Two Brothers (2004) User Reviews

A wonderful movie

[nfaust1 · 8/10 · 27 December 2004]

Am rarely moved to comment on what others say here, but Sarah from Canada's mindless and cynical response to TWO BROTHERS can't go unchallenged. Though far from perfect, I found this movie to be exceptionally entertaining on all accounts. Sarah claims there's no story, no characters, no moral ... on and on. Well, what she says is a complete crock: there is a story: it's about the two tiger brothers who are taken from their jungle home. The two main characters are not human, and I guess the fact that they don't have dialogue presented quite an obstacle for Sarah because she doesn't seem to have followed their story and its moral/ethical significance. Since the movie plays out like a fairy tale, realism here is not the point, hence the broad human characterizations. Rather, the most successful parts of the film allows us to view the world from the animals' eyes, and in doing so we experience their feelings, memories, and needs. I found this to be entertaining and at times quite moving. The film makers ennoble these tiger characters with such power and respect, I find it utterly mystifying that anyone could miss this as being the major point of the film. Please do not let negative comments like the ones from Sarah keep you from watching this terrific movie.

Great family movie

[atinder · 8/10 · 4 April 2013]

It was on BBC 2 Early Last year, I miss start of movie, one scene I saw and I already clued to the screen. Never even heard of this movie before.

PlotTwo tigers are separated as cubs and taken into captivity, only to be reunited years later as enemies by an explorer (Pearce) who inadvertently forces them to fight each other.

I love Animals, this movie really hard to watch, i felt very emotional about this movie and tigers in this movie, great and acting, You will actually real sorry for this man-eaters .

This movie can be predicable however is still really moving movie, 8 out of 10 Great for all ages to watch!

The cubs

[jotix100 · 7/10 · 28 February 2006]

Jean-Jacques Annaud's films always showcases animals doing extremely amazing things, which is why they are so enjoyable. While this is a film better seen by children of certain age group, it's not a Disney product, and parents should be aware of that fact. Some comments in this IMDb forum criticize the film makers for what they perceive was a marketing ploy that targeted the movie to small children. Perhaps the people that promoted the film are to be blamed for that, or maybe Mr. Annaud was targeting the film for a more mature audience.

"Two Brothers" is a story about two tigers that are separated at a young stage of their lives, while their parents are killed by people that loved to engage in this type of hunting. The two little cubs are about the best in the film as one see them getting in all kinds of adventures in the first part of the film.

The story behind the animals serves the film as it provides an accessible background as it illustrates the inter action between humans and animals. Guy Pearce and Freddie Highmore are seen in the film as Aidan and Raoul. Freddie Highmore is a child actor with an expressive face that shows a child of great intelligence without any trace of ego.

As Mr. Annaud proved with "The Bear", he has a good eye for involving the animals in his stories about them with surprising results.

Poignant film, hard to watch though

[tlew · 12 November 2004]

I actually don't know if I would take kids to see this film. Both I and my bf found it very difficult to watch all the hunting and killing scenes. While the film does not show any direct shots of lives being taken, it's very implicit and the movie does show carcasses and furs afterwards. I loved the story of the tiger "family" (even though I'm not so sure how realistic this is), but I honestly considered walking out of the theater due to the violence portrayed. That said, I think this film is VERY difficult for animal lovers (particularly those against hunting) to watch. Also, I think I would have appreciated a simple one line introduction regarding time and setting (unless I missed this or it was cut out of the EU version). I only knew it was set in Cambodia after reading the plot summary and I assume it was circa 1920-30's based on the costumes. Some background would have given the film a little more context in my opinion (Why were the French in Cambodia, and what was the this road they were trying to build?)

The Tigers Were The Most Entertaining Parts Of This Movie.

