Calvary (John McDonagh, director of The Guard)

e_e

Dylan Moran was damn good in this I have to say.

fro9etb8j5qsl2

leggo wrote: »

The only people who'll like this are Ray Darcy listeners, people trying to look intelligent and British people who still feel guilty about that 700 years business.

This is one of the most ridiculous, condescending, judgemental generalisations I have ever read :rolleyes:

leggo

Why do you care if some random person makes that generalisation though?

PTH2009

really enjoyed the movie,

suprised it was Chris O Dowds character that was the killer, i thought it was going to be the guard or the doctor

Pat shortt was good in it as the bar man as was Dylan Moran, Chris O Dowd and Killian Scott. Aidan Gillan had a weird accent but his character was good

P_1

Decent enough film I thought aside from Aidan Gillen's accent (did he think he was in Hardy Bucks or something?).

Rob094

I genuinely thought....

...it was that american(?) guy with the cross necklace. The conversation Father James had with him when playing pool had layers and his "accent" sort of broke at the end. Thought it'd work with the audience not recognising the voice of the killer.

johnny_ultimate

leggo wrote: »

Why do you care if some random person makes that generalisation though?

Because that kind of childish generalisation is toxic to discussion and has no place in reasonable let alone interesting film discussion. Please lay off that type of language, because it's not welcome here.

leggo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Because that kind of childish generalisation is toxic to discussion and has no place in reasonable let alone interesting film discussion. Please lay off that type of language, because it's not welcome here.

Language? There was no language used? Did you even read or understand the quote (I've already had one person think I was blaming the British for the church's wrongdoings, so there's precedent)? I didn't insult or aim it at anyone personally, it was a comment on the type of people who enjoy these broad strokes arguments that fail to zone in on anything specific or suggest a solution and, thus, a comment on the movie itself. What I'm doing is a little technique called 'drawing parallels'.

If you thought there was language used or it was an attack on anyone, then you don't seem qualified to talk to anyone in the dreaded bold text. You've never read an evocative movie review before? You've never heard of the 'You'll enjoy this if you...' format being used? All of the above are pretty established staples of film discussion. If you'd let the conversation flow without banging your mod hammer, you'd be surprised how we'd likely be able to spark an interesting and thought-provoking discussion of the movie without anyone's feelings getting hurt since, you know, there was never actually any personal attack there.

"It has no place in reasonable conversation." :pac:

johnny_ultimate

leggo wrote: »

If you'd let the conversation flow without banging your mod hammer, you'd be surprised how we'd likely be able to spark an interesting and thought-provoking discussion of the movie without anyone's feelings getting hurt since, you know, there was never actually any personal attack there.

Oh, but there was an attack - you felt it necessary to condescend and insult everyone who happened to enjoy a very highly acclaimed film in condescending manner (and IMO undermining your own interesting point of view in the process). If anything, it's even worse than a direct personal attack, as you pull in a huge range of people - there's a huge difference between saying 'you'll probably like this if you liked The Guard', and 'you'll only like this is if you're trying to sound intelligent'. I've been around here long enough to see the unpleasant directions that kind of 'language' (and language it is, as are most words typed) always takes discussion, and instead of sparking interesting discussion it absolutely kills it. The amount of negative comments and reports your comments caused lay testament to that - it adds an unpleasant, hostile tone to the conversation that is not in any way necessary.

Anyway, that's enough of this tangent, sadly this has only dragged the thread further off from the interesting, lively conversation that is taking place in the thread, and surrounding a divisive, interesting film. Yes, I am going to pull out that bold text again: So no more on this topic - if you want to discuss this further with me, please take it to PM. Let the discussion here focus on the film itself from now on, as opposed to the many people who have or are going to like or dislike it.

(Mod note: two posts have been deleted to just get the discussion back on track)

leggo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Oh, but there was an attack - you felt it necessary to condescend and insult everyone who happened to enjoy a very highly acclaimed film in condescending manner (and IMO undermining your own interesting point of view in the process). If anything, it's even worse than a direct personal attack, as you pull in a huge range of people - there's a huge difference between saying 'you'll probably like this if you liked The Guard', and 'you'll only like this is if you're trying to sound intelligent'. I've been around here long enough to see the unpleasant directions that kind of 'language' (and language it is, as are most words typed) always takes discussion, and instead of sparking interesting discussion it absolutely kills it. The amount of negative comments and reports your comments caused lay testament to that - it adds an unpleasant, hostile tone to the conversation that is not in any way necessary.

Anyway, that's enough of this tangent, sadly this has only dragged the thread further off from the interesting, lively conversation that is taking place in the thread, and surrounding a divisive, interesting film. Yes, I am going to pull out that bold text again: So no more on this topic - if you want to discuss this further with me, please take it to PM. Let the discussion here focus on the film itself from now on, as opposed to the many people who have or are going to like or dislike it.

Grand, I'll happily drop it and continue with a proper discussion. That was always my intention. Made the last post while you were writing this.

