Mr. Brooks

Now usually I avoid any film that has Kevin Costner in the credits, but the premise of Mr. Brooks was far too interesting to pass up. To my surprise, Costner’s performance is welcoming. He does not try to be a showstopper, but merely plays the part with a quiet dignity. William Hurt plays his alter ego, the voice in his head that tells him to kill. We all have demons, but in this case, Mr. Brooks’ takes a physical form. He even has a name: Marshall. I was skeptical at first, thinking this character would only get in the way of the progress of the story, but it becomes quite an amusing addition to the film. Mr. Brooks has full-on conversations with Marshall in front of other people, but since they cannot see their exchange, Mr. Brooks is just a space cadet.

The other players are not as exhilarating, but they do their best. Dane Cook is out of character, in a genre he is not yet comfortable with. His transition into serious acting is not as smooth as comedians who have preceded him, but he is not altogether horrible. He portrays his character’s desire for excitement with some degree of subtlety. Still, he does find time to be his normal self, flopping around and making strange noises whenever he gets into a pickle. Demi Moore is not bad, but she’s not great either. Why the director chose to cast a big name in such a small role is beyond me.

It is not so much Moore’s performance that irks me, but the character she plays, Det. Tracy Atwood, and how much screen time she is given. Her subplot has its purposes, to an effect, but ultimately we could have done without her back story. Someone is trying to kill her, her husband wants all her inheritance money…who cares? The kidnapping and the gun fight make for sub par action scenes but they are seemingly out of place in a psychological thriller. And, since she is not the lead character, we do not feel for her, and the tension and anxiety that one would normally feel from such scenes is simply not present.

One cannot help but ask why Atwood is in the film as much as she is. If her role was reduced, it could allow for more back story on Mr. Brooks, who is the real reason why people chose to view this film. If someone wanted to hear about all the problems and burdens of being a cop, one could just turn on Network television. People who want to see Mr. Brooks want to hear the killer’s motivations, first kill, rituals, and so on. They do not want to hear about how an overworked detective with a silver spoon is getting robbed by her greedy ex-husband. That’s what soap operas are made of.

All the same, the film is still compelling, and serves up all the thrills that it promises. There’s always a lot going on, and the burdens pile up for Mr. Brooks, as he has to deal with an overzealous detective, a rebellious teenage daughter with a terrible secret, an irritating photographer who has the goods on him, and of course, a homicidal alter ego. And the film is not without its twists. Even the twists have twists, and they will keep your head spinning until everything folds into place; but even then you’re never fully at rest. The suspense will have your heart pounding, even when you have a slight idea as to what is going to happen, because right when you think you know, you in fact have no idea.

With all the events that build up and lead to the anticipated dialogue between Atwood and Brooks, hunter and the hunted, the viewer is left with great expectations that are never met. There is nothing gained, no new insight; just the ramblings of a female cop who always had something to prove. The final exchange between Brooks and Atwood may be disappointing, but the closing moments of the film are satisfying enough to make up for it. If you’re searching for a cinematic version of Dexter, or a film about what makes a serial killer, look somewhere else. This isn’t that film. It’s the kind of film that will stay with you for a few days (assuming you don’t watch a lot of movies), but you wont find yourself running to the video store to buy it.