User reviews

The Sisters Brothers is a film set in the American Old West, based on a book by a Canadian, made by a mostly French crew, shot primarily in Spain and Romania, featuring a Brit as an American, an American as a Brit, and a British trans comedian as a ruthless American businesswoman. I don't bring this up out of mere frivolousness; rather, a certain element of schizophrenia is built into the film's very DNA. On the surface it's a Revisionist Western with a gritty Spaghetti aesthetic focusing very much on a group of anti-heroes, but it's also a story of two brothers getting on one another's nerves, a tale of avarice and the destructive potential of progressive thinking, a chase movie, a dark comedy, a tragic fable, an examination of the days when the Old West was giving way to an ever-encroaching modernity, a look at how the sins of the father are oft repeated by the children, a study of competing types of masculinity, and even a political thesis, postulating that there was a time in American history when certain people genuinely believed they could build a harmonious society based on direct democracy.

The English language debut of director Jacques Audiard, who adapted the script with his regular writing partner Thomas Bidegain from Patrick DeWitt's 2011 novel of the same name, the film is very much of a piece with his more celebrated humanist work such as The Beat That My Heart Skipped (2005), A Prophet (2009), and Dheepan (2015). Unfortunately, it did next-to-nothing for me. I wouldn't say it's a bad movie, as it clearly has a lot going for it; not the least of which is an unapologetic foregrounding of character over plot. However, its episodic rhythm, bifurcated narrative structure, and poorly-defined morality left me unengaged, frustrated, and rather bored.

Set in 1851 at the height of the California Gold Rush, the film tells the story of Charlie Sisters (Joaquin Phoenix) and his older brother Eli (John C. Reilly), hired guns working for "The Commodore" (a criminally underused Rutger Hauer). Far more sensitive and thoughtful than his younger brother, Eli is growing weary of the lifestyle, wanting to retire, settle down, and open a grocery store. The more unpredictable and volatile Charlie, however, wants to keep on killing indefinitely. Their next quarry is Hermann Kermit Warm (Riz Ahmed), a mild-manner chemist who has created an elixir that when poured into a river, will illuminate any gold deposits on the river bed. Unsure of Warm's exact location, The Commodore has already sent highly-intelligent tracker John Morris (Jake Gyllenhaal), a man too gentile for killing, to pick up his trail and detain him until the brothers catch up. However, upon learning that Warm doesn't want to use the gold for himself, but to help establish "an ideal living space, ruled by the laws of true democracy and sharing", Morris begins the doubt the mission. Meanwhile, the brothers are rapidly approaching.

Very much adopting the visual style of a Spaghetti Western, everything on screen looks dirty and/or dusty, whether it's the worn and lived-in costumes, the spartan buildings, or the perpetually unshaven characters and their rotting teeth (an historically accurate detail absent in most modern westerns). Of particular note are the shootouts, of which there are three significant examples. The first takes place at night, and is shot from a distance and without much in the way of coverage; the second is shot primarily from the point of view of two characters doing their best to hide; and the third isn't seen at all - we remain inside as the shooting can be heard on the street.

This should convey just how revisionist The Sisters Brothers is; the genre's tropes are all there, but they are presented from unexpected angles; men ride horses, but when a horse is mortally wounded, the man to whom he belongs cries and apologises; whisky is drunk aplenty, but one character would rather sit alone thinking about home; the anticipated climatic shootout plays out in a manner you'll never see coming.

The film opens with an extraordinarily beautiful and striking scene. It's night on the prairie, and having vanquished their opponents, the brothers are about to leave, when they see a horse, its back covered in flames, galloping away, trying to outrun the fire from which it doesn't understand it can never escape. Realising the barn is on fire, Eli dashes in to try to save the trapped horses, whilst Charlie urges him to remain outside. Is the metaphor of the burning horse a little on the nose? Absolutely; try as they might, the brothers can never escape that which brings them pain, no matter how far or fast they run. But just because it's not exactly subtle doesn't mean it's ineffective, and as opening visual metaphors go, it's as striking an example as you're likely to find. The scene also immediately establishes the differences between Eli and Charlie.

In relation to the milieu, yes, this is the Old West of John Ford, Anthony Mann, and Sergio Leone, but Audiard defamiliarises it as much as possible. A recurring theme, for example, is that this is a world on the brink of modernity. This is depicted via a running gag about Eli's fascination with a curious modern invention (the toothbrush), and his childlike glee at staying in a hotel with indoor plumbing. Elsewhere, Morris remarks on how quickly the country is changing, writing, "I have travelled through places that didn't exist three months ago. First tents, then houses, then shops, with women fiercely discussing the price of flour." Additionally, Warm's progressive egalitarian vision for the future allows the film to examine the belief (however short-lived) that out of the lawlessness, land thievery, and Native American genocide, a certain section of the populace hoped a more mutually beneficial society might arise.

