bkoganbing Apparently there are those who feel that the changes made to the novel on which Bloodbrothers is based render the film version less than a classic. Ironic since the Academy bestowed a nomination on the film for Best Adapted Screenplay. But I think this film is still very worthwhile to view.Tony LoBianco and Paul Sorvino play a pair of middle aged 40 something brothers who cut loose and act like juveniles on the weekend. Especially at Kenneth McMillan's bar where all kinds of bragging about all kinds of things about length and volume take place. Sorvino is a laid back soul and unlikely to grow up since he's not married and has no reason to grow up. But LoBianco rules a tyrannical household where his wife Leila Goldini is continually afraid and his younger son Michael Hershawe is anorexic from not eating. His oldest son Richard Gere is not sure that he wants to become an electrician like his father and uncle and the grandfather before them.Two things are impressive about the brothers. Both believe in the value of the dollar and being good providers. Both also are true to their trade and take pride in their work. That's a thing rarer and rarer these days. LoBianco's lecture to Gere is one of the best scenes in the film I felt.Sad to say there are some less desirable qualities in them, especially LoBianco. The fact that he is the family breadwinner makes him feel he's king of the castle with the rights of royalty to maybe even get a bit of something on the side. When Goldini finds proof of that it sets in motion a train of events that brings down the DeCoco family.He's got the showiest role and the most to work with in developing a character, but Tony LoBianco really steals this one. Big surprise to me that he was not put into Oscar contention. LoBianco goes through quite a range of emotions with his DeCoco brother. And it's all a mystery to him that he's got the problems he has in his household because his father sure didn't.By the way note that Richard Gere seems to have the same kind of issues with his family in the Bronx that John Travolta has with his Brooklyn based family. Of course Travolta's Tony Manero comes a lot less dysfunctional group, but the Maneros and DeCocos have a lot of similarities.It might not be the book that others have read and cite. But Bloodbrothers is fine drama if disconcerting.

Christopher-Gilleski Kim Milford, the greatest actor of the latter half of the 20th century, and all around American icon turns in the most under rated performance of his career. Milford, star of the classic Sci Fi film "LASERBLAST" is not held down by the weaknesses of co-star Richard Gere. In fact, the brilliance of Milford's artistry is elevated by the fact that no other actor in the film can match him.This is an unfair criticism of Gere, since the only actor of Milford's caliber is the legendary Michael Tedesco, who's portrayal of such characters as Jellyroll and Tbob elevate him to the same level as Milford.One must wonder how this film would have turned out if Milford was not cast. Milford, who would also be burdened with Mark Hammill in Corvette Summer has shown a long tradition of carrying films to greatness that would otherwise be destined for failure.

Maciste_Brother When I was a teen, I saw BLOODBROTHERS as a double feature with a horror movie (don't ask me which one). I thought the movie was overwrought then but I sorta enjoyed the fact that the film was dealing with ordinary folks. I've seen the movie recently and whoa, what a terrible melodrama. Except for Gere and Tony Lo Bianco, the film is almost unwatchable. It's badly shot. Looks really cheap. And the level of melodrama in the script and direction is, well, actually revolting. What were they thinking? Every scene with the mother and the kid. Every scene with the wife cheating and Lo Bianco finding out. All the hospital scenes. They all scream melodrama. BLOODBROTHERS is not a very subtle movie. It hammers every emotions and blue-collar story-lines with the light touch of a sledgehammer.The only reason to watch BLOODBROTHERS is for Tony Lo Bianco, an underrated actor if there ever was one, and a star-making performance by a then young Richard Gere. Whenever Gere is on screen, he eclipses everything else. He really stands-out from the grubby looking project. If you need to see where Gere started out, you have to watch this but if you're looking for a good story about ordinary folks, avoid this movie at all cost.

Hans C. Frederick This adaptation of Price's novel takes such liberties as to make this an almost totally different story.Where do we begin? 1.)The DeCocos,in the story,are a much more grotesque and brutal outfit.Sorvino is much too attractive to play Chubby-it should have been Victor Buono.LoBianco is much too short,and nowhere near ominous enough to do Tommy-it should have been Richard Kiel.And Goldoni is a 100 pounds too light to be playing Marie. 2.)Gere is much too young to be doing Stony.The boy is only 17 years old,and just graduated from high school 2 weeks before the story opens. 3.)The whole business about Sooky involves Chubby-showing that he,in particular,is very unhappy with his marriage. 4.)While Marie is the one who seduces Jack Cutler(as in the book),it is Chubby who,by accident,receives the call from Mrs. Cutler,and,enraged, mistakenly assaults assaults HIS wife.This shows us that even the jovial, genial,good-natured Chubby,who loves his family,has his dark and brutal impulses lying close to the surface. 5.)In the book,after Phyllis is hospitalized,Tommy gives Stony permission,NOT to become an electrician,and Stony CHOOSES NOT to leave his family,staying in the pathological but familiar system to which he is accustomed.In the film,Tommy orders Stony to enter the construction trades,and Stony flees,taking Albert with him.A happy ending,of sorts,which is totally out of synch with the novel. So,it seems that the screenwriters decided to homogenize,clarify,and tack a happy ending onto a novel which was intended to demonstrate a bleak and tragic slice of American life.Perhaps it wouldn't have arrived in screen,otherwise.