Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: In Bruges

Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: In Bruges Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: In Bruges - 16/9/2008 4:14:22 AM   
Sad Professor

Posts: 1971
Joined: 17/10/2006



ORIGINAL: surveyofsociety

Farrell's performance didn't surprise me one bit. I'd seen all of his films from Ordinary Decent Criminal to Miami Vice and I always thought he was a brilliant actor. Them tabloid years that he indulged in and had his agent cook up did him more harm than good with regard his credibility but hey it got him parts and money!

He was the best thing about Cassandra's Dream and I'm curious to see this new one with Ed Norton.
Also he's just finished 2 films this year - Triage about a troubled war photography and Ondine with Neil Jordan about a fisherman, his daughter and a mermaid ....

He's definately on the right path back to getting some of his street cred back .

Oh and he was hilarious in Bruges, I dont know if any non-Irish actors could have pulled off the lead roles.

Ahh my new best friend,how do you do?
I knew from the minute the credits rolled after Tigerland he would become a notable star.
I took along a friend of mine to see In Bruges who was completly impartial to my insistance that Colin can act and let me tell you she had to eat humble pie after, much to her shame! 
I loved In Bruges black comedy at it's best and yet a very poignant tale, not a film I recommend to my mum mind

We're friends ? Since when :p
I'd recommend Phone Booth to anyone who was impressed by Farrell's performance in Bruges . It's a step by step lesson in acting and a real testament to his commitment and work ethic in them early hollywood days. I think he shot his scenes in 10 days and for an 80 odd minute film of which he's on screen for about 90% that would've been one serious challenge.

(in reply to Magenta)
Post #: 31
RE: In Bruges - 17/9/2008 1:12:25 PM   


Posts: 1555
Joined: 5/12/2006
From: guildford
Farrell was great and Fiennes showed he can add a touch a fun to his serious image.

But its Gleeson who always makes a film ,He is just ace as the Wolrd weary Hitman  who just wants to see the sights.

It would be nice if he got more lead roles like The General and this but whos complaining when the film is this good 8.5/10


"Where are you calling from Milo?"
"The bottom of the pool?"

"Im The Anti Christ.You got me in a Vendetta kind of mood"

"Come back Alan , You Wanker!"

"Your a Doctor,Deal with it"

(in reply to Sad Professor)
Post #: 32
IN BRUGES - 14/10/2008 6:07:17 PM   
El Becks

Posts: 992
Joined: 10/1/2006
From: a land that time forgot

ORIGINAL: Gimli The Dwarf


ORIGINAL: dracovir

Totally loved it.  Well scripted, well acted, well paced.  Everyone did their job in service to the story, no scene-stealing or scenery-chewing (which I half expected after seeing the trailer), some genuinely funny humor with some strong human characters.  I cannot find any real fault in the film.  Totally offbeat and excellent.  It's great that someone has the guts to show some everyday un-pc humour in a film.  The non-PC jibes are  hardly offensive and presented in such a manner that only those looking to be offended would be upset, and if you're going to watch a film billed as a comedy then it should be for the entertainment factor.  One of the best films I've seen yet this year.

I pretty much agree with all of that. Often very funny yet strangely emotional as well. Quite excellent.

Saw this on DVD at the weekend (for some reason never caught it at the cinema though I had it on my list).  Really enjoyed it as per the two reviews above.  I loved Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson's performances; both funny and moving.  An absolute joy to watch.  Highly recommend this film. 

< Message edited by El Becks -- 14/10/2008 6:10:10 PM >


It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt

(in reply to Gimli The Dwarf)
Post #: 33
RE: IN BRUGES - 6/11/2008 4:18:50 PM   

Posts: 41
Joined: 25/10/2008
I really enjoyed this film. It was funny but at times very moving, and the performances were great. It is good to see Colin Farrell back in a film worthy of his talent, rather than rubbish like Alexander.


"Well, nobody's perfect!"

(in reply to El Becks)
Post #: 34
RE: one word - 8/2/2009 1:33:58 AM   

Posts: 3961
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Istanpool


WHOA. I don't believe what I'm hearing. Check out the BALLS on this kid. Hey Spider, this is for you.

