Alas, we are back after a too-long hiatus, with In Bruges. It's a 2008 film starring Colin Farrell, Ralph Fiennes, and Brendan Gleeson. The story of two hit men with emotional problems, hanging out in Bruges, awaiting their next assignment.
Netflix: Maybe in Bruges
Pick: Dark Defender
Dylan: Wow. It’s been a while. I almost forgot what a movie was.
Mark: Yeah, been too long. Been staring at a blank screen for a while, wondering what was going on. Then I turned on the TV. All good now.
Dylan: Let me just say, this was definitely a good movie to come back on. I’d never seen it before. I’m not sure how popular it is (or was when it came out) and how many people have seen it. But I had heard good things (from you), so I wanted to give it a go. And I really enjoyed it.
Mark: It was, when it came out, the first major film of Martin McDonagh, whose only other work was a short called Six Shooter. So people knew of him, mostly from his plays, which bear a lot of similarities to what he did with In Bruges. Namely the character studies relying mainly on the dialogue between the characters. And this movie has some of my favorite dialogue. I’ve seen it a bunch of times, which should give a good indication of, at least for me, how good it is.
Dylan: “If I grew up on a farm, and was retarded, Bruges might impress me but I didn’t, so it doesn’t.” ...Probably my favorite line. That’s what I liked right off the bat. How much Colin Farrell’s character Ray hates Bruges. I, personally, am a sucker for travel and tourism. And Brendan Gleeson’s character Ken was the perfect tourist, climbing all the towers, visiting churches and old buildings just to appreciate the culture and history. And Ray is sitting in the corner shaking his leg like a five year old. That in itself was very funny to me. Ray's dislike for the beautiful city makes him unlikable at first; it takes a while before you start to root for the guy.
And speaking on the humor, I wouldn’t really call the movie a comedy. But the humor is dark and subtle, and is mainly in the often absurd or unusual dialogue.
Mark: It’s much more of a human drama, and the humor that comes in the movie feels so natural with the characters. Nothing feels forced. They’re reacting as anyone would, albeit a little more sweary and violent in cases, but human. It’s humor that is at one moment funny, but then sad, when you realize where it’s coming from. And I’m partial to “YOU’RE A FUCKING INANIMATE OBJECT!” Probably still one of the best responses.
And speaking of Colin Farrell, I was really surprised how great he was in this. I’m so used to him in bad action movies or just as some boring, attractive hero. But in this he’s a emotionally wounded and scared guy, who just doesn’t want to be in fucking Bruges.
Dylan: The acting was all very good. And I enjoyed Brendan Gleeson’s character very much. You don’t see him in many things, though I'm sure he's more popular in the UK. All that really comes to mind for me is 28 Days Later, and Gangs of New York; and his parts weren’t very significant. I suppose he’s also in some Harry Potter movies, but I wouldn’t ask anyone to sit through those. Also, Ralph Fiennes’ accent and temperament were almost identical to those of Ben Kingsley in Sexy Beast, which made him all the more entertaining.
Mark: Having seen Sexy Beast, I totally see that. At one point calm and collected, just trying to figure out what’s going on. And the next: terrifyingly violent. His dialogue is some of my favorite, just how absolutely swear-laden it is, but somehow never to the point that it would seem ridiculous. And the interactions with the midget as well as Ray’s fascination are other seemingly unnecessary things but serve so well to create these characters. And I think that’s the thing that makes this movie stand out so much, that we really start to care for these characters, or at least care about what’s going on with them. Ray, in particular, when you find out why he’s so emotionally damaged.
Dylan: Yea I enjoyed the setting and the small cast and how, for a linear story, it wasn’t afraid to go around in a few circles. And in the end, all of it came together. We don’t need to see too much of each character, but we know exactly where they’re coming from and the situation they’re in. Not to mention the interesting disconnect between the actual inhabitants of Bruges and the visitors. The three main characters, the midget, and the Canadian all stick out from the peaceful Christmastime backdrop of the city.
Mark: Everything is supposed to either show off a character trait of someone, or create odd levity to difficult moments. My favorite character, or at least at the top, has to be Yuri, the gun dealer. He shows up twice, but is always funny, in an awkward , out of place sort of way. Meant to juxtapose how the characters there to get weapons from him know exactly what they have to do.
