Review of The Sisters Brothers (2018) by Kevin G — 03 Oct 2018

Just because it's also a tender bromance doesn't make this Western expansion adventure tale nuanced or compelling. John C Reilly (of Tim & Eric), who I actually enjoy, and Joaquin Phoenix (of Her), who I tolerate, at first make a cute odd couple brotherly pair as hard livin', horse stealin' sharpshootin assassins in the Sisters Brothers. But the film sputters along following these irritating softboys posed as antiheros as they lose their rough edges and eventually return to the homestead to suckle on the happy ending of mommy taking care of them. (So is it mothers then, who are responsible for the environmental chaos and destruction from the colonization of America? Perhaps.).

Early in the film, a conversation between brothers about their boss, the 'Commodore,' and his privileges versus theirs sparked a hope in me that this would be a nuanced Western addressing the early days of Westward expansion with a thoughtful and even possibly critical eye. Conversations between John Morris (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Herman Warm(Riz Ahmed) also touched on the flaws in capitalism, the hypocrisies of starting a 'true democracy' built with capital won through capitalism, and the possibility of relations between men that center on something other than profit. In the footsteps of Brokeback Mountain, the Brothers Sisters aims to be a bromance. Nothing wrong with that.

Yet something seemed off about the film from early in. While the visuals all fit era appropriate expectations, sets and costumes and props all belong to the early 19th century, or at least old and dusty enough to be acceptable, for some reason the choice was made for all the characters to speak with their 21st century Los Angelos dialects. This effect was surprising enough to be charming at first, but as the film dragged on it became jarring and irritating. They were whiney, these cowboys. Everyone was 2018 American, not a single accent (sparing one Russian{?} woman who made Borscht) in a film about towns in the 1800s that were only a month old and should have been filled with immigrants and Indians. It felt cheap and lazy.

Then, our characters. All men, of course. Joaquin Phoenix seems to suffer from a violent drunken mental illness, the kind possibly produced from lead poisoning, while John C Reilly rises to the level of doting mother to protect this man despite wishing to retire from the life of a hardscrabble cowboy. Ok sure, fine, the bro love is strong. John Morris and Herman Warm, both educated men also explore a nice bromance together, getting to know each other, tying each other up, waxing poetic on utopian dreams. Great.

But then all four get together to pour a chemical solution into the river that is so toxic it burns their legs. In a ridiculous montage they happily grab buckets and buckets full of marbles of gold from the river like Aladdin's monkey in Disney's cave of teasures. If there was that much gold sitting on the bottom of the river they would have been able to see it during the day. And those rivers had life in them! While I know that EPA is less than 50 years old, the fact that the movie couldn't even think about noting the harm of pouring toxic chemicals into the river made my blood boil. So I was happy when in a fun plot twist they suddenly died from chemicals burns with special affects so lazy and terrible cinematography and writing that made the scene carry absolutely no weight at all. I will admit, that the scene following, where Joaquin Phoenix gets his arm sawed off, is pretty cool. John C Reilly spits a lot. No complaints there.

The most interesting thing about the Sisters Brothers and their reputation is their superhuman ability to win gunfights when they are outnumbered and cornered. This aspect is only used as a gimmick or a quick scene exit and becomes tired rather than surprising or charming. Which brings me to my next complaint. The sisters brothers aren't charming, they are barely present. They are sexless, whiney, and boring. They could both have been playfully sexy, but the film shies away from that, lest they be seen as gay. The brothers don't appreciate the fertile nature around them, as a true cowboy should. Okay nature is harsh too. In his sleep Reilly eats a CGI spider. Later, he seems care for his horse, mourning her death, yet I couldn't feel bad for him because he didn't even try to treat her wound. A guy who knows horses would not just leave an open wound. It could have still died, but like put some moss or a bandage on it. Put a little effort into something besides complaining. Like research.

I was relieved that there was not a single scene with native Americans, as I don't believe the writer could possibly have handled the nuances of addressing the displacement of America's native people in this film by and for white men. However their absence marks this more Fantasy than a true Western, as just like our public school text books, this film seeks to rewrite history erasing the story of any people who lived on the lands besides Europeans.

The film is uneven at best, swiftly turning from explosive gunfights and dying horses to saccharine love between brothers who are just, like, so different. The final straw where I just started laughing out loud was the return home to mother- the group hug in the doorway and Eli Sister all curled up on a cozy bed. This mother has been living totally alone at home for 25 years after her crazy violent son Charlie killed her husband. Yet somehow she holds no grudges, has a house big enough for two grown men to move right into, and she labors to feed and wash them like she has nothing better to do and they are but little children, after we just saw them rage West murdering everyone in their path. She is not a character, but an object. The ultimate savior of wild cowboy men is a mother and her care? Honestly it's such a terrible twist I enjoyed it. Was this a focus group tested ending?

And I'll just put this here:

There are three women in the film and they don't speak to each other; it doesn't pass the Bechdel test.