However, Audiard is not naïve enough to suggest that the Old West was especially peaceful or safe. But even here, he subverts the genre, using a recurring motif of either Charlie or Eli shooting an already downed opponent pleading for his life, which is certainly not what we've come to expect from the protagonists so familiar in Hollywood westerns.

In terms of acting, Phoenix, Gyllenhaal, and Ahmed all have moments to shine (a monologue in which Morris describes his hatred for his father is especially worth looking out for), but this is Reilly's film. His nuanced performance allows us to see just how badly Eli's conscience is affecting him, and how much he is drifting away from the increasingly amoral Charlie. His unexpected affection for his horse is especially poignant, and his tendency to sniff a shawl given to him by his girlfriend is beautifully played.

However, for all this, I really disliked the movie. For one, I found it far too episodic, lurching from one incident to next with little in the way of connective tissue between them. I also didn't particularly like the shifts in focus from the brothers on the one hand to Morris and Warm on the other, making it impossible for either to fully settle. A knock-on from this is that it's difficult to figure out where one's empathy is supposed to lie. This difficulty becomes especially problematic in relation to the morally questionable dénouement, in which there is an incident which seems designed for the audience to roundly condemn one of the main characters, only for the film to then give us a 15-minute epilogue seemingly designed to redeem him.

This throws into relief what for me was the most egregious problem - none of what we see seems to mean anything, there are virtually no consequences for anything the brothers do (although plenty of consequences for others). This left me scratching my head as to what the film is trying to say. Is it suggesting that even the most morally repugnant of men deserve a shot at redemption? If that is the case, however, its rhetorical position is not especially cogent, as the character mentioned above in no way deserves redemption, allowing his greed and stubbornness to cause untold suffering to others whilst he gets off relatively scot-free. The film is also far too long, and could easily have lost a half hour or more.

As a kind of an aside, it's also worth mentioning an aesthetic decision that has me baffled. On occasion, the film is shot within a circular frame (think of how films often simulate POV through a telescope), often combined with racked focus and unsteady photography. I'm assuming the idea is to try to replicate the style of a Kinetograph, but given that that device wouldn't be invented for another four decades, I'm not entirely sure what the point is. An especially strange example is a scene in which Charlie speaks direct-to-camera, the only example of such in the whole film. Is this a break in the fourth wall, and if so, why? If it isn't a break, from whose POV is the scene shot?

The four performances at the heart of The Sisters Brothers earn it a great deal of leeway. But even taking that into account, I just couldn't get into it. Far too plodding and thematically unfocused, it's certainly original in how it approaches generic tropes, and that's to be commended, but the imprecise and poorly constructed episodic narrative saps away the good will built up by the aesthetic design and the acting. Is it a western? A comedy? A tragedy? An esoteric political piece? A realist depiction of greed trumping idealism? In the end, it doesn't seem to know itself, trying to be many things, and ending up being none of them.

There are people rating this film a 10, calling it flawless. This is nonsense. First of all. For a western to be "flawless" it needs to be period correct. Meaning there is language used in this film that didn't exists at the time. For example the word Bingo was used and the word wasn't invented for 80 years after the time line of this movie. For a movie like this to be great the details need to be correct. Although the actors are great, the story has potential but falls short and the attention to details is weak at best. This is far from a flawless movie and those who swear this movie is a 10/10 honestly have no attention for detail and should not be rating on IMDB

Damn when I mean dark, I'm talking about the Lighting in backgrounds and in scenes with characters, I have no idea what I'm watching half the time. This film has some of my favorite actors in Hollywood, Jake Gyllenhaal and John C. Reilly. But because the character development is so poor, I don't care about the Sisters brothers or what there doing, and when it gets to anything remotely exciting it's underwhelming. There is too much filler and unnecessary scenes that don't drive the story forward. This movie doesn't know what it wants to be, and that's too bad, I'd rather watch a movie that has been done countless times over, like the film "In a Valley of Violence", a revenge film, that movie knows what it wants to be. I found it vary hard to follow along, and I shouldn't have to read the book, to understand this film, that's just poor storytelling. But I found the landscapes and the world in which this film takes place, absolutely gorgeous the people in the backgrounds to the costumes and clothing on characters. I and said earlier how I thought the acting was great, the interaction between John C. And Joaquin Phoenix is great, they sound and talk like brothers would. Unfortunately the the uneven story and lack of characters backstory or development, made it too hard for me to care enough or keep me engaged.