[LemonyHegstrand · 6/10 · 9 June 2005]

Two Brothers starts with the siblings, Kumal and Sangha, and shows how they are playful and protective of one another. Kumal was the more meek of the two and Sangha would knowingly protect his brother when in trouble. After the older tigers were killed (seems the villagers do not like random tigers hanging out while they are working), Kumal and Sangha are separated. Kumal ends up in a circus like atmosphere where he is trained to jump through flaming hoops and such (which actually comes in handy later in the movie). Sangha ends up, at first, with a family. Raoul (Freddie Highmore) loves Sangha but is forced to give him up, due to Sangha killing the family dog in self-defense. It now had the taste of blood and was no longer safe to be in the company of humans.

As both tigers became adults, they had led a less than extraordinary life, both with cruel owners and both ending up in a cock-fighting environment, where they were forced to fight one another.

To me, the only enjoyable part of this movie were the tigers, themselves. The people only made it boring and wishing for the movie to either end or cut back to the tiger footage. I assume the tigers were trained to do certain things and then pieced together to form a cohesive story for them. Other footage seemed to be just film of the tigers acting naturally, which was important for the movie.

Two Brothers was a great children's movie. Some adults would probably enjoy it as well but it was definitely not made for them. This is not the kind of movie I could watch over and over but was worth seeing at least once.

Two majestic siblings in two very different lives...

[paul_haakonsen · 7/10 · 15 August 2016]

For some reason then I had actively been avoiding "Two Brothers" (aka "Deux Frères"). Why? Well, I had been under the assumption that it was a children's movie, given the DVD cover.

But I sat down to watch the movie one evening, and it turned out that this was actually a rather nice surprise of a movie. Because it was a beautifully shot movie in many ways - from the cinematography, to the setting of the movie, to the two majestic tigers that starred in it.

Storywise, then briefly summarized it is about two tiger cubs taken from their mother. They are parted and brought up very differently, one having a life of hardships and cruelty at the hands of circus people, while the other is pampered at the hands of a rich family, serving as an exotic pet.

"Two Brothers" is a movie that is fully wholesome, and watchable for the entire family, kids and adults alike. It is the type of movie that has a bit of something for just about everybody. There is action, there is sadness, there is joy, there is excitement, there are majestic animals, there are friendships between different species.

I was especially impressed with how they had trained the tigers, because they were performing quite well.

This was a nice surprise of a movie that actually proved worth sitting down to watch. It is quite suitable for an evenings worth of family entertainment.

As for my vote, well, I am rating "Two Brothers" a seven out of ten stars.

if you like animals, this wasn't half bad

[MLDinTN · 6/10 · 16 July 2005]

I thought the story was OK since I like animals. I like watching animal shows on discovery and if you like that, then you'd probably like this movie. It's about 2 tiger cubs who lose their parents and get separated. One is taken to a side show circus while the other gets to live in a house as a boy's pet. Eventually the pet tiger gets sold to someone who fights tigers. And fate brings the 2 tigers together in a fight and they recognize each other. They are able to escape and are given a chance to live in the jungle by they boy and guy who found the cubs to begin with. The 2 tigers have a happy ending.

This has some great shot so tigers and cubs. They are the stars not people.

FINAL VERDICT: If you like animals, I recommend it.

See some awesome film work which had to be some difficulties considering they are tigers

[artcatcms · 10/10 · 15 November 2004]

WOW!!!! OK, I will confess up front that I am prejudiced. I am a wildlife artist with a lifetime love of tigers and have even had the awesome opportunity to play with 3 10-week old tiger brothers. I loved this movie, not just for the obvious reasons of being a tiger loving artist that loves all animal films anyway. This movie was making a statement regarding how these beautiful creatures are being hunted to extinction!

How sad to have to hunt down and kill an animal to prove your manhood or to use them for mistaken ancient beliefs where their bodyparts are used for medicine. Granted they aren't harmless, but men continue to encroach on the wild areas all over the world without thought of the animals and ecosystems, of the beauty they destroy.

