the movie seemed to belittle the whole idea of spirituality as an aid to overcoming addiction. Earl prays a lot, and attends AA - which has an overtly spiritual focus - but he still kills. So much for spirituality based addiction programs! The movie's not bad, but it needed a sharper focus in my opinion. 5/10

"Mr. Brooks" to me is clearly a movie that at first is interesting, and thrilling only to later just drag along and end up a disappointment. The story is okay as it has some star power with Kevin Costner, Demi Moore, and Marg Helgenberger. Earl Brooks(Costner) is a social big wheel and successful business person in Portland, Oregon who's married has a fine home and a daughter only their is another side to him that of a crazy and sick killer. This guy is full of ego and power that his fantasy portion of mind ego has to be acted out. Demi Moore is pretty good as the detective who tries to track him down and solve the murders and some sexy scenes are found in this film. Yet really overall the viewer is left guessing was all this a dream sequence? Was Mr. Brooks really slashed by his daughter? Or was the killing torch passed on to his daughter Jane(Danielle Panabaker)? The film to me just fell flat on drama and didn't really answer any questions certainly by the way it hangs it's viewer out in the end. So in my opinion only a so so and fair suspense thriller.

Kevin Costner plays Earl Brooks, a successful businessman in Portland. But Earl has a secret; he's addicted to killing people. He also has a secret partner, his alter ego, Marshall (William Hurt), a character who clues viewers in on Earl's present and past motivations and mental states. Being part of Earl's mind, Marshall cannot be seen by other characters; only viewers can see him, as he tags along with Earl everywhere Earl goes. Earl would like to give up his addiction, but Marshall eggs him on to more killings. Naturally, complications ensue.

Tracy Atwood (Demi Moore) is the cop who has long been on the trail of Mr. Brooks. With all her personal baggage, including a messy divorce as well as improbable wealth, and as a cop who investigates by means of "hunches", Atwood is not remotely believable. And she becomes distracting every time the plot moves her front and center.

She isn't the only distraction. The first half is fairly good, with its focus generally on Mr. Brooks. But into the second half, unnecessary characters and revved-up action take the focus off Mr. Brooks, and that reduces suspense. The script contains lots of plot contrivances and too many complications. And businessman Brooks does almost no business. All of which renders the story not very credible.

The film's false ending is nauseating. But the ending of the relationship between Mr. Brooks and another character is rather clever, if somewhat bloody.

Cinematography and editing are competent. Casting is okay. Acting is acceptable, if not spectacular.

I suppose the underlying theme here is addiction, in this case the ultimate addiction. The script is the main problem with its overly complex plot and assorted contrivances, an inclusion of too many secondary characters, and a plot that won't stay focused on Mr. Brooks. But the film is still worth a one-time watch, if for no other reason than to marvel at Earl's perversely amusing alter ego.

In "Mr. Brooks", Kevin Costner gets to indulge in his dark side. Playing against the type as a serial killer, Costner gives the role appropriate nuance and subtly. Paired with his alter-ego, Marshall (William Hurt), they create an entertaining team, as well as an intriguing set-up. Directed by Bruce Evans, this disappointment turns to heavy doses of camp which squander any potential this movie had. The Demi Moore storyline didn't work either, as it alternated between being tedious and laughable (I remember Demi Moore showing up in a Prodigy-inspired music video, complete with strobe effects and pulsating beats). "Mr. Brooks" is devoid of tension throughout majority of its length, and features more laughs than thrills. What began as an interesting and promising concept for a psychological thriller quickly turns to an over-plotted circus.

A missed opportunity muddled by sloppy subplots and ridiculous characters. The serial killer sub-genre has quite a following and are rarely given much to get excited about and this one is a real letdown.

The Star making an effort to play against type is modestly effective as a somewhat detached, hollow, successful family/business man but is bogged down by a lame listless script full of half interesting characters and dialog that is dismally derelict in intelligence or cutting edge humor.

The three supporting characters, four if you count the daughter, are all one dimensional, one note, uninteresting and robotic dolts. Their horrible acting on the most part completely disengages the audience from anything but a casual compliance and are accepted as plot procedure to move the "intrigue" from one disjointed flat and frequently confusing jumps that are unsatisfying and frustratingly dull and derivative.

