The Brothers Bloom |  | Actors: Rachel Weisz, Mark Ruffalo
Studio: Summit Entertainment
Category: DVD
List Price: $19.99
Buy Used: $0.66
as of 9/9/2010 01:11 CDT details
You Save: $19.33 (97%)
New (37) Used (180) from $0.66
Seller: abundatrade
Rating:  40 reviews
Sales Rank: 5,102
Format: AC-3, Color, Dolby, Dubbed, DVD, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC
Languages: English (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), English (Original Language), Spanish (Dubbed)
Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Region: 1
Discs: 1
Aspect Ratio: 2.40:1
Running Time: 113 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.4 x 5.3 x 0.6
MPN: SUMD66111116D
UPC: 025192038365
EAN: 0025192038365
ASIN: B002J1RZHE
Theatrical Release Date: 2008
Release Date: January 12, 2010
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
THE BROTHERS HAVE PERFECTED THE ART OF SWINDLING FORTUNES THROUGH YEARS OF FRATERNAL TEAMWORK. NOW THEY'VE DECIDED TO TAKE ON ONE LAST SPECTACULAR JOBLURING A BEAUTIFUL AND ECCENTRIC HEIRESS INTO AN ELABORATE PLOT THAT TAKES THEM AROUND THE WORLD.
Amazon.com
Writer-director Rian Johnson’s The Brothers Bloom has a lot going for it, like an excellent cast doing good work, fabulous locations, a sumptuous look, and some interesting ideas in a genre that’s rife with possibilities. Somehow, though, the film is a whole that’s less than the sum of its parts. We meet siblings Stephen and Bloom, the products of numerous foster homes, at ages 13 and 10, respectively, as they’re starting to develop the skills and savvy that will help them become the full-blown scam-meisters they are when we meet up with them in their thirties (with Mark Ruffalo taking over as Stephen and Adrien Brody as Bloom). It seems Bloom wants to pack it in and live "an unwritten life" free of his brother’s elaborate schemes. But Stephen, who is now accompanied by a sidekick named Bang Bang (Babel’s Rinko Kikuchi, in an amusing, mostly silent performance as what Stephen refers to as "our fifth Beatle"), convinces his younger brother to take part in one last swindle, this one targeting the filthy rich Penelope Stamp (Rachel Weisz), who lives alone in what’s described as the biggest house on the eastern seaboard. Penelope’s an oddball, to say the least, having overcome a sickly childhood and become a master hobbyist whose skills rage from origami and playing six or eight instruments to riding a unicycle while balancing two chainsaws. Posing as antiquities dealers, the brothers pull her into a scheme that takes the trio all over the world (Greece, Prague, Montenegro, St. Petersburg, Mexico). Needless to say, complications ensue. Penelope turns out to be pretty good at the con game herself; what’s more, we know from the moment Stephen warns Bloom not to fall in love with her that he’ll quickly do exactly that. For sure, The Brothers Bloom has its high points, with surreal touches and amusing moments that help counterbalance its fairly arch overall tone. But in the end, it feels as if Johnson is trying too hard, sacrificing character for cleverness, and it’s the audience--even those who enjoy and are adept at sorting through the various clues and red herrings to figure out what’s supposedly really happening--that feels conned, or at least finds it difficult to care. --Sam Graham
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 40
 Intriguing August 23, 2010
alooknac (Montana)
I watched this film pretty much out of the blue and I enjoyed it. It kept me engaged the whole time. I had read some reviews and wondered if I'd even be able to follow it because people talked about the convoluted plot, but while it kept me guessing I didn't feel completely lost.
One reviewer says, shouldn't movies be realistic? Well I hope not! It's all about escapism to me. Realism=documentaries. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single mainstream movie that is completely realistic. I'm always saying things like, Oh yeah, like he could jump off a building and not get hurt!
I think the presentation of this movie and the soundtrack set you up for a flight of fantasy and kind of alert you to not take everything too seriously. I thought it was very well done and an intriguing story.
 Shouldn't movies be realistic? June 14, 2010
Rodney D. Carter (106 East 3rd Street Jamestown New York)
The acting was good and there were a few amusing moments. However, I'm very tired of movies that are not realistic and have things happen that seem impossible without even trying to explain how they might be possible if it is inconvenient for the plot. Maybe I nodded off and missed it, but did they ever explain how Rachel Weisz got away with the book? Am I just supposed to be so amused by her cute little dance that I don't care how? Speaking of nodding off, the movie wasn't interesting enough to justify it's nearly 2 hour running time. Don't read my last beef if you haven't watched the movie. Hollywood has a long tradition of characters getting shot and acting like it doesn't hurt. Emergency room doctors have told stories of teenage gang members who get shot and are stunned about how much it actually hurts. Movies make them think getting shot hurts about as much as a punch in the mouth. You might say "ouch". Then you shake it off like it's no big deal. You might even pop up off the floor, do a little dance, and calmly have a conversation with your brother immediately after like Mark Ruffalo does near the end of this movie. He was shot in the back, but showed no signs of pain or even physical limitation during the performance he gave for his brother. On top of that. His brother doesn't even drive back to try to save him once he realizes the blood is real.
