THE BRUTALIST Review — Are Some Critics Gaslighting You?
Lisa Johnson Mandell’s The Brutalist review advises you to disregard critical raves and go with your instincts when you hear the film is 3.5 hours long.
The Brutalist is what I like to call an Emperor’s New Clothes movie. With its reputation as an ambitious, weighty film, some erudite and influential critics have declared it a masterpiece, while others are hesitant to admit they’re not fans. There’s that uncomfortable feeling that if they reveal their true feelings about it, they’ll be perceived as uncultured, unrefined, or lacking the cinematic sophistication to appreciate it.
As a film critic with 25 years of professional experience, coming from a family with three generations involved in the film, television and music industries, I have confidence in my own perceptions.
But even if you only see one movie every four years, I hope you too have confidence in your own opinions. Don’t let us critics intimidate you. Your opinions are even more important than ours, because you’re the ones paying to see the film.
So take my grumblings, and other critics’ kudos for a film that is destined for Golden Globe and Oscar acclaim, with a grain of salt.
The Brutalist review — the subject matter may surprise you
At its heart, it’s a deeply affecting story of American immigration. It tells the story of László Tóth, a fictional, European architect who designs in the Brutalist style. Played by Oscar winner Adrien Brody, he attempts to build a life and career in the US from scratch after surviving the Holocaust, battling demons from within and without.
His story feels so real and moving that most people find themselves googling László Tóth during intermission.
You won’t find him or his work. As mentioned before, he is a character devised by talented and creative writer/director Brady Corbet. Remember that.
Felicity Jones plays Tóth’s long suffering, disabled wife, also a holocaust surviver. Guy Pearce is the mercurial American industrialist who realizes Tóth’s genius and becomes his patron, and at times, his nemesis.
Egos, cultures, values and morals clash, often in ways that are truly brutal. And many viewers will also find the film’s three hours and 35 minute runtime a bit brutal as well, even thought there’s a 15 minute intermission wedged in the middle.
I will admit to being blown away by the first half. Corbet has a dark vision and story telling ability unlike anything you’ve ever seen. Tóth, has his frailties and flaws, and they’re explored in depth.
But the second half, oh the cursed second half, is relentless. The film lumbers into WTF? land and never returns. The metaphors, especially the sexual ones involving dominance, guilt, betrayal and impotence, are so heavy handed they become punishing. One particularly violent scene may be the one you can’t get out of your head, and that’s a shame, because the film could and should leave you with so much more than that.
Unwaveringly grim, there are very few moments of light or laughter, which makes it even harder to endure for the 3.5 hours run time. Although if you’re an architecture aficionado, you might get a giggle out of seeing a sketch based on Frank Lloyd Wright’s Johnson Wax building in Tóth’s portfolio. (Catch a glimpse of it in the trailer below.)
And classical music lovers will smile when realizing that a major theme from Daniel Blumberg’s critically admired score (also evident from the trailer below), was likely inspired by what are probably the five most well known notes in Rachmaninoff‘s Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini. Even if you’re not familiar with the work, you’ll know what I mean when you hear the music in the trailer.
But the lighter moments are so overwhelming overpowered by the grim ones, you may find it hard to endure this ponderous picture. I think it takes a good degree of hubris to make a film of this length. They seem to be made less for the audience and more for the ego of the director.
Rated R
3 Hours 35 Minutes
If, after you’ve read this negative The Brutalist review, you’re still inclined to see it on the big screen, find times and tickets on Fandango.com.
Lisa Johnson Mandell’s The Brutalist review advises you to disregard critical raves and go with your instincts when you hear the film is 3.5 hours long.
[…] out the Best Picture category are A Complete Unknown, Anora, The Brutalist, Nickel Boys, Sing Sing, and The […]
The answer to the headline is: yes! I realized Toth must be fictional after the ridiculous turns of the second half, when the metaphorical plot events start raining down like sledgehammers, covering drug addiction, racism, anti-semitism, zionism, immigration, acculturation, alienation, disabilities, the evils of capitalism….and just in case you missed that the rich people are the bad guys, our hero gets it literally, physically. The film, while gorgeous, is certainly not groundbreaking in either narrative or visual form. Toth is a reworked Howard Roark of The Fountainhead, and I was expecting Toth to blow up his own building after his tantrum over having his designs altered. Even the sexual assault of that story appears here, albeit in a role reversal. So while The Brutalist seems to be destined for many awards, it may be the best film no one sees in theaters this year.
