by Graham Osborne
Experiment 626 (which may, or may not be Stitch's real name) is an event embarked on by the I'm With Geek Film Team. Film knowledge was unearthed, truths were found and a DVD exchange took place. These are the true life stories from that experiment...
For Graham from Leah
Two brothers is one of the very few films that can actually get me to shed a tear.
Experiment 626 (which may, or may not be Stitch's real name) is an event embarked on by the I'm With Geek Film Team. Film knowledge was unearthed, truths were found and a DVD exchange took place. These are the true life stories from that experiment...
For Graham from Leah
Two brothers is one of the very few films that can actually get me to shed a tear.
It follows two tiger brothers, Kumal and Sangha, who are separated as cubs and reunited a year later. Aidan McRoy (Guy Pearce) is an explorer, hunter and temple looter, and it is he who first discovers the two cubs and manages to catch Kumal before his is arrested. Kumal is then sold and becomes a circus animal whilst Sangha befriends a young boy called Raoul after a close escape from McRoy (who had since been released from prison due to favouritism. He then becomes Raoul’s pet with an extreme dislike towards his pet dog Bittsi. From there, the film shows the life of the two tiger brothers as they grow up in such different surroundings, until one day they are finally reunited.
The reason why I love this film is because I believe it is extremely well written, touching and an excellent watch considering the two main characters are animals that cannot talk. I am usually quite wary when it comes to films that use animals as main characters due to some treating the animals badly but Two Brothers does not have this problem. It’s certainly not high-action, its not complex, puzzling or aiming to be funny. It’s just a heart-warming, lovely film about what its like to be brothers in the animal kingdom at the top of the food chain.
The reason why I love this film is because I believe it is extremely well written, touching and an excellent watch considering the two main characters are animals that cannot talk. I am usually quite wary when it comes to films that use animals as main characters due to some treating the animals badly but Two Brothers does not have this problem. It’s certainly not high-action, its not complex, puzzling or aiming to be funny. It’s just a heart-warming, lovely film about what its like to be brothers in the animal kingdom at the top of the food chain.
Graham's Two Brothers Review
I was sceptical when I received this movie. It was definitely outside my wheelhouse of films.
The film was chosen because it was a feel good film, which is well written. I would dispute the writing aspect. The exposition dumps of information that pepper the script that treat the audience like a child, are always placed at the beginning of a scene, and handily help to explain all the ins and outs of English Colonialism, hunting and animal cruelty.
The dialogue is stilted, with many of the lines sounding as though they were added in during post production, when this is combined with the aforementioned exposition dumps it can become intolerable.
The music is fitting for the film in general, however, the attempts at anthropomorphizing the tigers creates a Mickey Mousing effect that detracts from the action that is happening on screen. The entire opening scenes with the tigers feel like a documentary film, and should maybe have been filmed as such. As it is, it feels like the crew were attempting to capture the feeling of a documentary, whilst scripting out the scene in its entirety. A feat that is near impossible when remembering the adage “never work with children or animals”.
I was sceptical when I received this movie. It was definitely outside my wheelhouse of films.
The film was chosen because it was a feel good film, which is well written. I would dispute the writing aspect. The exposition dumps of information that pepper the script that treat the audience like a child, are always placed at the beginning of a scene, and handily help to explain all the ins and outs of English Colonialism, hunting and animal cruelty.
The dialogue is stilted, with many of the lines sounding as though they were added in during post production, when this is combined with the aforementioned exposition dumps it can become intolerable.
The music is fitting for the film in general, however, the attempts at anthropomorphizing the tigers creates a Mickey Mousing effect that detracts from the action that is happening on screen. The entire opening scenes with the tigers feel like a documentary film, and should maybe have been filmed as such. As it is, it feels like the crew were attempting to capture the feeling of a documentary, whilst scripting out the scene in its entirety. A feat that is near impossible when remembering the adage “never work with children or animals”.
Many of the characters appear as one dimensional personalities. Such as the Khmer, a character whose only role in the story is to fail at hunting, then later purchase one of the titular brothers and force them to fight the other. A side plot of the film revolves around a road being built, but then it suddenly stops with no particular reasons as to why, aside from it was a vague excuse that allowed the two tigers to eventually be reunited.
These problems aside, I warmed to events as the film went on. Pearce’s acting is hampered by the script, but still generally enjoyable, and the tigers are shot well once they are taken away from the jungle. It is the relatively plodding start to the affair and lack of direction during the first act that is off-putting. The lack of dialogue between the two tigers (which one assumes would be put in were this film made by another company) allows for the director to try and convey various emotions through the use of flashbacks and camera angles. It doesn’t always come off in that way, but it’s a valiant attempt and definitely worthy of merit.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, this film was outside of my wheelhouse. I am more inclined to plump for a story that can give me multiple viewings and impart some new piece of plot, or a small visual thrill that would not get noticed unless you are aware of the entirety of the narrative in advance. I feel that this film has divulged everything that it was attempting to be in the first go. It’s a popcorn flick, not a multi-layered saga. The film was a nice, light-hearted, switch your brain off for a couple of hours type of movie. It shouldn’t be looked at too deeply.
Much like this article has done.
These problems aside, I warmed to events as the film went on. Pearce’s acting is hampered by the script, but still generally enjoyable, and the tigers are shot well once they are taken away from the jungle. It is the relatively plodding start to the affair and lack of direction during the first act that is off-putting. The lack of dialogue between the two tigers (which one assumes would be put in were this film made by another company) allows for the director to try and convey various emotions through the use of flashbacks and camera angles. It doesn’t always come off in that way, but it’s a valiant attempt and definitely worthy of merit.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, this film was outside of my wheelhouse. I am more inclined to plump for a story that can give me multiple viewings and impart some new piece of plot, or a small visual thrill that would not get noticed unless you are aware of the entirety of the narrative in advance. I feel that this film has divulged everything that it was attempting to be in the first go. It’s a popcorn flick, not a multi-layered saga. The film was a nice, light-hearted, switch your brain off for a couple of hours type of movie. It shouldn’t be looked at too deeply.
Much like this article has done.
RSS Feed
