Erin’s Review of Crazy Heart

Right after watching this film, if you had asked me, I think I would’ve said that I didn’t know if I liked it very much. I loved the soundtrack, but something about the plot rubbed me the wrong way. I watched with a friend, and we discussed the movie at length, and I came up with this conclusion: I did not believe in the relationship between Bad and Jean.

That being said, I did find the rest of the movie enjoyable. I loved that right off the bat, they established the character of Bad Blake as not only a washed-up star, but also one of those who cares more about his guitar and his truck than he does about his women (exhibit A: Bad leaves a sleeping groupie in bed at a hotel after a night of “passion,” but does his guitar the courtesy of shining it up. Exhibit B: After his accident, all he cares about is where the guitars are). This is why I was so surprised by the change in his ways when he met Jean. He seemed to be instantly bonded to her, and cared enough to spend the night, wake up with her, and offer to make her (and her son) biscuits. I was also surprised by how quickly she took to him. I keep using the word “surprised” because I failed to see that magical sort of moment where the relationship turns from physical to emotional. Out of nowhere, they were saying “I love you” and calling to say they missed each other. How did he so quickly turn from looking for sleazy girls after gigs to a devoted man in love?

From the first frame, I found myself getting sucked into caring about Bad. I was stressed out about his bad habits- past, present, and potential future. I decided that maybe he took to Jean and her son so quickly because he was trying to make amends for his mistakes in the past. I was concerned about his drinking, especially after the accident, and wondered, if he really cared about these people, why he wouldn’t make the necessary changes to his life. I ultimately found it quite sad that once he realized that alcohol was the root of all of his troubles and got sober, he seemed to also think that quitting would fix all the troubles. I felt so sorry for him throughout most of the film. Except when he lost the child because he was too drunk to take care of him. At that point, I was just angry.

I enjoyed the ending. The fact that Jean was engaged when they re-met was interesting to me. At first I was upset that she had moved on so quickly; sixteen months isn’t very long to get over Bad, meet a new man, fall in love and get engaged. When I looked closer, however, I saw that it might be a testament to who she was—always looking for a strong man, falling quickly in love, and holding on tight to anything good. I think he was better off without her in the end, but it was nice that he got to see her and let her know how deeply she had affected him.

Adam's Thoughts on Crazy Heart

The film Crazy Heart is a collection of the blood, sweat, and tears of a old country music star, Bad Blake. Throughout his trials and tribulations he has seen many women, but none strike him as much as Jean, the small-town reporter from Enid, Oklahoma. Blake builds his relationship with her and her son throughout the movie, trying to rebuild the relationship he never had with his real son through the reporter's son, Buddy. Life had taken its toll on Blake. He was down in out doing two-bit tours in rural areas so that he had enough money to keep his alcohol addiction going. In the end, he finds that the love of a family is more addicting than anything that can be served in a glass bottle.

I concur with the Jeff Bridges love in this film. What superb acting. I became so engrossed in his performance that I couldn't take my eyes of the screen. Was this man going to drink himself to death? Was life so bad for him that he just couldn't go on? It's been a while since I've been so into a film that I forgot it was a film. Maggie Gyllenhaal played the small-town reporter who had been through a rough marriage and fell in love with Blake. She, as well, did a great job. It was refreshing to see her in a role in which she played a rural girl.

I found myself on the verge of tears throughout the film simply because I really could see something like this happening... quite often, actually. "Legends" come and go in the music industry. What does a 57-year-old country star turn to when the light at the end of the tunnel seems to be dimmer than ever before? The many vices that claim the lives of people. The relationship Bad formed with Buddy was magical. Mainly through not seeing his son grow up, Bad turned his life around so he wouldn't miss the same opportunity twice.

The title of the movie can stand alone on it's own. This older man who falls in love with a reporter in her early thirties couldn't possibly have a chance. Through his "crazy heart" he fell in love yet again and was able to build a fatherly relationship with a young boy -- something he regretted he didn't do all of his life. Bad lived his life in "bad" fashion, making for an appropriate name. Bad found a friend and son in Buddy, again an appropriately named character. The name "Jean" means "God is gracious." Perhaps there was some grace being shown upon Bad in that he found Jean.

Thanks for the film selection, Hooks. A tear on the verge of my eye was something I hadn't experienced from a film in quite a while. A powerful film about the fallen life of a music legend going from having everything to nothing is certainly something that you can become emotional about.