Wife and I had a chance to see this movie or go see Bad Times at the El Royale, ultimately deciding to go with this as our second feature. I watched the trailer with anticipation of 'Brother Where art thou' vibe but ended up with something completely different. After 40 minutes of pacing issues and a bare bone plot with no direction we ended up seeking a refund. This cast is too good to be wasted on something like this.

Great actors, some of my favorites, but the film lacks the impetus of the book, some aspects left out that would explain their "journey." The naivete of the two is endearing, despite the fact that they are "killers." The Audible version of the book is excellent, great performance by the narrator. I highly recommend it. The "journey" in the book is much like the journey of Frodo and Sam in Lord of the Rings, meeting many characters, good and bad, along their way. They keep going, and the story brings you along with them.

Then this movie is for you! You will be hard put to pick your favorite scene: graphic 6 gun slaughters, a substantial spider crawling into a sleeping man's mouth, the subsequent hideous sickness and bloody vomiting of hundreds of baby spiders, a horse diseased, the brutal and primitive sawing off of an arm, nauseating drunkeness, hideous chemical burns, suicide by gun to the head, and other atrocities I'm hoping I can't recall. Like a Coen Brothers movie, but without humor or women, the acting and script were above par. Ocassional nice exterior shots (Spain pretending to be Oregon wilds), but mostly too many close up headshots. Flashes of greatness.

They really tore the book apart on this one. There was so much to explore about the brothers' characters; so much was left out. Shame.

I'm a pretty big fan of Rust and Bone, the french film Jacques Audiard made a few years back with Marion Cotillard. But I also know that French films are generally a different type of filmmaking than something you see in 2018 Hollywood. There's more amiguity and it's typically a story that doesn't necessarily have a paint by numbers plot nor 3 act structure. But even knowing that, I was a little letdown by The Sisters Brothers. It feels like it wanted to a few different movies all in one. A buddy cop/assassin film, road trip film, revenge thriller, and even a bit about an adventure to find gold. Not all of those work as much as they should. I tended to gravitate more to the serious side of the story and became less interested as the film leaned into comedy. But I do think Reilly and Phoenix have great chemistry and are believable as the titular characters. But I'm just not so sure the film completely comes together as the sum is not as great as the individual parts.

5.8/10

The book must have been super. The story is great, the script has good dialogue. One wonders what this would have been in the punchy hands of, say, Coen brothers. Here it sways between proper camera work and candid shots as though they ran out of budget after paying the big stars. It's hard to maintain interests and there are utterly random moments with studio-lit monologues for instance, but other times a totally different character doing voiceover. Not sure if this is meant to be "French" but anyone who has watched stellar French narratives will know this is just amateur hour. Idiotic overall. Which is sad as the story and the star power held so much promise.

When it comes to westerns in film, they seem to sit within two different camps; one being more fun, such as the John Wayne films, showcasing the beauty of the deserts and canyons. The other shows a darker, grittier west, a lot like in "The Man with No Name" trilogy, which shows the west as more brutal and unforgiving. While I don't have a preference over the other (it depends on the story presented), it does honestly portray an environment that had different perspectives. Like a lot of people who never lived through a time period, we can only draw our own pictures on how we want to see the old west.

There are even those rare instances in which someone can balance out both. That's not easy to do, given the distinct styles, but it can be done. There are even times in which the old west can be weird. A lot like those Mad Max movies, the frontier was so mysterious with little control, that the deserts and small towns could take on identities and looks that are all their own. We can see how these guys look compared to the rest of the west in The Sisters Brothers.

Two hitmen for hire, Eli Sisters (played by John C. Reilly) and Charlie Sisters (played by Joaquin Phoenix) are in the pocket of a man only known as the Commodore, who take another assignment to hunt for a man named Hermann Warm. The brothers make their way in the frontier, but deal with a lot of dangers that were commonplace. Much of it includes a sickness-inducing spider bite for Eli and Charlie's constant drunken buffoonery. Even at a point where the two end up in their first luxury hotel that includes hot water and a flushing toilet, they still manage to fight and threaten to kill each other.