It is a sophomoric construction of crimes and investigation that is quite frankly on less than even paperback level, and does not deliver any real sharp or clever conceits associated with the usual highly intelligent serial killer that plays games with the police and puzzles both the authorities and the audience.

I'm glad I had read the review over at www.bloody-disgusting.com before I started watching "Mr. Brooks". Judging by the IMDb rating of 7.8 I would have suspected nothing short of a little masterpiece. "Mr. Brooks" is far from that.

Mostly this feels like watching three episodes of an average crime TV series in a row. This is because there are three or four subplots in the story but no real main plot. Not knowing which aspect of the movie we should concentrate on, we can't really lose ourselves in the story and the whole thing never really gets exciting. Bruce A. Evens unimaginative direction doesn't help matters much The actors are all very good in their roles, but William Hurt's role as Kevin Costner's evil alter ego is totally unnecessary and an embarrassing excuse for the writers not being able to show Mr. Brooks' inner conflicts more skillfully. With the main character flawed like that, "Mr. Brooks" doesn't make for a very interesting thriller, let alone trilogy (which some claim it will be extended to). This is Sunday afternoon-material, an average movie on all accounts.

I do hate all that bargaining about what you'll do after you kill me. This story about the two halves of a serial killer's personality talking, laughing, killing, spatting ain't all that. As a matter of fact the two halves and their antics are the only good thing about this movie. The plot is nowhere fast. People make assumptions and have reactions that are neither logical nor dramatic. It's a basic B flat movie that gets a C.

Keving Costner and John Hurt were very good. Their ability to play off each other quite wonderful and mesmerizing. Marg Helgenberger was terrific but under utilized. Demi Moore was miscast but rose to the demands of the character. It would have been interesting to see Marg Helgenberger and Demi Moore swap roles. Danielle Panabaker was a fresh face and interesting but could have been eliminated since her character was never completed. The script while good for Costner and Hurt was weak, convoluted, and ultimately predictable - a blind pig could find a truffle. The blood and guts was added to carry the weak script and the ending should have been either feel good or bleak; not both. I would have liked to see if the acorn fell close to the tree.

If you really love Kevin Costner playing the good guy, you might want to skip this one. In Mr. Brooks, Costner plays a family man moonlighting as a psychopathic serial killer.

Surprisingly, goody goody Costner does a really convincing job as a bad guy! This is one tension-filled thriller, so if the premise is your cup of tea, you'll probably like it. There's one scene that sticks out in my memory as particularly creepy (and this is not spoiling anything): Dane Cook becomes awe-stricken with Costner, and he asks him to mentor him in the "art of the kill". I won't spell out the details for you, but they do take a little joyride together and murder someone. Cook's gleeful portrayal in that scene is bone-chilling. I've never liked his stand-up routines, but this movie pretty much sealed the deal; Dane Cook will forever frighten me.

So, if you like serial killer thrillers with some creepiness thrown in, rent this one and enjoy. Just don't watch it with your dad.

This truly isn't the typical psycho movie. It barely gives us details about the psycho's routine and about the life of the detectives who chase him. Only superficial characteristics of both are shown, such as Atwood's anger over her fight with her ex. and Mr. Brooks almost supernatural ability to predict what others are thinking. There are a lot of action though. Not killings by Mr. Brooks (when there is killing, it's just an impersonal, bad acted, short scene) but mostly car chases and gun firing by Det. Atwood. But that's not it. The action scenes are lame. In the kidnap scene for instance, laws of physics don't apply. I wouldn't watch this again.

It could have been one of the memorable thriller of all times. Every thing was present in the story to make it a top notch film but the script is so loose that you would be really wondering sometimes that what the actors like Kevin Costner & Demi Moore are doing in it .

As far as acting is concerned Kevin Costner & William Hurt was in full form. But the problem with the movie is their respective roles are not well written. There are too many side plots which was sometimes annoying to watch.

The story line is not only flat but also predictable for a suspense thriller. The direction was miserable and none of the protagonists apart from Mr. Earl Brooks & his inner self are believable.and as far as Demi Moore's role is concerned she was completely wasted here.

