"Faster we'll divide all the sense into tiny parcels are you hoping it's tense, girl?" -Architecture in Helsinki

I’m a huge, no gigantic, fan of a character driven story. I work in a theater because I feel that by and large playwrights have to give you something to care about in their stories and the set, costumes and tone of the play are out of their control. But I also don’t like sacrificing an entire evening to the theater so I am an equally large fan of fast paced drama. Martin McDonagh is about as good as they come when it comes to fast-paced character driven stories and the movie “In Bruges”, which he penned, is a near hit for a what an art house flick should be. Near hit is the key though.

Martin McDonagh is a genius at making despicable characters that you can’t help like. His drama is gritty and faced paced and when it is done you feel assaulted in the best possible way. Sadly I don’t think it translates to screen in quite the same way, but it is fifty-one percent good movie and forty-nine percent Aw-shucks that was almost awesome.

The story is about two hit men who are sent to Bruges, Belgium after what we are led to believe is a botched job in England. Bruges is beautifully shot and framed in as a character in the story. The other-worldliness of it is really something else. But it is the attention to the character of Bruges that detracts from the performances of Brendan Gleeson as Ken, the elder statesman of the two; and Colin Farrell as the young buck Ray. Which is sad because this is probably Colin Farrell’s best work to date. The days of S.W.A.T., The Recruit and Phone Booth where his short sighted, often one dimensional, characters were pretty but none too deep, seem to be behind him and that is a great thing. Farrell did a wonderful job of capturing the arrogance and remorse of a young man who is in way over his head. The moments of intimacy between him and Gleeson were masterfully written, acted out, and shot. But it was the conclusions of these scenes that I found distracting.

There were some great shots of Bruges that should have been throwaway shots; but were, inexplicably, given equal weight. There was one particular moment of intimacy were Ray and Ken are talking about their reason for being in Bruges, Ken’s role in it and Ray’s attempt at solace and then we end with a view of a swan. Really? A swan?

And that was the problem I had with it. The throwaways had way too much importance in the movie. They broke up some remarkable dialog in an uncomfortable way, that didn’t seem intended McDonagh is renowned for making the audience squirm in the seat as his character play out their frustrations. There are some great exchanges between the character Katorian, Tupalski and Ariel in The Pillowman that left the audience itching for more. But Bruges lacked that, principally because we never got worked up to the fevered pitch that produces the responses.

I just never felt invested in Ken and Ray, and if anything I felt the saddest for Farrell’s love interest. Which is sort of sad because she occupies all of fifteen minutes of film.

Here is the worst part. This movie is still one of the five best movies I have seen in the trailing twelve months. Is it spectacular? Not really. It is solid from start to finish. Were my expectations a little high for the writer’s first screenplay? It would seem so.

Pesky expectations rear their head again.


"Faster we'll divide all the sense into tiny parcels are you hoping it's tense, girl?" -Architecture in Helsinki