Very disappointing...

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Absolutely Brilliant!

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

If you really love Kevin Costner playing the good guy, you might want to skip this one. In Mr. Brooks, Costner plays a family man moonlighting as a psychopathic serial killer.Surprisingly, goody goody Costner does a really convincing job as a bad guy! This is one tension-filled thriller, so if the premise is your cup of tea, you'll probably like it. There's one scene that sticks out in my memory as particularly creepy (and this is not spoiling anything): Dane Cook becomes awe-stricken with Costner, and he asks him to mentor him in the "art of the kill". I won't spell out the details for you, but they do take a little joyride together and murder someone. Cook's gleeful portrayal in that scene is bone-chilling. I've never liked his stand-up routines, but this movie pretty much sealed the deal; Dane Cook will forever frighten me.So, if you like serial killer thrillers with some creepiness thrown in, rent this one and enjoy. Just don't watch it with your dad.

Continuing my plan to watch every Kevin Costner movie in his filmography in order, I come to 2007's Mr. Brooks. Plot In A Paragraph: Earl Brooks (KC) is a successful business man, who has just won Man Of The Year who also happens to have a murderous alter ego known as the thumbprint killer.I think Mr. Brooks is a brilliant movie, filled with fantastic performances, a great script (Kevin Costner thought the script was one of the most perfect scripts he'd ever read.) and solid directing. How this movie failed to find an audience is beyond me. It's funny movie to be rooting for a serial killer, but the way KC plays him as a tortured soul has you wanting him to succeed. Dane Cook, who I have never been a fan of, is OK as the buffoon who decides to blackmail a serial killer. As for Demi Moore, I'll admit from the off, that I am bias. I love her. I have had a crush on her since the 80's, and will usually give anything she is in a chance. she remains one of the most talented, under rated and beautiful women in movies, and her ladylike sexiness is in rare supply. For this Zoner any movie becomes promising just by having her name in it's cast.According to interviews at the time of the movie's release with KC said this was supposed to be the first movie in a trilogy. It's a real shame this never found an audience and We never got to see more of Mr Brooks and Detective Atwell.

Having missed this in my local cinema a friend, whose movie judgements I usually trust, lent me his DVD copy.Finding a spare couple of hours I put it on and settled back to revel in Kevin Costner shedding his good guy image to 'play the baddie'. Now, the central concept of our Kev playing a mega- successful business man who is secretly addicted to murder I could take. I also had no problem with William Hurt playing his alter-ego - his Mr Hyde to Costner Dr Jekyll if you will. But my credibility began to become stretched when, firstly, "Mr Smith" (Dane Cook) blackmails Mr Brooks into letting him come on a murder spree with him. Then, as if that was unbelievable, we suddenly have ANOTHER killer thrown into the mix in the shape of "The Hangman" (and, of course, his torture loving girlfriend! Of course this guy just happens to be after the cop - female, with marital problems naturally (played by the dreadful Demi Moore!) for reasons... Well, lets just say he has his reasons!OK, so by now I am find any faith in the movie beginning to become sorely tested... Oh look, now we discovered that not only is the Costner character's daughter home from college because she is pregnant, but she has also apparently killed a fellow student... WHAT!!!On top of everything else we also have THE worst continuity ever! At some point - far too convoluted to detail here! - Ms Moore sustains a very bad cut to her head, which we see being stitched up i graphic detail, yet when we next see her - and for the rest of the film - there is not a single sign of the injury, not even a plaster!!Somewhere in amongst all this convoluted, often poorly scripted and poorly acted mess is a decent film trying to escape! I'm not saying it doesn't have its moments - hence the 4 stars - but overall it really is a big, BIG mess!

"Mr. Brooks" thinks it is darker and edgier than it actually is. Like most films in the serial killer thriller genre, it's a bit lazy, coasting on unlikely plot twists and providing few genuine scares. The filmmakers could have tried a lot harder. There is one thing that sets it apart from the straight-to-DVD slasher fare that chokes the genre, however: top-notch performances from actors who aren't usually known for them.Earl Brooks (Kevin Costner) is a respected business owner and family man. He's also a serial killer who murders couples while they're having sex. (Everybody needs a hobby.) He has abstained from murder for two years, but his homicidal urges creep back up in the form of Marshall (William Hurt), his imaginary, bloodthirsty alter ego. Brooks gives in and commits another murder, only to be caught on film by a peeping tom named "Mr. Smith" (Dane Cook) who blackmails Brooks into making him his "protegé". Meanwhile, Detective Tracy Atwood (Demi Moore) reopens the investigation into Brooks' murders, and the cat and mouse games ensue.All the elements of a serial killer movie are here: the driven but troubled cop, the painstaking attention paid to the killer's M.O., the far-fetched plot twists. It's all here, and it's all a bit predictable. We see a lot of it coming a mile away, and the plot twist that ties the ending together is far too convenient to be believed. The movie is also loaded down with unnecessary subplots: the 45 minutes or so spent on Atwood's divorce and Brooks' troubled daughter (Danielle Panabaker) do nothing but get in the way. Another, small complaint: it's set in Portland, Oregon, but was obviously neither filmed there nor made by people who have been there. As a longtime resident of the City of Roses, I know that the Cup and Saucer is in Southeast, not downtown, and that a high-speed chase on the Ross Island Bridge in the middle of the day is a logistical impossibility. "Mr. Brooks"' saving grace is the acting. Costner is wonderful as Brooks. Most actors playing serial killers resort to imitating Hannibal Lecter, but Costner plays Brooks as an ordinary man with a darkness inside that he doesn't like; he's a murder addict who desperately wants to get sober. Moore takes the stock "tough cop" character and makes her smart, likable and funny, someone we might want to hang out with. Hurt gives his best performance in years as the gleefully malevolent Marshall, relishing murder and mayhem as if it were the best steak he's ever had. Dane Cook is his usual lowbrow, irritating self - which is just right for his character. I don't know if he's doing it on purpose, but he's perfectly convincing as a perverted sleaze. All of these actors have spent most of their careers giving fair-to-middling performances in mediocre movies; here, they give great performances in a fair-to-middling movie. Good as the acting as, however, it's just not enough. The plot is too tired, the direction too uninspired, the story just too dull.In a way, "Mr. Brooks" is not to blame for its faults - it simply got to the party too late. The serial killer film genre ran out of steam years ago; after reaching the high-water mark with "Silence of the Lambs", it petered out into a steady trickle of pedestrian slasher films. There's nothing left in the well to draw from. Given that the average serial killer movie is so lousy, "Mr. Brooks" is not that bad in comparison. While it could have been better, it could easily have been much worse.