It’s nice to see a film based around a serial killer having an original way of doing things. Taking what is usually the twist ending to a film and giving us knowledge of it from the get-go. It is almost a shame that Mr. Brooks is released during a time of the year riddled with the quality of cinema-2007 and not at a time where quality is needed. As a result it won’t be in my top of the year list but it certainly won’t be in the bottom one.

Kevin Costner plays the title character of Mr. Brooks, a successful and extremely well off business man with a wife and daughter. At night though he tries to fight an inner addiction he has to kill people. But because of his meticulous and clever nature Mr. Brooks has gone unpunished for his crimes.

The force behind his getting away with the murders is his alter ego Marshall, played by William Hurt. The scenes involving Costner and Hurt exchanging plans and witty banter is the film's strong suit and it would have been better off if the whole film just ran with that idea instead of trying to be something it clearly isn’t. Although we can see Costner and Hurt talking to each other (though Hurt is just in his head) the other characters in the film are just watching him think. In other films that have the alter ego thing employed within that is usually the terribly clichéd twist to it all. It was refreshing to see a film which realises how boring that twist has become and gives us the knowledge of the alter ego in the first scene of the film. Or it may be in other films that when someone is talking to himself the rest of the characters will physically see him talking to himself, thus making the character seem crazy. The way the film deals with the idea of an alter ego is very clever, reflecting the personality of both the personalities, so to speak.

On the surface the idea of a serial killer film may seem a bit boring if the film was to just be about that. And the filmmakers also think that it may be like that so they decided to throw in a few side plots. Once you delve into the scenes of meticulous killing you realise that this is (partly) where the quality of the film lies. Any side plots are extremely non-important when not linked to the primary direction of where the film is going. There’s Brooks’ daughter who has a secret and also there’s a cop trying to track down both Brooks’ and another killer. When concentrating on the latter side plot I feel is where the film's big weaknesses are. Although thinly linked to the main plot for the most part scenes of her trying to settle her divorce or catch other criminals just seemed completely needless to me. It may have been an excuse to recuperate some of Moore’s dignity after Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle or maybe the filmmakers really did think it was worth having such a side plot in the film. But who knows, right?

There is one side plot, however, that upon getting further into the film becomes part of the main one. It involves Dane Cook (and this isn’t really giving anything away since it is very early on that it happens) blackmailing Mr. Brooks’ because he witnessed him killing a young couple. Although quite miscast and subsequently he doesn’t work as well as someone else could have, Cook isn’t as bad as he usually is. His performance here shows promise that he could be a legitimate, serious actor instead of continuing his streak of unfunny comedic roles.

The idea of this film and the way it at first tries to pull it off comes off as an art house or independent one. But once we get passed the darkly lit opening scenes and come across the flashiness, glamorised look and the big names and faces we realise that this is strictly a Hollywood film. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing but just different than it initially comes across.

I really liked the fact that most of the film is quite dark, both in nature and quite literally. A lot of it takes place at night, in the rain with dark street corners and the inside of Mr. Brooks’ car occupying most of the screen time. It gives the film a great overall feel, one that comes across as being genuinely effective instead of just being a false front.

There were one or two (or more) quite unnecessary scenes or parts of scenes. Some will linger too long while others will not last long enough. But the one that comes to mind is towards the end of the movie. Not giving anything away let’s just say the makers, for some odd reason, decided that they needed an action sequence to make things more exciting. It was blatantly and, in fact, annoyingly out of place and even though it only lasts for about 2 minutes it did retract from the movie as a whole. Rarely does that happen but it has here. I can’t wrap my head around why they felt the need to add in such a scene when it was already working fine without it.

The performances in the film from all are good enough. Nothing overly exceptional but a particularly addictive performance (if you’ve seen it you’ll know exactly what I mean) from Hurt. The dialogue between him and Costner, like I said, is the film’s definite strongest point although a little more of it wouldn’t have done the film any harm at all.

Despite all of it’s weaknesses Mr. Brooks is still a film I had a lot of fun with and I am willing to forgive all of it’s wrong doings next time round in loo of seeing the interaction between Costner and Hurt again. I can’t quite fathom the hate that people have for Costner as an actor, never mind having that opinion myself. I wouldn’t exactly call Mr. Brooks an Oscar-worthy film (except maybe for a supporting actor nomination for Hurt) but who’s to say the Academy knows anything? The subject matter of the film should be repulsing but as it turns out Mr. Brooks makes it look like it would be a lot of fun.

==Written by Ross Miller==

==From: Movie World (www.movie-world.moonfruit.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