User reviews

This is the kind of film which you don't know if it's just bad or if what feels bad about it is it succeeding. This question arises for me because I think it did succeed at what it aimed to do which was to portray two brothers, how they were different as well as alike and how they fed off of each other. Though the brother played by Josh Lucas was quite despicable, I wound up not feeling sorry for the other brother because they enabled each other.

The thing is, this often happens in families. Each brother had his own problems, i.e., with relationships, with work, art, and the world in general, but they both came from the same family and in the end, shared some common traits.

As the other review indicates, it is a slow moving film. The things that happen are "small" and more time is spent on events than usually happens in films, but that too may be calculated for its effect.

I'd recommend seeing it if you're a fan of any of the actors, and/or if you like watching psychological relationship movies which may make you feel uncomfortable, tense or frustrated. I probably would have liked it more if I felt I gained some kind of insight from it.

I hate leaving bad reviews, because I feel like you can take a little something from every movie. So I will just honestly describe this movie as "a slow movie." It's the type of movie that you would watch while lazing around at home on a Sunday afternoon, or the type of movie that you would play in the background of a get-together for white noise.

I'm sure it will win plenty of awards because it does have some substance and it requires some thought in order to receive the message conveyed. But in a nut-shell, a free-spirited man-child lives without regrets or constraints. His polar-opposite brother seeks guidance and happiness all while babysitting an adult male. I recommend giving it a chance on a sick-day from work.

I found this to be a confusing mess of a movie. I actually didn't like the constant score throughout. The characters were depressing. Lucy Owen's character was the only one I liked. The two brothers were both insufferable and I an issue with the chaotic enabling throughout.

Being abstract and weird is certainly not something a lot of people would like, but that's the sort of tone that The Mend works in. On one hand, it is telling a mostly simple, straight-forward tale of two brothers and their dysfunction, but on the other hand giving that description of the film would not give it enough credit at all. I read a review calling it a very confident debut feature, and that it is. Not many fresh filmmakers would attempt to hint at the pacing and balanced tone that this does, and in that respect, props need to be given in different ways. That's not to say that all of it works though, since there are instances where more restraint may have been appreciated. Nonetheless, very intriguing film.

This is the closest thing I've seen to a pound-for-pound masterpiece of American independent cinema in quite some time.

The Mend is both bold AF and air tight (formally) on every level. Camera, performance, writing (oh, god, the writing), music, editing (holy moly, the editing)...just to name the main few. It reads as a bold personal project from an agitated, veteran filmmaker returning to his roots after a line of successful studio films made in other cultures. Assured, meticulous, worldly, and through and through- American.

This movie is a living, breathing paradox. So frantic, manic, and harried, it feels as though it shouldn't congeal and add up in the end. No way it could. But it does. Its characters are simultaneously insane and wild, yet very much people we all know. Theatrical at turns (to great effect), yet deeply rooted in realism. The story is exciting and kinetic, yet simple, minimalist, and human.

If it weren't for the authenticity of emotion in every fiber of this film, the joy ride could be just that- a ride that drops you off without more than ephemeral excitement. But this movie finds its way into your pours. It haunts you in a way only truly great cinema does. It imparts knowledge without attempting to teach.

As one review mentioned- this movie breaks all the rules (something every first time director wants to have the balls to do, but who's intellect and slight of hand rarely seems to match). Oh boy, it matches. Were it studied, I can see how it has the power to discourage or befuddle many a new filmmaker, simply with it's rare, inadvisable brilliance.

I can imagine you might be reading this review, labeling it knee-jerk hyperbole. 'Exit Door Excitement'. I am here to tell you this film has gestated in my levels of consciousness for over 1 year. Three viewings (the most recent being last night). The Mend has continued to impress/scare/bewilder/seduce me. I suspect it always will.

Someone please tell me how this film was not heralded by all those fans of bold new cinema? This is a travesty and I can only hope the filmmakers keep making exactly the films they need to make in order to satisfy their instincts. Those instincts will someday align with a larger audience. If there is any kind of justice in this universe.