Dspang's Thoughts on Crazy Heart.

Well..............This wasn't a bad movie but, I just wasn't feeling it. First off with the good. This is an actor movie and the actors were in full bloom. Jeff Bridges was f^)&(%$ awesome as Bad Blake. I bought it all the way. Why isn't Mister Bridges doing more? I was convinced that he was Bad Blake. From the moment he stepped out of "Bessy" and proclaimed his joy to be at the bowling alley, to the times he was falling down drunk. He played up the personality very well. Well played Mister Bridges. Next we have Miss Gyllenhaal. She was positively radiant in her role as Jean. Her shared chemistry with Bad Blake was very genuine. Both of them seem to be weighed down significantly by their emotional demons. I also like that fact that not matter how she looks she looks like a "real" person as opposed to a person dipped in plastic and botox. Also, we have Robert Duvall as his bartender buddy Wayne. The friendship between these two was pretty good and totally unforced. The scene that the two share on the fishing boat was priceless in my opinion. I wanted that scene to last longer. I kind of wish Colin Farell had a little bit more to work with here. The few scenes he had were good and they did a great job of showing the contrast between his style of country versus Blake's but I wanted to know what Blake's beef was with him. It seemed like he was an afterthought.

Now with the not so good. This wasn't a horrible movie in my eyes. It seemed a little derivative of a another movie I've seen. Specifically "Walk the Line." Now I know that one was about Johnny Cash, but the problem I have is that the whole "alcoholic(or drug addicted) worn down life, meet amazing woman, redemption or not" angle seems a little played out. "Leaving Los Vegas" had a similar arc except Nick Cage spiralled. So did Tender Mercies with Robert Duvall himself. So this isn't the first time this has been done.

My other quibble with this movie is the ending. We had a perfect ending with Bad Blake sitting on his porch singing one of his songs that mirror his life and trials. Fade to black. Then they have to flash forward. That didn't seem too necessary at all. It would have been perfect had they just ended with him on his porch. He had a sense of peace and closure on his face that showed we didn't really need to know what happened after.

In conclusion, I thought it was a good movie in the context of the type of movie that it is. Just not great or anything different from the type of movies that preceded it. I'm also glad that Bridges got an award for his role because he owned it. The little Lebowski reference in the beginning was nice too. Intentional or not.

Brian B's Thoughts on Crazy Heart

It sure was nice to get The Dude back into a bowling alley, even if Bad didn't want it that way. Jeff Bridges fully embodied Bad Blake, a down on his luck and finally feeling his bad decisions former country music star. After a little bit of research I found that Bridges actually performed the songs in the movie, which certainly helped things feel authentic. Surprisingly so did Colin Farrell who I didn't really buy as a performer, though I did as an admirer of Bad.

Outside of Bridges, the film is good but not great. The performances all around were solid and, as mentioned, Bridges really stood out. The pacing was tricky. It took a long time to get where it was heading and then wrapped up pretty quickly. I'm not adverse to a slow movie but I was surprised to see that I was just over an hour into a film that felt about twice that long. This was a bit of an odd feeling for a film that I was enjoying. One of my favorite parts of the film was the last scene, with a better Bad reuniting with Jane long enough to wish each other well and understand that they had their moment and it had passed. All with a beautiful background.

The Jane/Bad relationship, while likable, didn't make a ton of sense. Bad was perhaps a little charming, Jane was perhaps looking for something to excite her, but why? We all know girls like the bad boys, even after being burned by them in the past, but excuse the feminist in me to say that Hollywood has had enough of these weak willed women. Fortunately Jane showed some back bone in the end, but it would be nice to see something new.

It was interesting to see T Bone Burnett in the credits as a producer and certainly helps explain why Bad's life on the road felt so real. Overall, a good movie with a standout performance. Thanks for pushing it up my Netflix queue!

Brian Hammons' thoughts on Crazy Heart

Another good selection -- thank you Hooks. Every year I try to see the bulk of stuff nominated for Academy Awards so this was already on my radar. That being said, I can understand why it, as a film, was not nominated in the Best Motion Picture of the Year category yet Jeff Bridges was nominated (and won) Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role.

