Variety calls it a "suspense thriller with a smirk". The New York Times calls it "A werewolf movie masquerading as a thriller" and says, "If it is not as sadistic as the “Saw” and “Hostel” movies, it is as malignant in its insistence on the omnipresence of evil." Of the director, the New Yorker says, "Evans will never be Hitchcock, but he produces enough pleasurable tension to send the plausibles into a frenzy of disapproval." DVDTalk concludes that it's
more about the psychology of a murderer - about a man with a healthy, well-balanced life who's quietly compelled to kill - rather than an excuse to string together a bunch of the usual thriller theatrics. Mr. Brooks isn't a great movie, no, but it's intriguing enough to be worth seeing at least once.Slant Magazine gives it 1.5 stars and says,
Mr. Brooks is bad in countless fundamental ways—it's not thrilling, not incisive, not altogether coherent, and not particularly well shot—and yet there's nonetheless something cheesy-delicious about its lack of inhibition...
Although I'm hesitant to subject myself to a Kevin Costner movie, this one seems interesting.ReplyDelete
The Sons and I had some interesting discussion about the film afterwards. William Hurt is fun to watch in this.ReplyDelete
From what I read this was intended to be first in a trilogy, but the box office on the first one didn't warrant it. I'm just as glad, as I think it's likely the next one would have focused on the daughter, whose story didn't interest me much.