Although he tries to control the hunger in his head, successful businessman Earl Brooks cannot shake his addiction to killing. As a serial killer he is clean, precise and controlled but his most recent effort was not as he would have liked as he failed to notice the open curtains in the couple's room as he did the deed. It is not long before someone turns up with photographs but "Mr Smith's" aims are not to blackmail Mr Brooks but rather to join him and experience the thrill for himself. For Earl this comes on top of the news that his beloved daughter has dropped out of college, perhaps for reasons that she is not being honest about. Meanwhile, a messy divorce starts to get in the way of Detective Tracey Atwood's efforts to catch this serial killer while also tracking down a previous arrest who has escaped.
The thing that Mr Brooks was sold on was Kevin Costner doing a "bad" role but really the thing that makes the film work is his title character and the mental extension thereof. Although it is fashionable to backlash against any praise that is given to Costner these days, the truth is that he does not deserve it here because his core part of this film is very engaging and enjoyable. Mainly this is because while he plays the balanced part of his psyche, Hurt does a much more colourful job of playing his alter-ego and the two of them do work really well together. Their parts of the film are good the problem is that there is a lot more than this to the film.
On top of this we have many threads that don't work, mainly because they don't connect to the others in a way that works. Atwood's divorce and the other serial killer don't bring much to the film other than irritation at the clumsy way they are connected to Brooks and, forgiving it this connection, how poorly they are used within the film. It is not just that they don't make sense, it is that they don't work dramatically either. Likewise Mr Smith. He starts out as what I thought was a narrative device but is actually part of the story properly and again one that doesn't play. Brooks' daughter is more interesting as a thread because it is ambiguous but mostly all these things come together and conspire to make the film messier than it should be and also taking time away from the parts that work.
Costner can be criticised for his dry performance perhaps and cynically many will say it is just an attempt to refresh his career but I liked what he did mainly because of Hurt. The two of them make a good combination and this is the point of the film, it take two to tango in that regard so they both deserve credit. Moore is solid enough but her character and story doesn't fit and it feels like she is in a different film from everyone else. Cook is less annoying than normal but he has so little to do that it doesn't make much difference. Panabaker plays her cards close to her chest while Helgenberger focuses on looking great, which she does.
Mr Brooks does have enough about it to engage but yet when it ended I did feel rather unsatisfied. While the central character of Brooks and his alter-ego of Marshall both work, too much of the film doesn't engage or come together meaning that I was never really caught up in the film so much as I was enjoying parts of it.
The thing that Mr Brooks was sold on was Kevin Costner doing a "bad" role but really the thing that makes the film work is his title character and the mental extension thereof. Although it is fashionable to backlash against any praise that is given to Costner these days, the truth is that he does not deserve it here because his core part of this film is very engaging and enjoyable. Mainly this is because while he plays the balanced part of his psyche, Hurt does a much more colourful job of playing his alter-ego and the two of them do work really well together. Their parts of the film are good the problem is that there is a lot more than this to the film.
On top of this we have many threads that don't work, mainly because they don't connect to the others in a way that works. Atwood's divorce and the other serial killer don't bring much to the film other than irritation at the clumsy way they are connected to Brooks and, forgiving it this connection, how poorly they are used within the film. It is not just that they don't make sense, it is that they don't work dramatically either. Likewise Mr Smith. He starts out as what I thought was a narrative device but is actually part of the story properly and again one that doesn't play. Brooks' daughter is more interesting as a thread because it is ambiguous but mostly all these things come together and conspire to make the film messier than it should be and also taking time away from the parts that work.
Costner can be criticised for his dry performance perhaps and cynically many will say it is just an attempt to refresh his career but I liked what he did mainly because of Hurt. The two of them make a good combination and this is the point of the film, it take two to tango in that regard so they both deserve credit. Moore is solid enough but her character and story doesn't fit and it feels like she is in a different film from everyone else. Cook is less annoying than normal but he has so little to do that it doesn't make much difference. Panabaker plays her cards close to her chest while Helgenberger focuses on looking great, which she does.
Mr Brooks does have enough about it to engage but yet when it ended I did feel rather unsatisfied. While the central character of Brooks and his alter-ego of Marshall both work, too much of the film doesn't engage or come together meaning that I was never really caught up in the film so much as I was enjoying parts of it.