I don't mean that in any way as a knock on the film, but as a whole, it doesn't break new ground or forge in any unpredictable ways that'd make it timeless. We've seen better films about struggling alcoholics and artists before, the messiness of blossoming love when young children are involved, etc. The film really felt comfortable in the traditional three act set-up, not challenging conventions, etc. The first act was the introduction of Bad Blake, the second act the burgeoning love interest, and the third and final act the cleaning up of Blake, becoming sober so he could keep together what pieces of his life remained. Familiar shots and devices were used, overheads of his old truck driving down empty desert streets to show the changing of locations, etc.

The film's real power comes from Jeff Bridges' strong performance as Bad Blake. Blake reminded me of my own dad in some ways, a musician, and also someone who's never taken particularly good care of their health. In so far as comparing the strength and quality of Bridges' work, I'd bring up Mickey Rourke and his brilliant performance as Randy in Darren Aronofsky's The Wrestler (2008). Both actors were playing characters that were different enough from their real personas that you realized they had to get deep into the character to bring them to life. Both characters also demanded my attention whenever they were on the screen, living and breathing larger than life forces that commanded our curiosity by just being.

I think the scenes that will resonate with me longest took place during Blake's losing of Jane's son Buddy while he stopped for a drink. It was heart-wrenching, Blake unable to restrain his desire for alcohol, while it was clear he did love the boy and enjoy spending time with him, and how badly the situation turned. Anger that may develop in the viewer towards Blake is likely softened as the movie progresses; I felt hostility towards him and his decisions several times, but his conscious effort to get sober and clean up his life wipes much of that away as you realize he's turned a corner and is now trying the best he can. It was a good watch, wouldn't make my top twenty list for '09, but solid and definitely worth seeing for Jeff Bridges' excellent performance.

Jess' thoughts

They say every great character significantly changes over the course of their story from one extreme to the next for the better and they learn a lesson, if so, Bad Blake could fit into that category. Jeff Bridges' amalgamation of Jeffery "dude" Lebowski and Randy "the Ram" rolled into a down and out country singer struggling to make ends meet financially as well as physically. This movie drew a lot of comparisons to "The Wrestler" for me, two men who once were at the top of their particular art, only to have hung on for the rest of their lives because it was the only thing they were great at, long past their prime. Both men still have much to offer, but the person who knows it the least might be each of them. Both men have estranged children they have since neglected and both seem to be knocking on death's door. Both also find a younger woman, mothers to be precise, that they have found some new life in, reinvigorated their spirits so to speak. Where both films succeed is these aren't men who go out and do something the world remembers, they both fight their own internal battles and plod along at the same thing they've bee doing for as long as they can remember and that is complete honesty in their characters.

The opening scene is played masterfully by Bridges, and his first scene is him stepping out of a dingy old pickup with his pants unbuckled, while he mutters, "fucking bowling alley," in reference to his latest gig. One can't help but think of the sport Bridges will probably long be associated with due to his character "The Dude."

The movie is a slow process of uncovering all the messes Blake has let his life become and they start unraveling after he meets a reporter interviewing him named Jean. Besides being a country music icon, it's hard for me to draw any other discernable quality this young lady would find appealing in Blake, as that's one of the things stumping me as the film rolls on. Not only is she attracted to him and sleeps with him but she opens up her house and her young fatherless son to his affections, only to, in the end, find her original assumptions of Bad being an irresponsible surrogate father true, which makes you wonder why she bothered in the first place. But they do have some great moments together such as their original interview segments and Bad's desperate plea for a 2nd chance.

Overall the film was very enjoyable as Jeff Bridges lived and breathed in Bad Blake's skin and let us into his mind and heart. He's constantly being praised as a terrific songwriter which we get to hear a good number of his tunes but I would have liked a little more emphasis on how such a broken man comes up with that stuff: guess his explanation of "they are my life" will suffice, to the question of where does he come up with his lyrics. A great choice, Hooks.

Film #2: Crazy Heart (2009)

Crazy Heart is a 2009 American musical-drama film, written and directed by Scott Cooper and based on the 1987 novel of the same name by Thomas Cobb. Jeff Bridges plays Bad Blake, a down-and-out country music singer-songwriter who tries to turn his life around after beginning a relationship with a young journalist named Jean, portrayed by Maggie Gyllenhaal. Supporting roles are played by Colin Farrell, Robert Duvall, Beth Grant and child actor Jack Nation.

