Les chaînes du sang

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.

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.

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.

Right from the get-go, this thing is off the chain! Paul Sorvino and Tony Lo Bianco play two "bruddas from Noo Yawk" who work in construction and are getting drunk. Richard Gere, who actually seems like a real person and not a caricature of a New York Italian, gives the best performance.

So much swearing for a movie that I taped off of Turner Classic Movies in the wee hours of the morning! Nothing against swearing but I can't believe I taped it off of Turner Classic Movies! There's a hilariously over the top scene with Tony Lo Bianco's wife and their younger son...I just sat there with my mouth open. My hat's off to the actors but maybe the director should have reigned them all in a little, it comes off a little too hysterical...or maybe that's just how it is in Italian households? That's just my opinion but check it out for yourself. If nothing else, you'll laugh inappropriately like I did.

I was entertained throughout though, every scene is special in that it could be it's own short film. I felt like they were adapting the book chapter by chapter. If you like this time period and the movies from then, you will want to see it.

Richard Gere had a great year in 1978. He was getting alot of attention from "Looking for Mr. Goodbar", "Days of Heaven" and this movie. I enjoyed this movie very much and that was in large part to the performance of Gere. He plays a nice kid who only wants to work with children and be nice to his little brother, but his Dad (Tony LoBiano) is a macho construction worker who wants his son to be a bad-ass like him. His uncle (Paul Sorvino) is not much more understanding, but he is a little more human than the father. Gere's mother is also very frustrated by the father's inhumanity. There is a subplot involving a bartender (the late Kenneth McMillan) who cannot reach out to his gay son. The theme of the movie is understanding, compassion and love and Richard Gere as 'Stony' personifies these qualities perfectly. I have not read the novel by Richard Price, and I probably should since he is one of my favorite authors.