Mr. Brooks | 
| Director: Bruce A. Evans
Actors: Kevin Costner, Demi Moore, Dane Cook, William Hurt, Marg Helgenberger
Studio: MGM (Video & DVD)
Category: DVD
List Price: $14.98
Buy Used: $1.12
You Save: $13.86 (93%)
New (65) Used (122) Collectible (6) from $1.12
Rating:  169 reviews
Sales Rank: 6706
Format: Ac-3, Color, Dolby, Dubbed, Dvd, Widescreen, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), Spanish (Dubbed)
Rating: R (Restricted)
Region: 1
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
Number Of Discs: 1
Running Time: 121 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.4
Dimensions (in): 7.3 x 4.2 x 1.1
MPN: MGMDM108993D
ISBN: 6301971345
UPC: 027616089939
EAN: 9786301971348
ASIN: 6301971345
Theatrical Release Date: June 1, 2007
Release Date: October 23, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Movie DVD
Amazon.com
Kevin Costner as a warped serial killer, a pillar of the community whose dark side is embodied by an on-screen William Hurt? You have to admit, it sounds intriguing, right? Mr. Brooks is the vehicle for this unsavory story, and it turns out to be a lot less kicky than it sounds. Mr. Brooks is a Portland, Oregon tycoon and philanthropist whose "addiction" to murder is suddenly re-surfacing--with plenty of help from his sneering alter ego, who generally sits in the back of the car, goading Mr. Brooks on. (The other characters can't see William Hurt in all this, of course.) The unbelievably convoluted plot has Mr. Brooks confronted by a blackmailer (comedian Dane Cook) who has a surprising twist on things, and trailed by a cop (Demi Moore) who comes equipped with her own set of professional and marital woes. As if that weren't enough, when Brooks's daughter (Danielle Panabaker) comes home, it becomes clear that some traits run in the family. The scenes with Costner and Hurt are the best stuff in the film, even if director Bruce Evans can't figure out how to play fair visualizing their presence to others. But the script, which among other whoppers make Demi Moore's character a millionaire, is just too unbelievable to stomach. If William Hurt's character provided a running commentary for this movie, there wouldn't be anything left after he got through mocking it. --Robert Horton
The Cast of Mr. Brooks 
Kevin Costner | 
William Hurt | 
Demi Moore | 
Dane Cook | 
Marg Helgenberger | 
Danielle Panabaker | Beyond Mr. Brooks 
Mr. Brooks on Blu-Ray | 
Mr. Brooks: Music From The Motion Picture | 
More from MGM |
Stills from Mr. Brooks
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 164 more reviews...
 A Twisty Turny Tale with a Reward at the End June 29, 2009
Richard Staats (McLean, VA USA)
Kevin Costner plays a business man of the year with a slight problem; he also just happens to be the thumbprint killer (a serial killer). He has an imaginary friend (played by William Hurt) that is always encouraging him on to acts of depravation. The fact that the audience gets to see those interactions is a wonderful touch.
The casting for the movie is about perfect. I would not have imagined Kevin Costner in this role, but he pulls it off magnificiently, and William Hurt is brilliant as the imaginary side kick. No spoilers allowed, but I can tell you that Dane Cook does a good job in his role as a significant complication for Kevin Costner's character.
In the end, the film explores not only addictions, but it also explores the limits and strengths of families from the detective's overbearing, remote father to the very surreal choice that Kevin Costner's character has to make at the turning point in the film.
There are too many well executed plot twists to list, but the movie will keep you guessing to the end!
Go buy it or rent it today!
In service,
Rich
 Finally under actors unite! June 24, 2009
R. Robinson (N.C. by way of TX)
To put it plainly I had to watch this film just to see the two greatest under-actors of their generation get emotional, William Hurt and Kevin Costner. The movie is mostly unmemorable but it is still very entertaining for its genre, which is a psychodrama character study of sorts. If I were to buy this movie its simply to see Hurt and Costner exchange lines again the plot and supporting cast were to weak to make this movie a "4 star" or higher.
Creepy thriller June 9, 2009
Alan Starr (Lawrence, MA)
Pretty good psychological thriller with Kevin Costner playing a serial killer. He does a good job playing creepy, and William Hurt is funny and hammy as his alter ego. Even Dane Cook is decent (I thought someone else could have done a better job, but he didn't embarrass himself).
Realm of Hypocrites May 29, 2009
S. K. Harrell (NC)
Definitely breathing new light into a tired genre, this film is interesting to watch. It begins sinister and ends creepy, with the ride between vacillating from dull to melodramatic. The high point of this flick is the story, not the acting. Costner played the straightman half of his serial killer persona with the same flat, deadpan delivery he's played every character he's played in the last decade. It works to a degree, as he is after all the passionless half of his persona. He hits his stride in the scenes where he loses his cool. Hurt, however, is very compelling in his role as the half of Brooks' that is the inner crazed killer. He's got some great lines. I do think that with both playing different sides of the same character, often in tandem, that brings a new challenge to being in the same scenes. They had great timing and were the only actors who seemed to have chemistry in the film. Mrs. Brooks may as well have been a prop, for all of her function surrounded validating the normality of Mr. Brooks. His daughter's secrets brought the story to life, and in many ways her character was the real foil to Mr. Brooks and not the inner persona played by Hurt. Moore overacted most of her role and just generally did not bring her to life at all. That was a disappointment. The story is incredibly sinister, which did not leave its visual needing much in the way of graphic gore. However, the final hardcore scene of the film is definitely gratuitous shock, so much so that it detracted rather enhanced Mr. Brooks' fears of the future. If you like shockers and thrillers this is a good film to see. Don't let the stodgy acting distract you.
