User reviews

A surprising and beautiful combination of classic western themes with French twist. Profound. I started out feeling disinterested by the predictable characters and ended with tears and a smile. Stick with it; a truly great film.

The Sisters Brothers is a superb narrative driven western that doesn't hold back on it's true colors. John C Reilly and Joaquin Phoenix star as an incredible dynamic brother duo, working as assassins chasing Riz Ahmed along with Jake Gyllenhaal, a pair recent pair from Nightcrawler (2014). With outstanding performances all around, the actors create a terrific sense of realism in the relationships between characters, John C Reilly stands out, as he delivers one of his most outstanding serious and heartfelt performances yet. The film takes it times establishing itself as a true but unique western with charm and intensity, but the film hits it's prime in the third act delivering brutal and vigorous scenes. The score fits perfectly into the vibe and tone and elevates scenes to higher and more emotionally gripping spectacle. The cinematography is also notable, with exception use of gun flashes in the dark, and alluring composition. As an entirety, the film is extremely compelling and is one of the best westerns in the past decade.

So I saw The Sisters Brothers at the theater. I really didn't know what to expect from the movie going in. The trailer made it seem to be a strange buddy comedy western, but I'm a fan of all of the actors so I wanted to give it a chance. Thankfully this was a case of an absolutely misleading trailer. I really enjoyed the end product and think this is one of the best westerns made in years.

The movie is a gritty and at times nihilistic western heavy on atmosphere and dialogue. The film tells two parallel stories that eventally connect as the bounty hunters the Sisters Brother chase after their prey a scientist who has discovered an efficient way to find gold. Along the way both parties encounter struggles that really emphasize the hardships of that era. This is not the kind of western with good and bad guys. Everyone is morally grey and is just trying to survive the best they can.

Anyone looking for an grand and extravagant plot should look elsewhere. The movie is far more about the journey than the destination. The initial conflict acts as a MacGuffin. The real meat of the plot is more of a character study on the brutality of the wild west and the impact it has on the individual. The film plays with traditional Hollywood tropes and the audience's own expectation to craft it's own unique voice of the era.

The brutal nature of the film was one of my favorite parts. The film really ripped away the glamour of a silver screen western and left it bleeding on a table. The movie makes it clear that life was hard, fast, and cheap. A random spider bite, visit to the doctors, or drunken hangover on a horse could easily end a person's life. There was no time for finding something to make you happy when everyday was a struggle to survive. This added realism really captured the nihilistic feel of the movie and added a bleak and somber tone to the film's progression.

The film was also very well directed and shot. The cinematography of the action scenes were fast and fluid, but never felt choppy. This by no means the kind of western with epic battles, but the action suited the overall tone of the film. The director also really did a good job with the set pieces as you really felt like you were in the wild west. The film was exceptionally well shot. The films at times was absolutely stunning to look at. The film also provides an excellent score to match the intense atmosphere the film cultivates.

Acting wise John C Reilly stole the show. It's always nice to see him in films like this to remind everyone what kind of range he has as an actor. Joaquin Phoenix also delivers as the alcoholic and and fast tempered brother. Jake Gyllenhaal was solid as expected, but didn't really stand out in any way in the film. Still I don't have a single complaint about the acting in the film. Everyone did their jobs perfectly.

The film certainly was a very slow burn. It was heavy on dense dialogue and required quite a bit of attention. These are not negatives in my book as they were intentional, but this will not make people happy who are looking for a more traditional western. I will say that the film could have been cut down twenty or so minutes to speed up the flow of the plot. This slight pacing issue did make the film drag at times. The plot structure may be a bit of a turn off for some as well. The bleak and nihilistic flow of the film that puts the initial conflict as secondary may come across as anti-climatic for some.

In a lot of ways this is one of my favorite westerns I've seen in years. I love the actors, but it's the directors masterstrokes that really makes this movie stand out. It was all around one of the best made movies I have seen all year. It certainly had its flaws and it is not going to make anyone happy if they are expecting a traditional Western, but for those who care more about the journey and atmosphere this movie is for you. Unfortunately this movie is bombing in the box office, but it certainly deserves some praise for its accomplishments. A 8.25 out of 10.

This movie is by all means different of the others westerns movies you could have seen. It is funny by moments, rough by moments, calm maybe too calm sometimes. But the story is great and entertaining, and the actors are just a perfect fit. Cinematography is also great and it made us feels like we are with them!

A stud line-up produces a solid modern western in a time when the genre has certainly lived way passed its prime. Never really dead, The Western, proves time and time again that even with its typical tropes, run-of-the-mill grizzled outlaws, and the learned sheepish "city" man that set out to settle for a better life; to risk all they knew to find the dream, that the genre still has something to give us.

The Sisters Brothers gives us a character study that focuses on the fraternity of brotherhood, and in this case, a very close look at a twisted one that at its core finds the fundamental values of what it means to be a brother. We have all seen Joaquin Phoenix play this type before; reckless and obstreperous, while we find Jake Gyllenhaal and Riz Ahmed sharing screen time (again). But this is truly John C. Reilly's movie, who at first, is certainly overlooked and shown to us as the "lesser" brother. As we come to find out the truth we see the foils of Reilly's and Phoenix's character come full circle; ultimately seeing how their past has affected them. We notice (indirectly) how father figures are important role models, and to some extent we even get a taste of the affect mothers have on their kids as well as we see traits of either parent in both brothers as they film goes on. Reilly gets his iconic moment and really the final statement of how far he will go to protect his brother when the time comes, and it is awesome. Certainly the highlight of the entire film for me.

At times slow, the film has moments of wittiness and subtle humor that remains fresh throughout. The Sisters Brothers is definitely worth seeing as it makes its statement as a film of its genre with great performances, especially from Reilly.

Not my wife's kind of movie, I watched this at home on DVD from our public library. All-in-all I don't find it to be a very good movie but it is well made and accomplishes its purposes very well.

Naming the two main characters the "Sisters Brothers" hints at the healthy dose of absurdity in this movie. The brothers are traveling gunfighters, paid to kill certain people. They take jobs for pay and systematically hunt down their targets. This slice of their story is set in Oregon and Northern California although all filming was done in Europe.

John C. Reilly is Eli Sisters, the more sensible and thoughtful one, at some point wondering if they should retire and take their money to start a business, maybe run a store. Joaquin Phoenix is Charlie Sisters, the younger and more impetuous of the two, he scoffs at Eli's thoughts.

They are hired to hunt down a man who has not repaid a debt, they end up at odds with Jake Gyllenhaal as John Morris and Riz Ahmed as Hermann Kermit Warm who has developed a chemical that, when poured into a river or stream, will make the gold shine brightly, and easy to harvest.

The story gets a bit convoluted, there are a number of brutal, point-blank killings. I can't say the movie itself came to an entirely satisfying end but for the most part it was entertaining. The actors are very good in their roles.

Much like the horror genre for me, western films haven't been able to win me over as well as others. That being said, I was looking forward to this one, due to the energetic trailers and very talented cast all around. Sadly, this film only lived up to one thing, which was the cast. I don't expect much from westerns to be honest, because aside from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, or even the remake of 3:10 to Yuma, I haven't loved too many others. I still found myself disappointed in this one, however, due to the story being told and the crew behind the movie being so incredibly gifted. Here's why I'd recommend this movie if you're a fan of any of these performers, but why it's really not worth seeing as a whole.

Based on a true story of two brothers who are on the run after multiple felonies in the 1800s, The Sisters Brothers dives into the dramatic aspect of their characters and pretty much becomes a road trip drama with a Western setting. That itself would interest me if someone were to sell the movie before viewing it, but the drama aspect is far too heavy for this sort of film. A duo of gold prospectors in Jake Gyllenhaal and Riz Ahmed are on the lookout, while also being in pursuit by these brothers, who are played by Joaquin Phoenix and John C. Reilly, respectively. The premise of this film is very interesting and different for this genre, but it truly goes nowhere that we haven't already seen westerns go a million times over.

If you go into this film hoping for great performances and nothing else, then you might end up loving this movie, because these four performers in Reilly, Gyllenhaal, Ahmed, and Phoenix are stellar from start to finish. I felt riveted each and every time any of them were sharing the screen together, but that's where the greatness ends for this film. It relies too heavily on this cast to carry the very slow pace. The film begins with an action sequence and ends with a decent one as well, but the rest of the movie is a very slow burn that does nothing all that interesting to keep you engaged. Sure, you will learn about the backstories and life goals of these characters, but it's nothing I'll ever find myself wishing to revisit.

With all of that said, this is a well-directed film by Jacques Audiard, who has been previously known for his award-winning foreign films in Rust and Bone, Dheepan, and many more. You can tell that this is a director that cares about his character on-screen and he definitely focussed the majority this filmmaking process to get that aspect just right because it really does show. These characters are fantastic. I just wish the movie itself was injected with a little more energy to hold my interested throughout the full 121 minutes.

Overall, The Sisters Brothers is a competent film as a whole, with great direction and superb performances, but the rest of the movie surrounding those aspects just left me underwhelmed. I'm not saying the movie itself needed a gunfight every five minutes, but the calm score, subtle performances, long sequences of sitting around a fire or riding a horse, and even the comedic aspects that were played as light humour to deviate from the tense moments, all felt dull. I enjoyed watching this movie, but it feels far too long, due to the slow pacing. I personally feel that this film is a big example of wasted potential. I can't quite give this movie a glowing recommendation, but there are enough positive aspects to warrant a positive grade.

I had an opportunity to watch it early at TIFF 2018, so please ignore the average low imdb rating. Audiences gave "The Sister Brothers" a five-minute standing ovation following its debut at the Venice Film Festival. To summarize this movie, its a old Western ramble that's super funny, smart and watchable. It's utterly strange, utterly lovely postmodern Western Jake! What can't this guy do? Ahmed brings depth and texture, plus a winning idealistic vibe, to what could have been a bland straight-man role. But As good as the others are, this is John C Reilly's film. FYI, The Sisters Brothers doesn't have the same vibe as, say, Unforgiven, but it has the same quality of making us look at things from a different perspective.

The actors are wonderful, the photography is somptuous, yet something is missing. The film fails to reach the epic and tragic dimensions of truly great contemporary westerns. The story is too sketchy and the background stories of the characters too naive. The movie also fails to transmit the true darkness and irony of the book, which are not limited to gun violence. It all wants too feel raw and edgy but is really just beautiful but void.

The Sisters Brothers is directed and co-written by Jacques Audiard, his first English-language work. The film stars John C. Reilly and Joaquin Phoenix as the notorious assassin brothers Eli and Charlie Sisters and the story follows the duo as they chase down two men that's played by Jake Gyllenhaal and Riz Ahmed who have banded together to search for gold. Incredible acting throughout the film, all four of them were terrific. John C. Reilly and Joaquin Phoenix were best though, their chemistry were great.

The story starts off simple but evolves into so much more, the script is great, with well written characters and a plot that keeps you interested. There's a lot of towns, cities and locations the characters visit and each is unique and non like the other, great production design. The story isn't the film's strong point though, it's the acting and cinematography as it's visually stunning, each scene satisfies your eyes... With great camera work, lightning, sets and overall authentic. It's some of the best cinematography I have seen, I believe. Benoît Debie did a phenomenal job, one that will hopefully give him many acclaim and maybe awards in the future. The costume department did a magnificent job at creating clothes that are both authentic and also recognizable as you can see who the character is by their clothes, that's a nice and important detail.

Alexandre Desplat's musical score is both powerful and mesmerizing, a soundtrack fitting perfectly with its time period. The sound mixing and editing is also top notch, everything sounds real.

Too bad that this was a box office bomb, but I can understand why. The pacing is quite slow and it is more about character development than action. The few gunfights that exists in the movie is quick and realistic, and brutal. The Sisters Brothers is a must watch if you're a fan of the western genre, as it's one hell of a good western and a beautiful film.

American grit and French wit, sensibility and cinematic prowess combine in this unique and alluring form of the traditional western. It is about time. The results are spectacular.

Bounty hunters Eli and Charlie are brutal, efficient and effective. Charlie, often drunk, is impulsive and cynical, while Eli is more thoughtful and emotional. During the Gold Rush of 1851 they are trailing their mark from Oregon to San Francisco. Along the way they encounter thugs, spiders, mercury and frontier medicine at its best (or worst), and grapple with their fears and fantasies. Eli has strong feelings that violence invites more violence and attempts to get his brother to quit while they are ahead. Charlie, however, prefers action and meeting fears and uncertainties head on.

There was a genuine and spontaneous expression of love for the film from the audience at the 2018 Toronto International Film Festival. From the flashes of black powder in night to the music, cinematography, twists in the plot and quotes from Thoreau, there are so many aspects of the film from which to derive pleasure. The all-star cast includes Joaquin Phoenix (Charlie), John Reilly (Eli), Jake Gyllenhaal and Riz Ahmed. Reilly and Phoenix work extremely well together and the film is worth watching just to see their chemistry. The filmmakers provide realistic and refreshing portrayals of 1850s western hygiene (or lack thereof), clothing fashions, fighting, sex and roleplay, the environment and even bird songs. Modern language is employed, rather than awkward and confusing attempts to employ historical words and phrases that audiences no longer understand the meaning of.

From the director of amazing films including Dheepan, Rust and Bone and Cannes Grand Prix winner Un prophete. Audiard said he intended to show what regular life in the West was like in 1851 and he succeeded. The Sisters Brothers was shot in Spain and France, with sets in Romania, but there was no way I could tell if Audiard did not say so. Something I do not often realize, but the editing is crisp and remarkable. The scenes seem so natural in their order. The film is based on Canadian author Patrick deWitt's award winning novel.

The Sisters Brothers is a film set in the American Old West, based on a book by a Canadian, made by a mostly French crew, shot primarily in Spain and Romania, featuring a Brit as an American, an American as a Brit, and a British trans comedian as a ruthless American businesswoman. I don't bring this up out of mere frivolousness; rather, a certain element of schizophrenia is built into the film's very DNA. On the surface it's a Revisionist Western with a gritty Spaghetti aesthetic focusing very much on a group of anti-heroes, but it's also a story of two brothers getting on one another's nerves, a tale of avarice and the destructive potential of progressive thinking, a chase movie, a dark comedy, a tragic fable, an examination of the days when the Old West was giving way to an ever-encroaching modernity, a look at how the sins of the father are oft repeated by the children, a study of competing types of masculinity, and even a political thesis, postulating that there was a time in American history when certain people genuinely believed they could build a harmonious society based on direct democracy.

The English language debut of director Jacques Audiard, who adapted the script with his regular writing partner Thomas Bidegain from Patrick DeWitt's 2011 novel of the same name, the film is very much of a piece with his more celebrated humanist work such as The Beat That My Heart Skipped (2005), A Prophet (2009), and Dheepan (2015). Unfortunately, it did next-to-nothing for me. I wouldn't say it's a bad movie, as it clearly has a lot going for it; not the least of which is an unapologetic foregrounding of character over plot. However, its episodic rhythm, bifurcated narrative structure, and poorly-defined morality left me unengaged, frustrated, and rather bored.

Set in 1851 at the height of the California Gold Rush, the film tells the story of Charlie Sisters (Joaquin Phoenix) and his older brother Eli (John C. Reilly), hired guns working for "The Commodore" (a criminally underused Rutger Hauer). Far more sensitive and thoughtful than his younger brother, Eli is growing weary of the lifestyle, wanting to retire, settle down, and open a grocery store. The more unpredictable and volatile Charlie, however, wants to keep on killing indefinitely. Their next quarry is Hermann Kermit Warm (Riz Ahmed), a mild-manner chemist who has created an elixir that when poured into a river, will illuminate any gold deposits on the river bed. Unsure of Warm's exact location, The Commodore has already sent highly-intelligent tracker John Morris (Jake Gyllenhaal), a man too gentile for killing, to pick up his trail and detain him until the brothers catch up. However, upon learning that Warm doesn't want to use the gold for himself, but to help establish "an ideal living space, ruled by the laws of true democracy and sharing", Morris begins the doubt the mission. Meanwhile, the brothers are rapidly approaching.

Very much adopting the visual style of a Spaghetti Western, everything on screen looks dirty and/or dusty, whether it's the worn and lived-in costumes, the spartan buildings, or the perpetually unshaven characters and their rotting teeth (an historically accurate detail absent in most modern westerns). Of particular note are the shootouts, of which there are three significant examples. The first takes place at night, and is shot from a distance and without much in the way of coverage; the second is shot primarily from the point of view of two characters doing their best to hide; and the third isn't seen at all - we remain inside as the shooting can be heard on the street.

This should convey just how revisionist The Sisters Brothers is; the genre's tropes are all there, but they are presented from unexpected angles; men ride horses, but when a horse is mortally wounded, the man to whom he belongs cries and apologises; whisky is drunk aplenty, but one character would rather sit alone thinking about home; the anticipated climatic shootout plays out in a manner you'll never see coming.

The film opens with an extraordinarily beautiful and striking scene. It's night on the prairie, and having vanquished their opponents, the brothers are about to leave, when they see a horse, its back covered in flames, galloping away, trying to outrun the fire from which it doesn't understand it can never escape. Realising the barn is on fire, Eli dashes in to try to save the trapped horses, whilst Charlie urges him to remain outside. Is the metaphor of the burning horse a little on the nose? Absolutely; try as they might, the brothers can never escape that which brings them pain, no matter how far or fast they run. But just because it's not exactly subtle doesn't mean it's ineffective, and as opening visual metaphors go, it's as striking an example as you're likely to find. The scene also immediately establishes the differences between Eli and Charlie.

In relation to the milieu, yes, this is the Old West of John Ford, Anthony Mann, and Sergio Leone, but Audiard defamiliarises it as much as possible. A recurring theme, for example, is that this is a world on the brink of modernity. This is depicted via a running gag about Eli's fascination with a curious modern invention (the toothbrush), and his childlike glee at staying in a hotel with indoor plumbing. Elsewhere, Morris remarks on how quickly the country is changing, writing, "I have travelled through places that didn't exist three months ago. First tents, then houses, then shops, with women fiercely discussing the price of flour." Additionally, Warm's progressive egalitarian vision for the future allows the film to examine the belief (however short-lived) that out of the lawlessness, land thievery, and Native American genocide, a certain section of the populace hoped a more mutually beneficial society might arise.

However, Audiard is not naïve enough to suggest that the Old West was especially peaceful or safe. But even here, he subverts the genre, using a recurring motif of either Charlie or Eli shooting an already downed opponent pleading for his life, which is certainly not what we've come to expect from the protagonists so familiar in Hollywood westerns.

In terms of acting, Phoenix, Gyllenhaal, and Ahmed all have moments to shine (a monologue in which Morris describes his hatred for his father is especially worth looking out for), but this is Reilly's film. His nuanced performance allows us to see just how badly Eli's conscience is affecting him, and how much he is drifting away from the increasingly amoral Charlie. His unexpected affection for his horse is especially poignant, and his tendency to sniff a shawl given to him by his girlfriend is beautifully played.

However, for all this, I really disliked the movie. For one, I found it far too episodic, lurching from one incident to next with little in the way of connective tissue between them. I also didn't particularly like the shifts in focus from the brothers on the one hand to Morris and Warm on the other, making it impossible for either to fully settle. A knock-on from this is that it's difficult to figure out where one's empathy is supposed to lie. This difficulty becomes especially problematic in relation to the morally questionable dénouement, in which there is an incident which seems designed for the audience to roundly condemn one of the main characters, only for the film to then give us a 15-minute epilogue seemingly designed to redeem him.

This throws into relief what for me was the most egregious problem - none of what we see seems to mean anything, there are virtually no consequences for anything the brothers do (although plenty of consequences for others). This left me scratching my head as to what the film is trying to say. Is it suggesting that even the most morally repugnant of men deserve a shot at redemption? If that is the case, however, its rhetorical position is not especially cogent, as the character mentioned above in no way deserves redemption, allowing his greed and stubbornness to cause untold suffering to others whilst he gets off relatively scot-free. The film is also far too long, and could easily have lost a half hour or more.

As a kind of an aside, it's also worth mentioning an aesthetic decision that has me baffled. On occasion, the film is shot within a circular frame (think of how films often simulate POV through a telescope), often combined with racked focus and unsteady photography. I'm assuming the idea is to try to replicate the style of a Kinetograph, but given that that device wouldn't be invented for another four decades, I'm not entirely sure what the point is. An especially strange example is a scene in which Charlie speaks direct-to-camera, the only example of such in the whole film. Is this a break in the fourth wall, and if so, why? If it isn't a break, from whose POV is the scene shot?

The four performances at the heart of The Sisters Brothers earn it a great deal of leeway. But even taking that into account, I just couldn't get into it. Far too plodding and thematically unfocused, it's certainly original in how it approaches generic tropes, and that's to be commended, but the imprecise and poorly constructed episodic narrative saps away the good will built up by the aesthetic design and the acting. Is it a western? A comedy? A tragedy? An esoteric political piece? A realist depiction of greed trumping idealism? In the end, it doesn't seem to know itself, trying to be many things, and ending up being none of them.

It's just go on like story..can be watchable for once..But it's lacking what movie lovers expecting from western movies.

Somewhat of a forgotten film of 2018, The Sisters Brothers is a film filled with pedigree behind the camera and in front of it, but it didn't stop this darkly comedic and slowly paced adaptation of Patrick DeWitt's well-regarded novel from appearing and disappearing from many people's minds in the latter half of last year.

It's a curious case of wrong place and wrong timing, as A Prophet director Jacques Audiard film is as assured as you'd expect from a type of a production that has genuine star power at its disposal and a relatively hefty 30 million plus budget, but the slow paced nature and quiet story at the heart of this Western tale is likely the reason why so many people forgot it even existed and why despite some genuinely noteworthy reviews, was lost amongst a raft of other prestige films in the awards season.

While changing things up in more ways than one, Sisters is a fairly straightforward adaptation of DeWitt's pitch black and violently tinged novel that focuses on John C. Reilly's kind-hearted Eli Sisters and Joaquin Phoenix's Charlie Sisters, two-hitman/enforcers for hire who are sent on a quest by a man known as the "commissioner" to find their colleague John Morris (played by Jake Gyllenhaal) and Riz Ahmed's mysterious chemist Hermann Kermit Warm, who has a debt owing to the commissioner.

It's a simplistic set-up and one that is even more bare-bones when you begin to realize that the film's main concern is to allow you to spend time with Eli and Charlie as the two long bound together brothers begin to face up to the changing nature of their lives.

This isn't a bad thing as Reilly and Phoenix make for great companions, with both performers sharing a believable and sometimes tense chemistry, with Reilly in particular awards worthy as Eli, a man that unlike Charlie, isn't as fond as killing and violence and is beginning to wonder about what a life outside of the business he is in may look like, but one that seems far away as a keeper of sorts of the drunken and depressive Charlie.

Despite this not being a bad thing, and with fans of both performers likely in for a treat when watching Audiard's film, is does make one wonder that with more of an inventive and higher-stakes plot with a more zippier pace, Sisters could've been a genuine breakout hit and elevated itself up to a higher place than a merely entertaining, yet sadly instantly forgettable ride.

With seemingly all the elements at its disposal, including a moody score from Alexandre Desplat and some picturesque surrounds captured courtesy of D.O.P Benoit Debie, this is a polished production with flashes of brilliance technically and performance wise but one that feels weighed down by simplistic plotting and a sense that there's a lot of time wasted on not of a lot of meaningful content, even if the films end coda is touching in its humanistic approach to its subjects.

Final Say -

For fans of DeWitt's book and for those followers of the main casts work, The Sisters Brothers will be a joy to behold but with meandering pacing and a persistent but non-rushed bare-bones plot, Audiard's film feels ever so slightly like a missed opportunity to turn this material into something truly special and undeniably memorable, not just a pleasant diversion.

3 ½ spiders out of 5

'The Sisters Brothers' is one of those films that just sort of exists, without really trying to do or say anything of note. There's no real through-line to the narrative; it just follows seemingly unrelated events that the brothers experience, with the only real link being that they follow on from each other. The lack of a 'proper story' means that it's never really all that engaging or interesting. That being said it's far from boring, with some of the sequences being quite entertaining. Phoenix and Reilly are excellent throughout, too, and the assured direction means that it's a confidently crafted piece, so there's always a base level of investment there. The protagonists initially seem to be well-grounded, realistic characters, and their similarities and differences lead to a convincing brotherly duo. It's unfortunate, then, that despite their strong formation they aren't necessarily 'good characters'. Throughout the film they don't really change, and this lack of arcs makes the whole affair seem kind of pointless in the end. It could have, and probably should have, been a character study; most pictures of this ilk - those not following a traditional 'three-act' narrative, that is - tend to focus on delving deep into developing core characters, so it's a shame that this picture doesn't even manage that. Like I said though, it never manages to be boring - even if you can feel the length at times - and the direction and performances (Gyllenhaal and Ahmed are good, too, despite being severely underused) are always engaging. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it has all the right pieces, but it unfortunately just doesn't know what to do with them. 6/10

I really enjoyed this film, it combined a variety of western aspects such as the generic shootouts, the gold rush, bounty hunting, experimenting with new science and of course friendship/family, overall I felt it successfully achieved this blend in an interesting and occasionally emotional story. I can see why others may have not clicked with this film as it is definitely character and performance driven, rather than having a story that compelled you throughout. The choice of actors was amazing, whilst they have all achieved much higher performances individually, especially Phoenix and Gyllenhaal, they were still fantastic together and had their moments to shine.

I haven't read the novel, but if it's anything like this screenplay, I'm glad I didn't. There was so much pointless useless filler (the scarf, sick horse, etc.) in the 122 min runtime, any substance could've been summed up in 1 hour. This film was basically a long journey, searching for a destination it never reaches. Even the title was dumb... the Sisters Brothers? If that was supposed to be funny, it wasn't. Nevertheless, the outstanding performances by the all-star cast and the excellent cinematography are the only reason I saw this to the end. Stunned at all the rave reviews. It's only a 6/10 from me.

Despite the slow start, The Sisters Brothers is a unique, unpredictable and funny western. Joaquin Phoenix and John C. Reilly give incredible performances and are a surprisingly great double act. Riz Ahmed and Jake Gyllenhaal are also great. Jacques Audiard's direction is great and it's beautifully filmed. The music by Alexandre Desplat is really good. It also has genuinely thrilling gunfights.