Hrududu

I saw this at the Dublin Film Festival and found it a bit messy. There were a lot of characters thrown in and each scene they had with Gleeson seemed to have a different tone. There were some who could have easily been cut and it would have made the film stronger. As others have said Aidan Gillen was pretty terrible in it.

Gleeson gave a very strong performance in it, I just wish he had a better film around him if that makes sense.

nyarlothothep

I enjoyed it and I thought I would hate it as I normally don't go near maudlin oirish productions. However I liked the philosophical dimension to the film and honestly Aiden Gillen wasn't that bad, ok it was like he wandered off the set of GoT and was playing littlefinger with a country accent but other than that I enjoyed the silliness of his performance. Brendan Gleeson was unbelievable in it and should win an award for it, it was an acting masterclass imo. I thought it didn't try too hard to be funny, if anything it started out with some jokes because it basically goes unrelentingly serious without much let up about midway through. I thought the different characters were interesting, it did feel a bit ridiculous however when Brendan Gleeson was turning up in every scene, solemn and ready to impart advice, it came to a head in the cocaine scene. I thought the prison scene was a bit jarring. Other than that I thought it was good and I usually avoid these types of films.

AerynSun

I saw Calvary today, and enjoyed it far more than I thought I would. I didn't think it was as comic as it was billed to be, it was much darker with plenty of cynicism thrown in, but it worked, because the emotion that emerged was ... what would be the word ... fragile, deep.

Beautiful film. Made me want to visit Sligo

Basq

I loved it.. it was hilarious and quite dark in parts and the the performances was largely (I'll get to the exception in a minute) excellent - particularly Gleeson, Moran and O Dowd.

And I will admit it was great to see the beautiful county of Sligo up on the big screen, and especially to see places I visit every week like Strandhill, Culleenamore and Ben Bulben up there was amazing. Even the sights of

seeing an Aer Lingus plane leaving Strandhill Airport was bizarre considering the last public flight out of there was Aer Arann almost 3 years ago!

The one bad point was definitely Aidan Gillen - I don't know how he continues to get work.. he's godawful - anyone else think he was channelling Viper Higgins with that character?! It was ludicrous!

Anyways, I enjoyed it much more than The Guard if I'm being honest, and the closing few minutes were incredibly powerful IMO.

baby and crumble

Went to see this tonight, and I have to say I found it to be one of the best Irish movies in a fair while. Aiden Gillens accent was truly bizarre, I don't know why he couldn't just use his own, not like it'd be weird.

I thought it looked stunning, visually. I also thought it showed off some great Irish talent- both the Gleesons were great, as were O'Dowd and Moran.

When the credits rolled, the whole cinema (and it was a fully packed one) was just dead quiet- nobody moved, talked or did anything for a good 90 seconds. You could've heard a pin drop. I think that says more about the film than anything else really.

wp_rathead

Really enjoyed the film - Moran, Gleeson and O'Dowd were brilliant - but my fav character was Milo played by Killian Scott.

Aidan Gillen (the doc) and Gleeson's daughter let film down abit, but apart from that was great.

One question I did wish was answered was:

WHO KILLED HIS DOG?!?!?!

Rob094

wprathead wrote: »

One question I did wish was answered was:

WHO KILLED HIS DOG?!?!?!

That was interesting and there's a number of things I hope I'll pick up on when I re-watch.

Presumably the dog was suggestive that similar feelings towards the church was had my others in the community. Also I'm wondering about that flashback part towards the end when James is walking with his daughter and she mentions something being buried in the dune

fro9etb8j5qsl2

Besides

the dog

, I'm confused as to why gleeson

went to dublin. He said he had some business to take care of but we are not shown what it was (unless i missed something)

ronnie3585

I saw this at the weekend and I was hugely disappointed. I really wanted to like it, the cast looked strong and I thought it was an interesting premise. However, I found the movie completely disjointed, lacking any direction. It got completely lost in itself, was it supposed to be an allegory, a satire or a who done it? It was over stylised to the point of ridicule.

The scene where Gleeson is shot in the head is laughable.

The characters were weak and one dimensional. Aidan Gillen turns in one of his worst performances, he was like a character from Hardy Bucks - what was up with his accent?

I was looking forward to this as I loved the Guard, however for me it fell flat on its face.

walshb

I am mixed in this. Gleeson is a very good actor,. No drama or exaggeration with him. Just straight up and solid. I thought Killian and Gillen's characters could have been toned down a wee bit. Overall a 7.5/10. Enjoyed it.

Agricola

This was really marketed in a misleading way. The trailers had me thinking it was a comedy. Found it just ok, Gleeson was great as usual, as was Dylan Moran (seemed perfect for that role!) but it was all over the place as a film. Apart from the one plot point that was setup in the first scene and concluded at the end, what was it all about. Seemed to be just an exercise is assembling some Irish comedy talent and having a few pot shots at the church.

Irish productions should blanket ban the depiction of pistols, revolvers, handguns of all sorts too! It just smacks of a tame attempt to emulate Hollywood. If some shooting has to happen in rural Sligo, at least make it a sawn off shotgun.

