BY: JERRY P

Mr. Brooks is an upstanding citizen by day and a serial killer by night. In an amoral film, it's a surprising sympathy for Brooks, and dark humor, that keeps the viewer entertained.

Curious how Kevin Costner would handle the role of a serial killer, I went to see “Mr. Brooks.” After seeing the movie I could understand why the director, Bruce Evans, chose Costner for the role of Earl Brooks, a man just selected as “Man of the Year” by the Portland Chamber of Commerce. It is because Brooks is not pure evil; indeed, he is, believe it or not, a sympathetic character.

How is that possible? Well, to begin with, he resembles Tony Soprano to the extent he has a family to which he is devoted and concerned about, but unlike Tony he has a successful straight business. He owns a box factory, and tries to contribute to the well being of the community through philanthropic activity. However, his darker impulses drive him to go out the same night he received his award as “Man of the Year,” to murder a couple he had previously selected for random extermination. Random, gratuitous selection is his MO, as is the ‘signature’ he leaves behind. He is called “The Thumbprint Killer” because he leaves the fingerprints of the people he’s murdered as the ID of his work, along with arranging the couples - his favorite targets - in amorous poses; he kills the couples as they are making love.

His crimes are the result of an addiction to killing, an impulse he tries to fight off, but usually unsuccessfully. There is no objective rationale to his killing, no revenge, no money, no hate - and he’s not a hit man. His impulse to kill is inborn, an itch he has to scratch, and he’s often pushed into it by an alter-ego personification named Marshall (William Hurt). It’s an interesting device, a variation on Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, only in “Mr. Brooks” Marshall is strictly a specter of Earl Brooks’ mind, a lethal twin that no one else sees or hears. It is a schizoid situation that allows Mr. Brooks to be a solid citizen, a nice guy, and a sympathetic character, as well as a moral monster with an insatiable blood lust. The dark side of Earl’s character is projected into Marshall with whom he is in constant dialogue with for guidance, perspective and camaraderie. And it is Marshall who is always lobbying for murder, the more the merrier as far as he is concerned. He is the motivating force behind the emergence of the mad dog killer inside Earl. He views murder as “fun,” what he and Earl prefer doing for entertainment. He thinks Earl is foolish to fight his impulses. But Earl is serious about it being an addiction, in fact, he goes to AA meetings and declares himself an addict - but he never talks about what kind of addict he is. We hear him muttering the 12 steps prayer too, as he tries to control his itch to kill.

The movie has three sub-plots, which add considerable complication to the basic premise of the plot. The first is a voyeur (Dane Cook) who lives across the way from Earl’s last two victims, and who took some pictures of the murder from his third story apartment. Earl had forgotten to check the curtains in the bedroom before he shot the couple. The next thing he knows, “Mr. Smith” is waiting to see him at his office. But not to blackmail him; he only wants to join him next time. He got such a rush watching the killing he wants to be an actual participant. So that’s a relationship Earl has to deal with as the story advances. Number two is the female detective in pursuit of the “Thumbprint Killer,” Tracy Atwood (Demi Moore), who is being hounded by a bastard of an ex-husband who is trying to get $5 million bucks out of her in a divorce settlement, while at the same time a killer with the moniker “The Hangman” is after her because she put him in prison and he swore revenge. Oddly, she has a ton of money because she has very rich father. In a strange twist of fate, Earl does her a big favor late in the movie. He likes her spunk. The third subplot has to do with Earl’s daughter, Jane (Danielle Panabaker), who has suddenly come home because she doesn’t like college and she’s pregnant by a married man who wants nothing to do with her. She also takes after her father, as his bad genes have passed to her. She apparently also left college because she murdered some guy with an ax. When the cops show up to question her, Earl decides he has to do something to remove suspicion from her. His solution to the problem is unique. By the end of the movie he is worried she is going to do him in, because she wants to take over his company and wealth. Earl made a serious mistake by not checking that curtain, but in all other respects he is a smart killer, and he gets considerable help from Marshall, who displays great intuition quite often, and is loaded with useful suggestions. They make a great team, one supporting the other. Costner and Hurt work wonderfully together, like two old pros having as good time with material that is over the top. Hurt is especially gleefully nasty as Marshall. Moore is still drop-dead gorgeous. But her role is less convincing because she seems a throw-in and her role is underwritten. She doesn’t compete with the gloss and skill of the terrible twin.

The movie has its tongue in its cheek fairly often. It has few dull moments. And the script is sprinkled with black humor. The movie does have an amoral premise, which might make some people uncomfortable. But I found it broad enough to pass as outrageous entertainment, not as a celebration of nihilism.