The Other Brian's Thoughts on The Brothers Bloom

Thank you Brian for setting up this whole movie shebang and thank you Jared for introducing me to this film! The opening sequence of the film might be one of the best openings that I've ever seen. Told like a fable, complete with metered verse and rhyme, it beautifully introduced us to the characters and the roles they would still be playing 25 years later. I was so giddy about the clever opening that the movie could have been mediocre and I would probably still have loved it.

It was an intriguing con movie because it was so easy to see where the film was headed, even though the details took their typical convoluted way of playing out. Fortunately, I love misunderstood eccentrics, love stories, family bonds and silliness enough that I just sat back and enjoyed the ride. In fact, maybe I enjoyed it more that way. We all knew Bloom would finally fall for his mark and isn't that what Stephen really wanted all along?

I loved the family story of the film. Stephen was a con man. Bloom didn't really have a choice. His big brother was all he had. But the relationship went both ways. Stephen could sense Bloom's dissatisfaction and therefore continually upped the game in an effort to impress his brother. Stephen recognizes Bloom's desire for love (working a love interest for Bloom into his cons) but doesn't want to let him go straight and be left alone. We're then all left to dance the tightrope between the desire to not let down the ones we love while finding our own way in the world. It is this essential conflict that makes the cons so interesting. They reveal themselves while hiding behind their deception. It's a beautiful conflict.

The two movies that came to mind when I was watching this movie were Benny and Joon and Punch Drunk Love. It was a bit period piece meets modern slap stick and a bit eccentric love story. I love me a good eccentric love story. Thinking back I fear that the opening sequence is a little bit of those cheesy black and white pictures of little kids in oversized clothes holding hands that I see at the mall, but honestly I don't care. It was just that dern cute.

I think the filmed could have trimmed a bit of time off its final cut, perhaps by taking one or two gotchas out of the way but I suppose it's fun to think you know the answer only to not know the answer only to know it again. The first act and last act were definitely the strongest but it was still a great ride to get between the two.

Also, Bang Bang was awesome. Real awesome.

Dave's Thoughts on The Brothers Bloom

Right off the bat I have to say "my bad" for not doing this sooner. Finals week, studying, etc. took up a great deal of time after the discussion period started, but that's all over with now. On to the flick...

Beginning with the first scene, Rian Johnson gives me something to like about The Brothers Bloom. While I didn't know it at the time, that first con the brothers pull of as children is a great piece of foreshadowing. As Stephen and Bloom move towards their "last" con 25 years later, Bloom displays some of the same characteristics as he did with the children in the movie's first con. Even while he's casing Penelope, Bloom seems drawn to her, but is torn between completing the con and living the life he's always wanted. In that one act, Johnson does a good job of setting up Bloom's internal conflict for the rest of the movie.

Throughout the movie, I thought that the limited knowledge presented to the audience was a good method of reinforcing the fact that the movie is in fact about con men. As the movie went on, I found myself having to guess whether characters were being truthful or not. Some things were easy to call like Stephen's fake gunshot wound at the beach house, but the slight tension throughout the movie had me even doubting Penelope's sincerity. There were moments where she seemed almost a bit too naive about the outside world to be completely real. Such character ambiguity is something I really liked about this film.

On the subject of characters, I realize that I may be in the minority, but I really liked Rinko Kikuchi's portrayal of Bang Bang. As Darrel stated, Kikuchi channeled silent film stars of past with a near-slapstick performance that was subtle enough to not fall into the category of "wacky," but great for providing a bit of providing a bit of comic relief.

The last act of the film is what really took me from thinking it was okay to truly like The Brothers Bloom. In all the chaos that was yet another "last" con, I found myself about as confused as Bloom was. Bang Bang's sudden exit, the botched Russian mob set up, and Stephen's last act in the theater all confused in a provocative way. It may be that the whole film went over my head, but I still don't know if Bang Bang had anything to do with the car bomb, whether the Russians attacking the car was legit, or even if Stephen is alive. I suppose that's the whole point of the film: to con everyone and leave them guessing. But what of Stephen's ideal con where it's so good that everyone gets what they want? Would he go to such lengths to achieve it that he would end his life to pull it off? Yes, Bloom got his wish, but it was at no small cost. There are many questions left to be answered, and I quite like the open ended ending (pardon the redundancy). When speaking with Adam about the lack of concrete answers, he mentioned that perhaps it was done with the intention of having a sequel. As much as I want those questions answered, I don't think a sequel is necessary. Part of the charm of The Brothers Bloom is the fact that in a movie about con men, you're never really all too sure about what everyone's motives are. Having all the loose ends tied up would kind of kill this sense of mystery, but if another movie was made, I'd be happy to watch it based on how well The Brothers Bloom was made.

