Two Brothers (Full Screen Edition)

The wonderful thing about *tigers*
*Tigers* are wonderful things
They feel like they're made out of rubber
They feel like they're made out of springs
They're bouncy, bouncy, bouncy, bouncy,
Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun
But the most wonderful thing about *tigers*...
There are two, instead of one...
Two instead of one.

But this movie isn't about *boobies*. If you want boobies, go see a Russ Meyer film. This movie is a story about smart tigers and stupid people. This is NOT a documentary, nor a cartoon, nor a serious film making bold claims about the plot and asking self-proclaimed braniacs with nothing better to do to pick it apart, like some other reviewers seem to think it should be.

I'm not going to repeat the stuff other reviewers have already amply covered. I'm just going to give my own take on this wonderful film and my frustration over some of the reviews for the film that other people have offered here. Minor spoilers ahead...

The part of the movie I found most disturbing about people and most refreshing about tigers was the scene where the two grown cats were placed in an arena to fight each other, but recognized each other instead and started playing. The arena audience was clearly loving every moment the cats were playing too. But the idiots running the show started throwing rocks at the tigers like that was supposed to get them to fight? Like anyone even WANTED them to fight anymore? Ugh. I guess back then, entertainers didn't know the concept of "giving the audience what they wanted". Personally, I'd give this movie three stars if all it was was two beautifully edited hours of the cubs and adult tigers playing. Of course if they were just allowed to play, we wouldn't get to see the circus owner getting his just desserts - having his arm chewed by a protective Sangha.

Yes, the movie was frustrating at times... but some short-sighted reviewers don't understand that the frustrating parts are designed to make the satisfying parts even more so. Yes, some parts were violent.... but that's life. Yes, the humans were portrayed as being abnormally stupid and cruel, but then people are pretty stupid and cruel to begin with... I mean just read some of these "one star" reviews!

I think one star reviews should be reserved for movies that have nothing of value to offer anyone. Two Brothers is a valuable experience for anyone watching. Unlike a typical Disney flick, it paints a real picture of how things are and were. Gritty reality isn't something people should complain about. And people shouldn't give a movie a bad review just because their kid has ADD or because they've chosen to shelter their kids from reality... If you've raised your kid to expect a perfect world, where the hamburger in their kids meals come from a magical cow that produces them without pain or loss of life, you might want to steer clear of the movie... or better yet, let them experience this film and start telling them the truth - whether it upsets them or not. Movies are SUPPOSED to garner emotion from an audience... and it's a rare thing to hear the movie audience gasp as something bad happens, cheer when something good happens, and jeer at the bad guys in unison. It's a sign that the movie makers have done thier jobs well.

Two Brothers goal is to get you close, VERY CLOSE, to tigers... showing them cute as cubs and beautiful as adults. To get people to understand the plight that these magnificent beasts had to endure from the animals point of view. Everyone behind the film should be applauded for a job well done. And any viewer who can't appreciate the ability of the director, cast and crew to bring emotion and intelligence to these animals in a way that even toddlers can understand, might as well be blind.

My wife and I rended this movie based on a preview that made it sound like a tiger version of "Milo and Otis" or "Homeward Bound. It is FAR FROM the "heartwarming tale" that the preview on the back of the box made it out to be.

It should be titled "Stupid Humans and 10 Ways to Torture Beautiful Animals." First the Movie spends a long time showing us greedy humans hunting, killing, and capturing tiggers as the humans are on their way to plundering antient ruins for profit.

Then we see one tigger being kept (inside the house) as a pet and eventually blamed for killing the family dog. It is a TIGGER.... What do people expect?

Meanwhile another tigger (brother of the 1st one) is sold to a circus. The circus kills it's own tigger (and sells the fur) when it aquires the new tigger cub. And as circuses are known to do, the movie tell the tale of animal abuse as the tigger is "trained" for performance.

Both tiggers then find themselves starved and thrown into a cage so that they will fight to the death thanks to still more stupid humans.

After a long and drawn out boring yet violent chunk of film that takes 2/3 of the movie, the tiggers escape and we see maybe 15-20 minutes of heartwarming movie that the movie is billed as.

Do not let your kids watch this violent movie and don't waste your time on it either.

Every birthday some joker decides to give me a copy of a J.J. Annaud film because of my name, so I've got to know his stuff pretty well over the past few years. He's one of those directors who is either great or average, leaning towards great mostly. This isn't up to the class of The Name of the Rose or Enemy at the Gates or Quest for Fire, but it's lightyears ahead of The Lover or Wings of Courage (no offence to Jane March or Elizabeth McGovern, who were the best thing in either film).

It's a throwback to The Bear, following two tiger cubs separated by a hunter, but there's a bit too much of the human beings this time around. When it's just down to the tigers, it's great. It gives a real sense of the way people treat and mistreat animals, turning them into pets or commodities. But when the humans take centerstage, it loses your interest. It's a nice moral to have Pearce learn the error of his ways and try to make amends, but it just seems awful awkward at times and you just want to get back to the tigers.

It's a hard film to not like, and the kids have already seen it three times of their own volition. It's certainly better than anything Disney have done in ages. It's got a good heart and that's a good enough reason to forget about some of its shortfalls in the drama stakes.

