Director: Martin McDonagh
Writer: Martin McDonagh
Producers: Graham Broadbent, Peter Czernin
Starring: Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, Ralph Fiennes, Clemence Poesy
MPAA Rating:
Running time: 107 min
In Bruges is a baffler of a movie. How did entertainment manage to encompass something on one hand crazy and silly, and on the other hand cruel. But entertaining the film is; and this in spite of the fact that it is truly and utterly about nothing. The delights come in the form of small and well crafted episodes, expresso shots of empty calories which are highly satisfying, if only for that exact moment. That and the strong trio of performances from Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson and Ralph Fiennes. All three of them mug for the camera in their own way which is funny and sad and unflattering all simultaneously. Fiennes in his Looney Tunes way, Gleeson in his sad sack, yet reliable way, but the star of the show is the petty, stupid, and ‘in-the-moment’ selfishness of Colin Farrell. Certainly he gives one of his finest performances to date. His constant whining at his lot in life at being stuck in Bruges is reminiscent of Clerk’s aimless and ineffectual Dante Hicks refrain of “I’m not even supposed to be here today” which despite all odds, gets funnier with each repetition.
The film ambles along, not particularly in a hurry to get anywhere, because the film really has nowhere to go. There is not much of a plot to speak of, merely two hitmen in a holding pattern in a quaint little Belgium tourist-town waiting for judgment or reassignment from their boss/benefactor. Gleeson goes sightseeing, Farrell picks up a hot blonde on a movie set and somehow befriends one of the actors (Jordan Prentice here as the doppleganger of Peter Dinklage‘s ‘token dream-sequence dwarf’ from Tom DiCillo‘s Living in Oblivion), despite continually insulting him. Amusingly, the film-being-made is at one point remarked to be somewhat of a remake of Don’t Look Now.
All of the relationships in the film are oil-in-water to the point of which the only discernible thing the film has to say (besides the obvious – “shooting innocent children is unforgivable”) is that nobody has a good time in a tourist trap. The film likes its comedy as black as pitch considering that it tries to mix kid-shooting, extremely politically incorrect humour and overall cruelty. And it honest-to-god wants to you like these characters. Going back to Colin Farrell for a moment, he certainly goes as far as he can to doing so, yet you can only like him in a somewhat condescending sort of way, because really he is coasting on immaturity, casual stupidity and charm (more than one would-be girlfriend is suckered in by those qualities, as the audience will likely be here, although afterwards, there is nothing really to hold onto). Undoubtedly a movie star, he plays the Irish equivalent of any number of Adam Sandler‘s man-children, particularly so in a spontaneous argument with a Canadian tourist in a fancy restaurant. It’s all petty outburst and overreaction. Of course some of the driving nature behind this character is supposed to be guilt on his accidental murder of a boy. Yet the rest of the pictures silliness doesn’t really support the melancholic suicide angle very well.
I don’t know what this in particular says about me, but I found myself laughing at all the insensitivity and overall unpredictable nature of many of the plot threads. It may be ill conceived, but I admittedly enjoyed the brashness, the going nowhere fast nature, and the neanderthal gallery of supporting misfits (in particular the constant aside on ‘alcoves’ with the local arms merchant) and the fact that anyone even attempted to mash such un-mashable tones together – here a multi-award winning playwright Martin McDonagh making his film debut – endeared me to the picture. The strange tone, occasional pop-culture riffing, oddball characters and overall wait-room setting puts In Bruges somewhere between The Big Lebowski and Reservoir Dogs, although the film doesn’t quite make it to the quality (and likely re-watchable level) of either of those films. It is completely and utterly forgettable picture with some entertaining performances and off-flavoured jokes. That still makes it miles above almost everything else plopped into the multiplex this time of year.
I’m going to have to disagree rather strongly about In Bruges being an “utterly forgettable” film, especially since I watched it 4 days ago and I still can’t get it out of my head.
In Bruges rather deftly volleys back and forth between low-brow humor and high-brow subject matter, which is something rarely seen in films today. That alone should be enough to remember the film, let alone the fact that it is a stunningly impressive debut feature from McDonagh, or that this is a movie that Colin Farrell actually shines rather than diminishes.
I’m even quite sure that In Bruges will make a few year end “Best of” lists, it certainly already has a shot at mine.
It was a difficult review to get the tone right (haha, much like the movie). Make no mistake I laughed more times than i do for most comedies when watching In Bruges. Particularly by how delightfully racist the film is being (again, what does that say about me). I mean, the film has audacity in spades. To mix Colin Farell’s goofiness with an explicit head-shot of an innocent boy, and write it off as pleasant entertainment (even by black comedy standards), then try to aim for some morality searching, amongst Ralph Fiennes character (and his C**t-**cking Kids).
I guess one of the things that brushed me off of the film is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too and I don’t really think that McDonagh and company quite achieved either end. Much like Juno, really, really strong performances humanize characters which are not even remotely human. Even Gleeson’s character is a screenwriters artifice — all the way, and he is the closest to being a real person. Furthermore, the convoluted way that Farrel’s character gets back into Bruges at the right moment, felt a bit like a cheap screenwriting device. The deftness of direction is not there….take an early Coen Brothers film like Raising Arizona, and look at how they handle the logistics of mashing the characters together time and time again, and then take a look at how it is done here, and you’ll see what I’m getting at.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I enjoyed the film, and it’s probably going to end up top shelf for the Jan-March film-going months (not that that says much…but…) and I found it entertaining…just simply forgettable. Other than some low-key-audacity (does that even make sense?) – ok, call it quirk – In Bruges is hardly re-inventing the wheel on anything.
And I’m still trying to come to grips with the racist moments in the film, particularly what comes out of Farell’s characters mouth (think the non-sequitor about a black-fat-lady-on-a-seesaw, combined with the sheer arrogent and selfish nature of Colin Farrel’s character…..and the screenplay/movie really, really wants the audience to sympathize and like the character.
Complex, but I dunno, ultimately misguided to drop it into a low brow goof-ball comedy along the lines The Big Lebowski or Clerks (both of which handle their racist/sexist satirical elements with a lighter touch.
As this comment reaches about the same length of my above review, I’ll close that In Bruges perhaps got a more negative sounding review above because the thing could have been SO MUCH MORE than it was…but it isn’t.
I have to say I think you are trivializing the film by simply claiming it is a low-brow goof ball comedy, as it is far more then that. In fact, I found most of the comedy to be secondary to its existential message. Jesus, they spent 5 minutes analyzing a Hieronymous Bosch painting in as clear and concise a way as could be imagined. No gags. No racial overtones. Simply standing their examinging their souls splashed onto the canvas in front of them.
And comparing it to Clerks, The Big Lebowski and Raising Arizona? Good grief it is nothing like any of those movies, which are drowning in “quirk”. Heck, if you want to compare it to a Coen Bros film, it resembles Barton Fink far more then the previous two you mentioned. Sure BF has it’s own amount of quirk, but it is also trying to tackle complex themes and has a main character that is played as sympathetic but really is more of a weasel then anything.
And what you pass off as simple screenwriter’s artifices I’d call some of the most layered characters shown in a film in some time. These characters are all setup to fit cliched stereotypes and time and again are revealed to be far deeper and, more importantly, challenging then you could have imagined. These are ugly souls that are trying to find balance and harmony in their lives to offset the terrible things they do, and they are damn near crying out for any bit of humanity they can find. Which is completely different then Juno, in which the characters exist merely to show off the screenwriters ability to write witty dialogue. The dialogue in In Bruges is disgusting, racist,homophobic, and meant to force you into seeing past the flaws to find the cactual haracters are far more then jokes about black midgets and poofy drug dealers.
So in short, you are so wrong.
This film kicked ass for about an hour. Once Ralph Fiennes showed up, that’s where the film got corny and dragged. This is through no fault of Fiennes mind you; this is simply where the “plot” starts to happen and I think the movie was doing much better without a plot. Just a series of fun interludes. Chasing around with guns got really boring and cliche, when the rest of the movie was fairly original and entertaining.
*
*
*
*** SPOILER ***
These guys’ bodies must also be made of pure iron. Define “bullshit:” getting shot in the knee, then shot in the throat, climb 2 or 3 flights of stairs (dropping about a quart of blood in the process), throw yourself off a 20 story building to land on concrete (where they visually show the guy splatter) and still have enough life in you to talk to your partner.
*** END SPOILER ***
*
*
*
Agreed about Farrell actually being really great in this. His character in “Cassandra’ Dream” didn’t work at all, put it was fantastic here. His facial expressions alone are damn near worth the price of admission. Also, he has probably the best line of dialogue in a movie I’ve heard in 5 years (except maybe a memorable one in Superbad).
Anyway, review coming shortly on Movie Patron, but I’d say this is a 3 out of 5 star film. Re-watch factor? Pretty low. And if I were to compare it to anything, I’d say Snatch… except not as good.
Oh yeah, and I agree with Kurt on another thing. I really don’t like it when movies go back and forth from being hilarious and then being uber-serious. Pick a genre and stick to it. Another recent movie irked me that way too, but I can’t remember what it was. Like Kurt said, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Actually I don’t really have a problem of a movie going back and fourth, it can be done correctly. It’s just that In Bruges cuts it’s own legs off with the goofiness. And doesn’t earn it’s existential ending with overly convoluted story problems.
I only harp on the movie because it flirted with greatness. And I’m not disagreeing that it’ll likely end up as one of the best films of early 2008. It’s just a flawed beast. I guess compared to Matt, I’m seeing the glass half empty and he’s seeing the glass half-full on this one.
I’m on the other side of the fence with Matt. I don’t think it’s fair to say that this is the best of the Jan/Feb movies – I think it has legs to carry it onto a few lists for end of year credits and for good reason too – it’s fantastic. I’m duly impressed by McDonagh’s script and I’m still wrapping my head around the fact that he gets the viewer to an uncomfortable laugh on so many of the jokes – it’s like he’s daring you to laugh and I really think that the film works wonders on that level of pushing the audience to the edge and frankly, I loved it and the fact that it doesn’t hide its crassness.
I agree with all that stuff Marina. It’s just that the final act throws all that good stuff to the side and becomes another cliche ridden, action picture. It might as well have been Rush Hour 4 at that point (albeit much darker).
I don’t agree. I loved the last act with Fiennes and though I’ll agree that the violence was a bit excessive, it didn’t draw me out of the movie. McDonagh had fucked with me until that point so what’s the harm in going a little farther?
I really liked the film till Fiennes showed up. Then it was just OK. Overall a good film, but if we have another great year for film (like last year), In Bruge will be completley forgotten for the most part. Still, an enjoyable dark film.
Marina, if you really like the way McDonagh raises the ‘what will I laugh at next’ over the course of the movie, try to find the low budget horror-comedy “BLOOD CAR” on DVD. The director there really, really achieves the balance well, even if the film is lacking in a lot of other qualities, the ability to “Boil the Frog by slowly raising the temperature” as the saying goes, is impressive in both In Bruges and Blood Car. But In Bruges could have been so much more if it didn’t ride off the rails in the final 20 minutes or so.
Alright. So the next project is to track down Blood Car.
And I still don’t think “In Bruges” goes off the rails in the last 20 mins.
I enjoyed every damn minute of this movie. I’m standing on Matt’s side of the argument here.
This movie is an excellent movie, in my opinion. I’m sure the only reason you don’t like it is its poking fun at Americans.
But anyway. Many people don’t understand the irony of the whole movie. Really, the entire movie is ironic.
I caught In Bruges finally this year and I loved it, far exceeded any low expectations I had for what seemed a quirky high concept premise. Martin McDonagh is someone I am going to look out for in the future. Heard him on the Creative Screenwriter’s podcast and he sounds like a natural talent, it just comes to him with very little effort.
ANyone watch In Bruges a second time? Is it richer or flatter? I think the movie is very funny, but I don’t think it has that much rewatch value. It’s kinda sorta a ‘hang out movie’ but also it’s not.
Wow. I articulate well don’ts I?
It holds up just fine jerkface.
I’m sure the only reason you don’t like it is its poking fun at Americans.
Hah, the tables have been turned Kurt!
I thought it was significantly better on rewatch.
That’s nice to hear. I look forward to revisiting the film. And yea, Matt on the “Americans” thing. Don’t feed the trolls. That comment is so hilarious in this context, I don’t know where to begin…