No, I'm not an overzealous environmentalist belonging to Greenpeace or PETA, though they have the right idea...just a little too far left for me. Still, looking at the awesome, beautiful world God has given us, its sad to see animals hunted to extinction for no reason other than to show everyone that you can pull a trigger. Ooooooooooo, big amount of talent for that.

This movie, besides its message of the dwindling numbers of tigers left in the wild and why they are endangered, was an absolute joy. How some of these shots of the tigers, as they grew, were obtained, I have no idea. But it was great, in fact, I love it, the tigers got billing over the human actors!

It's the story of 2 tiger cubs that are captured when a hunter kills their father and they become separated from their mother. They then become separated from each other, one going to a hunter and eventually ending up in a circus run by people that seem to think animal cruelty is the only way to train an animal. The other winds up in a family with a loving little boy, but eventually outgrows his welcome and ends up in a private zoo, also being mistreated. The tigers meet again, when for some sick idea of sport, the 2 tigers are set against each other in a fight to the death. Then the brothers recognize each other. I won't ruin it for you. Just know that it does have a good ending!

I was impressed that there is a tag at the end of the movie, one that is quite true. In the early 1900's there were over 100,000 tigers in the wild, now there are less than 400-200. Three species are already extinct. See the information from a website:

Bengal Tiger – Panthera tigris tigris Siberian (Amurian) Tiger – Panthera tigris altaica Sumatran Tiger – Panthera tigris sumatrae Indo-Chinese Tiger – Panthera tigris corbetti South China Tiger – Panthera tigris amoyensis Javan Tiger – Panthera tigris sondaica – extinct since early 1980's

Bali Tiger – Panthera tigris balica – extinct since the 1940's

Caspian Tiger – Panthera tigris virgata – extinct since the early 1970's

Watch the movie, it will warm your heart, make you smile and perhaps even shed a tear. If you would like to help save tigers, in the wild or aid the ones that needlessly wind up in rescue organizations. Thank God for them! People seem to think it would be cool to have a tiger, or other big cat, for a pet, then seem surprised that they grow into 500-700+ pound meat eaters! I own several house cats...these smaller guys have a whole lot in common with their 'big' brothers and I have the scars to prove it. (Not that they are mean, I just get in the way of their racetrack sometimes)

Still, tigers are wild animals and not meant to be pets! If nothing else, even if you have raised one, they don't know their own strength...just ask Roy Horn of Siefried and Roy fame. I doubt that tiger meant any harm to Roy, but the tiger sensed Roy was in danger and tried to carry him to safety the same way she would carry a cub...by the scruff of the neck.

That being said...don't try to raise one, but please try to help the ones in rescue shelters that desperately need the funds to care for these tigers that can't be released back into the wild. Or help the remaining few in the wild.

Hypocrisy

[Minerva_Meybridge · 7/10 · 6 July 2009]

No one thinks anything about wild horses being domesticated. We ride them. Or cattle. We eat them, as well as pigs and sheep. Don't make me go off on chickens that live boxed existences till their heads are lopped off. And take house cats; they are not like dogs. Man has never quite bred all their instinct from them. That's why they still hunt mice and birds. The difference with lions and tigers, which are smarter than house cats, is that we don't eat them. We can't ride them. They are no good for pulling machinery. They can only be used to do tricks or to watch. And as tame as they might become from being raised from cubs, they cannot understand their own strength, nor the fact that humans do not have thick enough skin to withstand their teeth the same as their kind. When Roy of Siegfried and Roy was mauled by his pet tiger, everyone thought it had attacked him. Rather, it was trying to protect him by carrying him off stage. It just could not understand that what would work for one of its cubs would kill a human being. The bottom line is that it is not about lions or tigers being left to their own in the wild; it's all about real estate and the fact that we are not willing to allow them free reign as hunters over "our" planet. In the end, the only lions or tigers that survive will be the ones kept in zoos. But the truth is that a lion or tiger that grows up in a human environment is no more or less happy or unhappy than a horse that is raised on a ranch or a farm. The life that it has grown up into is all that it knows. What is cruel, on the other hand, is taking an intelligent wild animal and forcing it to live in a cage.

Great movie, fairy-tail plot, but that's not evident until the end.

[DeeDeex10 · 10/10 · 16 September 2009]

Started watching while doing something else & not paying too much attention, however within seconds, I was enthralled in the breathtakingly beautiful scenery, the characters, and yes, definitely the story! The story is there, so if Sarah from Canada doesn't see one, well, that's her loss.

I found myself talking to the cubs as they were trying to escape the hunters, roting them on, and yelling, "WOO HOO" when they finally escaped the danger.

The plight of these animals is all to real, unfortunately. If even one movie like this can help slow their extinction, then it's worth watching & becoming more involved with groups fighting for wildlife preservation.

interesting at times but can't overcome the cuteness

[Buddy-51 · 6/10 · 5 June 2005]

Although I instinctively recoil at any attempt by filmmakers to convert majestic animals into little more than furry, four-legged human beings, I had hoped that director Jean-Jacques Annaud would be able to avoid that pitfall in "Two Brothers," a tale of two tiger cubs who become separated for a year, only to be reunited when they are each fully grown. Instead, Annaud goes for broke in making these two magnificent creatures as human as is humanly possible, rendering them far less interesting in the process.

Upon their separation, one of the little ones gets carted off to a local circus where he is mistreated by his sadistic handlers, while the other is adopted as a pet by a young boy, the son of a local administrator. Then, once the tiger gets to be too big and too difficult to handle, he is sent to be part of a menagerie belonging to a spoiled prince who wants to turn him into a fearsome fighting beast. Guy Pearce plays a pragmatic but tender-hearted hunter/black marketeer whose life path intersects with those of the cubs throughout the course of the story, and whose character transformation is one of the least believable aspects of a film that is not all that rooted in credibility to begin with.

Admittedly, Annaud does an impressive job getting up close and personal with the tigers, and he certainly has an amazing ability to get these wild beasts to do what he wants them to do on camera. Unfortunately, just about everything he has them do smacks of anthropomorphic phoniness, essentially depriving them of their true nature as creatures of instinct and not calculation. As this is a family-oriented film, we get none of that National Geographic unpleasantness of the tigers tracking down and devouring their helpless prey. In fact, we wonder just what these animals eat in the course of a day to keep themselves so fit and healthy. The director also lays it on a bit thick with all his soulful close-ups of the tigers, particularly when they are cubs, looking just too sad-eyed and adorable for words. In addition, Annaud simply can't resist throwing in numerous scenes of lowbrow slapstick to show just what fun-loving roustabouts these dear little tigers are.

The film also suffers from a serious technical problem. I'm not sure what kind of camera Annaud used to film his scenes, but the picture tends to become very blurry every time either the camera moves or a figure moves in the frame. Given the number of shots of tigers racing across the screen, this visual imperfection becomes a serious detriment indeed.

I guess that if one views "Two Brothers" as a fantasy film of sorts, it makes the whole enterprise somehow easier to swallow. For me, I think I'll stick to National Geographic and the Discovery Channel and leave the animal fantasy stuff to Disney.

Two Brothers, an excellent movie

[neeshacs · 10/10 · 20 December 2005]

Everyone should watch this movie, it is a touching story. Also, it portrays a great performances by the Tigers. All parents should take their kids to watch such movies, it will make them love and care for animals. It also creates very important environmental awareness too. The director seems a great person to make both "Two Brothers" and "The Bear". Both movies are on animals and the tragedies they come across. And they both make humans empathetic of animals. The two Tiger cubs were great actors, and made us sad with their helplessness in some parts. It makes us realise how innocent animals are. Two thumbs up for this movie!!

Two brothers

[nulukthet · 6/10 · 3 February 2006]

Two brothers (Jean-Jacques Annaud) From his previous movies we know JJ Annaud loves to make movies about nature, people and history.

Although this is certainly not his best movie, he manages to make people think about what he makes. Here about the steeling of artifacts and killing of wild animals in foreign colonies.

