I'm a big Edward Burns fan, since he's shown time and time again that it's possible to make an interesting film on a low budget that simply focuses on people and their relationships with one another. I always feel that the best movies are ones that I can most relate to. The reason why I don't even have a slight urge to see any of the "Lord of the Rings" films is because what is there to relate to in those stories? How am I supposed to connect with characters who are saving the world from monsters? However, I can relate to the characters and situations in Edward Burns's films. I feel like I'm part of their lives. And most importantly, they talk like REAL people! Burns has a knack for sharp, yet realistic dialogue. The movie was shot on an extremely, and I mean extremely, low budget. I learned a lot from Burns's DVD commentary and he gives a lot of confidence to aspiring student filmmakers like myself. Most of the locations are either in someone's house, in the park or on the sidewalks. There ya go! No permits, no shooting within private property--yet is it sacrificing the integrity of the film? Not one bit. The film stock itself isn't the best of quality, but that goes to show audiences that a movie doesn't have to be "visually spectacular" to be good. Good script and good actors--that's what you need.
End of story! Burns could've shot the whole movie on an old video camera, and that wouldn't have made the finished product any less effective. Now, onto what didn't work about this film. Low-budget doesn't exactly translate to low quality, but there's usually at least a few sacrifices to be made. For example, some of the acting in "The Brothers McMullen" is wooden. What surprised me was that Jack Mulcahy is the only actor in the cast with previous experience, and he's the worst of the bunch! He delivers his lines with hardly any emotion and rarely changes his facial expression. Maxine Bahns, who basically was hired because she was Burns's girlfriend at the time, isn't a great actress and proves that she's not much more than a pretty face. Mike McGlone gives the best performance, as he seems the most natural and comfortable with his role. People tend to criticize Edward Burns as an actor, and he's no Robert DeNiro, but at the same time he's good at playing an extension of himself. Some actors, or performers I should say, are good at playing one type of role and there's nothing wrong with that. "The Brothers McMullen" is not a brilliant film, but it's very good for its budget and serves as a fine escape from all these corny special effects extravaganzas.
End of story! Burns could've shot the whole movie on an old video camera, and that wouldn't have made the finished product any less effective. Now, onto what didn't work about this film. Low-budget doesn't exactly translate to low quality, but there's usually at least a few sacrifices to be made. For example, some of the acting in "The Brothers McMullen" is wooden. What surprised me was that Jack Mulcahy is the only actor in the cast with previous experience, and he's the worst of the bunch! He delivers his lines with hardly any emotion and rarely changes his facial expression. Maxine Bahns, who basically was hired because she was Burns's girlfriend at the time, isn't a great actress and proves that she's not much more than a pretty face. Mike McGlone gives the best performance, as he seems the most natural and comfortable with his role. People tend to criticize Edward Burns as an actor, and he's no Robert DeNiro, but at the same time he's good at playing an extension of himself. Some actors, or performers I should say, are good at playing one type of role and there's nothing wrong with that. "The Brothers McMullen" is not a brilliant film, but it's very good for its budget and serves as a fine escape from all these corny special effects extravaganzas.