Bloodbrothers

Apparently there are those who feel that the changes made to the novel on which Bloodbrothers is based render the film version less than a classic. Ironic since the Academy bestowed a nomination on the film for Best Adapted Screenplay. But I think this film is still very worthwhile to view.

Tony LoBianco and Paul Sorvino play a pair of middle aged 40 something brothers who cut loose and act like juveniles on the weekend. Especially at Kenneth McMillan's bar where all kinds of bragging about all kinds of things about length and volume take place.

Sorvino is a laid back soul and unlikely to grow up since he's not married and has no reason to grow up. But LoBianco rules a tyrannical household where his wife Leila Goldini is continually afraid and his younger son Michael Hershawe is anorexic from not eating. His oldest son Richard Gere is not sure that he wants to become an electrician like his father and uncle and the grandfather before them.

Two things are impressive about the brothers. Both believe in the value of the dollar and being good providers. Both also are true to their trade and take pride in their work. That's a thing rarer and rarer these days. LoBianco's lecture to Gere is one of the best scenes in the film I felt.

Sad to say there are some less desirable qualities in them, especially LoBianco. The fact that he is the family breadwinner makes him feel he's king of the castle with the rights of royalty to maybe even get a bit of something on the side. When Goldini finds proof of that it sets in motion a train of events that brings down the DeCoco family.

He's got the showiest role and the most to work with in developing a character, but Tony LoBianco really steals this one. Big surprise to me that he was not put into Oscar contention. LoBianco goes through quite a range of emotions with his DeCoco brother. And it's all a mystery to him that he's got the problems he has in his household because his father sure didn't.

By the way note that Richard Gere seems to have the same kind of issues with his family in the Bronx that John Travolta has with his Brooklyn based family. Of course Travolta's Tony Manero comes a lot less dysfunctional group, but the Maneros and DeCocos have a lot of similarities.

It might not be the book that others have read and cite. But Bloodbrothers is fine drama if disconcerting.

When I was a teen, I saw BLOODBROTHERS as a double feature with a horror movie (don't ask me which one). I thought the movie was overwrought then but I sorta enjoyed the fact that the film was dealing with ordinary folks. I've seen the movie recently and whoa, what a terrible melodrama. Except for Gere and Tony Lo Bianco, the film is almost unwatchable. It's badly shot. Looks really cheap. And the level of melodrama in the script and direction is, well, actually revolting. What were they thinking? Every scene with the mother and the kid. Every scene with the wife cheating and Lo Bianco finding out. All the hospital scenes. They all scream melodrama. BLOODBROTHERS is not a very subtle movie. It hammers every emotions and blue-collar story-lines with the light touch of a sledgehammer.

The only reason to watch BLOODBROTHERS is for Tony Lo Bianco, an underrated actor if there ever was one, and a star-making performance by a then young Richard Gere. Whenever Gere is on screen, he eclipses everything else. He really stands-out from the grubby looking project. If you need to see where Gere started out, you have to watch this but if you're looking for a good story about ordinary folks, avoid this movie at all cost.

First I have to say that the novel Bloodbrothers by Richard Price is one of my alltime favorite books. Usually Hollywood has to make changes to make a movie viable , but in this one changing the book's ending kind of negated the novel's point. This is about a blue collar Bronx family with a long line of tradition as construction workers. Richard Gere in one of his first leading roles plays the sensitive older son who wants to work with children. His macho father, well played by Tony Lo Bianco, pressures him to work construction.Lo Bianco's tyrant character has made his whole family miserable, yet he is never played as a stereotype. The entire cast is good but at times it plays like a blue collar soap opera. If you haven't read the book, the film's highly charged emotions may hit home.

>

I just watch Bloodbrothers for the first time and I was quite impressed that the individual stories of each of the six (6) De Coco family members struck me as very real and heart felt. The two (2) senior middle aged De Coco male family members brothers Tommy (Tony Lo Bianco) and Chubby (Paul Sorvino) were especially well acted.

Tommy DeCoco's family is comprised of his troubled and mentally unstable wife Phyllis (Yvonne Wilder), and their two sons, ten (10) year old Albert (Michael Hershewe) who lives in fear of his mother's continued insistance that Albert is too thin and must eat more, and their adult 22 year old son Stony (Richard Gere) who is on the cusp of making the biggest decision in his young life, which is his chosen career path. Stony's father Tommy wants his son Stony to follow in his Italian heritage work path which is in construction, but what Stony really wants to do is to work with young children, most likely as an extension of the love and care he outwardly provides continually to his younger and troubled little brother Albert.

Tommy's brother Chubby, (Paul Sorvino) is filled with life and much love for his brother Tommy's entire family. In a very sombre moment in the middle of the film Chubby shares with the local wheelchair bound barkeeper Banion (Kenneth McMillan) why him and his wife do not have any children of their own and why Chubby is so deeply attached to his brother Tommy's two (2) children.

There are also strong supporting roles by actors Yvonne Wilder, Kenneth McMillan, Kristen DeBell, Floyd Levine, and Marilu Henner. The interaction between Richard Gere and Marilu Henner helped both actors lead very succesful subsequent film careere.s Although the film runs for less than two (2) hours in length there is a lifetime of memories to capture our attention. Two such memorable examples are the birthday celebration of barkeeper Banion, and the family trip by car that everyone has to wear their Sunday best for as Tommy and Chubby surprise their respective families with what they have purchased for their families future use.

This is a film that is a classic and is worthy of a much higher IMDB rating. Maybe some families just cannot face reality, I for one embrace both the love and hardship almost all blue collar families are confronted with in our daily lives.

I give Bloodbrothers a most deserving 9 out of 10 rating

Robert Mulligan is a director who can sometimes serve up a masterpiece and sometimes a megabomb. Take To Kill A Mockingbird, for example, an undisputed classic which would appear on most top 100 lists. Then compare it to The Stalking Moon, a 1968 western which is as boring as it is heavy-handed. In Bloodbrothers, Mulligan has managed to be inconsistent within one movie - aspects of his family drama are pretty good, other parts are downright dull.

Young New Yorker Stony De Coco (Richard Gere) is approaching his 20s and is at the junction of life where he must decide where his future lies. His aggressive, misogynistic father Tommy (Tony LoBianco) expects him to follow in the family tradition of becoming an electrician on construction sites, but Stony feels he has a better aptitude for working with children. He gets a job looking after kids at a city hospital, and finds plenty of rewards in the job, but Tommy applies increasing pressure on him to look for a more "macho", manly job.

Stony's dilemma is quite interesting, and the role is played pretty well by a young, impressive Gere. Tommy is also a strongly-written character, memorably fleshed-out by the reliable and ever-underrated LoBianco. In fact, on the performance front the film is somewhat impressive all the way down the cast. The faults in Bloodbrothers lie elsewhere. Walter Newman's script (arguably the least worthy screenplay ever to receive an Oscar nomination) makes too many unforgivable changes to its source novel; the pacing is less than ideal (the film is halfway through before it becomes apparent where the story is really going); and the broader social and personal issues in the story are never satisfactorily developed. As an acting showcase, this is good stuff but as an overall film it's not so good. There's certainly no reason why you shouldn't give it a go, but it's doubtful that this will ever be a film you want to watch over and over again.