Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here.

Okay... so I’ve seen other sites editorializing about how now is the time to get more serious about cracking down and making sure that every single thing that ends up on AICN is exhaustively checked and double-checked, and I’ve read all the talkbacks under the two Joker articles from the weekend, and after digesting all of it, I’ve got one thing to say...

... relax, Francis.

If we were reporting on something like politics or science or medicine or international finance, then, yes, I would think stringent fact-checking would be very important. But since the day Harry started this website out of his bedroom, AICN has been a place to collect reviews from readers, news and rumors, official images and covert material alike. And, yes, there seem to be quite a few people who love to try to prank us, and some of those pranks do indeed make the front page. Many, many, many more of them do not. And we still generate lots of scoops, so I think the trade-off is a fair one.

I would hate to have to stop accepting contributions from readers. You guys are our lifeblood. When the system works, it’s a great thing, and I refuse to get cynical about it. I find it annoying when every single positive review of anything, even from long-time contributors, is greeted by cries of “PLANT!” in the talkbacks.

Sometimes, though, it’s worth wondering. Is this first review for the new Kevin Costner film MR. BROOKS all leafy and green? Or is it just very enthusiastic? You tell me what you think:

Hey gang,

Call me Uncle Jay.

Last night (4/23/07), I was fortunate enough to attend a private screening of "Mr. Brooks" in Ridgefield Park, NJ. The audience was told that we were the first audience to see the film. So, today I decided to write a review, because the film is very good, much to my surprise.

First off, let me sat that I’ve always liked Kevin Costner. I pretty much grew up with him in my teenage years, when he first burst onto the big screen in the early ‘80s in films like “Fandango” and “Silverado.” He became an instant star and even an Academy Award-winning director, much to many Scorsese fans' (like me) dismay (“Dances with Wolves” vs. “GoodFellas” anyone?). I never thought he was a great actor but I did think he did his job, although I believe his turn as a bad guy with a heart in “A Perfect World” was brilliant and may be the performance of his career. But as you know, the “Kevin Plague” erupted in the mid-‘90s, when Kevin started to make huge box office duds… ”Wyatt Earp”,
“Waterworld” and “The Postman” to name three of the crucial ones. I don’t know what happened, (truthfully, I liked "Wyatt Earp" and "The Postman", but that's just me), but I kind of felt sorry for the man. The duds continued, but then Kevin proved to us that he still had something left in 2003’s “Open Range,” one of the best films that year. Now, I believe Mr. Costner will make a triumphant return because “Mr. Brooks,” his new thriller, is very, very good.

Mr. Earl Brooks (Kevin Costner) is the Man of the Year. He’s a very wealthy and successful business owner of a company that creates boxes for goods around the world, as well as being a noble husband and father. Mr. Brooks is also the Thumbprint Killer, Oregon’s famous, untouchable serial killer that hasn’t struck in two years. Earl often talks to his imaginary alter ego, Marshall (a superb William Hurt), and together they make the perfect murderer. 'Marshall' talks Earl into making his return, only this time, things get a little more deeper as Earl makes an unlikely error. Enter Mr. Smith (Dane Cook), a twenty-something mechanical engineer that sometimes takes perverted photographs of his neighbors in the building across the street. These neighbors happen to be the next victims of Mr. Brooks, hence, Smith having blackmail material due to the error I mentioned earlier. However, Smith doesn’t want money, Mr. Smith wants the experience of a professional killer in action, he wants to help Mr. Brooks with his next victim. As this causes inconvenience for Earl, due to the fact that he truly wants to stop killing (but 'Marshall' doesn't), Earl also has problems at home, as he discovers that his daughter (Danielle Panabaker) may or may not have viciously murdered someone at her college…and the plot thickens. Also in the mix is Detective Tracy Atwood (a solid Demi Moore), a brilliant cop who has been investigating the Thumbprint killings obsessively, to the point where she knows his technique thoroughly, although Tracy has problems of her own that interfere with her work: a awful greed-filled divorce and (in a subplot) an ex-convict she put away, stalking her for revenge.

