MovieChat Forums > Mr. Brooks (2007) Discussion > Unnecessary Subplot

Unnecessary Subplot

posted 14 years ago by MoonWolf99
21 replies | jump to latest

I personally thought the subplot about the escaped serial killer and his girlfriend was completely unnecessary. It added nothing to the story, except for a few gunfights. Perhaps the writers thought this would add some excitement to the movie, but I thought the interaction between Mr. Brooks and his alter ego was fascinating enough to stand on its own. I wish they would've cut those scenes out, instead of the ones of Demi Moore sleeping with a younger guy and paying him for it. Those would've added more depth to her character. Also, there's a deleted scene that explained her questions about pottery. Why delete scenes that add to the story, instead of keeping ones that really detract from it?

[–] Saintsfan9 14 years ago

I completely agree. I felt the hangman storyline made a great and interesting psychological movie turn unbelievable. I would have rather them go deeper into the possible daughter serial killer subplot.

"Mommy, I want a Kick-Ass party!" Dumb little f@cks.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rainydal74 13 years ago

think it was trying to demonstrate the difference between types of killers? there are organized/disorganized killers... ones who plot every move... and others that just kill for opportunity?

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] torydude 13 years ago

Well said. It's a shame, but even good movies follow a formula. Everything has a purpose. Thankfully, I wasn't able to blatantly tick the boxes, as they were presenting themselves.

Tha hangman killer kinda just left me expecting something positive, that never panned-out. I thought it was safe-to-say, Mr.Brooks was going to achieve some "good" with his evil deeds, and take-care of the Hangman killer... In a legal or not way. As many real-life killers might have an arrogance towards others in their trade, or even the suggestion they share something in common. See: Hannibal Lecter.

[–] Doc110894 13 years ago

I don't think the subplot ruined the movie, but I believe Demi Moore was miscast.

[–] dragon_x 13 years ago

They could have made the subplot better. I think it did detract from the film overall, but I think Demi Moore could have done better with a better script and less on the cutting room floor.

The subplot tried to be a more "traditional" Hollywood action crazy killer on the loose, prison escape-revenge thing, but the Mr. Brooks part was much more interesting.

[–] TheSummer2012 13 years ago

Have to agree with the OP: The subplot added nothing to the movie and was merely a distraction. What was the point?

[–] camel-wides 13 years ago

pretty sure it was brooks that sent a keyed up det. atwell to hangmans apartment building in the first place. that sort of led to hangmans death... so i think in a roundabout way, he DID do some good. of course, everything he did was ina roundabout way.

[–] Egg_MacGuffin 13 years ago

think it was trying to demonstrate the difference between types of killers? there are organized/disorganized killers... ones who plot every move... and others that just kill for opportunity?

Yes, but a better script could have made that point within the plot instead of having to go so far outside of it to events that impact nobody else in any way at all. A better movie would have integrated this idea instead of just sloppily tacking it on.

But apart from that extraneous subplot, the movie was very good.

[–] blyndfolded 12 years ago

Just finished watching this and I agree.

This subplot ruins the pace of the movie. The plot made it feel like an over the top action movie and then it goes back to Mr.Brooks plot which is a slow thriller.

I also didn't like the divorce subplot. This movie had too many things going on when it should have just focused on Mr.Brooks.

[–] DeputyDippity 11 years ago

I agree with rainydal74.

I`m sorry for my lack of manners, but I`m not used to escorting men.

[–] Rena_Mahone 12 years ago

The boring daughter-related subplot was indeed pointless and distracting.
This movie's story was good and interesting enough on its own.
I don't see how anyone would disagree with that.

Boycott movies that involve real animal violence! (and their directors too)

[–] chilone 12 years ago

No. Meeks was vital for a couple of purposes:

1. It helped develop Demi's character as she had him locked up previously.

2. Earl "admired" her (see above) which inspired him to deliver Meeks up to her.

3. Most importantly, Meeks diverted Earl's attention from killing the pickup truck driver thus keeping Mr. Smith in limbo leading up to HIS murder and being pinned as the Thumbprint Killer. If Earl and Smith had killed the pickup driver, Smith would have killed or attempted to kill Earl before he (Earl) found out that his daughter was a murderer thus going to Palo Alto to get her cleared and Demi's ex and his attorney wouldn't have been murdered (again) framing Mr. Smith as the Thumbprint Killer AND relieving Demi of her dirtbag ex.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] MWallace77 11 years ago

I fell asleep during the daughter part...did she murder someone?

[–] Jimbo_BSD 10 years ago

Not to mention the unnecessary subplot of the murdering daughter.

[–] henrimaine 9 years ago

I agree with the OP. Of the many subplots in this movie, the one with the escaped convict was the least necessary. Other subplots, however, were all very interesting and added to the movie. I wish they had given some more background on the murderous daughter.

[–] Dan_Garten 9 years ago

I would love to see a sequel where they really explore Danielle Panabaker's character.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] (1358) 7 years ago

I agree,,total nonsense. As much as most of this poor film was.

[–] halomaniac88 (1736) 6 years ago

i agree, it was there to stoke tension and to add a chase scene.