Westerns are a tough genre to tackle in the modern era. Faced with opponents like superhero movies, which feature everything from stellar effects to non-stop action to mind-blowing visuals, it’s hard to stand out.
The Sisters Brothers, based on the Canadian-written novel of the same name, at least has some pedigree behind it: Vancouver Island-born author Patrick deWitt was shortlisted for the 2011 Man Booker Prize, the 2011 Scotiabank Giller Prize, the Rogers Writers’ Trust Fiction Prize and the 2011 Governor General’s Award for English language fiction for this novel.
READ MORE: ‘The Conners’ stars address ‘Roseanne’ cancellation, racist tweet
It’s a shame, then, that the movie, starring biggies Jake Gyllenhaal, Joaquin Phoenix, John C. Reilly and Riz Ahmed, doesn’t quite meet the standard set by the book.
Explain what you mean.
It feels like something got lost in translation from book to screen. Set in the 1850s during the Gold Rush, the story follows the assassin Sisters brothers, Eli and Charlie (Reilly and Phoenix), as they go on the hunt to kill gold prospector Hermann Kermit Warm (Ahmed). Warm stands accused of stealing from the brothers’ fearsome boss, The Commodore.
They discover that Warm has invented a gold-finding chemical formula that lights up the mineral in water, making it far easier to find it. (There is a catch, however, that won’t be revealed here.) Obviously, they decide to join up with him instead of killing him, to mixed results. Sounds like a great story, right?
Get daily National news
Somehow, in the film’s storytelling, the clear narrative gets lost and motivations aren’t made clear. It’s tough to care about characters when we don’t know what they’re thinking or what they’re after.
READ MORE: In new book, author claims Janis Joplin didn’t die of drug overdose
Does this have anything to do with it being a western?
That definitely plays a part. Westerns, by their nature, are slower and more pensive, so it’s possible that director and adaptive screenwriter Jacques Audiard (Rust and Bone, A Prophet) might have hit a roadblock here and there. There’s a lot of pensive staring and not a lot of exposition, so much is left to the audience to figure out. People who’ve read the book will have a far easier time.
The scenery is gorgeous, at least, and it captures the mood of the story.
Surely this cast of amazing actors delivers, right?
Oh yes, there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of them. Reilly, in particular, stands out, along with Ahmed (who has about half of Reilly’s screen time), as they both play more empathetic characters and have emotional arcs. Gyllenhaal and Phoenix, especially the former, are more understated. Phoenix does his best drunken, misunderstood jerk, while Gyllenhaal mulls matters in a British (?) accent. All four of the men deliver acceptable performances, but it’s a movie bereft of intrigue, and it’s hard not to feel stagnancy as they plod along on their journey.
Again, reading the book probably provides additional insight into the characters, details not spelled out here.
So what’s the bottom line?
Fans of westerns might enjoy this modern iteration on the genre, but The Sisters Brothers is lacking the magic it has on the page. It’s an unfortunate thing that happens with book-to-movie adaptations, and this is the latest victim. That’s not to say there aren’t some funny, engaging scenes, but on the whole, the movie is as adrift as its protagonists.
‘The Sisters Brothers’ is now playing in theatres across Canada.
Comments
Want to discuss? Please read our Commenting Policy first.