Talk:Mr. Brooks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] reverting summary by 64.59.16.100

I am reverting to the earlier plot outline that does not read like an advert or original research. If you want to tuck in new info, good, but don't rewrite the whole section-stop inserting it, it's not a personal essay. I am going to put in any new information your version has, but yours is not written encyclopedically. Chris 08:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Violation

The version of the plot summary section originally added by 64.59.16.100 [1] is substantially the same as found on Fandango. I am reverting the plot outline to the prior version by User:Roland Kaufmann.

Maybe 64.59.16.100 was trying to remove the copyright violation, but did not indicate this. TPM2006 00:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, 64.59.16.100's later edits were also copyvios, from the official MGM site, no less. TPM2006 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
What is the Wikipedia policy "Official Synopses" anyway? TPM2006 00:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with Synopsis

The synopsis does not seem to be a good description of the film. It fails to mention at all Mr. Brooks being blackmailed by Mr. Smith, which I personally think is the central part of the story. Mr. Brooks and Atwood never come in contact with each other, and while their stories are somewhat parallel, I think the description of their "relationship" is irrelevant in terms of a movie synopsis. MJB12 03:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the synopsis should include the last line, ('Why do you fight it, Earl?'). I believe this throws a different emphasis on the dream, and the film. I realise this is not the place for original thought, but take using the word 'id.' Is Marshall really the 'sadistic alter ego'? I think it's more devious than that. Unless one thinks the daughter actually is a killer. Whatever. Too hairsplitty for a synopsis? Pitht (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Freudian angle is a stretch. It's not clear what "Marshall" is meant to represent, or why he's dramatically presented as someone who Costner can have a conversation with (and turn around to talk to, with others watching) without their realizing it (or at least asking him who he's talking to). In addition, there are scenes in which Marshall clearly knows things that Earl doesn't. However powerful Freud might have thought the Id was, I don't think he attributed knowledge to it.

On a minor detail note, the synposis says
"Soon afterwards, Earl’s daughter Jane (Danielle Panabaker) returns home, having abruptly dropped out of Stanford."
I'm not sure that we are ever told that Stanford is the Univ. in question. The parents only mention "School" or "College" when discussing the daughter's dropping out. Admittedly, we are meant to infer Stanford from the dramatic use of the "Palo Alto" highway exit sign, but I didn't think that was ever made explicit in the dialogue. C d h (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor thing. I saw this movie around when it came out and only once, the synopsis mentions meek's out of the blue I can't remember if this character is introduced beforehand, but if he is which i believe he is, some mention needs to be made before the reference of his hideout.Jjkayes (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The present synopsis reads, "With Meeks' license plate number, he looks up his address and arranges to have Baffert's furniture moved to the same building while Baffert was away from home. Earl planted a moving company invoice with the destination address in Baffert's apartment expecting Atwood to eventually find it." This is pure speculation on the part of the editor who wrote it. In the film there is no explanation as to who moved the furniture; in fact, it's a major hole in the plot. MovieMadness (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Sequels?

I remembered Kevin Costner saying something about this film being conceived as the first of a trilogy...just found it, in this interview here. Think that deserves a mention somewhere in the article? 65.102.162.124 20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This fact should be added to the main article. Jstohler (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Error?

I've only seen the trailer to this film, so I don't know if the scene in question is in the final film, but Portland has no Chamber of Commerce (it's called the Portland Business Alliance) and in a scene in the trailer, Mr. Brooks is being given an award by the "Portland Chamber of Commerce." Might make a good "Trivia" entry... Cranialsodomy 05:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faux pas?

As far as I know, in english, the term "faux pas" implies that it goes against etiquette, which does not seem that relevant when shooting people in the face. 62.194.186.169 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed it into "mistake".--Patrick 21:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Office building used in Mr Brooks

Does anyone know what Office building was used in the movie Mr Brooks? Anyone got a name or a location? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.222.247 (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)