Good flick all around. I'm glad I watched it and would like to thank Jared for the pick. In my attempt to check out movies beyond my current scope, this certainly was a good first movie.

Jessie's thoughts

Okay i screened The Brothers Bloom last night with Nicole and i'd say 5 times out of 10, we normally don't laugh at any given film, whether comedic in nature or not, especially Nicole since I am prone to finding more defined "stupid" content hilarious, but we both were genuinely giggling it up watching this one. It had a very quirky air about it, from the handrawn notes appearing over the screen as the plot played out, to the 60's piano driven score to some of the just random human moments such as a woman having an orgasm to a thunderstorm.

But onto the stuff I liked and didn't; first, both female characters were so different and unique from most anything else around you couldn't help but like them; the obscenely rich woman who has nothing left to spend money on because she was never given a life to go along with it, so she fills her time making cameras out of watermelons and juggling chainsaws; she has genuine moments where you just have to love that she's living for the first time and isn't looking down on herself because of it, such as doodling her fantasies out on paper like a boy's name she likes or finding out using your tongue while kissing intensifies the act. Bang Bang was great, she was like a silent era comedian where she didn't need to talk and you didn't want her to after you saw what she could w/o it. Even her first words, "fuck me" were totally unecessary, i'd much rather have more moments where she gives the "call me" sign to someone she's just met after basically leaving behind her only family for many years. Both actresses should be commended on leaping fully into these roles. Both male leads had their ups and downs as well, Brody's brooding often became repetitive but his strange appearance kind of put him right in the aesthetic of the whole film. I"m a Mark Ruffalo fan, he usually acts with a vunerability in his voice that really makes you connect with him, but I'm not convinced he was perfect for this, I totally felt like this was a great actor doing everything the script told him to, but not really making it his own.

Besides small quibbles on plot confusion (what exactly happened to make them blow up the wrong bomb? & the whole Diamond Dog subplot that didn't interest me in the least and even made for some strange viewing as Brody completely treated him like a molesting father) the movie did what cinema was designed to do: entertain us and it did it in a rather eccentric way that did tickle my fancy. One other thing I liked, and it's more a technical camera trick, is there would be kind of close shots of people but something else would be happening in the background, like when the Brothers Bloom (which was that their last name? so Brody was Bloom Bloom?) were sitting on a bench and a camel sauntered in behind them, and later when Brody was stopped on a path when they were in Mexico and all the lawn torches lit up behind him like he had just had an idea, just little touches I enjoyed.

Thanks Jared, good pick, don't know if I ever would have found it on my own.

Jared's Thoughts on Brothers Bloom...

I felt like this was a great way to start out the movie club for a couple of reasons. First, I absolutely adore this film, and thanks to Brian's initiative, we're all sharing films with each other that we enjoy. Secondly, and this actually just occurred to me, is that this movie is one that, I think, beautifully encompasses the language of film, and wants to share itself with you.

I'm a big fan of Rian Johnson's short, practically perfect filmography. I think Brick was a remarkable piece of cinema that played more like a film made by someone with years of experience under their belt. The fact that it's a feature film debut is almost baffling. When I heard the premise - a story about the long con, and about two unusually adept con men - one that he was again writing and directing, I knew that it was something that I would enjoy. So here's a segmented breakdown of what I enjoyed about the film:

*I should note that I am writing this without having read any of the posts already up. I'd like to get my thoughts out before delving in to everyone elses. So if it's redundant, that's why!*

Story: To me, this plays out like a story that was written as a story, then adapted for film. There's a playfulness and an overt, but restrained silliness that underlies the film throughout it's entirety that I find infectious. There are certainly nods to particular eras of films - the vibe I tend to get is a modernized version of the 50's, in both speech, clothing, and general attitude - but because of the way the story is told, there's a odd sense of timelessness that I really enjoy. Ulitmately, for me the story is about freedom, and what it means to you and what others might want it to mean for you. That Stephen loves his brother is without question, and that Bloom and Penelope belong together is also a no-brainer. But these are... fractured individuals, as all good characters usually are. It's important to keep in mind, even after seeing the film, that this is for all intents and purposes, a fantasy. This is someone's fevered re-telling of the lives of the Brothers Bloom...

