Geeks logo

Top 3 Things Wrong with the Sisters Brothers (2018)

You'll laugh. You'll almost cry. You'll think the movie projector broke.

By Glen KennerPublished 5 years ago 4 min read
Like
That's the kind of last name that inspires country songs.

No movie is perfect. Here are the top 3 things wrong with this one.

Number 3

The Sisters Brothers is a darkly comedic western, based on the novel of the same name by Patrick deWitt. It is a morality tale that moves at the pace of life in 1851: pleasantly slow though not necessarily easy, punctuated by unapologetic graphic violence. It feels gritty and hot and uncomfortable despite, and because of, the breathtakingly beautiful scenery of the American west coast from Oregon to San Francisco. It’s against this backdrop of the nature of man and animal that the Sisters brothers Eli (John C Reilly) and Charlie (Joaquin Phoenix) head out on a mission as experienced hired hitman for their boss, the Commodore. They quibble and fight and care for each other as brothers do. And, over the course of this perhaps last adventure, they grow into characters the audience loves despite their acts of cold-blooded murder. Where the writing goes wrong is in not allowing the same visible growth in John Morris (Jake Gyllenhaal). Morris is a detective, known to the Sister brothers, and also working for the Commodore, assigned to find the chemist Hermann Kermit Warm (Riz Ahmed) who is thought to have developed a formula that identifies gold where it lies in a river. After Warm is tracked down and captured by Morris, the chemist reveals that his plan is to use the gold to fund a utopian city in Dallas, Texas, where mankind can strive for higher ideals than what he sees around him in the mid-19th century. It’s this conversation that the screenwriters expect us to believe changes Morris’ mind, along with his reflection on the torture, as described by Warm, that the Sisters brothers will most certainly inflict on the chemist. The screenwriters, Frenchmen Jacques Audiard (who also directed) and Thomas Bidegain, must have thought this was enough of a reason for Morris to risk everything, including his life, to help Warm. But it’s not. Not even close. We’re never even sure if Morris believes in Warm’s vision, though we do know he doesn’t look forward to witnessing torture. But there’s no indication that Morris would be required to witness the torture or that he would have to stick around at all after the brothers show up. And Warm’s no innocent bystander as a detective in the employ of the Commodore. We have every reason to believe that he’s done this before, been paid well, and had no qualms about doing it again and again. So why change his mind now about his loyalty to his boss, the Commodore? We don’t know. The writers had plenty of opportunities to tell us but they missed them all. A few lines in his journal, either spoken by him while writing them or found later by Eli, would have easily given the audience the reason it needs to feel a true sense of loss when Morris succumbs to the effects of his own formula. At any rate, the opportunity is lost and I can’t help but to think that either this scene was cut or simply not taken from the novel that, presumably, gave the reader a reason to care. But we don’t.

Number 2

What exactly was the relationship between the chemist Warm and the Commodore, who over the course of the movie, sent not just the Sisters brothers but also perhaps another dozen men after the brothers themselves (not including the men sent by Mayfield)? According to Warm, he had recently tried the formula just once but was burned on his legs, which we see him scratching because the burns are so recent. It’s just not believable that anyone would spend so much money and resources to track down, torture, and kill one man who made such an outrageous claim as to be able to find gold where it lies in the bottom of a creek without any proof. In fact, Warm is so believably intelligent that you have to wonder how or why he would have let anyone know anything about his formula. It’s a plot hole big enough to run a chuckwagon through.


Number 1

I saw The Sister Brothers in the Landmark Plaza Frontenac theater on an early Wednesday afternoon with about a dozen other people, most of them in their 70s and 80s. The movie ends on a touching seamless sequence of shots of the brothers back home with their mother (Carol Kane), but it does so without any closure or hint of the next chapter in the lives of these men. The audience is left surprised and then confused and ultimately unfilled. It feels more like the ending of an art house movie and less like that of an darkly comedic American western and nothing like the expectations given by the previews which made the film out to be much more of a slapstick comedy. At any rate, one simple introspective line spoken by Eli, who feels like the more central character as the movie unfolds, could have put a final touch to the film in a way that would have left the audience feeling complete. But we don’t get it and, as a result, audiences will be wary and perhaps unwilling to see the next American release by Audiard.

That’s my take on the top 3 things wrong with The Sisters Brothers. What do you think?

review
Like

About the Creator

Glen Kenner

Novelist & short story writer Glen Kenner lives in St Louis, Missouri, with his wife, cats and books. Years spent in sales has made his skin insanely thick and able to withstand all criticism.

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.