Brothers

Greetings again from the darkness. The old adage "blood is thicker than water" has always been fruitful movie fodder. Writer/director Vidhu Vinod Chopra takes the theme to a small, dusty town on the Mexico border. He introduces us to the sons of the local sheriff … Buddy is the slow-witted eldest and Jakey the bespectacled musical prodigy.

Buddy is flashing his dead-eye aim at the shooting range when his father (Thomas Jane) is murdered right in front of him. Local mobster Mr. Hench (Vincent D'Onofrio) seizes the opportunity to utilize young Buddy's need for revenge. Jump ahead 15 years, and Jakey (Anton Yelchen, Star Trek) is engaged to Vittoria (Maria Valverde) and living in New York City as a classical violinist. Things get interesting when Buddy (Chris Marquette) entices Jakey to come visit after being away for eight years.

Jake isn't in town very long before he fully understands that Hench has a grip on Buddy, who is now a full-fledged hit-man engulfed in the various border gang wars. Here is where the brotherly bond kicks in. Watching it play out against the manipulative power of Hench provides the meatiest conflict within the film. The brothers admit to living on "different planets", but it's clear that their traumatic childhood has connected them in a manner that time and distance can't break … even though one of them more readily identifies "bad men".

Sean Patrick Flanery (Boondock Saints) has an odd, but hyper-energetic small role, but most of the screen time is taken by D'Onofrio, Yelchin and Marquette. A better written role for Ms. Valverde would have been advantageous, but mostly this is a solid little crime drama with an emphasis on brotherly bond.

So we have a true-blue Hollywood film directed by a true-blue Bollywood director, and barring a few like Shekhar Kapoor, this feat is as rare as it gets. Vidhu Vinod Chopra and Abhijat Joshi took the drafts of Parinda and ran them over the barren landscapes of crime- infested US-Mexico border and to be fair did not make a complete mess out of it. There are enough things to appreciate here. The performances are impressive and so is the cinematography. The movie does not fail due to the want of acting chops or production quality. What it lacks is plain, strong storytelling.

It had all the makings of a strong, moody tale with sparse characters and dusty landscapes of a Western. It could have even aimed somewhere between Unforgiven and A History Of Violence but unfortunately ended up way off-the-mark. The tension and mood that Chopra tries to build could have worked so well had it not been for the predictable turn of events and all too familiar tropes of brotherly sagas. Eventually, the plot just doesn't have enough conflicts and the story is much rather fit for a TV movie or a 40 minute episode rather than a 2 hour movie.

Consequently, the events seem stretched and apart from the intended ones, boredom is one of the major emotions you'll feel undergoing this ordeal. The melodrama doesn't help either. Marquette has the most to do and overplays the slow-brained older brother. Anton Yelchin is controlled but it's Vincent D'Onofrio as Julius Hench who makes the movie watchable with his menacing demeanor. His overbearing persona is pitch-perfect and his performance alone deserved a better movie.

It's not that Vidhu Vinod Chopra has done a bad job but he just hasn't done enough with the job at hand. What's there on the screen looks half-baked and incomplete and the movie lacks that punch and tension that you expect from a drama like this. The cinematography by the brilliant Tom Stern (long time Clint Eastwood collaborator) is the other aspect of the movie that lands it above the usual fare.

'Broken Horses' ends up as a job half done but not for the lack of resources at hand. I would still take heart from the fact that Bollywood meets Hollywood isn't the easiest of marriages and Chopra's attempt deserves attention, if only he can learn from it and deliver the next time.

(Upperstall.com)

The veteran producer-director Vidhu Vinod Chopra ventures into Hollywood and delivers a film that might not be able to impress the west as well as the east due to its overused, stale subject that cinema lovers have seen umpteen times all over the world in various films from the same genre.

No doubt VVC never made BROKEN HORSES for the Indian audience. But since he did release it in India, therefore reviewing it from an Indian perspective the film manages to impress just marginally due to its technical excellence alone, majorly because the viewers here have already seen everything presented in the film earlier in director's own PARINDA released in 1989. In fact it was quite surprising and weird to know that even after 25 years of successful film-making with innovative, creative minds such as Hirani, Aamir and more, VVC still could think of remaking PARINDA only while moving on to Hollywood.