Characters: So that obviously leads me to the characters.

I think Rachel Weisz was an absolute revelation. I've always more or less enjoyed her. I can't think of anything off hand that she's done that I actively dislike. But this film really brought out a new side of her that I would really like to see more of. She seems to have great comic timing and sensibilities, and they work so, so well here.

Adrien Brody and Mark Ruffalo played incredibly well off of each other. You could very easily buy that there was a lot of history and a certain amount of brotherly love and rivalry on more than just a surface level between them, and that's what's most crucial here.

Rinko Kikuchi is the secret weapon of the film, though. As if there was any need to ramp up or play up the physical comedy aspect of the film, they used her character Bang Bang to do so. Her mannerisms and gestures are so subtle, yet so memorable.

Style and Substance: As I said before, I view this as a fantasy film. I really don't get the whole "post-modern" schtick, as I don't think it actually means anything. At least, not to me. So viewed as a fantasy film, I think it works incredibly well. If I was to compare this to anything else that I have watched and enjoyed for it's quirkiness in style, language, and structure, it would have to be The Princess Bride. Again, with that film there's a willingness to be playful, but a restraint that keeps it from teetering over the edge in to camp. That's an incredibly difficult balance to achieve, and helps me to appreciate the film even more.

This is a film that seems to reward on second and third viewings. I watched it for the second time to prepare for our discussions and found myself enjoying it just as much, if not more. The same parts still struck me as genuinely funny - some subtle, others not so much - and I was able to find new aspects of the film that played a little differently in light of knowing how the story eventually plays.

Soem favorite scenes and moments: The segment when Bloom is "hit" by Penelope, and Stephen and Bang Bang give him scores for it. That scene was such an odd bit, but worked really well and makes me laugh, especially when Stephen shrugs and Bang Bang changes her score as Penelope crashes down the side of the hill.

I especially enjoy Stephens reaction to Penelope during the thunderstorm on the train, as well as Penelope's reaction to their kissing later on. They both play "awkward" so well.

All in all, I really enjoy this film. To think that this is only the second film of a new writer/director has me giddy. To know that we have a genuinely talented person that we can grow up with and watch as he develops is fairly spectacular. I hope that everyone got something out of it, maybe had a little fun watching it, and maybe even liked it.

Brian Hammons' thoughts on The Brothers Bloom

So, the DVD just got dropped off in my mailbox -- now to watch the opening before getting my day started:

I dig the background jazz in the open. The montage of the city where there's just one of everything reminded me of absurdist work like Herman Melville's Bartleby, the Scrivener, stuff like one cat with one leg, etc. I loved Max Records in Where the Wild Things Are (2009) so was happy to see him here as young Stephen. The line "playground bourgeoisies" was classic. Interesting, in the original "con in 15 steps" they perpetrated as kids that Bloom was the love-struck one while Stephen was the mastermind, a la the the main con the movie is based upon. The first time I saw this I loved the line "Let 'em melt" as it's like, here's these popsicles all the other, more well-off kids had, and now that the bros. finally got some it's as though they're above it and just toss 'em aside as they leave that part of their lives behind.

The rest of the movie -- thoughts at 2AM:

The bit with Penelope showing all of her eccentric hobbies borders on the completely ridiculous when she's like, on stilts, juggling chainsaws. At that point I almost wanted to abort and scream "corned beef!" but I persevered. I liked the exchange where Bloom tells her "This isn't an adventure story", and she responds, "What are you talking about? Well, it totally is!" That was sort of her crossing the precipice into a new life. I loved the sequence with them holding hands with the beautiful piano melody around 53 min. in.

Another neat musical moment was Bloom stealing the apple and running set to the song "Miles to Nowhere" which could be looked at as symbolic as Bloom is often futilely running in circles unable to get away. I dug Penelope catching onto the con as Stephen lay "dying" in Bloom's arms, such an awkward moment but played so well. One of the film's most telling, poetic lines was Bloom's "I love her. I don't want to turn her into me." It definitely hit me harder on my second viewing.