Meanwhile, another detective John Morris (played by Jake Gyllenhaal) manages to track and confront Hermann Warm (played by Riz Ahmed). It turns out that Warm is on his way to northern California to find gold, using a new chemical substance that could help track it in the water. Though Morris initially tries to arrest him, he does become intrigued by the possibility, show he goes with Warm to see if this could be done. At the same time, the Sisters brothers are following them in hot pursuit, following their orders.

I have to commend director Jacques Audiard for attempting more of a cross between these different kinds of westerns with a little comedy thrown in. The result is a movie that does have it's moments, but is going to come off as too dry for some people (including myself). The Sisters Brothers is something that I can completely call bad. There were moments in which I was getting board. A lot of that has to do with the writing, but doesn't have a lot of personality. In fact, a lot of it is unforgiving in it's cruelty and more random moments. It reminds me of similar writing on Game of Thrones. This is the moment that is either going make you like this or not.

I will say that the best thing in the movie, are the performances. Even with the little personalities given, John C. Riley and Joaquin Phoenix, they do have a lot of good banter as brothers would. What separates them from another western team like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is that they are more vulnerable and even willing to make mistakes. This is probably the other feature the will draw audiences. This is one of the things that I did really enjoy.

I think what throws me off is the structure and pacing of The Sisters Brothers. There is a goal of reaching these guys who say they can use science to find gold, but it can either become sidetracked and even abandoned all together (I won't say what happens). I think because there is a set goal in mind, it all matters whether the movie's material can offer a payoff. Given how little we know what the leads care about even with their flaws, it's hard to become passionate about the movie if it seems to not care.

I'll give this five gold rush nuggets out of ten. Like the real prospectors of the old west, I too had trouble finding a goldmine, but I did find something of worth. I could see a lot of people getting into the more anarchic-style of movie with The Sisters Brothers. I can clearly see that this did come from a place of passion. I just don't think this was for me. Perhaps you may find some gold I didn't see.

Westerns are slowly dying in the same manner horror films have: an oversaturated genre relying on big names and some nice visuals, but producing very little of substance.

The Sisters Brothers is a prime example: a great cast with serious story potential, spurned by a lack of directorial drive. What really irked me from the beginning was some weird effects used throughout.

Strange vignette filters and some weird continuous shots feel so out of place in this primitive film. There was even an instance of a fourth wall-breaking, which served no purpose either. The music was similarly disorientating, deliberately playing off-key notes; I will confess, I could not see the aim of this technique either, unless patronizing the film.

The acting is serviceable (although the accents are so whack I was actually amused when I heard Jake Gyllenhaal speak), but the story doesn't really drive you forward (and poorly deploys comedic elements in a serious tale). I would give the settings credit, but again, how often do you see a bad looking Western? Drive an hour from any city in the American mid-west, you can find these views too.

All in all, a weak effort, disappointing from the off, and an instance of when two hours could be spent better elsewhere.

We both said the same thing when the credits started to roll: 'French'. It explained everything: the air of lassitude, the aimlessness, the lack of proper story development and a climax. Even beyond those specifics, this feels like a Western by someone who doesn't really understand the genre: for example, the lynchpin of every good Western is its gunfights, and in none of this film's four gunfights can you really see what's happening. It's interesting at times, touching at times, but exciting - no.

Similarly it's a good cast but not necessarily a good Western cast - they're good actors but don't have the stillness and presence for screen gunslingers (mind you, these days, who does?). We felt we were misled by the casting of Rutger Hauer, which seemed to promise something broad and fun - but his appearance turns out to be very unconventional, to say the least. Put it this way, it's rather like Monty Python's ideas for reviving the career of Marilyn Monroe.

I really like the title, though. I guess that comes from the book; I can well believe it might make a better book than film.

It never really felt like a western to me. It felt like a film where they happen to wear western clothes. The actors were acting, Jake Gyllenhaal especially did not really fit into this enviroment.

They have a collection of scenes that makes sense in a timeline but that just lacks any central aspect to tie it all together, so it was a bit flat. There is a story within the film regardning the characters that could have been explored more in my opinion, it would have been really good if the film was about THAT.

Great acting, great genre, great story. I loved it. You should see it.

Somehow, by reading the movie description at Redbox, I got the idea that it was a time travel movie. Something about two cowboys chasing a bank robber into the future. I think the description may have been quite misleading! Anyway, other than waiting for the time jump to happen, I enjoyed the movie. It was so quiet though that I had to have captions on. Very interesting! Love John Reilly.

They never did travel through time, though. Had some fun with gold, and that was intriguing, but yeah, no time machine.