For friends willing to know the details of similarities between PARINDA and BROKEN HORSES, here too we have childhood reference of two kids (Jackie & Anil), heartfelt love of elder brother who joins the crime world, a crazy gangster (Nana Patekar) having an obsession with fire whose family was burnt alive, the younger brother (Anil) returning after a long gap, his audition for entering the gang killing a helping friend (Sameer Kakkar), his revenge from the gangster, the gang rivalry with another mobster (Moosa – Tom Alter), the mobster helping the younger brother, the young one's love affair with a girl (Madhuri), their marriage and first night selected for their killing (where the yacht gets replaced by a ranch) and then the finale with (thankfully) a change where everyone doesn't die like in PARINDA. So the only single difference in the storyline is the missing character of Anupam Kher and a GODFATHER inspired sequence that goes missing in BROKEN HORSES playing it safe.

Looking at these exact similar sequences and the dead slow pace of the film, the film is bound to be rejected by the English film viewers here in India and the fact was pretty clear when I found myself all alone sitting in the theatre in its very first show which was also running after my repeated request made to the theatre manager.

Coming to the western audience, the subject is certainly not new for them too after watching several movies made on the plot of a mole seeking his revenge or related subjects based on gang wars beginning from the classic ON THE WATERFRONT released way back in 1954. Moreover the annoyingly slow place in the beginning and then few shallow sequences like 'the interview' doesn't let you form any great opinion about the film either quite frankly. However the emotional execution of VVC, along with some well directed violent scenes, impressive cinematography, a fine background score and noteworthy production values (all western technicians) are sure to get noticed in Hollywood, coming from an Indian film-maker representing an industry known to be obsessed with music, songs and dances.

In the performances, Christopher G. Marquette takes a big lead as Buddy and does manage to engage the viewer emotionally (he actually saves the movie) whereas Anton Yelchin presents a simple yet honest act as his younger brother becoming the rebel.D'Onofrio trying to be the cunningly ruthless gangster doesn't work really and the same can be said about Sean Patrick Flanery (the music teacher) and Maria Valverde too playing the lady love of Anton.

In short, it was quite hard to understand the reason why Vidhu Vinod Chopra couldn't think of any fresh innovative idea while venturing into Hollywood. Plus after watching the film, it makes you both laugh & wonder together that why he was denying the fact of BROKEN HORSES being an exact version of his PARINDA in all those interviews and press statements before its release? May be he did it on purpose to get a get good initial before the secret was out.

This is that kind of movie that maybe it wasn't for cinema. I mean, for a T.V. movie is OK; it has a story that tries to involve you in the "family values"'s sort of way, but it doesn't really grab your attention at its fullest.

The main problem is that the beginning has a poor rhythm, you don't quite connect with the characters nor the story and as it goes on doesn't change much... you are there waiting and waiting, and almost a half an hour later you start to pay attention to it, only to figure it out what it is gonna happen next, almost immediately. So it lacks of emotion and development, it has no complexity whatsoever and also the performances are "average", except for Marquette, maybe the striking point.

Also it has a nice cinematography and i quite like it the place where was filmed (if you're a fan of the landscapes); but that is all.

So, you CAN watch it, but don't expect much.

I don't get it. This movie has some high levels supporters (such as James Cameron) praising the movie, yet I can't see in any way how they are able to back it up. We have here a film centring round two brothers, who are caught in the middle of a corruption ring. One brother is slow witted and is being used whilst the other is trapped in his efforts to help his brother.

It's about brotherhood, loyalty, blood etc etc. The problem is that it just isn't gripping. The storyline is mostly poor and nothing complex, but the underlying themes need something challenging. It's absent here.

The main leads are fair enough and not big names, working hard with the material in front of them, but they can little save this.

The cinematography is beautiful and so is the natural scenery, but that's as good as it gets.

Not by any means the poorest film of late, but one that I can't seem to like. If it wasn't for the major sponsors of this film it likely would never have got any of the attention it ever did.