The Brutalist
A visionary architect flees post-war Europe in 1947 for a brighter future in the United States and finds his life forever changed by a wealthy client.A visionary architect flees post-war Europe in 1947 for a brighter future in the United States and finds his life forever changed by a wealthy client.A visionary architect flees post-war Europe in 1947 for a brighter future in the United States and finds his life forever changed by a wealthy client.
- Won 3 Oscars
- 135 wins & 344 nominations total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Summary
Reviewers say 'The Brutalist' is a visually stunning film with ambitious themes of immigration and artistic integrity. Adrien Brody's performance is highly praised, though the slow pacing and emotionally detached storytelling receive criticism. The use of AI in accents and set design sparks debate. Themes of antisemitism and the immigrant experience are highlighted, along with the symbolic use of brutalist architecture. Performances by Brody, Pearce, and Jones are commended, but the film's epic scale and narrative execution are divisive.
Featured reviews
The first half of "The Brutalist" slowly and beautifully unfolds in a way that feels like it's going to be the next "Godfather."
As the second half of the film came after intermission, I was hoping it would continue down that same trajectory, but instead the second half goes down a strange, confusing and puzzling path, which some viewers might find brilliant. When the end did come, I found myself laughing as I shook my head walking the razors edge in my mind, saying to myself, "Why did Corbet go down this path?" and at the same time saying, "that was actually kind of brilliant."
Art is subjective and some people might really like this strange and bizarre second half of the film. Perhaps it was even Corbet's middle finger to the audience saying, "You didn't see that coming, did you?" Whatever the case may be, I give the second half a 4 because the first half was so brilliant, and I really wanted the film to continue going down that same trajectory the entire way through.
In the end, the acting is terrific, the cinematography is absolutely beautiful, and the film is strange. But I give it to Corbet for the effort, making films are hard, and he went for something different with his artistic vision.
As the second half of the film came after intermission, I was hoping it would continue down that same trajectory, but instead the second half goes down a strange, confusing and puzzling path, which some viewers might find brilliant. When the end did come, I found myself laughing as I shook my head walking the razors edge in my mind, saying to myself, "Why did Corbet go down this path?" and at the same time saying, "that was actually kind of brilliant."
Art is subjective and some people might really like this strange and bizarre second half of the film. Perhaps it was even Corbet's middle finger to the audience saying, "You didn't see that coming, did you?" Whatever the case may be, I give the second half a 4 because the first half was so brilliant, and I really wanted the film to continue going down that same trajectory the entire way through.
In the end, the acting is terrific, the cinematography is absolutely beautiful, and the film is strange. But I give it to Corbet for the effort, making films are hard, and he went for something different with his artistic vision.
Movie Review: A Disappointing Experience
I had high expectations for this movie, but unfortunately, it turned out to be a disappointing experience. The pacing was painfully slow, making it difficult to stay engaged. Many scenes felt completely unnecessary, dragging the runtime without adding any real value to the story.
From an artistic perspective, the film seemed to rely heavily on overacting, which made the characters feel exaggerated and unrealistic. Instead of enhancing the emotional depth, the performances often came across as forced and distracting.
While the movie seemed to aim for a deeper, artistic message, it failed to deliver it in a coherent way. The narrative lacked clarity, and by the end, I was left wondering what the point of it all was. Overall, it felt like a missed opportunity that could have been so much more with tighter editing and more thoughtful storytelling.
I had high expectations for this movie, but unfortunately, it turned out to be a disappointing experience. The pacing was painfully slow, making it difficult to stay engaged. Many scenes felt completely unnecessary, dragging the runtime without adding any real value to the story.
From an artistic perspective, the film seemed to rely heavily on overacting, which made the characters feel exaggerated and unrealistic. Instead of enhancing the emotional depth, the performances often came across as forced and distracting.
While the movie seemed to aim for a deeper, artistic message, it failed to deliver it in a coherent way. The narrative lacked clarity, and by the end, I was left wondering what the point of it all was. Overall, it felt like a missed opportunity that could have been so much more with tighter editing and more thoughtful storytelling.
'The Brutalist' never lets you breathe. The director builds it with such purpose that you see the care in every frame. He's a talented craftsman, no question, but also so crushingly serious. And that chokes out any real feeling. You watch the artistry turn into artifice. And, after a while, all that weight just presses down.
The film is so obsessed with being Art that it forgets to let you in. It's so heavy with its own importance that it starts to close in on itself so much so that eventually all you see is this polished facade, reflecting its own seriousness back at you.
It doesn't stay with you. It stands there, sealed off by its own sense of importance, and you're left outside.
The film is so obsessed with being Art that it forgets to let you in. It's so heavy with its own importance that it starts to close in on itself so much so that eventually all you see is this polished facade, reflecting its own seriousness back at you.
It doesn't stay with you. It stands there, sealed off by its own sense of importance, and you're left outside.
By all rights, The Brutalists should have been a triumph of contemporary cinema. It had all the necessary accouterments: a sprawling runtime (three-plus hours, no less), a cast of pedigreed thespians frowning meaningfully into the middle distance, and a grandiose self-awareness that all but guarantees critical accolades from the usual dreary pamphleteers of moral instruction. Instead, what we receive is a lumbering, self-indulgent exercise in ideological exhibitionism-an advertisement, really, for a laundry list of progressive orthodoxies, stitched together with the unearned gravity of a film convinced of its own greatness.
It is, at its core, an excruciatingly obvious sermon on the virtues of mass immigration, the tragic poetry of opioid smuggling, and the intersectional ballet of class struggle. One gets the distinct impression that the director, overcome with the giddy self-righteousness of a trust fund revolutionary, decided that any opposition to these themes-however slight, however nuanced-should be discarded as brutish and retrograde. The result is a film that does not argue, but dictates; it does not question, but demands obedience.
A particularly egregious example of this is the film's treatment of sexuality, which, rather than being a natural element of character or plot, is wielded like a cudgel, as if the director has mistaken provocation for profundity. This is, of course, the age-old trick of the modern auteur: to linger uncomfortably on scenes of grotesque degradation and then feign astonishment when audiences express revulsion. "Ah, but you are merely revealing your own prejudices," the filmmakers sneer, mistaking their own self-indulgence for bravery.
Then there is the matter of style-or, more accurately, the utter absence of it. The Brutalists operates in the now all-too-familiar mode of arthouse monotony, stretching its scenes to insufferable lengths in an attempt to pass off inertia as profundity. The cinematography, full of languid tracking shots and barren industrial landscapes, serves as a backdrop for dialogue so contrived, so consciously weighty, that one is left yearning for the honesty of silence.
But perhaps the film's greatest failure is its utter lack of humanity. Beneath its posturing, its po-faced political hectoring, and its parade of suffering, there is no genuine curiosity about human nature-only a tedious reaffirmation of fashionable narratives. It is a work of cynical calculation, designed not to challenge or illuminate but to reinforce the self-congratulatory smugness of its intended audience.
In the end, The Brutalists is not so much a film as it is a performance of righteousness, an expensively produced hymn to contemporary pieties. It is a cinematic endurance test, wherein those who survive its oppressive runtime are rewarded not with insight or catharsis, but merely the hollow satisfaction of having borne witness to its turgid self-importance. If this is the new standard of "bold" filmmaking, then one must ask: Is there anything left to rebel against, other than the tedium of the sermon itself?
It is, at its core, an excruciatingly obvious sermon on the virtues of mass immigration, the tragic poetry of opioid smuggling, and the intersectional ballet of class struggle. One gets the distinct impression that the director, overcome with the giddy self-righteousness of a trust fund revolutionary, decided that any opposition to these themes-however slight, however nuanced-should be discarded as brutish and retrograde. The result is a film that does not argue, but dictates; it does not question, but demands obedience.
A particularly egregious example of this is the film's treatment of sexuality, which, rather than being a natural element of character or plot, is wielded like a cudgel, as if the director has mistaken provocation for profundity. This is, of course, the age-old trick of the modern auteur: to linger uncomfortably on scenes of grotesque degradation and then feign astonishment when audiences express revulsion. "Ah, but you are merely revealing your own prejudices," the filmmakers sneer, mistaking their own self-indulgence for bravery.
Then there is the matter of style-or, more accurately, the utter absence of it. The Brutalists operates in the now all-too-familiar mode of arthouse monotony, stretching its scenes to insufferable lengths in an attempt to pass off inertia as profundity. The cinematography, full of languid tracking shots and barren industrial landscapes, serves as a backdrop for dialogue so contrived, so consciously weighty, that one is left yearning for the honesty of silence.
But perhaps the film's greatest failure is its utter lack of humanity. Beneath its posturing, its po-faced political hectoring, and its parade of suffering, there is no genuine curiosity about human nature-only a tedious reaffirmation of fashionable narratives. It is a work of cynical calculation, designed not to challenge or illuminate but to reinforce the self-congratulatory smugness of its intended audience.
In the end, The Brutalists is not so much a film as it is a performance of righteousness, an expensively produced hymn to contemporary pieties. It is a cinematic endurance test, wherein those who survive its oppressive runtime are rewarded not with insight or catharsis, but merely the hollow satisfaction of having borne witness to its turgid self-importance. If this is the new standard of "bold" filmmaking, then one must ask: Is there anything left to rebel against, other than the tedium of the sermon itself?
This has a very nice cast and a great underdog premise, but feels a bit over the top with cheap emotional manipulation that detracts from what could have been an epic cinematic achievement.
It really started feeling forced after the halfway point with more and more implausibilities that just shook me out of the story.
The mark of a weak writer is melodrama and excessive salacious story elements, but then it could just be the producers that dictated the addition of the nonsensical scenarios that just had no basis in the reality they established.
The production value is there, the cast is there, the soundtrack is there, but then they had to trot out as many tropes as possible, and by then, the weak resolution is just background noise.
It really started feeling forced after the halfway point with more and more implausibilities that just shook me out of the story.
The mark of a weak writer is melodrama and excessive salacious story elements, but then it could just be the producers that dictated the addition of the nonsensical scenarios that just had no basis in the reality they established.
The production value is there, the cast is there, the soundtrack is there, but then they had to trot out as many tropes as possible, and by then, the weak resolution is just background noise.
Did you know
- TriviaThere is no Brutalist-style church in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. Brady Corbet's inspiration is St. John's Abbey Church in Collegeville, Minnesota. Based on the plans by Hungarian-born, Bauhaus-educated modernist architect Marcel Breuer from 1953, the complex was completed in 1961 and includes a church, library, dormitory, science department, and center for ecumenical research. Constructed to accommodate 1,700 people, it is trapezoidal in shape, with a white granite altar end raised on a circular platform. The church is naturally illuminated by low windows, the entrance, and an amber roof-light. A crucifix is suspended above the altar. St. John's Abbey is part of the campus of St. John's University, and appears in What Happened to Josh? (2022).
- GoofsIn a 1950s scene in Pennsylvania USA, during the card-playing, money put on the table includes US one-dollar bills with bright green ink, indicating they are Federal Reserve Notes, first issued in 1963. One-dollar Silver Certificates, having blue and black ink on the front, are appropriate for the era.
- Quotes
László Tóth: Is there a better description of a cube than that of its construction?
- Crazy creditsA recreation of the 1950s VistaVision logo is shown during the opening logos.
- Alternate versionsIn India, some sexual content (visuals of genitals, a black-and-white porn clip and an intimate scene involving a prostitute) was censored by the Central Board of Film Certification for theatrical release. Also, anti-smoking spots as well as static disclaimers for scenes of smoking/drinking/drug consumption were added.
- ConnectionsFeatured in The 7PM Project: Episode dated 10 December 2024 (2024)
- SoundtracksL'Onorevole Bricolle
Performed by Clara Jaione con Orchestra
Written by Armando Fragna & Riccardo Morbelli
Published by Sugar Songs UK Ltd
(c) CETRA (1946)
- How long is The Brutalist?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Languages
- Also known as
- El Brutalista
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $10,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $16,279,129
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $266,791
- Dec 22, 2024
- Gross worldwide
- $50,366,792
- Runtime
- 3h 36m(216 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.66 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content