“Mr. Brooks” is not your average, dark psycho thriller ala “Silence of the Lambs” or “Seven.” “Mr. Brooks” is a smart character study of an unlikely serial killer, and how he deals with his sticky situations with his psychotic ways. Cleverly written and masterfully done. It was really interesting how Earl shows Smith the smart way to kill someone, it’s actually very creepy. The plot points are very interesting and the film isn’t predictable as one would think, and I was glad it didn’t go the route that most of these thrillers of today go. It simply has a satisfying end that is believable and smart. Costner turns in a terrific performance, his best since “A Perfect World.” William Hurt gives yet another exceptional performance that could snag him another Oscar-nod (in vein of his last nod for “A History of Violence”). It was good to see Demi Moore again, and she gives a stern performance as the obsessed, yet confused cop. And Dane Cook, I must admit held his own as well. I had reservations about him before I saw this, thinking that maybe he'd screw the flick up and be some sort of unecessary comic relief, but the film holds him well, and turns in a surprisingly convincing performance. I was glad to see that.

I think “Mr. Brooks” will please fans of this genre, simply for its intriguing story and nicely executed filmmaking, a definite giant leap for writer/director Bruce A. Evans, whose last (and first) directorial effort was the turdbomb "Kuffs" 15 years ago. It’s a smart film, and a nice departure from the junk-thrillers we’ve been seeing lately. We could very well see the return of Costner here, and quite possibly, Evans.

"Mr. Brooks" is a different, effective and well-done serial killer flick.

Sure to be one of the best of the year!

* * * 1/2 (out of 4)

-Uncle Jay

P.S.: After the screening, I filled out the questonaire they hand you, and I couldn't help to overhear the positive responses. A good sign.

FEEL FREE TO POST THIS ON YOUR SITE, IF YOU WISH!!!

One of the best of the year? Really?

See, I don’t know Uncle Jay at all. So reading that, it certainly raises the question: is this an authentic reaction to the film? I especially have to ask when a contributor I do know, like Memflix, send in a review like this one:

Memflix coming back at you once again with a review and a letter to the producers of Mr. Brooks.

To the producers of “Mr. Brooks,”

Trying to forget who you are, well take a quick look over at that internet database site for a quick reminder that you are indeed partly responsible for this gigantic clusterfuck of a film. Do you read scripts? Do you pay attention to anything other than a pitch by a few of the people responsible for “Jungle 2 Jungle” and “ Cutthroat Island ?” Do you just say to yourself, “Well hey, they helped adapt ‘Stand by Me’ and made a Christian Slater film in the early 90’s, let’s give them a Summer release date and pay the brilliant William Hurt god awful amounts of money?” Is that how it happened? Did you think bringing in one of Hollywood ’s top talents would overshadow the atrocity that is “Mr. Brooks?”

I don’t know the back story on “Mr. Brooks” conception. I can only speculate, but it is hard for me to believe that this seemed like a good idea; at least in the direction everyone involved went with it.

OK. Kevin Costner can do Westerns. Kevin Costner can do weepy baseball movies. Kevin Costner can not do depth! Anyone who has ever seen any of his attempts knows this. Just take “A Perfect World.” It came close, but his delivery and impossible-to-hide arrogance, mired what could have been a great follow-up to Eastwood’s “Unforgiven.”

Another point for producers to ponder: Just because other stand-up comedians can act, doesn’t mean they all can! Did you even audition Dane Cook? His character was simple. Mr. Smith is a smarmy prick. You were thinking, “Anyone could pull that off right?” Wrong! Cook takes a cut and dry character and mangles it beyond belief.

However, Cook is far and away the least of the film’s troubles. The main problem isn’t Costner. It isn’t Demi “She’s hot, so no one knows she can’t act for shit” Moore. It is the script. From the trailer, one can almost here the pitch. “A realistic ‘Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde.’ He’s a reluctant serial killer with a split personality disorder.” If I was a producer, I might have considered, but who in their right mind would read the script and greenlight it! In the interest of fairness, I wasn’t there. All manner of things could have happened. Maybe the producers pressured the writer-director team of Bruce Evans and Raynold Gideon to throw in multiple sub-plots to add length. Who knows? But I would love to know the “creative process” behind it.

