A visionary architect flees post-war Europe in 1947 for a brighter future in the United States and finds his life forever changed by a wealthy client.A visionary architect flees post-war Europe in 1947 for a brighter future in the United States and finds his life forever changed by a wealthy client.A visionary architect flees post-war Europe in 1947 for a brighter future in the United States and finds his life forever changed by a wealthy client.
- Won 3 Oscars
- 136 wins & 344 nominations total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Summary
Reviewers say 'The Brutalist' is a visually stunning film with ambitious themes of immigration and artistic integrity. Adrien Brody's performance is highly praised, though the slow pacing and emotionally detached storytelling receive criticism. The use of AI in accents and set design sparks debate. Themes of antisemitism and the immigrant experience are highlighted, along with the symbolic use of brutalist architecture. Performances by Brody, Pearce, and Jones are commended, but the film's epic scale and narrative execution are divisive.
Featured reviews
An impressive movie, in most regards. Highly praised and well-loved. Does it deserve an Oscar nomination? I'm not sure. All of the work done by people should be praised, and it's still an ambitious movie. However, learning that AI was used not not only create much of the scenery, but also modify the actor's voice to be more "accurate" for the time and place. Personally, I'd rather things be slightly off for the sake of an authentic performance, and I prefer more jobs to people who can create amazing scenery. Now, does this make it a bad movie for using AI? Not necessarily. Does it's nomination and praise make me worry about the future of cinema? Yeah, it does.
It is the kind of movie that is so hard to rate. Is it a masterpiece? Is it great or is it just another movie that just look at itself? He has all the elements of a great story of a great film and yet to me it does not deliver.
For three and half hours long there's only one question in my mind I couldn't shake : what is it about. And I could never answer that question not even at the end if ever there was one. The whole thing left me septic.
But in all honesty, there isn't much to say about it all. To me it's like I've been handed over a homework. If watching « this kind of movie », I want to feel an experience, be engulfed in the ambiance of a whole, I want to be caught in the prospect of what the delivery will be, I want to feel like I've been outsmarted in some ways. None of it here.
Brody is magnificent, so is Pearce. Jones too, surely. Cinematography is mastered without a doubt, editing is smooth, and for three and a half hours it is enjoyable if you're able to glean the little sparks that here and there will keep you hungry for more.
If it was trying to lead me into an underlying experience, meaning or point of view, well I didn't find the path, or maybe was it just too obscure to even grasp a fragment of what the purpose of it all was.
Yes, it works whatever it is about or whatever it thinks it is about. I doubt it will be a movie that's remembered. It not particularly bold. It makes an attempt at being powerful but it never strikes. It too clean, it's too plain. It makes you believe straight from the opening shot that it will be grandiose. But it doesn't hold it promise.
I feel a bit duped by what I've watched. Just because you write a movie about an « unusual » subject, just because you try an unorthodox approach at something that's already been said before, well it seems sufficient to make praise.
That is not enough for me. This didn't prove me anything. I think it is possible and achievable and somewhat too easy to make beautiful movies that will pass for profound when it is just a very well made movie without substance.
For three and half hours long there's only one question in my mind I couldn't shake : what is it about. And I could never answer that question not even at the end if ever there was one. The whole thing left me septic.
But in all honesty, there isn't much to say about it all. To me it's like I've been handed over a homework. If watching « this kind of movie », I want to feel an experience, be engulfed in the ambiance of a whole, I want to be caught in the prospect of what the delivery will be, I want to feel like I've been outsmarted in some ways. None of it here.
Brody is magnificent, so is Pearce. Jones too, surely. Cinematography is mastered without a doubt, editing is smooth, and for three and a half hours it is enjoyable if you're able to glean the little sparks that here and there will keep you hungry for more.
If it was trying to lead me into an underlying experience, meaning or point of view, well I didn't find the path, or maybe was it just too obscure to even grasp a fragment of what the purpose of it all was.
Yes, it works whatever it is about or whatever it thinks it is about. I doubt it will be a movie that's remembered. It not particularly bold. It makes an attempt at being powerful but it never strikes. It too clean, it's too plain. It makes you believe straight from the opening shot that it will be grandiose. But it doesn't hold it promise.
I feel a bit duped by what I've watched. Just because you write a movie about an « unusual » subject, just because you try an unorthodox approach at something that's already been said before, well it seems sufficient to make praise.
That is not enough for me. This didn't prove me anything. I think it is possible and achievable and somewhat too easy to make beautiful movies that will pass for profound when it is just a very well made movie without substance.
It is ambitious and has some beautiful sequences, especially the opening sequence with the Statue of Liberty shot. Brody, as usual, is strong. The score is also strong. The movie has an epic sweep to it but also, I would say, some unnecessary scenes here and there. I didn't think all the sex scenes were necessary, or at least I thought they were too drawn out, and various other interstitial shots that felt excessive. I didn't like Pearce's performance so much. Although he's playing an unlikable character, true, there's just an artificiality about his delivery and mannerisms that I didn't like here.
The epilogue of the movie ends a little flat and on an odd note. It's just one of those "weird" endings, imo, but that's pretty typical for an a24 movie. I cared about Brody's character, but where did he REALLY go, in the end? Ask yourself that. He gets lost a bit, for me, with all the other side narratives and architectural explorations going on, and then it just kind of ends.
Thematically, the movie reflects the tension between artistry and capitalism well. Is it overlong? Yes, but the intermission dampens the impact of that. Would I want to see it again? No.
The epilogue of the movie ends a little flat and on an odd note. It's just one of those "weird" endings, imo, but that's pretty typical for an a24 movie. I cared about Brody's character, but where did he REALLY go, in the end? Ask yourself that. He gets lost a bit, for me, with all the other side narratives and architectural explorations going on, and then it just kind of ends.
Thematically, the movie reflects the tension between artistry and capitalism well. Is it overlong? Yes, but the intermission dampens the impact of that. Would I want to see it again? No.
'The Brutalist' never lets you breathe. The director builds it with such purpose that you see the care in every frame. He's a talented craftsman, no question, but also so crushingly serious. And that chokes out any real feeling. You watch the artistry turn into artifice. And, after a while, all that weight just presses down.
The film is so obsessed with being Art that it forgets to let you in. It's so heavy with its own importance that it starts to close in on itself so much so that eventually all you see is this polished facade, reflecting its own seriousness back at you.
It doesn't stay with you. It stands there, sealed off by its own sense of importance, and you're left outside.
The film is so obsessed with being Art that it forgets to let you in. It's so heavy with its own importance that it starts to close in on itself so much so that eventually all you see is this polished facade, reflecting its own seriousness back at you.
It doesn't stay with you. It stands there, sealed off by its own sense of importance, and you're left outside.
This has a very nice cast and a great underdog premise, but feels a bit over the top with cheap emotional manipulation that detracts from what could have been an epic cinematic achievement.
It really started feeling forced after the halfway point with more and more implausibilities that just shook me out of the story.
The mark of a weak writer is melodrama and excessive salacious story elements, but then it could just be the producers that dictated the addition of the nonsensical scenarios that just had no basis in the reality they established.
The production value is there, the cast is there, the soundtrack is there, but then they had to trot out as many tropes as possible, and by then, the weak resolution is just background noise.
It really started feeling forced after the halfway point with more and more implausibilities that just shook me out of the story.
The mark of a weak writer is melodrama and excessive salacious story elements, but then it could just be the producers that dictated the addition of the nonsensical scenarios that just had no basis in the reality they established.
The production value is there, the cast is there, the soundtrack is there, but then they had to trot out as many tropes as possible, and by then, the weak resolution is just background noise.
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThere is no Brutalist-style church in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. In terms of the building, Brady Corbet's source of inspiration is St. John's Abbey Church in Collegeville, Minnesota. Based on the plans by Hungarian-born, Bauhaus-educated modernist architect Marcel Breuer from 1953, this complex was completed in 1961 and comprises a church, library, dormitory accommodation, science department, and a center for ecumenical research. Constructed to accommodate 1,700 individuals, it is trapezoidal in shape, with a white granite altar end raised upon a circular platform. The church is naturally illuminated by low windows, the entrance, and an amber roof-light. A crucifix is suspended above the altar.
- GoofsIn a 1950s scene in Pennsylvania USA, during the card-playing, money put on the table includes US one-dollar bills with bright green ink, indicating they are Federal Reserve Notes, first issued in 1963. One-dollar Silver Certificates, having blue and black ink on the front, are appropriate for the era.
- Quotes
László Tóth: Is there a better description of a cube than that of its construction?
- Crazy creditsA recreation of the 1950s VistaVision logo is shown during the opening logos.
- Alternate versionsIn India, some sexual content (visuals of genitals, a black-and-white porn clip and an intimate scene involving a prostitute) was censored by the Central Board of Film Certification for theatrical release. Also, anti-smoking spots as well as static disclaimers for scenes of smoking/drinking/drug consumption were added.
- ConnectionsFeatured in The Project: Episode dated 10 December 2024 (2024)
Everything New on Max in May
Everything New on Max in May
Looking for something different to add to your Watchlist? Take a peek at what movies and TV shows are coming to Max this month.
- How long is The Brutalist?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Languages
- Also known as
- El Brutalista
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $10,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $16,279,129
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $266,791
- Dec 22, 2024
- Gross worldwide
- $50,286,130
- Runtime3 hours 36 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.66 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