The good news? Loved the book and had been wishing for 6 years that someone might make it into a great film. I was excited. How I hate to write the obvious next line, but, you know - the bad news? The director changed too much. Enjoyed his beautiful, gritty "Rust and Bone", so I was hopeful. On the surface, the 2 stories would seem to have little in common, but are similar at their core. Dark, damaged, quirky, real and beautiful are themes for both. But back to The Sisters Bros. I'd planned to reread Dewitt's book before seeing the film, because I actually recalled very little of it, but knew I loved it (no reflection on the book, but rather, likely due to the stress of deaths and loss in my life the year I read it). That the story was able to engage me at all during that time speaks well of it. Much less that it left me longing for a well-told movie. I get that adaptation is tricky. So many little things were changed that made no sense to me. Not for the better. And a couple of big ones that would definitely be spoilers. I know - so cliche for the lover of a book to be disappointed in a film adaptation - but I can rattle off so many that did not disappoint (To Kill A Mockingbird, The Color Purple,...). Some scenes I recalled from the book so fondly, that were inexplicably missing. Terribly missed. One was a second short, sweet encounter between Eli and a bookkeeper. Not the added brief weird role-play scene portrayed earlier w/ the sympathetic prostititute at Mayfield's, but it would've been lovely to have enjoyed those few moments of tenderness, hope, and joy for Eli, as he accompanied a kindred lonely soul on the makeshift 2x4 boards crisscrossing muddy streets, while she smiled and even giggled. The last appearance of the mysterious Commodore was altered. Why? And finally, returning to their childhood home made perfect sense to me after having their minds opened to new ideas and surviving all. I thought it was purposely lit to look magical, just as they might first see it. Or were they dreaming, or dead? I loved the cast, and might not have minded some surprising choices if only they'd stuck to the better points of the book, great and small. I came home, reread the book, and preferred it.

Just came from the cinema! Totally enjoyed this. Storywise it delivers what's expected by a good ol' western: a slow yet steady storytelling with gunmen, brothels, chasing, gold and whisky. Actors were great, the bond between the brothers felt very convincing! Creative filming, nice soundtrack and a very autentic feel to it overall. If you're in the right mood, relaxed and feeling it: kick back and enjoy this great picture!

When I watched this movie, I had no idea about it. I didn't even realize that John Reilly, Joaquin Phoenix, and Jake Gyllenhall were in it. In fact, I did not recognize Jake until the last few minutes of the film. To me, the movie was a bit overbaked. Their pistols looked more like Roman candles when fired at night--with long flames and sparks spewing from the barrels. It took me a few minutes to appreciate what was happening. I really like Reilly. He's a very fine actor and one of the many, many producers of this movie. Candidly, they all shined as actors. The storyline and plot were clothed in violence. Many of the scenes were raw and brutal. The more I watched of the film, the more I was eager to see what was coming next. My greatest criticism of the film is the unrealistic verbiage used by the characters of the west in the 1850s. The use of multisyllabic words of the time by the characters did not comport with the language of the day, that is, the level of sophistication of the English language far surpassed western reality. Afterwards, I did learn that the movie earnings were far short of the budget and that is really too bad because it is a film worth viewing. Very fine acting.

I was kind of disappointed in this film. The acting was excellent, locations were on the money. The story for me went nowhere. I did however enjoy the acting. Overall not a film I would recommend.

I walked out of it in the middle, about half time of the whole set. This movie was like a string of beads threaded with a very thin string (or it's just a very thin and fine thread?), so thin that might come loose at any moment and all the beads would have splattered all over the place. The tempo of the going was just too slow and so randomly patched together. Characters were aimlessly unfocused, none of them were interested enough to hold my interest, even they are reputable sometimes even likable actors, but the slow-going, the deadbeat storyline, the broken editing, made this movie very difficult to gulp up in just one smooth sitting. I've found out that there were more than once I've lost my focus and my mind was digressed elsewhere even my eyes were on the screen.

This is a not quite good deadbeat Western movie adapted from a quite good novel. I think the writers of the screenplay adaption, the directing and editing were all responsible for its lack-luster failure.