So if you are looking for some good crime thriller you would be disappointed.

I was interested to see this movie because of Kevin Costner.

The story is about a rich and famous business person Mr. Earl Brooks (Kevin Costner) who has Marshall (William Hurt) who plays his alter self – to be a serial killer. Detective Tracy Atwood (Demi Moore) is on the job to track down the killer. Earl finds another partner in his crime Mr.Smith (Dane Cook) who has photographic evidence against Earl. Both together plan another killing. Will Detective Tracy be able to stop the killing and will she be able to catch the killer forms the story. The main plot revolves around Earl but there are 3 sub-plots – one of Mr.Smith, another of Detective Tracy and third of Earl's daughter. For sake of those who would go to see the movie I would not reveal the ending here.

The most relevant sub-plot to the story is of Mr.Smith and his association with Earl.

The Director Bruce Evans is directing this movie after a gap of 15 years – in those years he was a screenplay writer. He must have really got inspired by this subject for him to jump right back into movie making. But to a large extend he does not succeed. There are sub-plots that are disassociated, but forced to be integral part of the main plot, and that is the problem. At the end of the movie there are so many unresolved threads hanging around that one feels totally dissatisfied. Surely there are usual twists and turns in the story that keep us guessing throughout the movie and the Director Evans seems to be a bit ahead of audiences mind most of the times. But he does not finish the race as we expect it to. May be that was his secret!!! Kevin Coaster is veteran and acts well. The best moments of the film are when he consults and talks with his psychotic alter self William Hurt. Demi Moore overacts most of the time.

There is not much to mention of any other technique of the movie – most stuff is usual, what we see now a days in most movies. I was a bit disappointed to find the movie in 35 mm.

My rating during the movie started at 6 went up to 6.5 and then 6.75, but plummeted back by the end of the movie to… (Stars 5.25 out of 10)

I couldn't really avoid going to see this - not that it is that rare for people to be my namesake. They should have called it 'Mr. Smith' or 'Mr. Wong' and they'd have had a much bigger audience just for that reason.

On the whole I enjoyed this film, it jogged along in a fairly predictable fashion, but it was fun going along with it all. The most remarkable thing about it was the actor Kevin Costner - I'd seen him in a few films before and wondered why anybody hired him because he was so utterly wooden. I truly didn't believe him capable of acting at all. I wouldn't say he was brilliant in this film either, but, amazingly, quite a few times he acted well enough that you didn't think 'oh, it's that prat Costner', which made the film a lot more enjoyable.

Also the actress Julia Roberts was less disturbing to look at. In the past I've always wondered if she had a hare-lip or some other problem with her mouth that distracted me from anything she said. With age her lips have thinned down and, though she looks a bit gaunt, she doesn't look abnormal, so that helped too. Her acting was fairly underwhelming, but this is the first time I've had a chance to watch her act.

The plot was OK, and I don't want to give anything away to anybody who might want to watch it, but I wasn't sure what the imaginary friend was supposed to be about. Was it supposed to be a schizophrenic delusion - which wouldn't fit well with anything else? Was it supposed to be some sort of spook - in which case, why didn't we have any explanation of why there should be a spook about? Was it, rather, supposed to be some sort of view of an old fashioned id/ego problem? This confused matters further as I wasn't clear if there was some sort of sub-plot in which psychopathy was supposed to be heritable - because it wasn't clear if it was supposed to be psychopathy or schizophrenia or something completely different.

I felt that whoever was responsible for plotting or giving expert advice was hired very cheaply.

I suppose it is possible to have your own private cemetery. I wonder why there isn't a bigger second hand market for them if they are so handy.

Did anybody notice the parking ticket that magically disappeared - I wouldn't mind getting one that did that!

If there ever was one this Is It.What a fictional serial killer fantasizes about.

A reasonable idea and worth a watch if you like Kostner but just felt wrong. Perhaps because of Demi Moore and the generally weak script.

Kostner never felt scary or genuinely believable as a killer. He's too nice. Better thrillers to watch.

Very little value in this movie and the ending sucks. Debbie is on her last leg of acting and it shows. My expectations were low so I got what I expected and thank goodness I didn't pay to see it.