अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंA man who returns to his hometown for a funeral may have a much larger purpose in life than those around him can see.A man who returns to his hometown for a funeral may have a much larger purpose in life than those around him can see.A man who returns to his hometown for a funeral may have a much larger purpose in life than those around him can see.
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
I only saw the movie once, back when it came out, but it left an impression on me. John is an enigma, one we discover more puzzling things about but never anything that is a solid answer. Like Will Geer's character, we can guess things about John and the reasons for his return, but we will never know the answers.... At least not until John chooses to act.
By the way, the film makes an interesting mirror to IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT. Consider that film as if it were an X-Files episode....
By the way, the film makes an interesting mirror to IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT. Consider that film as if it were an X-Files episode....
I found the movie thought provoking when I first saw it. So much so, I purchased and read the book. Will Geer gives a performance that should have gotten him at least an oscar nomimation. The conversations between Poitier's character and Geer's are simple yet profound in what they imply. Not an action movie, more of a prophetic drama. Not a lot of people I have talked to have seen it but of those who have seen it, they have liked it. Its a great discussion group movie.
Odd Ernest Kinoy screenplay involving a mysteriously reticent black man of very few words returning to his Southern hometown for the funeral of his sister, dating a pretty schoolteacher but also getting involved in heated racial confrontations between the black residents and the redneck law. Peculiar, offbeat to say the least, yet hardly engrossing or emotional aside from the two big confrontations (one racially-charged, the other over a woman). Will Geer gives an irritatingly obtuse, owl-like performance as the doctor who originally delivered "Brother John", and who now senses something magical about him. In the lead, Sidney Poitier holds the screen with resplendence; he still has all the charisma and inner-fire of his popular 1960s roles, and allows us to see it (or perceive it) at perfectly-timed intervals. However, this cloudy mood piece--with timely undercurrents of oppression--isn't an exciting or gripping picture. Some have lauded the film for its dreamy ambiance, others will feel this approach ultimately works against the characters. A mixed-bag, though one with a beautiful score by Quincy Jones and expressive Gerald Perry Finnerman cinematography. ** from ****
First of all Vincent Canby was wrong. Poitier's character John Kane is not an angel. He is very much a living breathing earthly being capable of error as evidenced by a scene where he thoughtlessly lets slip a bit of information he should not have mentioned. Do I know exactly who or what John Kane was meant to be taken for by Ernest Kinoy the screenwriter? Definitely not. Does that at all detract from the enjoyment of this film. Absolutely not. Think of Mark Twain's The Mysterous Stranger or the sci-fi film classic "The Day The Earth Stood Still" Both of these works are scathing indictments of the pettiness and baseness of human kind. If you have any knowledge of how wisdom is communicated in the eastern religions such as Budhism you will be mesmerized by the conversation that takes place in the jail cell between the world weary Kane and Dr. Thomas. It is significant that it is a physician who more accurately than any other character understands what Kane is up to. Who else but a physician is actually trained to see man as he really is, with all pretenses and garments removed? Dr.Thomas has in his own way been performing the same task as Kane all his life making dispassionate clinical observations. The fact that none of the social issues and conflicts portrayed in the film are fleshed out or resolved in any satisfying way is not a problem for this film. They are all just symptoms of the underlying disease. In my opinion Kinoy is saying the disease itself is simply the nature of man. Perhaps the beating and humiliation of an officer of the law (even a blatantly racist and evil one)- by an African American that takes place in this film was simply too radical in 1971 for it to be aggressively promoted or to be supported by critics. Don't let this film's obscurity keep you from superb performances by Mr Poitier and Will Geer.
Sidney Poitier gives an exemplary performance in a film in which the viewer is kept in suspense as to why and who. Right to the very end, the viewer never knows for sure what the visitor to a small town really is. The supporting cast is excellent and Will Geer and Sidney Poitier are outstanding.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाColumbia Pictures was denied the use of the name Kane for this picture by a 3-man industry panel on April 24, 1970. RKO claimed the moniker would be detrimental to the movie Citizen Kane (1941) which was still in re-issue. Variety, May 20, 1970.
- भाव
John Kane: What do you want from me Doctor Thomas? I can't tell you anything.
Doc Thomas: I know. You might just be a paranoid schizophrenic, and I might be a senile psychotic sharing your delusion.
John Kane: That's possible.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Shirtless: Hollywood's Sexiest Men (2002)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Brother John?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- चलने की अवधि
- 1 घं 35 मि(95 min)
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें