Lovesusti
The Worst Film Ever
AshUnow
This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.
Nayan Gough
A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.
sol-
Circumstances lead to three adult brothers moving in together and getting deeply involved in each other's love life in this independent drama from Edward Burns. As per 'Sidewalks of New York', which Burns would later helm, 'The Brothers McMullen' is a dialogue heavy-movie and at a fascinating one at that, full of naturalistic conversations and banter that makes it seem like the three leads really are brothers. While each brother has different romantic circumstances (one is a confirmed bachelor; another is scared of committing to his long-term girlfriend; the third is married) they all finding themselves battling their devout Catholic upbringing while trying to avoid being in the same situation as their mother - who endured a loveless marriage before eloping after their father died. As a narrative, there is not exactly a lot driving 'The Brothers McMullen', but the film suffices well as a portrait of three very human characters bouncing off one another and making their own choices despite each having the same upbringing. There are several memorable conversations (a banana representing manhood in particular) and the stringy background music suits the material well. One could complain about the female characters being less well fleshed out than their male counterparts, however, this is, after all, a film about brotherhood and the mixed merits of brotherly advice.
SnoopyStyle
This follows three Irish Catholic McMullen brothers' relationships. It's five years after their mother went back to Ireland with another man after the death of their father. Jack McMullen (Jack Mulcahy) is living in his parents' home with his wife Molly (Connie Britton) but he is lusting after his brother Barry's flirtatious ex Ann (Elizabeth McKay). Molly is pushing for children. Barry (Edward Burns) is anti-commitment until he meets Audrey (Maxine Bahns). Patrick McMullen (Michael McGlone) is struggling with his Jewish girlfriend Susan (Shari Albert) who seems to be pushing for marriage. He has a better relationship with friend mechanic Leslie (Jennifer Jostyn).It's always interesting to rewatch an old movie and realize it has a future star. Honestly, I don't recall Connie Britton in her film debut. I do remember Edward Burns and Michael McGlone. The acting is surprisingly good considering its indie nature. The story is basically the three brothers' relationships. Following three relationships does split up the attention and lowers the tension. The cinematography and style isn't much and it holds back the movie a little.
movieman_kev
Barry and Patrick move back into their old house owned by their third brother, Jack. They each deal with true love, marriage, and infidelity respectively. Whenever you see that dreaded buzzword "highly acclaimed" or worse "darling of critics", you'd be best advised NOT to get your hopes up. If you do you'll be let down time and time again. Such is the case with this film as well. If however you go in expecting a mediocre movie you're still be let down but not nearly as much. This starts off OK, but gets too long winded. And whenever a character has an internal monologue it becomes laughably bad. Overall I wouldn't want to spend time with anyone in the film. So in that way it's like Seinfield, but minus the laughs. However, it still is good for an indy film.My Grade: C+ Where I saw it: Starz Classics
CoenHead
I'm a fan of independent and low-budget films. I've seen quite a number of them, and I'm not necessarily put off by amateurish production quality, poor lighting & film quality, etc. - IF THE STORY AND CHARACTERS are there.The Brothers McMullen has been lauded in indie-film circles for several years now. I've been meaning to see it for some time, and today did so. What I now can say with certainty is that all the buzz and hype around this film is utterly undeserved. The story is utterly banal, the characters are banal, thinly drawn and not just unsympathetic but entirely uninteresting and self-absorbed, and the "direction" childish. The camera and lighting is not just amateurish but seems nearly to be deliberately self-sabotaged.
Now let's get on to the illustrious Edward Burns - who has derived such attention and acclaim for this little "gem" of a film. In watching other films in which he appeared (Saving Private Ryan, 15 Minutes), I was struck by just how inexpressive, wooden and plastic-like his characters were. Yet he was said to be excellent in this film, so I tried to keep an open mind as I watched this film.What did I discover? That Mr. Burns was no better in this film than he was in the others. I learned that Burns' sole talent is staring into the camera trying to pretend to convey meaning through his sad-sack eyes, yet he isn't capable of conveying ANYTHING - the man is essentially a mute when it comes to any sort of meaningful communication to the audience.I can't imagine how any person watching this film could have come away with a positive impression of it - there simply isn't any part of it that I would recommend to anyone else. Give it a wide berth - don't waste your $3.95 renting this dreck at Blockbuster.