different and interesting variation on a tired and uninspiring genre May 1, 2009
B. Etnyre (SugarLand, TX)
There are several sub-genres of films that I generally have little or no interest in watching (especially if there is a ticket or rental price involved). Among these are the stories about assassins / hitmen as the protagonists, and films about serial murderers, including the slasher films that the horror genre has mostly devolved into. The 2 main reasons for this are: (A) both of these character types are essentially devoid of any redeeming qualities, and the notion or glorifying or glamorizing what they do is counter-intuitive at best and objectionable otherwise. And, (B) both types of films with very few exceptions have proven to have a significant lack of imagination and originality, with scripts that stress the action or violence or gore, but are rather mundane in terms of plot and characters.
[...]
This film (MR. BROOKS) was better than expected, although it should be pointed out the expectations for it (at least in this household) weren't exactly sky-high. Along with THE GUARDIAN (Costner's best film in years) however, MR. BROOKS might possibly be among Costner's best film and performance in quite some time. He uses the same generally low-key, understated, acting style as Robert Redford, but with even more of an identifiable everyman aspect, and less of the cool aloofness that Redford effectively uses (though that's pretty much Redford's whole repertoire ). In this film, Costner's persona as Mr. Brooks was not only useful but ideal, and probably essential.
The plot of the film MR. BROOKS - for those who don't already know and are in fact interested - revolves around a seemingly normal and nice guy who is a devoted husband & father, a highly successful businessman, and regarded as a pillar of the community... but who is also a highly skillful and clever prolific serial murderer. What makes this a slight variation from the tired and unimaginative slasher sub-genre is the empathy the character tries to elicit from the viewers/audience: he sees himself as an addict to a terrible habit (homicide) which he loathes and feels remorse about, rather than revels in. He even goes to various support group meetings and introduces himself as an addict. The character is portrayed as someone who seems to earnestly try and beat or at least control his compulsions to indulge his most dark impulses, but who also inevitably falls short on occasion. Not making this task any easier is the malevolent influence of his alter-ego/imaginary friend (played by William Hurt), who constantly tries goading Mr. Brooks towards diabolical temptation, and undermining Brooks's efforts at staying on the straight & narrow path of decency and abstinence (from murder).
[...] Overexposed & irritatingly unfunny comic Dane Cook plays "Mr. Smith", a creepy blackmailer who inadvertently sees (and photographs) Mr. Brooks at the scene of a double homicide. Rather than report this horrific crime to the police, `Mr. Smith' has another sinister agenda.
The surprisingly taut and engaging tension in the film comes from 4 sources of conflict: Mr. Brooks's struggle with his homicidal tendencies (both internally and depicted by his conversations with the manifested alter persona), the tenacious police detective investigating the homicides, the blackmailing creep who tries to foist his sinister agenda upon Mr. Brooks, and another growing crisis which hits alarmingly close to home for Mr. Brooks.
There are a few relatively minor lapses of logic and realism in the plot, but these can be overlooked for the sake of an otherwise competent story and film with good pacing and effective performances.
While I find the premise of a guilt-ridden serial-killer who sees his condition as a regrettable addiction rather than a hobby or pastime he revels in as an interesting take on what is otherwise a trite and uncreative genre, what bothers me is the objectionable suggestion by/of implication that he is in some way a victim. Our society - or more accurately a misguided liberal segment's notion of displaced pity - has far too much of an irresponsible tendency to automatically impute virtue to victimhood (without taking into account the victims' culpability in cases where it applies), and even worse is the odious inclination to try moral equivocation by inappropriately and illogically conferring some status of `victim' to those who actually perpetrate crimes and harm upon others (the actual victims). The murdered victims in the film are shown either as little more than mobile and briefly auditory props, or portrayed as somewhat dubious characters that somehow deserve or have a part in bringing about their demises.
That having been said, the director does a good job of maintaining suspense throughout the film once the dark truth about Mr. Brooks is known. It is also impressive to some degree the way that the film presents the premise in which the protagonist is a doer of evil deeds, yet still manages to persuade (at least some of) the audience to root (counter intuitively, I would hope) for him. This works because of the skillful & capable way the character of Mr. Brooks is written and portrayed as complicated, complex, multi-dimensional, who possesses some decent and even to some degree - dare I say - identifiable traits. The credit and kudos for this goes to Costner and the director, with some going to the writer(s) as well. Though this film will probably find more favor with those who value suspenseful drama than it likely will with those who prefer gory sensationalism, as the murders shown are not especially graphic. Whether or not you are a fan of the horror genre, most people will likely approve of a movie with a good pacing, an effectively sustained sense of suspense, and a well-written script that features capably developed characters. This film is deserving of 3.5 stars if this were an option on Amazon.com, but I am feeling a bit charitable, partly due to the unexpected appreciation of this movie, as well as for seeing a movie that had shown at least a shred of originality and imagination during an ongoing creativity drought in the cinematic realm that has for several years been relying on remakes, adaptations, sequels, and insipidly indistinctive cookie-cutter banalities.
|
|
|