“Mr. Brooks” breaks down like this: Kevin Costner plays the titular character that is voted ‘Man of the Year.’ He is rich. He loves his wife and daughter. But he’s a serial killer returning from a 2 year hiatus. He was known as “The Thumbprint Killer.” He shoots lovers in the head and gets all orgasmic afterward. He returns because his other personality, Marshall , played by William Hurt, tells him to. He talks to Hurt in a ‘mind’s eye’ kind of fashion. Mr. Brook’s is diabolically clever. He says he doesn’t like to kill, but he’s addicted to it. To slam this point home, he attends Alcoholic Anonymous meetings, telling the group he’s an addict.

That’s the major plot line. The subplots include a blackmailing pussy(Dane Cook), a millionaire homicide detective (you read that right) played by Demi Moore, another serial killer called “The Hangman,” Mr. Brooks’ college drop-out “I might be a killer to, because those Law & Order shows say ‘killing’ is hereditary” daughter, and the detective’s impending divorce.

Throw all of that into the main plot and everything gets contrived, muddy, implausible, and unintentionally funny.

OK, now you have the story break down, it doesn’t sound like it can get worse, right? Wrong.

Now, throw in the “should’ve stayed retired” Moore and the worst casting decision of the year Costner in, and you have a thing. Not a movie. Not a film. A thing. Something with so many problems, that it takes days to pull the ingredients out and examine it. I saw this a little less than a week ago and I have been trying to write about it, but nothing came out. All I kept seeing was a blob. As I am writing this and looking back on the words, I see that I am not coming close to describing what is wrong here.

I can fault its co-writer and director Evans. I could fault his career collaborator Gideon, but I think the responsibility falls on every single person involved. That is except for William Hurt.

There are two good things about “Mr. Brooks.” We get to see Hurt playing an evil villain once again. I am a fan of everything the man has done (with the exception being “Lost in Space”). But I’ll be damned if I don’t love Hurt’s sinister side. If that was all he wound up doing for the rest of his days, I’d be happy. It is evident that he had a lot of fun playing the role.

The second thing is that it does have the possibility of being “so bad it’s good.” Costner’s delivery comes off like a homosexual Dr. Evil playing it serious. “Why yes, I am a serial killer and yes, I am unbelievably clever.” This is the only thematic element to his character that he wants the audience to acknowledge, but homeboy, we get it. Try going somewhere else with it. When your crouched naked in front of photos of your recent kills, swaying back and forth in ecstasy, we get it. Mr. Brooks is a nut. When Marshall and Brooks destroy all the evidence, we can tell from the obsessive compulsiveness, that they (or he) are brilliant. You don’t have to tug at your chin and say things like “she’s hiding something” with that Costner brooding we are familiar with from any one of his past films. Taking his trademark character actor methods and trying to put them to use in a villain you’re supposed to identify with, is hilarious. Watching Moore trying to be a badass is also funny as hell. She got close in G.I. Jane, but she couldn’t even conjure that character to bring any bravado to her ‘insanely rich homicide detective’ with a temper.

“Forget Knocked Up. Forget I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry. Mr. Brook’s will by far be the funniest film you see all year.” (You think they’ll swipe that for a tag?!)

For the producers, I’d like to sum it up a bit. Stop trying to remake elements from great serial killer flicks! If you are going to make one where ‘character’ is key, do it! Do it right. If you, in your Armani suits, think it’s too wordy and boring, it probably isn’t. I said earlier that it was hard to believe that anyone could have thought this was a good idea. I wasn’t being entirely clear. The concept of having a serial killer discussing his methodology with his other personality is clever and engaging, especially when he is played by William Hurt. But don’t believe that old school actors like Costner can pull it off. To insinuate that these two men are in the same league is insulting and infuriating. So, when a script comes in that bastardizes the entire concept and makes it secondary…GO BACK TO THE DAMN DRAWING BOARD!