Mr. Brooks
Odd, odd, odd, “comeback city” for Kevin Costner and Demi Moore, and actually just a little mesmerising. As this movie began, I felt like I’d wind up writing one of those reviews that ultimately says, “just go and see it, because the less you know about it the better” ... but now, I’m thinking I could spend paragraphs talking about plot points etc, and it still wouldn’t approach anything resembling a spoiler.
If the movie has a theme, it’s obsession; around the title character secretly obsessed with killing are placed a kinda-sorta peeping tom obsessed with him, a cop too obsessed with catching him, someone else obsessed with her (I think: this part was a little unclear to me) and a daughter who may well have the same condition as him.
There are many, many, unsolved threads and unanswered questions here (I just read apparently Costner has said it’s the first in a trilogy of sorts); and though mostly the intrigue is fascinating enough to keep the mind from drifting, every so often the ambiguity gets a little annoying. I don’t think the movie needed to run to 2 hours, and it really could’ve done with at least one more shock twist following the far too early reveal of what Costner’s character does in his spare time. It reminded me at turns of Unfaithful (just as slow and tough to get to grips with, but at least there they held the shock till the very end) and also strangely of Bret Easton Ellis’ “Lunar Park” ... just the tone of it or something, I don’t know, that’s probably just me. If Roger Avary doesn’t get to direct the movie of that book, I think the director here, Bruce A. Evans, who I’m astonished to find has only directed once before this (15 years ago, Kuffs, of all things) would do a great job of juggling the layers of reality and psychosis Ellis juggled so well in text.
In the end, while I can’t deny how well-constructed this is, and how much more intelligent it is than most other recent movies aimed at audiences out of their teenage years (okay, feel free to slap me across the face with a copy of The Times), I really didn’t get a lot out of it than 2 hours I wouldn’t call wasted; and though a second viewing might prove more revealing, not to mention if there is a sequel or two, for now it remains only solid but forgettable.