The Brutalist Movie

Brody shows the erection?

Why Hollywood can’t stop talking about A24’s latest drama, The Brutalist

No, Brody shows no erection. The troubling part for me was further into the movie, when the Guy Pearce character rapes the very drunk Adrien Brody character... which seemed (to me) to come out of nowhere. Nothing foreshadows this action. It comes off as gratuitous and unnecessary, other than to make for some heightened drama. Truly, it comes off as something straight people think happens to all gay people... (Just like how I never bought into the idea in Brokeback Mountain that two guys jump right into heavy anal sex in the first intimate moments into a tent...)

The prostitute is rubbing his erect member and you can clearly see the head and some parts of the shaft

R3, I didn't mind the rape so much because the rich guy seemed to be excited by Brody's character and this showed his dominance.

What I minded what the way the wife accused the rich guy. That would never have happened, especially back then.

[quote] Just like how I never bought into the idea in Brokeback Mountain that two guys jump right into heavy anal sex in the first intimate moments into a tent...

That just showed it wasn't the first time for either of them. Maybe they jump right into it because such opportunities were rare

I'm pretty sure Brody is soft in the shot, which is part of the point of the moment - he's having trouble getting hard. But you definitely see the prostitute yanking on his penis, which is why the movie almost got an NC-17.

3.5 hrs of a depressing mood sucking movie? I have to pass

Not sure it was totally successful at whatever message it was trying to put forward. It just seemed long and meandering.

The director's self-righteous defense of having final cut at the Golden Globes was such a turn-off to me--it genuinely made me decide not to see the movie.

Wow r10 what a weird thing to get so upset about

The director did seem odd at the Golden Globes.

The worst park is I detest brutalist architecture. It’s so oppressive and needs windows. Why would anyone greenlight such monstrous structures?

Agree about the architecture, R13. Two words……UG and LY. But I enjoyed the movie. Adrian Brody was terrific. And yes, certain scenes either made no sense or came out of nowhere. But overall, more positive than negative. And, surprisingly, I didn’t mind that it was 3 ½ hours.

[quote] you can clearly see the head and some parts of the shaft

Prosthetic for sure. Intimacy co-ordinators would never let that happen in a major movie otherwise.

How graphic is the rape scene? Not a fan of watching sexual assault on any visual medium.

Three and a half hours, I'm out unless I can watch at home.

It’s a prosthetic in the early scene at the brothel.

It's a very dark movie in every possible way desperately trying to be another Oppenheimer. But it's good.

R16, it shot from a distance.

While it’s certainly discomfiting, it’s kind of odd to say it comes out of nowhere. It’s rape. His benefactor is taking what he thinks belongs to him, he thinks the Brody character is his to crush. It is disturbing.

Guy Pierce must have drawn on his experience with Spacey.

I admired the film, the running time just flies by.

But I was rolling my eyes at the ending in the epilogue when screenwriter Corbet gets to the end of his 3.5 hour opus and says, “It’s not the journey, it’s the destination.” Some directors’ egos are their own worst enemy.

It immediately reminded me of the final moments of Aronofsky’s Mother! when Javier Bardem, playing a stand-in for the director, pretty much says, “Being God is a lot like being…a film director,” and sort of pats himself on the back. It’s so cringe.

‘The Brutalist’ Won Big at the Golden Globes. But How Can You See It?

I watched that video where Brady Corbet and Sean Baker have a conversation. Baker comes off as a pretty nice guy who just loves cinema. Corbet came off as kind of a pretentious jerk.

The movie will not release nationwide until Jan. 17 before expanding to a wider release on Jan. 24

If you don’t live in Los Angeles or New York, your chances of seeing the film before then are, well, brutal.

The Brutalist is NYC/LA then opens in a few more cities this weekend (Jan 9th) including Seattle.

Opening in major metro markets this weekend including Seattle, SF, Portland, Chicago, Austin, Philly, Boston, DC,

If it’s anything like the architecture forget it.

It seems like this jerk Brady Corbet is winning the DGA and the Oscar.

R24, I liked both of them in that interview. They’re both incredibly passionate about filmmaking and what they do. They both have a lot to be proud of.

It is desperately trying to be an important movie. if it were based on a true story of a great Brutalist architect, it would be seen as amazing and brave. Otherwise it's just longwinded.

Not graphic at all. Shot from about 10 feet with clothes on.

Oh, I think the achievement itself on that budget of < $10M is amazing and brave, R31. It’s so ambitious. And he’s a young filmmaker, only 35. Imagine his body of work in 20 years.

The screenplay does falter, in the end. But that’s true of so many films. Luca Guadagnino’s Queer cost 5x as much and is a far more mixed bag than this; Guadagnino is an experienced filmmaker and yet his film is just in search of an ending, with 4 or 5 closing scenes. Brady Corbet definitely had an end in sight and at a certain point you do have to wonder how much the small budget impacted the final act of the film - it’s clear they were forced to do it in the most economical way possible hence the somewhat overwrought scene with Jones, Alwyn and Pearce which covers a lot thematically but isn’t completely convincing. But the opening sequence is so brilliant and he sustains the epic nature of the story very well throughout - through simple production design, the score, execution, the scale of the historical events (focusing for once on postwar reconstruction) and the epic quality of Adrien Brody’s incredible lead performance with strong turns from Jones and Pearce, all of whom demonstrate if given the resources, they could explore any pocket of this ambitious, thematically rich story. They shy away from nothing.

It is not perfect. But in terms of filmmaking, it is a landmark achievement. I think Corbet will continue to thrill us, confound and challenge us, and probably disappoint us a little, as he continues his artistic journey, taking all the risks, and I am all for it.

Brave?

I went ahead and read the synopsis. to help me decide if it was worth me sitting for almost 4 fucking hours. I think I’ll wait for it to come to streaming. I’m just not in the mood to see a disabled woman in a wheelchair get the shit beat out of her.

There’s always that one film that critics, and some DL viewers, lose their shit over and this seems to be the one for this year.

Best Picture Oscar: I’m Team Dune: Part 2.

Well if you can sit through Dune Part 2, I’m sure you can sit through this.

Dune 2 is 2 hour and 36 minutes, about 1 hour less than The Brutalist.

Dune 2 is pretty much non-stop action and just about every shot is beautifully photographed.

Also, Dune 2 doesn't involve male rape, physical assault of a handicap person, and a pretentious ending.

Hopefully the Academy won't fall for the overwrought and slow moving DRAAAMA of The Brutalist and give Dune Director Denis Villeneuve his due rather than award a young punk director who from all accounts is an arrogant fat little shit.

It’s okay. Wait for streaming

The Brutalist moves along at a good clip. It has an interesting story but it's not the MASTERPIECE its director would love you to believe. The performances are good as you would expect but I only gave it a 7 on the IMDb and don't think it deserves any more than that. The cinematography is dark and hazy which doesn't justify the use of Vistavision, much less the 70mm blow-up. They've been trying to market it around it alleged its visual splendors but it doesn't look splendid at all. It looks like a low budget European film from the 70's that focuses more on the actors than the esthetics because they only had 10M. Even the Brutalist architecture that is central to the story barely makes an appearance.

* its alleged visual splendor

Interesting R39. To hear the way critics are raving about this film, you would think it’s the greatest film to come since Schindler’s List. There’s always that one film that critics band around while most of the average filmgoers and most cinephiles are like ‘huh’. SMH

I think they're banding around it because it's a good film that is made with good intentions, that defies the Hollywood establishment by being low budget, shot with a special camera and running as long as The Ten Commandments. But it's more surface than depth. If you saw Vox Lux, you know what to expect from the director.

It got a rave by the New York Times back in December.

[quote]…running as long as The Ten Commandments.

R42, that made me laugh. 😂

[quote] it's a good film that is made with good intentions, that defies the Hollywood establishment by being low budget, shot with a special camera

R42 You could almost say the same thing about Nosferatu.

I was debating seeing it locally in 70mm but I guess I'll just wait for streaming

Brady Corbet used to be a cutie actor.

Used to be r47. Now, oink oink!

Well said, R39. I’d say it was about a 7 or 8, at most. But I didn’t regret seeing it. And what is there, what you see on screen is very memorable. I will see it again.

I just think we have to take the comparisons that critics make with a grain of salt, it’s their stock in trade, their vocabulary. Even while the There Will Be Blood comparison, which initially seems apt. But that film cost 2.5x as much, nearly 20 years ago, and is more Kubrick in nature. And, of course, The Brutalist looks dark and hazy, it’s meant to look invoke an era of filmmaking, probably more Tarkovsky than George Lucas. But I agree, the VistaVision/70MM/IMAX stuff seems gimmicky but it always does. It did when PTA proclaimed this for The Master - actually, a much more apt comparison to The Brutalist. But I can’t imagine how diffuse it would look on an IMAX screen.

Still, for all its flaws, it’s never less than interesting. I even liked the way it approached Zionism, another timely theme with contemporary almost dual resonance and thought it was well done the way it was timed with his nieces assertion of her own identity. It’s definitely a film for adults and while there are plenty of cinematic pleasures, there are a lot of things you intellectual ones as well. As we’ve both mentioned, it’s the performances that are epic and with actors like Brody and Felicity Jones, that expansive sense of humanity is achieved. Brody himself had me in tears within the first five minutes, with both his fear and hope of America’s promise and starting over in a new country. And Jones’ delayed arrival is stunning, when we finally see the reality of her physical being and the way she compensates for that by emotionally clawing into her husband immediately. The mutual adoption of her and Pearce’s family is as interesting as Chekhov in a country that’s booming but no less in denial than their Russian forebears.

Whether it lives up to the “critical hype” or not is immaterial, as it is undeniably a singular vision. I saw it weeks ago and can’t get the landscapes of Carrara out of my mind. Surely, as a piece of cinema, that’s worth the price of admission.

But I’d love to have Brady Corbet as my dad! 😊 His daughter loves him so much. She’ll probably grow up to be a better filmmaker than he is. lol

Sorry for the poor editing on that post. Hope it makes sense.

3.5 HOURS?! GTFOH

R50 She’s definitely growing to be his size.

I totally see the There Will Be Blood comparison,

That too was praised to gills with some saying “Best movie ever made!”

When you saw it, you scratched your head, bewildered if you saw the same movie as the critics