Movie Review: 'Our Idiot Brother'

Rating: 3.5/5
by Brian Kesler

A wonderful thing about the film ‘Our Idiot Brother’ is that its budget was a measly five million dollars. Some people may say that such a low budget hinders the filmmakers. Actually, it removes all the gimmicks, all the glamor, and all the half-hacked computer effects; it pushes story and writing to the top of the priority list, when in most expensive blockbusters it is at the tailing end.

The story to the film is simple and tightly woven (perhaps too much so) which allows Paul Rudd to shine as Ned, the brother referred to in the title. Rudd (I Love You, Man) is a revelatory actor, who has been brushed aside by more exorbitant comedians because of his subdued nature – and through it all he has never pushed the limits; he has never done anything that would counteract the character for the sake of clowning. Famous casting director Michael Shurtleff (author of one of the great books about acting) once said, and I paraphrase, that the key to comedy is to have humor but not to tell jokes. This film is abounding with humor because the actors don’t insist on winking at the camera. Rudd doesn’t act like an idiot. He doesn’t talk with an impediment, he doesn’t make goofy faces, he doesn’t perform cliché physicality. He simply occupies the character and orates the dialogue with perfect dryness and comedic timing – something Billy Crystal used to be quite good at ('When Harry Met Sally' anyone?).

The film argues that idiocy and candor are synonymous. Or perhaps idiocy and unyielding trust. Ned lands himself in jail after selling marijuana to a uniformed police officer. Pretty idiotic. The officer did seem convincing and said he was having a hard time. Unyielding trust. Ned was just helping him out, really. The police officer already knew, so why not just give him some? Candor. Ned trusts anyone and never attempts to disguise the truth. Some might call him an honest man. Most would call him an idiot. After leaving prison, Ned goes back to live with his girlfriend who’s taken another lover. The movie then resorts to the rule of threes. One by one, Ned lives with each of his three sisters, and one by one, his naivety and childlike honesty get him kicked out. His first sister is trapped in a loveless marriage with a so-called pacifist (played miraculously by comic genius Steve Coogan) who is having an affair with a ballet dancer he’s filming a documentary about. When Ned walks in on the naked couple, he is told they were just filming in the nude to symbolize the emotionality of the film. Ned believes them and then gets kicked out. His honesty gets him in trouble with the second sister, in both her career and her love life, and leaves just his third sister to take him in. I think you can see the pattern and why I suggest that perhaps the plot is too cleanly outlined.

Aside from Rudd’s charming performance and the wonderful dialogue of the film, the other characters seem two-dimensional and merely pawns or McGuffins (as Hitchcock would say) to present one absurd situation after another. A love interest for ElizabethBanks, though displaying wit and sincerity, seems half-baked and not entirely necessary – particularly when Banks herself is trying to provide a three-dimensional performance with a two-dimensional character. Other actors doing their best with underachieving material are Emily Mortimer (who still shines radiantly), Rashida Jones, and Zooey Dechanel. The third act is exceedingly rushed and although Rudd’s emotional breakdown near the end is dramatic and brings his character full circle, it’s not enough to make me believe the stark, dynamic relationship change between him and his family. Not a bad film, but – sadly – not a great one. Although, I will say it is by far one of the better films in theaters at the moment.