Mediocre Movie Club Movie Reviews

In Bruges

9/28/2015

B+
3.19

I'm developing a man-crush on Brendan Gleeson - Bryan
While Farrell's comedic beats are a little off, he gives a solid dramatic performance - Shane
I loved [Farrell] when he was being childish or irreverent and didn't buy his emotional scenes - Jon

Initial Review by Bryan

I discovered In Bruges from some random blog about underrated movies from the last decade. There was a comparison to Pulp Fiction, and I figured it was worth a shot.

My notes are a scattered nightmare on this one - kind of like my love of Colin Farrell. Nothing about the way his character (Ray) talks or walks struck a believable cord with me. I thought his performance was lackluster. I can't think of a single movie he's done where I think, "That was a job well done Mr. Farrell." Maybe it's his general lack of emotion, especially in this role. Meanwhile, I'm developing a man-crush on Brendan Gleeson. He nails the resolve and attitude of the elder hitman, Ken. How fun that Ralph Fiennes of Harry Potter Voldemort fame plays a character named Harry. Whoever wrote "In Bruges" must not be a Harry Potter fan, or there is deeper meaning that you all will sort out. I'm not sure if Chloe or Jimmy as supporting actors helped or hurt the movie - and that may be the point of their characters. I guess I'd rather have more time been spent making Ray more emotional or just listening to Ken.

On to my notes. That fileted skin painting was possibly the most disturbing part of the movie. That looked like it had to hurt. Ray and Ken have a brief discussion of the existence of God that I thought was superb - I wish it had gone on longer or been carried throughout as a theme in the movie.

A couple of laughs and strong points in the movie - shooting the thief with a blank in the eye was well done, not sure I've seen that in a movie. The hit/miss ratio of gunshots and survivability seemed right on as well. The old "you're an inanimate f*6%ng object" line got a chuckle as well as some line about "c#^t kids." The suicide in the park scene had awfully convenient timing, but I thought it was a great path for the movie.

The soundtrack was nonexistent for me until the Irish folk music played while Ken is climbing the tower - then the music made me excited and sad to see what would happen. I thought Ken get up there and pull off some miraculous gun shot to save the day (as foreshadowed earlier) or miss and everything would go to hell, but nope - he jumped. The sound of Ken hitting the ground was nauseating to say the least.

I'm not sure if I liked the movie as much as my review or I was just happy to have a Tumble Inn IPA and watch a movie after a long week at work. I'm stuck around B-/B.

Anyone else keep saying "In Bru-jess" despite hearing "Brouge" repeatedly?

Initial review by Bryan

16 Comments

Admin

9/28/2015 03:19:17 pm

Spot saved for direct replies to initial review.

Sean

9/28/2015 05:12:47 pm

Haven't watched yet as I currently have no cable/internet, only looked for grade to see if worth the LTE data to watch on phone. Had no idea it wasn't "Bru-jess"

Larry

9/29/2015 05:00:46 pm

It's that Half-hearted Southernese we Hoosiers speak.

Tad

9/29/2015 04:58:20 pm

Great review. You're the best.

Turd Ferguson

9/29/2015 04:59:04 pm

+1. Words are the best.

Stevie

9/29/2015 05:00:02 pm

And if you don't love me now, you will never love me again.

Shane

9/30/2015 02:51:35 pm

Farrell really just doesn't show up for some of those scenes. But I feel like he nails some others.

Bryan

9/30/2015 03:54:35 pm

I can't really explain it, but I found him distractingly unbelievable.

Hal

9/29/2015 06:25:40 pm

I thought we agreed out love was a secret

9/30/2015 02:21:24 pm

After 15 minutes of Collin Farrell attempting to be funny, I wanted to turn this off. I'm glad I didn't. What I feared was about to turn into a rom-com ended up being a well-made, black comedy with characters I cared about, to my own surprise.

McDonough, first of all, gives us a script that at first seems to be hitting the plot-points of rom-coms or other buddy comedies. One guy likes where they are, the other doesn't. Oh look, hit-man knocks a guy out and the girl still likes him. Haha. (Although I laughed pretty hard when he punched that woman.) But he doesn't really waste any dialogue or film time. Everything pays off, even the tragedy of killing a poor child and the selection of dum-dum bullets.

Largely, the plot works. I love a dark comedy that is well done. Of course some of the retard and gay jokes seem a bit crass, but we're talking about hit-men. I don't consider "retard jokes" to be inherently dark comedy as much as they are low-brow, but with dialogue tends to lend itself towards the dark comedy portion. The dwarf/midget jokes do go to the dark comedy section as I could see people actually having that conversation. Hell, I've probably had that conversation. And really, that's the strength of this movie. It's a bunch of dark subjects that we hear characters talking about in a normal manner. Every conversation made sense.

Almost every character decision made sense as well. However, the final scenes are a bit too convenient. Also, no way Farrell survives and runs that long after being struck with dum-dum bullets. Also, man do I hate that ending. The entire movie is subtle and then McDonough leaves us with a ridiculous talkover cliff-hanger that was entirely unnecessary.

(Fun International Law side-note, dum-dum bullets have been outlawed in international law. Their use is a crime against humanity due to the inordinate amount of damage and suffering they cause.)

While Farrell's comedic beats are a little off, he gives a solid dramatic performance, even if he is the weakest link. His scenes about suicide in particular were good, especially the first time he mentions it.

Brendan Gleeson, as always, does a wonderful job. Soft-spoken and subtle in his dialogue, his physicality sells us on the idea that he's a hit-man. Up until the final scenes, I eagerly bought his performance. However, that performance is marred by the partial absurdity in the ending. I think it's less on him and more on McDonough doing too much at once.

Ralph Fiennes steals all of his scenes. While Gleeson carries the movie, Fiennes steals his scenes. He's the only one able to sell his character in those final 20 minutes, even if he can't run worth a damn.

The rest of the cast is fine, though Jordan Prentice balances some poorly acted scenes with some good ones. Clémence Poésy does fine, but ultimately nothing about her performance is terribly noticeable.

Since its suicide prevention month, let's talk about that angle. I thought it was handled superbly here. It's interesting how visceral every character reacted towards suicide, even though they're in the business of doling out death for a living. I'm willing to shoot you for pay, but I can't get past you wanting to off yourself. It's reflection of our survival instincts that we're born with. Even at the end, Farrell doesn't want Fiennes to off himself. But we're all OK with Gleeson offing himself, right? We're interesting animals.

Even in the middle of this, I had a client call (in the middle of an obvious drinking bender) and threaten to kill himself. I really have no idea how to help him nor do I know even where he is, but it's not put me in a great place mentally. I don't think he'll follow through, nor would it be my fault, but it just shows you how much just the mention of suicide stills the air. In Bruges does a very fine job with that.

In the end, I think I pleasantly settle on a B+ for this.

Who do you side with in the Blacks vs. Whites War?

9/30/2015 03:55:09 pm

I forgot they were special bullets. I take back my realistic gun portrayal statement.

Jon

10/1/2015 03:19:39 am

I know I make mention of it often, but man, In Bruges is steeped in Catholicism. Considering the Irish-ness of all involved, that's not particularly surprising. While director Martin McDonagh's brother John Michael made a definitive Catholic movie in Calvary, In Bruges has a lot of the same themes and threads.

This is my second time seeing In Bruges, and the purgatorial nature of it is what most sticks out this time. This is outright stated in a few instances, but there's more subtle hints at it, too. The setting alone, described as a well-preserved medieval town that's semi-frozen in time, implies how untouched Bruges has been by the outside world, a way station for people traveling between more dynamic places. My perception of purgatory growing up was that it's a place where you have to prove to god that you can go to heaven, and Ray spends the movie doing essentially that. He's committed mortal sins, and has to pay some kind of price if he wants redemption. When it looks like he might escape, the sin that brought him there (murder) leads to him being kept in Bruges by a sin he committed there (lady punching). He has to be punished by the god of the movie, and exile isn't enough.

That necessary penance for one's sins is one aspect of the heavy Catholicism running through the movie, but there's plenty more. The Basilica of the Holy Blood is overt, as is the bullshit relic the church uses to draw in saps. (Sidebar: representatives of the French Revolution went out into the country to churches that claimed to have some kind of holy relic, and proceeded to gleefully manhandle the samples and demonstrate that the blood was actually turpentine or that bone of Jesus actually came from a sheep. The priests, justly humiliated, were then forced to swear loyalty oaths to the secular state or GTFO. Simpler times. Sidebar over.) That scene's ultimate point eludes me, as it might just be further reinforcement of Ray's irreverence, or indicative of Ken's hope in good things, but I'm glad it was included if only to make me think of those eye-thumbing revolutionaries. The macabre artwork in the museum, with its artist's depiction of purgatory and the flaying torture and the demonic painting, all back up Ray's predicament with their visceral depiction of hellish punishment. Plus, the movie takes place around Christmas, and of all possible victims, Ray is assigned to kill a priest. In Bruges is always reminding the viewer of the moral universe in which the characters have transgressed.

This would be a stronger movie if that morality was more muddled. I'm going to put the onus for that on Farrell. I'm going to take the opposite tack on his performance as Bryan and Shane, and say I loved him when he was being childish or irreverent and didn't buy his emotional scenes. Therefore, I believed when Ray was excited to wave at a dwarf (fantastic), and didn't believe when he was breaking down in tears over what he had done. A better actor would've been able to sell both. As is, the movie assumes that the viewer is on board with its crux, which is his decision to kill himself. I understand it, but Farrell's big reaction makes it an emotional decision. It felt like whining instead of actual despair. Maybe I would've bought it more if Farrell rationally decided that the best thing would be to kill himself. Maybe Farrell's cry face just doesn't work on me.

In a final hail of dum dums, Farrell was frustrating but his co-lead was the opposite. I'll cosign onto Bryan's Gleeson love. Where I don't buy much of Farrell's performance, I'm constantly onboard with Gleeson's, from his paternal impatience with Ray to his resignation towards his death. Fiennes was fine in a role squarely in his wheelhouse. I loved much of the writing, and will be adding several lines to the Mediocrities page. The general irreverence and political incorrectness was never tiresome, as I believed that was just who Ray was, though even he has uncrossable lines. Lastly, I don't know that I can think of another movie that films a falling body, in all its gory glory, from the ground level upon impact, and I am fine with that.

In Bruges would have been better served by switching out Farrell for someone like Michael Fassbender or Jack O'Connell (too young in 2009, but perfect for the part now). It's fatally flawed in that regard, though there's still plenty to like. The movie that could've been is in the A's. The movie that is gets a B-.

10/1/2015 02:46:57 pm

That's two pretty solid historical side-notes in the reviews. Good for us.

I think everyone below should have their own side-notes.

Lane

10/2/2015 12:35:52 am

One of the things that always makes me happy are conversations in which Europeans shit on particular parts of their continent. I don’t know why this makes me smile, it just does. It’s probably because it’s nice to know that all parts of the world have their own versions of Mississippi and that rednecks (or skinheads or whatever) and really terrible people exist everywhere. It just dispels the myth that any particular place is really any better than another.

On to the movie – really loved this. Almost from the moment it kicked off I was enthralled. I remember almost renting this (from an actual video rental store!) back in ’08 when it came out because I heard it was like a better version of a Guy Ritchie film (this was when Guy Ritchie started to suck), yet I hesitated and then the moment passed. So glad I got to pick this one back up.

I think this movie has two main themes – religion and childhood. Our previous Catholic commentators did a really great job of dissecting the purgatorial element, so I won’t go further (historical/theological sidebar: as a Protestant, we don’t have a doctrine of purgatory, and I think we are artistically poorer for it. There are such great human themes in that concept – suffering, waiting, temporality. From a scholarly perspective, the Catholic idea of purgatory and the Jewish notion of sheol probably have more biblical evidence than do the more modern evangelical pictures of heaven or hell).

As for the childhood element – this is where I think Farrell really shines. I liked him a lot in this role, and I liked the way that he overplayed the simplistic childhood element of the character, because that’s what I think the character called for. This is a film playing with ideas of innocence and innocence lost. He’s a cold-blooded killer, yet he is wracked by emotions he can’t control for killing a child; he is unimpressed by the history and mystery of ancient relics, but stumbling upon a film set is magical; he can be apoplectic and broody in one scene and in love in the next – this is the world of a child, and I think Farrell does a better than good job of parsing out the tension of those roles. And in the end, he does what he needed to do – he saved the next child when he jumped out the window into the canal and left the pregnant hotel keeper out of it. The logic of the ending of this movie and the way so many threads were so neatly tied up is really brilliant.

In the end this is a movie about decent enough people doing bad things and trying to figure out how to be normal in the midst of all of that, which is basically what the entire concept of religion is trying to help us figure out too. I liked this movie because it was well thought out, well acted, and kept me guessing. Great pick.

Liked:
- Colin Farrell’s naiveté and proper use of his Irish accent
- A dark comedy that dabbled in ultimate realities
- The realistic depiction of how hard it is to shoot a gun and run at the same time.

Disliked:
- the fact that I listened to too much loud music as a kid and have trouble understanding foreign accents in movies (and in real life)

Ambivalent About:
- Ralph Feinnes – just never cared for that guy.

Grade: A-

10/2/2015 11:30:11 am

Another superb side-note.

Drew

11/1/2015 06:52:43 pm

This was a better movie than I anticipated, especially since some of Farrell's films have not been great.

To me, this was another version of Les Miserables. Its influence was evident, especially in the ending.

Grade: B+

In Bruges

B+
3.19

Leave a Reply.

Authors

Categories

Archives

In Bruges

B+3.19

Leave a Reply.

Authors

Categories

Archives

B+
3.19