**1/2

Although I instinctively recoil at any attempt by filmmakers to convert majestic animals into little more than furry, four-legged human beings, I had hoped that director Jean-Jacques Annaud would be able to avoid that pitfall in "Two Brothers," a tale of two tiger cubs who become separated for a year, only to be reunited when they are each fully grown. Instead, Annaud goes for broke in making these two magnificent creatures as human as is humanly possible, rendering them far less interesting in the process.

Upon their separation, one of the little ones gets carted off to a local circus where he is mistreated by his sadistic handlers, while the other is adopted as a pet by a young boy, the son of a local administrator. Then, once the tiger gets to be too big and too difficult to handle, he is sent to be part of a menagerie belonging to a spoiled prince who wants to turn him into a fearsome fighting beast. Guy Pearce plays a pragmatic but tender-hearted hunter/black marketeer whose life path intersects with those of the cubs throughout the course of the story, and whose character transformation is one of the least believable aspects of a film that is not all that rooted in credibility to begin with.

Admittedly, Annaud does an impressive job getting up close and personal with the tigers, and he certainly has an amazing ability to get these wild beasts to do what he wants them to do on camera. Unfortunately, just about everything he has them do smacks of anthropomorphic phoniness, essentially depriving them of their true nature as creatures of instinct and not calculation. As this is a family-oriented film, we get none of that National Geographic unpleasantness of the tigers tracking down and devouring their helpless prey. In fact, we wonder just what these animals eat in the course of a day to keep themselves so fit and healthy. The director also lays it on a bit thick with all his soulful close-ups of the tigers, particularly when they are cubs, looking just too sad-eyed and adorable for words. In addition, Annaud simply can't resist throwing in numerous scenes of lowbrow slapstick to show just what fun-loving roustabouts these dear little tigers are.

The film also suffers from a serious technical problem. I'm not sure what kind of camera Annaud used to film his scenes, but the picture tends to become very blurry every time either the camera moves or a figure moves in the frame. Given the number of shots of tigers racing across the screen, this visual imperfection becomes a serious detriment indeed.

I guess that if one views "Two Brothers" as a fantasy film of sorts, it makes the whole enterprise somehow easier to swallow. For me, I think I'll stick to National Geographic and the Discovery Channel and leave the animal fantasy stuff to Disney.

"Two Brothers" falls into the same category of films as the classic "Born Free," bringing awareness of wild animals to a broader audience. The film follows two tiger cubs, Kumal and Sangha, who are separated from their mother and each other. Kumal is sold to a circus where he is marketed as a "blood-thirsty killer," while Sangha is first the pet of a young boy, and later a fighting animal in the menagerie of a local official, turned vicious by abuse. When the tigers are grown, they end up being pitted against one another in a staged fight, their owners unaware that the two are brothers. Guy Pearce plays Aidan McRory, the trapper and treasure hunter who initially captured Kumal and Sangha, and through them ultimately learns that some things cannot so easily be assigned a price and treated as merchandise.

The acting all around is good, though there are few recognizable names among the cast. Pearce is convincing as he shows the transformation that occurs in McRory over the course of the film. Also notable is the young Freddie Highmore, playing the boy who first adopts Sangha as a pet. Highmore first came to my attention in the more recent "Finding Neverland," where he plays Peter, the inspiration of J.M. Barrie. Highmore is by all appearances a bright and talented child actor, and these two films make me think that he will continue to make a name for himself. Indeed, he will appear this July as Charlie in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory."

I would, however, like to extend a word of warning to parents. Though marketed as a children's film, "Two Brothers" could easily be disturbing for younger kids. It barely slips by with a PG rating. There were parts that bothered ME, and I'm fairly resilient when it comes to disturbing thematic elements. There are violent, extended scenes of animal cruelty, and I'd suggest that parents screen the movie first to determine whether it would be appropriate for their children. For families with slightly older children, however, this would make a great family film, combining a compelling story with a means of raising awareness of the issues threatening wild tigers.

My one other disappointment with the film is that there are a few misportrayals of the way tigers in the wild live. In the beginning of the film, the father of Kumal and Sangha is shown helping to care for the cubs, but tigers, unlike lions, are not communal animals. The father mates with the mother and leaves, and the mother brings up the cubs on her own. There are a few other inaccurate scenes, but describing them here would spoil certain plot elements for those that have not seen the film, so suffice to say that sticklers for accuracy and those that know a great deal about animal behavior may find some aspects of the film irritating. But I have certainly seen worse when it comes to wild animals portrayed in film, and on the whole "Two Brothers" is a decent and enjoyable movie.

The DVD also offers an abundance of special features, some of which I actually enjoyed more than the film. There are a couple of documentary pieces on tigers in the wild (with a wealth of stunning footage), as well as several behind-the-scenes featurettes about the making of the movie. In addition, there commentary from the director, Jean-Jacques Annaud's journal, and extra features that can be accessed on a computer via a DVD-ROM drive (I myself have not yet looked at the computer features, and so can't offer any comments on their nature). With the two reservations previously stated in mind, I'd definitely recommend "Two Brothers" as a family film.