My Brothers

My Brothers

Set over Halloween weekend of 1987, My Brothers is the story of three young brothers' epic quest to replace their dying father's watch. Noel, 17, serious, weighed down by responsibility; Paudie: 11, cocky, not so bright and dreams of playing in goals for Liverpool and Scwally: 7, naive and obsessed with Star Wars (despite never actually having seen the films). Using a battered bread van, the brothers embark on a journey across the wild Irish landscape on the Halloween weekend, grinding gears and screaming at each other to get to an arcade machine in Ballybunion. Along the way they are detoured by escalating brotherly battles in an off-beat and moving journey that can only lead them home.

Set over Halloween weekend of 1987, My Brothers is the story of three young brothers' epic quest to replace their dying father's watch. Noel, 17, serious, weighed down by responsibility; ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


You may also like

My Brothers torrent reviews

Josh B (br) wrote: Great performance by Hogg. Shot well. Good all around.

Jacqueline M (ru) wrote: I see it used to have it all dunp in the trash by the store unit guy

Andrey S (au) wrote: Pyun will never reach first Cyborg's effect, still this flick is very well done, i like it.

Mia W (kr) wrote: Dated and with terrible acting. Mostly consists of Mel Gibson grunting and men dressed in s&I'm garb yelling.

Andrius R (ru) wrote: Per usual, i'm gonna divide my review into 5 parts i will talk about: Directing, Cinematography,Writing,Score and finally Acting.Directing - Is really impressive, but for me it was the weakest part of the film, even though i think this movie is a masterpiece. Roman Polanski did phenomenal job directing, and even was good at acting. The director managed to get all of the actors to be on the same page. You could see that Polanski did put some work into directing. But on times scenes seem to be purely driven, by Nicholsons acting, and star power. All in all, still a solid directing job. I would rate it 16/20.Cinematography - Even considering, that the film is quite old, and cinematographers didn't have all the modern equipment, job was done to perfection. John A. Alonzo managed to achieve marvelous work. Even though the film was filmed in sunny California, you can still fill the film noir atmosphere. There were few really impressive shots which you don't come across very often nowadays. Including mirror shots, that give viewer the illusion of following someone, and the other worthy mention is shot of chase in the lemon fields. The last really adds to intensity and made me wanting for the shot to be longer. A worthy Oscar nominee. I would rate it 20/20Writing - An amazing story, with even more amazing characters. Story develops it self beautifully, and it seems like Gittes is always in front of the action. The story doesn't force itself on the viewer. Script paces itself perfectly although at the very end it felt a bit rushed and jumped straight to the very conclusion. I would rate it 20/20Score - The score was amazing. Some of the tracks hit the perfect spots and gave me the goosebumps. Textbook film noir soundtrack, that really adds up to the whole movie vibe. I would rate it 20/20Acting - Was phenomenal Jack Nicholson was a true powerhouse in this movie and fit the role perfectly. His acting seem effortless and charismatic. All of the actors had this mystery shroud around them. And seemed they were hiding their true intentions. Actors chemistry was very mesmerizing to watch, because it seemed like every actor was pushing not only his own performance, but the colleagues as well. Even though through out the movie extras don't get a lot of screen time, you can definitely feel their presence in the movie. I would rate it 20/20.All in all, this movie is a truly masterpiece, a modern jewel of film noir. Worthy of being in the study program for any film school. Finally i would rate this movie 96/100. 1712. Alameda.

Pasha A (br) wrote: Just a Drama and nothing else...

Maarten R (ru) wrote: Good film that is only as good as it is by Orson Welles's character.

Peter H (br) wrote: Between art film and Hollywood: After I watched this movie, I was reminded of one of my favorite movies, an "art film" I saw in 1995 or 1996 in Budapest in a movie theater that featured art films, not Hollywood films. I can't even remember the name, nor have ever succeeded in finding that film again, but it was about a sound man who shows up at the director's house (or ?) in Spain or somewhere in the Mediterranean and records the entire soundtrack based on notes left for him by the director without ever meeting him. I don't think there was any dialogue. The two films aren't alike in any way, except for a quality of the cinematography. The "sound man" film was completely symbolic, while when watching "Third Person" it seems to tell the story of the painfully raw circumstances of the characters in the film, which in the end you realize are also meant to be symbolic of the deeper theme of both films: trust. Worth watching, especially for the contemplative mind.