 Different Facets of What It's Like to Grow Up Illuminati (The Hollywood Version) May 11, 2010
Sal Magnum (wisconsin nortwoodz)
1 out of 9 found this review helpful
So what does it all mean, rabid little sleuth? You with little tablet and pen out taking notes of all the hidden imagery and innuendo, seeing what goodies they've left out in plane site this time. Perapps that without the shifty Japanese we'd never get anything done?
I just love the way Rachel Weisz smashes her Lamborthingy as she sees fit, kinda like it ain't no thang cuz it ain't when you're living in the palatial estate, the legit ones with the big iron gates and the statues of pagan gods and goddesses and mermen and mermaids like Semiramis and maybe even Poseidon and Zeus frolicking from the porticos and roofs as the summer guests promenade through the gardens, past the babbling brook and the waterfall and just when you think you've seen it all you get lost in the maze or the labyrinth or what-have-you-not, might as well as long as you're at it. It's only money my dear a snap of the fingers, a clasp of the hand, a flick of the wand and such. To matters at hand.
"Loosely translated, 'When you're done with something, blow it up.'" words to live by. Kind of like 911, am I right? Okay, that'll be enough of that. No more allusions to illusion of perception & all that other make believe of the fabricated reality.
But I do LOVE Illuminati FUBU movies. Like Lemony Snickets; now THAT was a fine Illuminati child-rearing flick! Even had Meryl "The Greatest" Streep and a Jiminy Carey performance that only Molech or Baal could've inspired! Anyhoo, I thought it was a pleasant farce. This one might've topped it if it wasn't for the paltry casting of the male leads, but eh, this is a minor gripe---- I mean, who are they gonna get in this day and meager age to do it better---- Bertrand Russell and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle have been dead lo these many years.
All in all I give it a full three of five stars...wait it appears I've only clicked one! Owhell as they say in Beljum
Thoroughly enjoyed this comic romp May 9, 2010
Thom Carey (Yonkers, NY United States)
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
The con men get out-conned! or do they? This is a really enjoyable comedy with Rachel Weisz and Adrein Brody. There are so many really cute, funny situations in this movie that'll keep you laughing (and crying) throughout. Rachel Weisz is wonderful and performs in her usual top quality fashion. She is so cute, adorable and funny in this movie and is beautifully complemented by the performance of Adrien Brody. I highly recommend this one.
A parody that refuses to be one May 9, 2010
Douglas B. Moran (Palo Alto, CA USA)
2 out of 5 found this review helpful
If you are a fan of Adrien Brody's standard screen persona, you will probably like this movie and should ignore this review as irrelevant to you. For fans of Rachel Weisz: she has too few opportunities to shine as a character, and is mostly just a beautiful presence. Although Mark Ruffalo is a headliner, his role is that of a lesser supporting character, mostly an expository device.
The predominant characteristics of this movie classify it as a parody. The minimal plot is irrelevant except as an excuse for the scenes. The scenes are over-written, over-played and overly stylized, that is, they're a highlight reel. It has absurdities and in-your-face contrivances. And you are to appreciate how "knowing" and clever the writers, director and actors are of the genre, as opposed to the _movie_ being knowing and clever (other reviewers here had negative reactions to this, for example Nathan Beauchamp's 4-star of 2009-11-24). You even have a scene that is cute, but doesn't fit: Penelope (Weisz) spots, and comments on, the literary allusions to Melville's The Confidence-Man, but the movie proceeds as if that scene had never occurred. All this is consistent with a perfectly good parody.
The attribute of parodies missing here is laughs--there are knowing smiles, and a few chuckles, but no laughs. Penelope (Weisz) provides set-ups, but those sparks are smothered by Bloom's (Brody) wet blanket.
Intertwined with the parody elements is a romance. This could have worked if that portion of the story was uptempo, breezy, brash, ... (or screwball?), and Weisz's performance leaned in this direction. However, the casting of Brody effectively required the romance to be downbeat, moody/sentimental, atmospheric, sweet, quirky, ... (This is not a criticism of Brody, but of pairing him with the script). The two clashing demands on pacing resulted in neither working.
The con itself is uninteresting: It is never fleshed-out nor clever but simply a rough checklist, as befits a parody. Consequently, there is absolutely no emotional involvement. My only (faint) curiosity about the con was about which of the minor variants the writers would choose for the next stage.
If the movie had been much, much shorter, the clash of the various elements might have created a mildly entertaining confusion. But stretched out as it is, it is boring if not irritating.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 40
|
|
|
