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
Making a movie like "The Brutalist" is not easy nowadays. Epic period dramas are not very trendy and asking the audience to sit for three and a half hours, is not an easy demand. With that being said, I went to the cinema curious to see what Brady Corbet made. I have to say that the movie has a nice start and development. Even if the character of László Tóth never existed and this is in fact a pure fictional story, overall it is pretty believable, at least in the first half. We see the protagonist getting to America, slowly integrating in the society and finding his first important job: building a complex for the rich businessman Var Buren.
The characterization of the protagonist is incredible: we get to know him inside out, which is his backstory, his strengths, his weaknesses, his vices. A brilliant mind that accomplished so much in his home country, getting awarded for the buildings that he projected. The film does a nice job in contextualizing the historical period, through the tragic events that happened during the 40s and 50s in Europe. Screenwriters managed to create a compelling character that needed to endure many difficulties through his life, as he needed to re-affirm his name in the USA. The director is setting this as a biopic, therefore I was expecting to see all the main important parts of this fictional life. But unfortunately I feel that the movie lost its identity halfway through. I can pinpoint the exact moment where things went sideways: there is a scene set in Italy, where the overall mood completely changed and it seemed to watch a different film altogether. The plot never recovered from this mistake. The story is split into four different parts: the first three parts are following the life of László from the 40s until the 60s, and then there is an incredible time jump that brings us directly to the 80s, showing us all the work that the Hungarian architect did in the US. The problem is that the audience never saw what actually happened in those 20 years. The director focused too much on pointless details and it seemed that he remembered that he needed to actually wrap the film somehow. The ending feels rushed and messy.
The movie has good ideas, but it feels very unbalanced towards the end. It is truly a pity, because all the right ingredients are there: incredible cast composed by many great names, wonderful photography, compelling and overall well written story. I am also sure that some of the shots are pretty iconic. Potentially this could have been a modern masterpiece. I strongly believe that considering the nature and the length of the production, this would have worked way better as a limited series of maybe 4-5 episodes. Unfortunately, by the end a lot of things are left unanswered. My final mark is 6.5. I recognized that a lot of effort was made into this project, but potential was wasted.
The characterization of the protagonist is incredible: we get to know him inside out, which is his backstory, his strengths, his weaknesses, his vices. A brilliant mind that accomplished so much in his home country, getting awarded for the buildings that he projected. The film does a nice job in contextualizing the historical period, through the tragic events that happened during the 40s and 50s in Europe. Screenwriters managed to create a compelling character that needed to endure many difficulties through his life, as he needed to re-affirm his name in the USA. The director is setting this as a biopic, therefore I was expecting to see all the main important parts of this fictional life. But unfortunately I feel that the movie lost its identity halfway through. I can pinpoint the exact moment where things went sideways: there is a scene set in Italy, where the overall mood completely changed and it seemed to watch a different film altogether. The plot never recovered from this mistake. The story is split into four different parts: the first three parts are following the life of László from the 40s until the 60s, and then there is an incredible time jump that brings us directly to the 80s, showing us all the work that the Hungarian architect did in the US. The problem is that the audience never saw what actually happened in those 20 years. The director focused too much on pointless details and it seemed that he remembered that he needed to actually wrap the film somehow. The ending feels rushed and messy.
The movie has good ideas, but it feels very unbalanced towards the end. It is truly a pity, because all the right ingredients are there: incredible cast composed by many great names, wonderful photography, compelling and overall well written story. I am also sure that some of the shots are pretty iconic. Potentially this could have been a modern masterpiece. I strongly believe that considering the nature and the length of the production, this would have worked way better as a limited series of maybe 4-5 episodes. Unfortunately, by the end a lot of things are left unanswered. My final mark is 6.5. I recognized that a lot of effort was made into this project, but potential was wasted.
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.
This ambitious post-war American epic begins with a mesmerising long-take sequence which will surely stick longer than the 3:35 hours of running time. The 70mm format fits the setting while making the movie visually stunning alongside with audacious camera works and stunning photography. Blumberg's music adds on that so the theatre would definitely be its perfect habitat. The script delivers interesting characters - albeit the secondary ones are purely cosmetic - valorised by great performances from Brody and Pearce. The issue here is in the last hour, as the writers decided to insert unexplored subplots which will prevent the movie from having a proper conclusion thus leaving a bitter feeling of incompleteness and preventing this monumental project to achieve what was intended for.
Movie Review: A Disappointing Experience
I had high expectations for this movie, but unfortunately, it turned out to be a disappointing experience. The pacing was painfully slow, making it difficult to stay engaged. Many scenes felt completely unnecessary, dragging the runtime without adding any real value to the story.
From an artistic perspective, the film seemed to rely heavily on overacting, which made the characters feel exaggerated and unrealistic. Instead of enhancing the emotional depth, the performances often came across as forced and distracting.
While the movie seemed to aim for a deeper, artistic message, it failed to deliver it in a coherent way. The narrative lacked clarity, and by the end, I was left wondering what the point of it all was. Overall, it felt like a missed opportunity that could have been so much more with tighter editing and more thoughtful storytelling.
I had high expectations for this movie, but unfortunately, it turned out to be a disappointing experience. The pacing was painfully slow, making it difficult to stay engaged. Many scenes felt completely unnecessary, dragging the runtime without adding any real value to the story.
From an artistic perspective, the film seemed to rely heavily on overacting, which made the characters feel exaggerated and unrealistic. Instead of enhancing the emotional depth, the performances often came across as forced and distracting.
While the movie seemed to aim for a deeper, artistic message, it failed to deliver it in a coherent way. The narrative lacked clarity, and by the end, I was left wondering what the point of it all was. Overall, it felt like a missed opportunity that could have been so much more with tighter editing and more thoughtful storytelling.
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.
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