The Fountainhead’s Howard Roark came to my mind as well! Thanks for your comment!
Hello Lisa, at last, a critic who dares to criticise The Brutalist! I don’t know what’s come over everyone and even critics who I normally trust are blown away by this self-indulgent, overblown testament to self. I definitely think it is worth seeing, just for Adrian Brody and its sheer beauty, but like you I thought that the first half was far superior to the second, which was a mess and just lost its way until the epilogue. Also, I was not convinced by Felicity Jones due to her accent and terrible cliched script and the film started faltering for me when she arrived. It’s a shame as the idea has so much to commend it but a director with more discipline would have tightened up the plot and given it more shape in the second half (like Scorsese, who has made several long films that don’t falter or take themselves seriously like this one.
This is a brutal review. It does not reflect the praise generally lavished on The Brutalist. Even so, I agree with everything Ms Mandel had to say, including her summary of the ‘WTF second half’. The guy sitting next to me rushed off at the intermission, never to return. Smart guy. He must have had something to watch on Netflix. And those ten Oscar nominations? A big ‘Yes’ for Adrien Brody (or ‘Broody’?) and a few for technical excellence including Cinematography. That’s it.
Your review perfectly encapsulates my response to this film. The second half ruined it for me (it was completely bizarre that Toth was raped by Van Buren, heavy-handed metaphor for dominance be damned), and may I add pretentious to ponderous as perfect descriptive adjectives. And did anyone not see it coming that Toth would “treat” his wife’s completely unrealistic pain with his own supply of heroin? I would not recommend this film to anyone, except for Brody’s amazing performance, which rescues it as far as I’m concerned.
I don’t think it should be nominated for Best Picture, and I hope it doesn’t win. Thank you for your brutal (LOL) honesty.
I so so agree with everything you perfectly detailed in the review!
Thank you—
You are spot on! I had such high expectations, assuming I would be incredibly moved after committing to its length. The second half is indeed in — as you call it — WTF? Land.
There are so many questions oddly left unanswered.
The fact that this is a fictious story is truly odd. A film this plodding and unrewarding seems very strange to construct around someone who doesn’t exist.
Thank you! Yes, a terrible film, which does not do justice to the resilience of most Jewish emigres and the creative impact they had on the States as a group. The phrase ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ actually came to me as I was watching. Just a BAD film in many ways!
I despised this film, both emotionally and intellectually. It falls as character study with its numerous instances of theme, rather than human behavior, driving scenes. (thus the multiple “WTF” moments you mention). Talk about it thematically being about the failure of the American Dream – driven by the director’s own comments – are a subterfuge. It is nothing of the sort.
Rather, it’s a propaganda film at its core, that is disguised by 3 hours of fat, albeit gorgeously photographed, excellent set and costumed designed fat with good to even great performances, but all in service of 20 minutes of its core propagandistic reason for existence to promulgate a particular ideology. I hope in the future, hopefully soon and not distant, it will come to be regarded as D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation”, i.e. a technical achievement used to advance a story supporting an abhorrent supremacist racist ideology.
(And yes, I totally agree, it’s completely lacking in humor, which is a very important and positive part of humanity, which this film lacks. It is indeed a slog. It’s a magic trick, not great art. I’m actually angry and disappointed by the rave reviews of not only most critics but people I know. It’s worse than feeling I wasted my time – it’s a deliberate gas lighting assault. It’s why I’m leaving a comment – I had to deliberately search for negative reviews.)
Amen!
I finally saw the film yesterday, without researching it too much, but of course noticing critics seem to love it. On getting home I googled to see if there were ANY negative reviews, wondering if something was wrong with me given my confusion and almost complete lack of enjoyment from viewing this movie. So, thank you for posting your review. I feel better now. Re the general acclaim: the term ‘gaslighting’ seems about right.
Gaslighting is right. It seems like a lot of movies today want to say how terrible a place America is and that we are the worse nation ever to come along!
Amen!