Dylan: My favorite might have been the Canadian, whose typical tourist attitude results in a hilarious scene. Which brings me back to the clever banter that goes on between the characters and how, even if it seems stupid, it ends up coming back to the story later on. Ray's rant about midgets trying to commit suicide is brought up three or four more times, and also serves to reflect his own suicidal thoughts. Furthermore, I enjoyed how Fiennes’ character Harry is set up during the first half of the movie. You hear about him, you detect Ken’s and Ray’s fear of him, and then you hear his voice in the letter and on the phone and you realize how nuts he is. All before you actually put a face to the temper.
Mark: Yeah, this movie does an amazing job characterizing everyone. But what I like the most is that everything comes back to just Ray and Ken. It’s the story of two friends stuck in an unfortunate situation. On the onset, you think that situation is just being trapped in Bruges during a job, but as you listen to them interact, you learn how much more complicated everything is. The circumstances, as well as them. Leading to an amazing confrontation between Ken and Harry, and soon after with Ray. It’s really engaging all the way through, if you enjoy really well-written dialogue and rounded characters.
Dylan: And the moral of the story is: they’re all terrible at their job.
Mark: Except Yuri.
Dylan: True. And the pregnant hotel owner, who refused to allow a shootout in her hotel, despite the two lunatics with guns on either side of her.
Mark: Yeah, it’s the “regular” people who seem to show how simple everything can be. And then Ray, Ken, and Harry show how everything can spiral out of control.
Dylan: Which again exemplifies the significance of the setting, Bruges, and how each of the three main characters relates to it. And all that talk about hell and purgatory...makes you wonder what Bruges is supposed to represent, or if it’s different for each of them. Harry and Ken love the city, but Ray hates it. And in the end, his fate is the only one we’re unsure of. I suppose more thought could be given to this if I were writing a paper or something. But that's your job. I'll just say it was a great and interesting movie.
Mark: Yeah, and I guess that's what kinda gives this movie it’s rewachability in my mind. How on one level it's a funny/sad drama about these two hitmen stuck in Bruges. But then on another, you see how much this looks at human nature and what we do and what we have to do. The film takes long shots of characters walking or doing anything we would normally do as tourists, which at one moment is to really show off Bruges, which is a character in and of itself, and at another is to extrapolate what these characters are going through.
Dylan: You said it. And I would definitely watch this film again.
Mark: But just because it’s been a while, doesn’t mean I’ve forgotten about my trivia. Yeah, gonna make you all suffer through it. First, both Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell went up for the best actor (Comedy/Musical) Golden Globe. Who won?
Dylan: I’d say Gleeson.
Mark: And you’d be wrong. Colin Farrell won it, and I was happy about that. Gleeson was great as Ken, but Farrell brought such sadness and humor in such a way I didn’t think he could.
Dylan: Wow, I figured they’d pick the older mentor character for sure. Or maybe that’s just the Academy I’m thinking of.
Mark: Well, It’s the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Not the Academy. But still a true enough statement. And just a question that will at once be interesting and also informative for people to know what they’ll be hearing: How many times do you think they say “fuck” and any version of it?
Dylan: Quite a bit, mostly in fast, European-accented banter.
Mark: Well, it’s 126 times. So apparently, seeing how the film is 107 minutes long, that’s 1.18 “fucks” per minute.
Dylan: Ah, reminds me of my childhood.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, we're back. If you haven't seen In Bruges, our consensus is: certified fresh. Whoops, I'm probably not allowed to say that. Well, it's a good movie and you should check it out if you get the chance. Our next movie is going to be Coriolanus, which -- I guess if you're an English major -- you may realize has something to do with Shakespeare. But fear not, it has Ralph Fiennes (again) and Gerard Butler in it, so how bad could it be?
We have some other things for you to check out in the meantime. Hopefully in a day or two we'll have a brand new section devoted to short films. We're not going to review them, necessary. We just think they should be more available to people who generally overlook or can't find them. Unfortunately, they are so hard to come across, even we are having difficulty getting a bunch together. I guess it's going to take some of that loathsome stuff they call 'effort'.
Also, statistics say that if you watch movies, you've probably already seen Iron Man 3. And you may have even read my review post about it over at Serenity Now. If not, don't worry. I'm giving it the old one-two copy-paste onto Back Row Critics, to beef up our In Theaters section. If you want Mark's opinion of the movie, he'll probably add his own thoughts shortly after.
No comments:
Post a Comment