First of all, its a movie about two brother tigers, who s parents are hunted because tigers kill. In this, not really defined place (somewhere India or Bangladesh) they kill people and domestic animals (buffels).

When Aidan McRory (Guy Pearce), who plays a man who steels authentic artifacts from the forests, kills the mother-or father of the two small tigers (not defined), the two brothers are brought to two different places.

At that time the place is controlled by French politicians who have a colony in the region, and one of those high ranked officer s son gets a tiger. The other one is sold to a circus, as a vicious tiger. The first one is making really trouble and is sold to the head of the colony who has several fierce animals in his dungeon.

After a year they are brought together to fight to each-other. But the two brothers recognize each other and wont fight and escape.

In general not bad, but the visual effect could be done a lot better and off course in such sentimental films the script is made for children to understand.

A feel good movie.

Nice movie, but still: 5.5/10

Visually Attractive and An Above Average Family Film As Well

[christian123 · 4/10 · 6 June 2005]

Two Brothers is a nice family film to watch but it becomes to cheesy to take by the end. Two brother tiger cubs are separated at an early age when their mother is killed by a hunter (Guy Pearce). The bolder one is sold to a circus where his spirit is broken, while the gentler one fights for his survival becoming wilder and more fierce. When they meet again as adults, they are pitted against each other as enemies. The plot is something different then the average kids film yet this film will probably be more liked by adults. The story may bore kids too much as its not action packed nor is it an animated film. Granted, there were some boring spots but those were few and far in between. The kids may be turned off by the fact that a tiger gets shot in this film. Only one actually dies from a gunshot but another one is hit in the ear. The baby tigers are very cute and are fun to watch. The only human actor worth mentioning is Guy Pearce. He is overshadowed by the tigers but still does a good job. Jean-Jacques Annaud directs and he does a pretty good job. Two Brothers has amazing cinematography, probably some of the best I have seen all year. There's not a whole lot of dialog so kids may not like that. While it's a beautiful film to watch, sometimes I felt like I was watching the discovery channel or something. The running time of 108 minutes could have been cut down as not all was needed. I was enjoying the film until the end, then it became too cheesy to like. The brothers managed to met up with each other and they both manage to escape from the circus. When they successfully escaped they met up with their mom again and became one happy family. I thought this was a little too much but it's a kids film so they wanted a happy ending. I didn't like it though as it could have been a different type of family film if it had ended a little differently. In the end, this is a nice film to look at and its slightly above average as well. Rating 7/10, better then the most recent family film.

The tiger cubs are cute but leave the tigers alone

[the-movie-guy · 24 June 2004]

Two tiger cubs are born deep in the jungles of French Indo-China. The tiger cubs are growing up among ancient temple ruins, which will bring the outside world to their home. One of the tiger cubs is gentle in nature and the other is brave. One of the tiger cubs is captured when a famous hunter (Guy Pearce) goes to the temple to loot its statues. A circus buys the tiger cub for its tiger act. The circus trainer uses force to make him jump through a hoop of fire and be a true tiger act. Later, the other cub is captured, and the regional administrator gives the tiger to his son. The tiger cub tears up the house and has a conflict with their dog, so the boy is forced to give the tiger away to the king's animal museum. A year later, the two brothers are matched against each other to fight in the king's arena. The storyline about tigers in the wild and what can happen to them is somewhat ok. It is not a totally cheerful movie, but I did enjoy the parts where the tiger cubs were being brothers, and the ending. (Universal Pictures, Run time 1:48, Rated PG) (5/10)

good entertaining movie

[lane-su · 7/10 · 3 January 2005]

Two brothers is about the stories of two tigers, which have been separated since childhood. The storyline is good and the idea to plot two tiger-brother is interesting. Somehow it is a movie to show the cruelly invasion of human to the animals' lives and the nature.

But this movie is considered to be an good entertaining movie other than a master piece. The performance is poor. Plus this movie is always struggling between the fairy tale and reality. In my opinion, I like this movie to be just one of them, but not both. Otherwise it makes me always think it is faked.

Two brothers is a good entertaining movie, but not a perfect one. I give it 7 out of 10. Thanks for reading. Hope it helps.

Emotionally Wrenching

[slr_image · 7/10 · 30 June 2004]

The number of people who say that they took their small children to see this film proves to me once again how emotionally desensitized our society has become. This film, though beautiful and with an excellent message, was almost too

painful to watch. I went with my mother (who is 60) and we were so glad that there were only two other people in the theatre, because we cried through

practically the whole film. There is no way that I would take any child under 10 to this film, but then the children that I know who are under 10 are gentle and sensitive and would be as distressed as we were. You can teach smaller

children the messages of this film without having to show them such things until they are older.

Four legs good, two legs average

[soymilk · 7/10 · 20 July 2005]

If you're out to demonstrate that animals are better than people (better scene-stealers, anyhow) then by all means, make 'Two Brothers' your prize exhibit. Just as the 'Incredible Journey' showed us decades beforehand, animals, when given the right elbow room, are simply fantastic when it comes to film. They have the power to transform minimal, routine story lines (two tiger cub siblings are divided from their mother, removed from the wild by separate parties of high-handed humans, grow up in different captive grounds and finally find themselves pitted against each other in the battle ring…okay, I'm sure we all know where this one's going, sweet and warm-hearted as it is – it's essentially little more than a variation on the story of Androcles and the lion, in which both protagonists, on this occasion, are creatures of the wilderness) into gripping, engaging and dazzling delights, simply by being animals acting in their animal ways. Kumal and Sangha, the two big cats here, are certainly no exception to the custom. They're expressive, appealing and a pleasure to watch in whatever stage of their growth – whether as wide-eyed, adorable cubs, or beautiful, majestic adults, they bring a real magic to the story that keeps it afloat and mesmerising, and if, like me, you're an avid animal lover, the odds are you'll fall completely in love with these beasts and everything they stand for. It's refreshing to know, certainly, that not every animal-orientated flick aimed at the family market nowadays has to rely on smarmy human voice-overs and overdone special effects (of all the movies spawned by that phenomenon over the past decade or so, only 'Babe', their much-loved pioneer, had the charm or the subtlety to pull it off convincingly) to communicate the thoughts and feelings of its four-legged cast. 'Two Brothers' has enough trust in these tigers provide all that with their physical mannerisms alone, and there's something about their muted composure that makes them seem all the more innocent and vulnerable as a result. As far as the animals go, it's neither too complex for kids or too childish for adults. All ages are free to enjoy.

A lot less interesting are the endless human characters who continually step in to shape the structure of the story but, with their lacklustre dialogue and minimal development, totally pale when it comes to screen presence. And this is where all age groups, young and old alike, are liable to find boredom. Unlike 2003's 'Seabiscuit', which took enough interest in the various people surrounding its titular equine to even go as far as allowing them to steal the spotlight from him, the humans never amount to much more here than a parade of one-dimensional caricatures (the insensitive circus trainers, the cosmopolitan child, the ignorant game hunter, and so forth). Guy Pearce has easily bagged himself the most substantial role of the lot, being the only one who actually finds himself in something of a dilemma over his position – growing unexpectedly attached to Kumal, the particular cub he personally abducted, when his most highly-commended talent lies in his flair for hunting out and destroying the creatures – which in turn does bring in a little emotional pay-off. It's a notch more interesting, at any rate, than Sangha's simultaneous story, concerning his bonding with the young son of a local governor (which, on its own, doesn't have a huge deal to distinguish it from any number of your generic 'boy and his – insert species here – story'). Though, to be fair, the scenes between the tigers themselves aren't completely spotless – what probably should have ranked as the most powerful and gut-wrenching sequence in the film, that is, the showdown in the arena, in practice actually feels very rushed and docile.