My movies
Post #: 35
RE: Overrated - 10/2/2009 5:33:14 AM   

Posts: 2034
Joined: 10/2/2009
Really the only reason why I watched this movie was because Colin Farrell was in it. The city of Bruges is this beautiful yet haunting place of medieval times, with old world canals and architecture. It gives the movie it's uniqueness. I expected more of a thriller with more cat and mouse, then two hitmen wondering around Bruges waiting for the next assignment. I did think the Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson had great performances though. I thought they played well off each other in a kind of weird father, son relationship. Farrell's character at times acts like a frightened, hyperactive child with an itchy trigger finger and flying fists. Gleeson plays his character so calm, you wonder when he's going to take a nap. Both actors balance their characters well against each other. The quirkiness and the dialogue that's refreshingly un pc makes you wonder why you're laughing at such crude stuff. The Irishness of Farrell really is upfront here, and you never want him to shut up (and he doesn't) He makes you laugh your ass off one minute and puts in tears the next. Clemence Posey plays Farrell's drug dealing love interest, but her character is a bit thin, she's just one of the many characters in this movie. The only head scratcher is Ralph Fiennes who shows up too late in the movie to even be in it. He's so over the top that whatever sincerity he delivers it's smashed by what seeps out of his mouth. The music is bit grating, because it's a constant concerto of piano, there's enough symbolism in this film to fill up a book, and the ending seems abrupt (and telegraphed) but other than that it's not a bad ride.


wandering through the tall grass of life

(in reply to Starscream)
Post #: 36
RE: Overrated - 10/2/2009 12:35:39 PM   

Posts: 9
Joined: 3/2/2009
From: Plymouth
I wasn't that bothered about this film initially but when I saw it I thought it was brilliant. The comedy is genious and the characters work so well together. It actually makes me want to visit it just for a giggle!! So glad they won an award at the BAFTAs. Absolute genious


He's got huge, sharp-- eh-- he can leap about-- look at the bones!

(in reply to Starscream)
Post #: 37
RE: In Bruges - 17/3/2009 12:30:48 AM   
Mr Grady

Posts: 3123
Joined: 30/9/2005
Just got round to watching this with the missus and we both really enjoyed it.  Good performances, great/quotable dialogue and well paced.  A film i can see myself going back to.



The acting was uniformly excellent (although maybe Ralph Fiennes portrayal of Harry seemed to be veering into 'Sir' Ben Kingsley Sexy Beast territory on more than one occasion

Exactly what i thought, it was uncanny at times.


Champagne for my real friends, and real pain for my sham friends

'My wife has an ass in her cock in the drive way'

(in reply to Indio)
Post #: 38
RE: - 17/3/2009 1:22:20 PM   

Posts: 20310
Joined: 17/1/2006
From: A polluted womb...
I liked the First and Second acts more than the Third. I dont know the third act is a bit jarring especially when you know who takes the plunge. I guess it is a credit to the screenplay because I really cared for both main characters and was really expecting a different ending, i wanted a different ending. The jokes were subtle and hilarious. The acting was very good indeed. The directing superb.


< Message edited by wgamador -- 17/3/2009 1:23:15 PM >


"And as he, who with laboring breath has escaped from the deep
to the shore, turns to the perilous waters and gazes..."

Post #: 39
In a Bungle - 9/6/2009 3:55:54 AM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2165
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: London

I shall be discordant and voice my disappointment with the film. When I originally saw the trailer for the film, I had high hopes. I was intrigued by what seemingly was a funny premise involving two hitmen on/from a bungled kill job that for whatever reason, were residing in the eponymous town. However, the film is a strange mix of black comedy and drama. Whilst the combination of such genres does not equate an immediate failure it does present a far more difficult challenge and one that can fluster and indeed make many film makers fail.

Onto my review. I thought the individual acting was very good. In particular Colin Farrell in the role of 'Ray'. Who truly depicts a man burdened and torn by his accidental slaying of a child. This is clearly a man who isn't cut out to be a hitman and a character who is rather aimless. It's clear that for him, Bruges has become his own purgatory and in actuality it is a place of reckoning for him. He must come to terms with what he has done and what he will do with his future. There is some great material here to explore which could have been done if this was a straight drama film. However, since it is supposed to be primarily a black comedy, it doesn't have room to explore this facet of Ray's troubled mind and so we end with this frequent switch from laughs-a-minute to sullen despairing. Now the polemic. The major downfall in Colin Farrell's performance is the humour (or lack thereof). I read numerous comments over the web which contain numerous platitudes towards Colin Farrell's "comedic" turn. Where such terms as "hilarious" and "revelatory" are bandied around the place. Much has been made of Colin Farrell's supposed untapped comedy potential yet I never found his 'humourous' scenes amusing. There were the odd pieces of dialogue which may have earned a chortle or two but on the whole I just sat glum and unimpressed. I would say the comedy was no better than the sub-par fare that may pass for regular television sitcoms. There was nothing significant at work in the film other than his strange fascination with midgets, the Vietnamese,anti-Americanism and delivering dialogue over laded with profanity (which is usually a sign of a dictionless mind).

Brendan Gleeson plays the role of Ken and is supposed to be a father figure to Ray. A sage of sorts who counsels and admonishes Ray in equal measure. His character is a veteran hitman and so becomes rather weary with his profession. It seems he rekindles a sense of wonder when he arrives in Bruge. Taking in all the tourist traps and becoming enamoured with the city. As one would expect from a performance by Brendan Gleeson, his acting in parts is subtle and sincere (nuanced would be too strong a term). I would say he handles the comedic elements far more effectively than Colin Farrell but again the humour is hampered by the script and if all he's given to work is endless expletives then every thing is stacked up against him. There are nice moments when Ken shows concern for Ray and makes a grand and noble gesture to sacrifice his own life, rather than Ray's. Though all that work is lost through the farcical lives of Ken and Ray as they exchange banal and inane drivel.

The character of Harry played by Ralph Fiennes was for me the funniest despite being the one who threw expletives around left, right and centre. I've read that he is similar to the Don Logan character played by [Sir] Ben Kingsley in Sexy Beast. Ralph Fiennes makes the voice of Harry quite funny and he depicts his highly-strung nature rather well. I feel he has the best line in the film when he remarks to Yuri: "An Uzi? I'm not from South Central Los Angeles. I didn't come here to shoot twenty black ten year olds in a drive-by. I want a normal gun for a normal person.". Perhaps a little crass given families of such ten-year olds wouldn't find it amusing but it makes a irreverent statement on America's affinity for high-powered guns. It's never explained why he strongly believes that if some one shoots a child (accidental or intentional) that they should immediately shoot themselves. Perhaps, due to he himself having three children although it doesn't make sense.

I quite liked the character of Chloë Valette played by Clémence Poésy. The actress is a very beautiful woman and her character does have a strange charm. Even though she seems attracted to Ray's thuggish persona.

The film striked me as a hate-list of the people that had offended the writer and director Martin McDonagh. Whether it be black people, homosexuals, Americans, dwarves/midgets (former partner run off with a garden gnome?) and even Belgians. Whilst I would think he's merely attempting to be irreverent for the sake of cheap laughs or shocking some people. The number of things this man attacks must mean he has a deep psychosis at play. Two characters (Ken and Harry) are enamoured with Bruge; Harry who's loved the city since he was seven-years old and Ken who falls in love with city. This creates a nice juxtaposition with Ray who hates Bruge and yet falls in love with some one in the city. The cinematographer does a nice job of capturing the beauty of Bruges, the cobblestone paving, the medieval buildings lit at night, the rolling mist and the centric tower. Yet I was in two minds as to whether Martin McDonagh loathed/loved the place. I suspect he speaks through Harry when he says : "the only bad thing about Bruge is it's in Belgium" (or some thing similar). Even the gauche Ray takes a swipe when he says: "why did the Belgians invent chocolate? So they could get to the kiddies". The score for the film was completely wrong. There were moments as if the music was ripped straight out of an episode of Miss Marple. The two scenes which illustrate this is when Ken is speak to Harry on the phone about killing Ray and when Ken approaches Ray from behind, ready to shoot him. This needless prompting by the music arises when some thing dire is afoot, to compound the problem the music is overbearing in those scenes. I also didn't understand the point of including the pregnant hotel owner. Furthermore, the plot becomes contrived when in the very final scene. Ray physically renacts the tragedy that rendered him a blubbering mess. Although Harry ends up dead having committed a gaffe. With Ray bloodied and teetering on the brink of death, contemplating what may possibly be his final moments. The film ends abruptly and one that is supposed to make us excitedly discuss what happens to Ray. Unfortunately, I'll know that the DVD will not see the light of day again. Very disappointed.

