I've found our conversation persuasive and intellectually stimulating.

Continuing my trip up Empire's top 20 films of 2025

#19 :  The Brutalist

In his attempt to make a movie monolith (itself about the making of a monolithic structure), filmmaker Brady Corbet intentionally went… well, monolithic. Captured in big, beautiful, blocky VistaVision, a three-hour behemoth with an in-built intermission and a multi-year-spanning narrative sprawl, The Brutalist is evocative of the structure whose creation it depicts. The story of Adrien Brody’s renowned architect László Tóth – fleeing the Holocaust and attempting to build a gigantic brutalist structure for a wealthy American client (Guy Pearce) – appears to be cold, imposing, sometimes inscrutable. And yet it’s also breathtaking in its construction, its concrete walls revealed to contain a major emotional punch come the final reel. Impeccably performed, laudable in its grand ambition, engrossing across its extended runtime, it’s a major work – entirely by design.

I know this was critically well received and won an Oscar for Adrien Brody, so part of me is keen enough to watch it. But - it's 3 hours and 21 minutes long. Nobody needs to make a film that long, do they? So I'm struggling to get too excited about it - I suspect it's going to take a few sittings to get through.

Oh yes, quite a few sittings indeed. But I made it - and I have some very positive things to say about it! It's a very impressive film which looks gorgeous (with some brilliant retro set pieces) and it has some excellent acting in it. I'm not going to make any attempt to explain the plot to you because it would take far too long but, suffice to say, this is a proper story that spans a loooong period of time. It's an interesting state of affairs because it would be a very impressive story if it was actually true but, whilst it's "inspired" by the lives of plenty of people there's apparently remarkably little basis in reality.

It mostly tells the story in a conventional sense but there is some strange mucking about with time including some quite peculiar gaps, and it has QUITE the narrative sting in the tail which I didn't see coming at all (and I'm not sure it was completely necessary). I suspect the film also has a lot to say about Judaism and the artistic process, but I'm not the man to dig into what I might be supposed to be taking away from it. It also, in a rarity for these days, has a formal interlude with an interval "curtain" appearing to announce it - and I can't help but feel if I was in a cinema I'd be very glad to see it appear (but we won't talk about the length just yet) It also, even more peculiarly, has an epilogue and I've got absolutely no idea what was going on there.

In terms of acting, both Adrien Brody and Guy Pierce are really good as impressive but remarkably unlikeable characters - which somehow, despite yourself, you find yourself admiring (mostly). Adrien carries the film as László Tóth, speaking English, Hungarian, Hebrew and Yiddish (and a sprinkling of Italian as well!). And he really does carry it - it's an Oscar-bait performance but I have absolutely no problems with him having won it because it's up there with the best of them and the lad has definitely put in the work. Guy plays Harrison van Buren, who is (amazingly for the name) a wealthy American industrialist - and he's so good you forget he was ever Mike from Neighbours (but you can see what Plain Jane Superbrain saw in him).

Felicity Jones is also good as Erzsébet Tóth, László's wife and, in some ways, his conscience - but not always very successfully. It's fair to say they have a complicated relationship - she also doesn't turn up until halfway through the film, which I really wasn't expecting at all (and halfway through this film is kinda at the end of a normal film). I was also somewhat surprised to see Peter Polycarpou in here - it's quite a minor role but it's still quite the journey from Sharon's husband in Birds Of A Feather to a multiple Oscar winning film 

I'm almost brave enough to talk about the length of the film, so let's be slightly tangential and say that, to my surprise (because I really was expecting it to be a joyless slog), this is a film that is often very engaging and very beautiful to look at - there are a lot of impressively dramatic scenes and cinematic shots scattered throughout. Wikipedia tells us that the film is shot in VistaVision which was developed in the 50s (and this is the first film to use it since One Eyes Jacks in '61) - I can't claim to be aware of the exact benefits of doing so but it often felt more "alive" than many recent films. with some gorgeous images. The cover art is a scene from the film and I'd also have to say that the scenes in the quarry are particularly intensely beautiful - but they're 2.5 hours in so you really have to wait for them! 

The film is the brainchild of Brady Colbert, the 37 year old writer, director and producer - I'm all a bit fuzzy about what I was doing at that age but I feel I was slightly less productive. The glib answer is that I was enjoying the last year of childlessness but Brady already had a TEN year old when he did this, so he beat me there as well. He was an actor whilst younger and this is the fourth film he's directed - whilst I've not seen any of his previous offerings, I'm impressed that anyone so young could create anything quite as ambitious as this. It's not in any way a perfect offering but it's waaaaay better than I (or most others) could offer at any age.

Well, you say that but can I possibly name one way in which this film is less than perfect!?! OK - it's finally time to address the length. Does a film ever need to be this long? Before I went in to this, I'd have said that "NO!" would be my general opinion. Looking at films I've seen that are over three hours, I think I'd give The Godfather (I & II), The Deer Hunter, The Wolf Of Wall Street and Avengers:Endgame a pass as acceptable. I also have to have a couple of honourable mentions for TLOTR:TROTK (ifkyk!) because it was doing so well until the last half an hour and Heat because it would have made it on to the list if they'd kept it to a mere three hours, but it's ten minutes short of FOUR hours.

So, back to this film - did it convert me to the beauty of arse-numbness? No, it did not - but I have to admit I was never in any danger of giving up on it, even though it's taken me over a  month to watch it all. So I have to say things could have been a lot worse - but it's also very much the case that there were a load of scenes that could quite easily have been removed without any impact to the plot or dramatic effect. Conversely, there were quite a few storylines which I would like to have seen more fully resolved (despite knowing none of it was true!) - so I have to say I thought it was a well constructed but far from perfect screenplay.

The other area of controversy around the film is the use of AI - and, to my surprise, I find myself actually on the side of AI here. It was (allegedly) only used to tidy up and authenticate some of the accents used by Adrien and Felicity. And I really don't see it's the end of the world if a lot of people put a lot of effort into something and AI can be used to improve matters - is it really that different from the use of VFX? Cue a load of people telling me that yes, it really is that different - but I remain to be convinced.

My only other comment is on the amusingly weird end credits - I enjoyed them but I also have to admit (and this will no doubt surprise you) that I wasn't involved in the film at all. If I was, I suspect my family would have been annoyed at how hard it was to track my name down - so let's just all breathe a sigh of relief that the whole thing never happened.

OK - so what I've not, in any way, addressed yet is whether I actually LIKED this film. And I'm not sure I can honestly answer that question - my first response is that my expectations were so low that I feel it's high praise to say that there is a lot here that is worth viewing with some great acting and beautiful scenes. I'm also pleased that I watched it until the end which, for this kinda film, is a massive victory - all of which is sounding like quite the victory. BUT, I also have to say I wasn't happy with how it ended and I really wasn't happy with the length. Absolutely no-one needs to make a film which is quite so challengingly long - even if you kindly acknowledge matters with an interval screen (but I'm not going to be so easily bought).

So, I don't think I can say I liked the film, but I'm glad I watched it - there's a lot to experience here. If you are curious about film making and are happy enough with your films being longer than your average then it's definitely worth watching

#20 (2025) - Well done, but unnecessary