Radiosonde

Agricola wrote: »

Irish productions should blanket ban the depiction of pistols, revolvers, handguns of all sorts too! It just smacks of a tame attempt to emulate Hollywood. If some shooting has to happen in rural Sligo, at least make it a sawn off shotgun.

I feel the same way after seeing this. Unless your story is about the North, the War of Independence, or similar, or gangland criminals, handguns should play no part; they're just not a common feature of life in Ireland. (Neither are internal flights!)

I think it actually shows up the poverty of visual storytelling in the film. When it didn't resort to showing violence or destruction, the film mostly showed characters talking about their feelings, their pasts, telling each other little stories. Hollywood screenwriters might have numerous faults, but they'd at least have seen this as unacceptably talky - a stageplay written for the screen. A good test of many Irish filmmakers would be to tell them they can't have any violence, any guns, any bombs, any punches thrown...and that they can't have any dialogue either. McDonagh would be stuck.

Insect Overlord

Millie Mealy Minefield wrote: »

Besides

the dog

, I'm confused as to why gleeson

went to dublin. He said he had some business to take care of but we are not shown what it was (unless i missed something)

The way I read that scene was that

Gleeson was going to run away from his problems, but had a change of heart after seeing how strong the widow was dealing with the death of her husband. So, instead of boarding the flight so he could go off to hide in Dublin, he drives back to the village to face the music.

Radiosonde wrote: »

A good test of many Irish filmmakers would be to tell them they can't have any violence, any guns, any bombs, any punches thrown...and that they can't have any dialogue either. McDonagh would be stuck.

The era of the silent film is long gone! :pac:

Radiosonde

An File wrote: »

The era of the silent film is long gone! :pac:

It's about taking away things someone is overreliant on. There are compelling films with little or no dialogue; there are films with compelling sequences with little or no dialogue; there are films with compelling scenes with little or no dialogue.

McDonagh seems to me to reach either for violence or for dialogue when he wants to wrest drama from a scene. How would he cope without those outlets? That's what I'm getting at, not suggesting that films should be silent again.

Rob094

Radiosonde wrote: »

McDonagh seems to me to reach either for violence or for dialogue when he wants to wrest drama from a scene. How would he cope without those outlets? That's what I'm getting at, not suggesting that films should be silent again.

Decent point. I suppose that style of storytelling is present in both the McDonagh's works, it'll be interesting if they continue in this vein in future projects as strong parallels are already emerging between their films.

fro9etb8j5qsl2

An File wrote: »

The way I read that scene was that

Gleeson was going to run away from his problems, but had a change of heart after seeing how strong the widow was dealing with the death of her husband. So, instead of boarding the flight so he could go off to hide in Dublin, he drives back to the village to face the music.

Aha! Thanks for that

Mickeroo

I think it's a valid point about it being "talky". A lot of the dialogue in certain scenes felt very forced

particularly some of O'Dowd's in the climax on the beach

.

There was a tendency for a lot of the lines to come of as "This is what my character is feeling and why he is doing what he is doing and this is how it relates to Irish society as a whole"

WatchWolf

The whole

dog fiasco

reminded me of The Hunt.

e_e

WatchWolf wrote: »

The whole

dog fiasco

reminded me of The Hunt.

Yep, it was annoyingly manipulative and heavy-handed there too!

Looper007

baby and crumble wrote: »

Went to see this tonight, and I have to say I found it to be one of the best Irish movies in a fair while. Aiden Gillens accent was truly bizarre, I don't know why he couldn't just use his own, not like it'd be weird.

I thought it looked stunning, visually. I also thought it showed off some great Irish talent- both the Gleesons were great, as were O'Dowd and Moran.

When the credits rolled, the whole cinema (and it was a fully packed one) was just dead quiet- nobody moved, talked or did anything for a good 90 seconds. You could've heard a pin drop. I think that says more about the film than anything else really.

I agree I loved it, don't understand the dislike it got on here from the few who saw it at JIFF, many of them were snotty with the Guard too. I think maybe some Irish films just hit home harder and are a little to close to bone for some maybe I'm wrong but Irish films that get rave reviews usual get looked down upon on here. Got to say like The Double, the trailer sold it as a comedy rather then a drama and far bleaker affair. Which I think shocked my girlfriend more then me as I was expecting something a little darker.

Anyway, Brendan Gleeson is awesome as always and it's his film all the way, but what shocked me was how good Dylan Moran and especially Chris O'Dowd were, especially O'Dowd

I got to say I was expecting Moran but O'Dowd's last scene on the beach was some amazing acting

I agree the ending did leave many speechless and I was one of them.

Loved the presence of M. Emmet Walsh, Aiden Gillen (a great dark comedic performance), Isaach De Bankolé and David Wilmot as the eejit fellow Priest were great. But The cameo from Domhnall Gleeson, he's really turning into a great actor like his father, was great to show how much can you forgive, Orla O'Rourke and Kelly Reilly were given strong female roles and gave top performance especially O'Rourke as Dowd's estranged wife. John Michael McDonagh topped himself with this and I would agree it's one of the best Irish films in a while.