Finally, I would like to make some comments on the empire review by Damian Wise. On the whole, it is a decent review. At least he acknowledges that the film will not sweeten every one's pallet and indeed there are some uncomfortable moments. Punctuated with a allegorical jumbled palisade upon which I'm sure many would wish Martin McDonagh to fall. The base humour will either satiate or repulse the viewer (depending on their disposition and taste). Furthermore, Damian Wise makes some interesting points with regards to how it is evident that Martin McDonagh is from a theatre background and the film having more in common with a Mike Leigh product than it would with a Guy Ritchie picture (despite the aesthetic). Yet there are some moments which necessitated a second read.

Mr. Wise also states: Though it speaks of contract-killing and cocaine-dealing, scoring and whoring, this surprisingly thoughtful film leaves plenty of ideas to be mulled over later, particularly those involving notions of audience identification

Where he further states :-

In Bruges begins its frantic final act, which is where some of its artfully packed contents start to spill out, and the simple pleasures of its character studies give way to overexcited intrigue, tragedy and an inevitable climactic shoot-out. Still, this is a minor gripe about a film which takes a genre that shouldn't be allowed any more, never mind encouraged, and fashions something provocative and original in its thinking.

I would like to know at which point does the film become "surprisingly thoughtful" with "plenty of ideas to be mulled over later"?

I would be interested to know how the "artfully packed contens start to spill out" in the film? I distinctly do not remember the film crafting "some thing provactive and original in its thinking".

Afterwards, Damian Wise states :- ....100 minutes of swearing, violence and profane epistemology.

*Pedant alert*

Epistemology [i-pis-tuh-mol-uh-jee]
a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.

Another point :-

Despite some deliberate nods to medieval theosophy

Theosophy  [thee-os-uh-fee]
1.     any of various forms of philosophical or religious thought based on a mystical insight into the divine nature.
2.     (often initial capital letters) the system of belief and practice of the Theosophical Society.

I couldn't quite fathom where these two subjects came into play but I thank Mr. Wise for introducing me to two interesting words nonetheless!

To top off his review Mr. Wise states: It may not be new, but it's a wonderfully fresh take on a familiar genre: fucked-up, far-out and very, very funny. Whilst profanity does not offend me it does render what one has to say obtuse (indeed one upon which the film overly relies). May I suggest, for Mr. Wise to acquire a dictionary and a thesaurus so that his prose "fashions something provocative and original in its thinking."

< Message edited by Emyr Thy King -- 9/6/2009 2:59:24 PM >

(in reply to wgamador)
Post #: 40
RE: In a Bungle - 9/6/2009 9:09:55 PM   


Posts: 885
Joined: 14/2/2008

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

I shall be discordant and voice my disappointment with the film. When I originally saw the trailer for the film, I had high hopes.

Funny, for most it's the other way round - the trailer looked God-awful but the film turned out to be a gem.

Anyway, I liked it enough but it definitely helped having a few buddies in the cinema who were in the mood to laugh after a few pints.

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 41
RE: In a Bungle - 10/6/2009 2:15:14 AM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2165
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: London

ORIGINAL: hatebox
Funny, for most it's the other way round - the trailer looked God-awful but the film turned out to be a gem.

Anyway, I liked it enough but it definitely helped having a few buddies in the cinema who were in the mood to laugh after a few pints.

I usually swim upstream, not intentionally of course.

Some times, being around certain people who enjoy the film can make one more appreciative of a film. Or certainly relax when the audience laughs or reacts otherwise to a scene.

I've watched the film twice and the second viewing merely reinforced the thoughts I had on my first viewing. The film's simply a case of identifying who are the obvious 'minorities' to target and simply derides them to the extreme. The humour comes off as mean-spirited rather than one in jest. Perhaps, he should avoid using toilet humour found in pubs or a BNP function and dig deeper.

< Message edited by Emyr Thy King -- 10/6/2009 2:27:31 AM >

(in reply to hatebox)
Post #: 42
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: In Bruges Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:

New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts

Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI