UnowPriceless hyped garbage

SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Celia 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.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

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.

btm1 I just finished watching this on TV. The story is about several weeks in the lives of three bothers. Circumstances (what they are is unimportant) have caused the two younger bachelor brothers to move in with their older married brother and his family. The script explores the relationships between three loving Irish Catholic American brothers, each with a distinctive personality, and the relationships each has with the women in their lives. It's about real love and romance (not the sappy romantic comedy type), fears of commitment, and the twists and turns these men go through in dealing with that aspect of their lives. Their Catholicism has a lot to do with the story. At one point Patrick says to his Jewish girl friend, "I go to Church every week; you go to Temple only once or twice a year." She replies, "Yes, but your religion is crazy." Although the most religious of the three, Patrick, goes against the Church's teachings in that he uses condoms; but, he worries about going to Hell should he commit other serious sin. Marriage to all of them means a life-long commitment. Their mother's life set the standard for them. She had lived 35 years in a forced, loveless marriage until her husband passed away. That freed her to go to the man she had been in love with when circumstances caused her to marry the boys' father. Abortion was out of the question, as was divorce.Ed Burns is credited with writing and directing the film and he also is very credible as the middle brother. While the entire cast made their characters seem real, the actor who in my mind stood out is Mike McGlone, who plays Patrick, the youngest brother who has a kind of altar boy personality. Perhaps Ed Burns' choice of camera angles gets some of the credit for making his performance particularly memorable, but McGlone brought something special to that part.

guyfromjerzee I'm a big Edward Burns fan, since he's shown time and time again that it's possible to make an interesting film on a low budget that simply focuses on people and their relationships with one another. I always feel that the best movies are ones that I can most relate to. The reason why I don't even have a slight urge to see any of the "Lord of the Rings" films is because what is there to relate to in those stories? How am I supposed to connect with characters who are saving the world from monsters? However, I can relate to the characters and situations in Edward Burns's films. I feel like I'm part of their lives. And most importantly, they talk like REAL people! Burns has a knack for sharp, yet realistic dialogue. The movie was shot on an extremely, and I mean extremely, low budget. I learned a lot from Burns's DVD commentary and he gives a lot of confidence to aspiring student filmmakers like myself. Most of the locations are either in someone's house, in the park or on the sidewalks. There ya go! No permits, no shooting within private property--yet is it sacrificing the integrity of the film? Not one bit. The film stock itself isn't the best of quality, but that goes to show audiences that a movie doesn't have to be "visually spectacular" to be good. Good script and good actors--that's what you need.End of story! Burns could've shot the whole movie on an old video camera, and that wouldn't have made the finished product any less effective. Now, onto what didn't work about this film. Low-budget doesn't exactly translate to low quality, but there's usually at least a few sacrifices to be made. For example, some of the acting in "The Brothers McMullen" is wooden. What surprised me was that Jack Mulcahy is the only actor in the cast with previous experience, and he's the worst of the bunch! He delivers his lines with hardly any emotion and rarely changes his facial expression. Maxine Bahns, who basically was hired because she was Burns's girlfriend at the time, isn't a great actress and proves that she's not much more than a pretty face. Mike McGlone gives the best performance, as he seems the most natural and comfortable with his role. People tend to criticize Edward Burns as an actor, and he's no Robert DeNiro, but at the same time he's good at playing an extension of himself. Some actors, or performers I should say, are good at playing one type of role and there's nothing wrong with that. "The Brothers McMullen" is not a brilliant film, but it's very good for its budget and serves as a fine escape from all these corny special effects extravaganzas.

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.