When I originally saw this film and wrote (briefly) about it I said that at times it was perhaps too clever for its own good. And, while certain scenes (like the aforementioned chainsaw act) are outrageous and take me slightly out of the narrative, overall its uniqueness is its charm. Rachel Weisz, who I hadn't cared much for until I fell for her in the criminally overlooked The Fountain (2006) is really good as the lonely heiress full of naiveté and aloofness (yet rather perceptible -- "I think you're constipated, in your fucking soul..."). Ruffalo and Brody are, of course, fantastic. I urge my fellow movie club members (and anybody else reading) to seek out Ruffalo in You Can Count on Me (2000).

Probably the best line on the page and in delivery is Stephen's "You were the only audience I ever needed." It says so much about their relationship. Bloom's "I love you" doesn't feel like monologue, it's short and not expertly timed, like a real brother uttering the powerful words that aren't always easily expressed. I thought it was moderately good on my first watch, then found it rather brilliant on my second.

Darrel on The Brothers Bloom

What really struck me most about this movie was it's old-fashioned sensibilities. I mean paying close attention to everything this movie looks like it could have been shot in the 30's. Had I not been paying attention to the yellow Lamborghini in it I would have thought this took place in the thirties.

I really liked the fact that this movie seems to pay homage to a lot of old school slapstick movies from the early era's. I mean look at the bowler hats and suits that both of them where. It was like stepping into a Chaplin flick. Also, through a few of Bang Bang's mannerisms I got echoes of Harpo Marx. I loved all of the little added funny happenings in the movie. Penelope constantly crashing the Lambo, Bang Bang using too much explosive on that museum. The whole group reminded me of the Marx brothers. It also seems to pay a big homage to old school crime and chase movies from these eras too. This movie has a little something for everyone.

I feel that along side this Adrien Brody is at the top of his game here. For me he's always just been "there." Always a good actor but it seemed like something was holding him back. I really enjoyed his performance in "The Jacket." This is another great one to add to his book.

Rachel Weisz(spelling?), was great in the first half of the movie as the quirky and eccentric Penelope. I loved her oddness in collecting hobbies. The only problem I had with her though is that near the end she seemed to have lost some quirk and became a little more typical.

Ruffalo was the man when it came to sleazy. I believed that he could sell ice to an Eskimo. His sense of charisma was amazing. He really did write his cons with an epic and tragic sense. Had he applied this flare for the dramatic to maybe, I don't know, literature he could have been a great writer. I actually shed a few tears in the end. He did it all for his brother, so that his brother could finally find his power over his life. The final image with him on the stage at the rundown theater was particularly striking.

That leads me to another point. The imagery in this film was amazing. Lots of nice camera tricks and transitions. None of them seemed forced at all. None of them seemed "MTV" in excess to me. They were smooth and just noticeable enough.

I think that the Brothers in their own right were tragic characters. Stephen, in the sense that he was overly tenacious with his cons. You knew that he was way too good at what he did and he knew it. So much so that you just knew that at some point this all would become real for him. Then you have Bloom. The middle man of the these cons who was doomed to never have anything be a sure bet for him. So that makes this movie straddle the genre fence. I would effectively call it a dramedy. It has just enough of each to qualify for that tag.

Great pick. I think I might buy it.

Adam's Thoughts on The Brothers Bloom

The Brothers Bloom cemented in my mind the myriad of reasons that Adrian Brody is one of my favorite modern-day actors. There were so many tremendous scenes in this movie that I can’t list them all, but one that I will list is the ending. In a struggle to realize his brother’s wish to get out of the life of conning after Bloom falls in love with Penelope, Bloom’s older brother, Stephen, finally realizes how much that living an “unwritten life” means to Bloom. So much so that he would feign a legit, life-ending injury so that Bloom could spend his days with Penelope. Two subtleties, which were even symbolic, in a sense that resonated with me happened around 13 minutes into the film when Bloom was sitting on the roof of a building. Stephen slams through the door so much so that it sounds like a gunshot. As the door closes graffiti comes into view of a man with a gun to his head. Also, this scene happened immediately after Bloom pointed his fingers at his head in the shape of a gun while on his way to the roof. The second subtlety happened around the half-hour mark when Penelope’s reflection is caught in a mirror. Looking closely you can see that the mirror is heart-shaped; symbolizing the love that Bloom was helplessly falling into with the wealthy, epileptic photographer. Overall, a thoroughly enjoyable film with a great call-back at the end (real blood turns brown) that resonated with me. Thank you, Jared, for a great choice in film.