I don't typically start movie threads because usually someone has seen a given movie long before I have (or at least posted advance news about the flick). Can't seem to find one about In Bruges however (searching for "Bruges"), even though it opens today, and since it was *easily* the best movie I saw at Sundance this year, here you go.

If you like dark comedy, if you like smart, witty dialogue, if you like hearing people say "the f word" with Irish accents, you must go see this movie. A meaner, funnier, more emotional take on the "hitmen acting like it's just another job" genre of Grosse Pointe Blank. Colin Ferrell's direction must have been "act like you're 10 years old," and still, as bad as that sounds, he's really, really funny in this movie. Not only is the script fantastic, and not only does it thumb it's nose directly at the Too P.C. crowd, it's surprisingly moving as a dramatic story at key points in the film. A dark comedy with heart, if you will.

Writer/Director Martin McDonagh is the academy-winning director of the short live-action "Six Shooter" (also starring Brendan Gleeson), and also a multiple award winning playwright, and both skills are put to good use in this film.

Do yourself a favor, don't judge this one by its trailer, which doesn't make me want to watch the movie even now that I've seen it and loved it.

I will now go sit quietly in the corner and wait for my "ahem."

Just back from seeing it. Great fun and Popechild nails it as "dark comedy with a heart".

Theological discussions in the film may be a bit sophomoric, but they play nicely in the setting of dealing with the guilt that Ray carries.

I really enjoyed this film. The scenery was beautiful. It's fun to explore a place I didn't know existed, and relished the opportunity to partake of Bruges as a virtual tourist. The story goes places I didn't expect, and it explores some interesting ideas of sin, remorse, and consequences. I liked the dialogue between Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell, and it's a compliment that I found the two of them believable as characters rather than simply vessels to evoke Tarantino mimicry. And in the end, the film is like a classic Shakesperean tragedy, where everyone lies dead on the stage.

I've been to Bruges. For some reason we picked it as a place to visit in Belgium when we did our little Euro tour 10+ years ago. Very nice place to wander for a day. Didn't go to the church to see the vial of blood (since I'm not into relics, especially ones I would consider specious.) But I wish I'd known about that altarpiece.

Really fine film. To my perspective, a "spiritually significant" film, though I wouldn't want to overplay that or place expectations too high on the religiometer. But it certainly went way beyond what I expected: strong performances, truly funny, I loved the dialogue, and felt there were all sorts of complexities in character, theme and story. Count me a fan. I'll be telling people to see this one.

Heading out to the movies tomorrow night. Listed for my friend the various films I've not seen that I'm interested in seeing, and there are several. But then realized that what I really want to see is IN BRUGES, again.

I rarely see a film twice in the theatre during its first run, unless I'm writing about it. Especially rarely when there are other films showing that I'm also interested in. I'm surprised, but IN BRUGES is calling my name.

Serious fan.

Man, when is this thing going wide? I'd also like to see it again, but it doesn't play anywhere near me.

I really enjoyed it as well ... different from most fare. It is playing here, so I would imagine it's gone as wide as it's going to go.

I also was turned off by the trailer ... glad I trusted my favorite reviewers.

I think first-time directors should be banned from making movies about professional killers and their problems.

This was reasonably enjoyable until Brendan Gleeson gets the phone call from Ralph Fiennes, at which point it collapses under a series of increasingly unbelievable contrivances. Though I have to admit the very last shot was pretty nifty.

Nathaniel wrote:
: This was reasonably enjoyable until Brendan Gleeson gets the phone call from Ralph Fiennes, at which point it collapses under a series of increasingly unbelievable contrivances.

I sort of agree, but I also found the Fiennes character very amusing.

Certainly an academy award, even if "only" for a short, should be grounds for some kind of exemption.

I want to see the Ralph Fiennes character square off with the Ben Kingsley character from Sexy Beast. Who would win?

Answer: Bob Hoskins from The Long Good Friday.

I hate to disagree with Nathaniel, but I thought this movie was stellar, the best gangster film since "Miller's Crossing." Obviously, I fell pretty hard for it.

One possible problem: I'm not convinced that Peter Dinklage's character is anything more than a plot device. Yes, he's part of the drug subplot, and his presence helps develop Farrell's character. But in the end, he's there more to provide a too cute/convenient plot parallel. Do we care about his fate?

That's my nagging issue in an otherwise great movie.

At first I thought Jimmy was played by Peter Dinklage, but the actor is Jordan Prentice. They sure resemble each other.

D'oh!

Wait. So IMDB is wrong? Hmmm. It says both actors played Jimmy. Strange.

Sick, twisted, outlandish, unpardonable, and laugh-out-loud hilarious. Implausibilities? Well, yeah, but I guess I expect those in in comedies about hit men.

I loved Colin Farrell's performance. Loved it. It's one of the most surprising things he's done. I didn't know he was capable of anything quite so self-effacing.

I enjoyed Brendan Gleeson as I always do; he was perfectly cast. )Thank goodness. I was worried that he was going to be consigned to one-note appearances in Harry Potter sequels. But here, good ol' Gleeson's really back. Man, I need to watch The General again.)

But when Fiennes showed up... my goodness. His surprisingly cracked performance stole the show. I had no idea he was capable of something so perversely funny.

I certainly won't run around recommending it willy-nilly, but I marveled at the high-wire act of the film's bizarre, distinct comic tone. I can't think of another film like it. Sexy Beast is on the same continent, but still miles away. How this film managed to make me laugh so much at its buffoonish, brutal characters and yet still make me care about them, I'm not quite sure.

So many amusing lines (well, amusing in their proper context), I hardly know where to start.

I understand your sentiment, as it really does get close to something significant without actually having to go all the way. There is certainly something significant that haunts the film that I resonate with, and it has to do with that moment that you come into contact with how awful sin/moral failure really is (even if it is by accident). The film does well at developing the fear in Farrell's character, and people that understand sin understand fear. I don't quite like the way the film takes his character a different direction so quickly, but I appreciate the sentiment developed earlier.

And then, as JO points out, the film manages to be lighthearted at the same time. It seemed like a Kaurismaki action film.

Heh. It's a good year for "Karuismaki-esque." The Band's Visit feels like a Karuismaki movie too.

As I prepare an initial ballot for year-end voting, I'm wondering if Farrell gets consideration as a Supporting Actor or Lead Actor. I'm thinking the former, but would be interested in hearing from others who have seen the film. I'm finding that the Supporting Actor slots have filled up nicely as I've looked over the other films I've seen, while Best Actor has only a couple of entries. But I don't want to force Farrell into a category in which he doesn't belong.

Not sure how he wouldn't be lead, unless you're suggesting that the film doesn't have a lead at all. He's the screen-time focus and emotional center of the film, imo.

I thought Glesson might be the lead, but maybe I'm drawing a too easy line between the
"mentor" role and "lead actor."

I also think this is a cracking film. I think it shows something of how intractable guilt is - in human terms.

Interesting comment from Gleeson on McDonagh's characters (not just in In Bruges):

And this from Farrell: