Les chaînes du sang

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.

This adaptation of Price's novel takes such liberties as to make this an almost totally different story.Where do we begin? 1.)The DeCocos,in the story,are a much more grotesque and brutal outfit.Sorvino is much too attractive to play Chubby-it should have been Victor Buono.LoBianco is much too short,and nowhere near ominous enough to do Tommy-it should have been Richard Kiel.And Goldoni is a 100 pounds too light to be playing Marie. 2.)Gere is much too young to be doing Stony.The boy is only 17 years old,and just graduated from high school 2 weeks before the story opens. 3.)The whole business about Sooky involves Chubby-showing that he,in particular,is very unhappy with his marriage. 4.)While Marie is the one who seduces Jack Cutler(as in the book),it is Chubby who,by accident,receives the call from Mrs. Cutler,and,enraged, mistakenly assaults assaults HIS wife.This shows us that even the jovial, genial,good-natured Chubby,who loves his family,has his dark and brutal impulses lying close to the surface. 5.)In the book,after Phyllis is hospitalized,Tommy gives Stony permission,NOT to become an electrician,and Stony CHOOSES NOT to leave his family,staying in the pathological but familiar system to which he is accustomed.In the film,Tommy orders Stony to enter the construction trades,and Stony flees,taking Albert with him.A happy ending,of sorts,which is totally out of synch with the novel. So,it seems that the screenwriters decided to homogenize,clarify,and tack a happy ending onto a novel which was intended to demonstrate a bleak and tragic slice of American life.Perhaps it wouldn't have arrived in screen,otherwise.

Kim Milford, the greatest actor of the latter half of the 20th century, and all around American icon turns in the most under rated performance of his career. Milford, star of the classic Sci Fi film "LASERBLAST" is not held down by the weaknesses of co-star Richard Gere. In fact, the brilliance of Milford's artistry is elevated by the fact that no other actor in the film can match him.

This is an unfair criticism of Gere, since the only actor of Milford's caliber is the legendary Michael Tedesco, who's portrayal of such characters as Jellyroll and Tbob elevate him to the same level as Milford.

One must wonder how this film would have turned out if Milford was not cast. Milford, who would also be burdened with Mark Hammill in Corvette Summer has shown a long tradition of carrying films to greatness that would otherwise be destined for failure.

The De Cocos are a rambunctious bunch. They're working class Bronx family. Louis "Chubby" De Coco (Paul Sorvino) is the protective uncle. Thomas "Stony" De Coco (Richard Gere) is the more sensitive one. Everybody yells. The younger son can't eat. Stony takes a recreational assistant job at a children's hospital ward and turns down his father (Tony Lo Bianco)'s coveted union construction job.

The acting is very broad. The characters are strangely wild like the son who wouldn't eat and his mother having a fit. It's an over-the-top stereotypical portrayal of an Italian-American family. It's not quirky in a funny way. It's like everybody is trying to be in a Streetcar Named Desire. In that way, Richard Gere shows that he has the screen presence to compete against more veteran actors like Sorvino and Bianco. It also has Marilu Henner at the same time as she starts her Taxi run. Sorvino is pushing for acting accolades if only he didn't whip that chain around.

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.