Still, the good intentions in this one always shine and, in spite of the problems mentioned above (or possibly in some small way because of) the central message, that the true spirit of nature has the potential to always prevail above humanity's short-sighted efforts to curb and control it, is still nicely delivered. And, in addition to the lovable critters and beautiful scenery, it has Stephen Warbeck's enthralling score to do it justice; three factors which all combine to produce a wonderful viewing experience when left to their own devices. The half-hearted humans and their token character arcs, which insist on barging in and disrupting this, ensure that 'Two Brothers' comes nowhere close to being a masterpiece, but it's a perfectly satisfactory piece of family entertainment that's not afraid to wear its heart upon its sleeve. Worth a look if you're an animal enthusiast, or just in need of a good old-fashioned, straightforward romp.

Grade: B+

Heartwrenching

[Deja_Entendu · 9/10 · 26 June 2004]

Two brothers is a uniquely great movie. Although some may criticize it for the depiction of cruelty to animals, the movie is not advocating cruelty or teaching kids wrong lessons. You begin to love the tigers from the very first second you see them on screen, and your heart breaks every time something happens to them. The movie isn't an insult to our species, it tells us and shows us how we have wronged nature in the past, and promotes us to fix our past transgressions. By seeing the cute (EXTREMELY cute) tigers harassed on screen, kids will definitely develop a passion for the conservation of wildlife and will develop a general humaneness towards other creatures. Although some scenes are disturbing and could scare children, the movie does a good job of keeping them interested, worried, and warmed in the end. Even though Guy Pearce delivers another sub-par performance, adults are not the stars of the film. This movie will definitely play with your emotions, and some may not be able to handle it, but be assured, the movie may leave you spent, but it'll leave you blissful. I enjoyed every second, from the warmth of the playing tigers cubs to the stabbing pain when any of them got hurt. I spent the credits with tears running down my face. If you are in touch with yourself, this movie will not disappoint.

Not Life of Pi

[proficy · 6/10 · 8 August 2004]

How could anyone say this is a kid friendly movie??? I am going to have nightmares for months!!!

It seems to me like the movie makers shot a bunch of cute tiger scenes and then through together a film with 1) no plot/a whole lot of stories going on that don't go anywhere and that you don't really understand, 2) no diffinitive moral ending, 3) a bunch of stock character-- including a nauseatingly cute boy, 4) a main character who is passive and never stands out as good or evil. ZZZZ... When not bawling, I was sleeping in this snoozefest.

On top of this, they personified the animals: in a movie which seemed to be trying convince us it was "real", this is not only unbelievable and emotion blackmail, but very unsafe for children. Anyone who has read Yann Martel's fantastic book, The Life of Pi, will know what I mean. Animals are *animals* and do not behave like humans. In a fantastic world, such as that created by the jungle book, this is easier to accept as fiction.

All in all, the movie had some cute parts, some nice scenery, wonderful job by the tigers (whom I hope where treated well).

6/10 for me. Don't rush to see it. Don't bring young kids.

Wonderful 100% old-style artwork! Remarkable mix with the modern technology.

[StrayFeral · 10/10 · 9 May 2005]

DISCLAIMER: This is my first movie review, so please excuse me, if it is not written well, including the fact that my English is not good.

I just finished viewing "Two Brothers". Honestly, I've never expected anymore to see a movie of that class.

What do I mean?

These days there are so much new movies, which is so wonderful, because so many people now have the chance to express themselves and do a movie, but not many of them know how to do it. There are people, who do know and there are people, which do have talent.

I still remember, when I saw "The Bear". Not much, but I do remember it really got me with it. Years ago, there were really movies, that had what to offer to the spectator. I still prefer more, the commercial movies, but do miss the real good cinema.

And so, few days back I was just watching around the rent-a-video club, when I saw the title. At first, though it is yet another action movie, until I saw the front cover. These days, adventure movies are rare. The director's name immediately grabbed my attention and really threw me thinking. Jean-Jacques Annaud did another adventure? I did not read the text on the cover, just was thinking to myself... These tigers really reminded me of "The Bear"... Was it a little nostalgia?

