YOU'VE SEEN THE TRAILER! YOU'VE SEEN THE MOVIE!: a review of "Brothers"

“BROTHERS” Directed by Jim Sheridan
** (two stars)

Ever since I fell hopelessly in love with the movies and having the communal experience of seeing films in a movie theater, one of my most favorite aspects about this pastime, aside from the popcorn, has always been the pleasure of seeing the coming attractions trailers. Becoming more informed and excited about what was coming soon to a theater near you only continued to ignite my growing and unending passions with the movies. I still feel the same to this very day except for one unique change that I am curious if you have noticed as well.

For me, I think I first noticed it around the time of the 2003 remake of “The Italian Job,” starring Mark Wahlberg and Edward Norton. For nearly two minutes we were subjected to a series of short clips detailing the film’s plot, like millions of other movies, but what seemed odd to me is that I had felt that I had seen the entire film in that short span of time. In that film’s trailer, we are quickly introduced to all of the key players. We are given the basic plot. But then, we are also given the MAJOR plot twist, the plan for revenge, all of the characters’ quirks and witticisms and all of the events of the film’s action packed climax. When I finally saw the completed film, I was decidedly under-whelmed as it was indeed a two-hour version of that two minute coming attractions trailer I had seen months earlier. Any and almost all entertainment value had effectively been deflated. I had a similar sensation as I watched “Brothers,” the latest film from Director Jim Sheridan, who has previously helmed “In The Name Of The Father” (1993) and the wonderful family drama, “In America” (2002), among others strong features. While my final feelings concerning “Brothers” were middling, I am wondering if it was either due to the completeness of the film’s sneak preview or the quality of the piece as a whole. Perhaps it was a bit of both as the film failed to leave a strong impression upon me despite the strengths of the material and some of the performances.

Now I must inform you up front that nearly all of the forthcoming plot details (including the MAJOR plot twist) are present in the film’s coming attractions trailer so my description should not be perceived as Spoiler laden. Set in 2007, “Brothers” stars Tobey Maguire as Captain Sam Cahill, a celebrated Marine, cherished husband to high school sweetheart Grace (Natalie Portman), devoted Father to two adorable little daughters (played by Bailee Madison and Taylor Geare, respectively) and honored son to his military Father, Hank Cahill (played by Sam Shepherd). Sam is the definitive “golden child” of this family, which also includes his screw-up brother Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal), who, at the start of the film, is being released from prison just as Sam is due to return to Afghanistan for yet another tour of duty.

As Grace maintains the home front, which includes bailing Tommy out of yet another drunken scrape, Sam’s helicopter is shot down and is presumed dead. As Grace falls into devastating mourning, Tommy begins to relinquish his designated role as the irresponsible brother, by becoming a helpful caretaker to Grace and his nieces. He redesigns and constructs her kitchen, takes the girls ice-skating and essentially becomes Grace’s rock and support. Then, one late evening, as Tommy and Grace sit by the fire, smoking pot, reminiscing about their teen years while listening to U2’s classic song “Bad,” they share a passionate, grief filled kiss as their collective loss (and simmering emotions for each other) overtakes them.

But, there is the MAJOR plot twist to deal with. Tommy and Grace are completely unaware that Sam has not been killed in action. He has actually been taken prisoner, endured captivity and torture and after his rescue, Sam returns home to his family shell shocked and haunted by his war experiences while also becoming consumed with jealous suspicions of what may have occurred between his wife and brother while he was thought to be dead.

“Brothers” is a mostly quiet, thoughtful, solemn affair that never sails into hyperbolic melodrama. It is a film more in the vein of the strong John Cusack passion project, “Grace Is Gone” (2007) as this film primarily deals with a military family in the throes of grief, coupled with the attempts to move forwards after tragedy strikes. What actually worked for me the most in this film was Sheridan’s attention to the power and pain behind delineated family roles and how those roles may be shaped and tremendously difficult to escape no matter how desperately you try. The dynamic between Sam and Tommy is etched almost in stone, at least in the eyes of their Father. This is expressed very well in an extremely tense dinner sequence after Tommy’s release from prison as well as the painful funeral sequence where Hank, devastated by the loss of Sam, questions who would ever stand up for Tommy and honor his memory when he leaves this world. Viewing Tommy’s gradual emergence into a responsible adult as he becomes the Cahill family caregiver, suggests that Sam’s apparent death has freed him from his role as the family’s requisite failure. Yet once Sam returns, Tommy quickly slinks back into his established role, which is also placed firmly and deeply in Sam’s shadow. It is here where the material shone the brightest, as its perceptive qualities gave this film a truthfulness that ceased it from ever becoming maudlin.

But, overall, the film didn’t necessarily move me terribly much. I have to say that I actually found the sequences featuring Sam Cahill in Afghanistan distracting. Upon Sam’s return home, we can see that he has been psychologically damaged by his wartime experiences and I am still not certain if the cumulative effect of the movie needed those sequences. Perhaps it was an issue with the film’s structure because as I kept growing more comfortable and interested in life at home, we were whisked back to Afghanistan and for me, the film lost any sense of pacing and rhythm. As I watched those scenes, I was reminded vividly of Director Michael Cimino’s peerless 1978 film, “The Deer Hunter,” a Vietnam epic that split each of its three hours into clearly defined sections of before, during and after the war. That film’s excruciating second hour, with its almost unwatchable and torturous Russian Roulette sections, neatly set up the film’s third hour where we are all plunged into the endless aftershocks in the lives of soldiers Robert DeNiro, John Savage and Christopher Walken. Certainly, it would be extremely unfair to suggest that “Brothers” needed to go as far as ”The Deer Hunter.” What I am suggesting is that the way the midsection of “Brothers” was structured, ultimately hindered any dramatic tension. Imagine if we never saw what had happened to Sam. Imagine if we never knew that he was alive in the first place. But, then, to imagine something like that, we have to take our attention all the way back to the film’s coming attractions trailer.

As I have previously stated, all of the plot points I have described thus far (sans the actual prisoner of war sequences) are all presented in the trailer. Seeing those moments and possessing that knowledge, especially about events that occur in the film’s final third, before even entering into the film as a whole, sadly robbed “Brothers” of any mounting tension, drama and overall power. You knew everything that was to occur and had to ultimately spend two hours just getting there. Because of that reaction, I wondered strongly if I would have liked this film even more if I had not seen the trailer and my intuition informs me that I probably would have. As it stands, all I was left with were the performances, which were generally strong throughout. Jake Gyllenhaal played to his strengths with his scruffy, wounded puppy dog demeanor while Tobey Maguire, usually so reticent and reserved, tapped into an unprecedented amount of rage, which gave the film several unpredictable sparks of energy and catharsis. Natalie Portman is the least impressive of the three leads as she is unfortunately only required to do nothing more than look sad and be pretty while doing so. This is certainly a feat she need not even be awake to accomplish fully, but it did sadly waste her considerable talents overall.

I think what has happened here is that “Brothers” is another casualty in our increasingly unimaginative times in current Hollywood cinema. The idea of any studio relinquishing any potential creative and monetary risks in favor of the pursuit of box office gold, has lessened the artistic value of the films and has insulted the movie going public's intelligence to boot. When did it happen and mainly, who are the people responsible for the perception that audiences need to know every single thing about a film before one even has the chance to see it? Have we lost our ability or better yet, the desire to be surprised? The box office has always been the bottom line, of course. Yet, it seemed there was a time when art and commerce could co-exist, to a degree. In the case of “Brothers,” the powers that be took a noble, dramatic effort and through giving it all away in the span of a two minute trailer, sold itself and its potential audience so disappointingly short.