Whatever it was, it is wonderful. I do not remember myself enjoying so much, for a long time. The movie is appropriate for most ages, with good plot. Very slight mixture of this specific old-school fragrance and modern computer graphic effects. It is so precisely mixed, that at the beginning You will never realize is it real, You are watching or computer-made.

In fact, the movie, I think I may say so, is sort of a masterpiece, but since I am not very competent of the technical details, will not discuss them, except mentioning just in brief.

Wonderful graphics, exotic views, well mixed sound, good music, great story, interesting point of views... remarkable.

A thing to notice here, is that it did not made me remember just of "The Bear". Actually in the beginning I was thinking of "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes". Annaud spend big amount of time, exploring the relationships of the tigers, the tigers and the people, the people, the people and tigers. There are some very precisely dosed moments, showing the two tigers in perspectives, You would really love to explore. I just love the way he did it!

You will never realize how these 109 minutes will pass around You, so better stop reading this and go see it!

Have a good time!

A little confusing, also a very slow beginning but a great ending!

[RisingStar12 · 6/10 · 28 August 2005]

I didn't really understand the whole movie. It was hard to follow the storyline. Plus the beginning of the movie was extremely slow. It was boring. But as the movie went on it got a lot better. Freddie Highmore was great! Once he popped into the story it made more sense. I won't give away the ending but i will just say it was a great one. The cast was good. The tigers were very cute. When the end came you realized that the beginning wasn't that slow for you got a lot of information that you needed to know. But it could have been a little faster.

In the end i give this movie a 4 for the ending, a 1 for the beginning, and a 1 for following the story.

great movie

[smile_empty_soul81 · 10/10 · 6 August 2005]

OMG this is one of the best movies ever. I LOVE TIGERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I cried so much for this movie... my face was all red and I just couldn't stop crying! even for the happy parts... I think this movie gives out a great message ...(for hunters or people who actually live in a country where there are tigers or whatever) ...but even if you don't live somewhere near where tigers live... I'm sure there's something we can do to help and prevent them from becoming extinct! they're such beautiful creatures!! we should try to save them. Before I saw this movie I heard that it was crap... I didn't bother to see it when it was out in the cinema but today it was on TV so I wanted to see what it was about... I am SO glad that I saw this movie... I loved it... I wish that everyone could see this movie, and see how special it is. ~animal/tiger lover~

Twin tigers in a fairy tale story

[SimonJack · 7/10 · 18 October 2021]

"Two Brothers" is a film about two tigers in Southeast Asia that were separated as cubs and were later reunited in their native land. The story is like a fairy tale with the brother tigers, Kumal and Snagha, being captured separately. They then go through different handlers and experiences. After these, that included being a household pet and being in a circus, they are reunited in their native land How they get back together is much like a fairy tale.

This is a cute film that children should especially like, as well as all people who like animals. The producers did a marvelous job filming these animals. All of the human cast do a good job in this feel good film.

Beautiful animals, but not a very good film

[alfiefamily · 4/10 · 9 July 2005]

"Two Brothers" is one of those films that you really want to like. It has a beautiful message, a decent story and two beautiful tigers as the leads. It shows mans' cruelty to animals, either for sport, or for no good reason at all. It has good camera work, fantastic scenery. And they did a real nice job of minimizing the animal violence that we see.

Unfortunately, it does not have an interesting story. Yes it is predictable with absolutely no surprises along the way. There are the requisite bad guys, some who, of course, become good guys somewhere along the way. The mandatory precocious child is on hand, as well as the fumbling, incompetent government official. You understand what all this is building up to, right? Not much. None of the characters are particularly interesting. Even Guy Pearce, who is usually very good, isn't given enough to do with his role.

This is a movie that could have and should have been much better than it was. It was just not that interesting.