Reviews

I had heard so many good things about this film. Poignant, sad, funny, gentle etc etc. However it's a missed opportunity. Pat Shortt portrays a man who is "Childlike". Whether he has some form of autism or not is not made clear, because it's a vague portrayal. Essentially the character never gets angry, rarely shows much emotion other than a general soft confusion. Smiles inanely a lot of the time. Does pointless jobs. As a portrayal of someone with Learning Difficulties it's lacking. People with LD, whether it's through severe epilepsy,Autism or Downs... have a range of emotions. In particular anger, frustration and a pent up sexual frustration. They get lonely, sad and also laugh and cry. Josie just grins. There was a real opportunity with this film to explore some of the issues people with LD face... Instead we got cardboard cut outs. All the characters may as well have worn t-shirts with, sad, sad and lonely, sad and lonely and drunk, sad and lonely and bully, sad and lonely and misunderstood. Every single character in the film was depressed, and had the same general malaise about them. The film has been praised for it's realism, I live in a small Irish town... during one of the most economically depressed times... and mostly people cover up their sadness... we'll all have a good moan and bitch, but the banter and humor is always there. None of the characters gradually revealed their inner thoughts or emotions... they were on display all the time. The only exception to this - everyone is miserable and showing it rule - was a cameo from the always reliable, George Costigan. It's certainly not a tragicomedy. I laughed only once - Josie's attempts to clear up after teenagers. As a drama it also lacks variation, because little happens and the incident that leads us to the film's inevitable conclusion is so slight that a viewer is bound to ask... Why now? After all Josie doesn't change at any point in the film. When he dances with a girl... it doesn't go far enough... When he watches the film with the teenage boy ... it doesn't go far enough... Both presented opportunities for the dramatist that he failed to follow through on.Yet it is enough for Josie to share the same fate as the puppies... And because the puppies are included we know that's the way Josie will choose to resolve his issues. I'm trying to be subtle in this review... but why bother? The film isn't... even the last frames of the film are hokey... a Horse that has been tethered in a field is now loose and free. Good grief!

I have also heard good things about Mark O'Haloran's Adam and Paul - Again directed by Lenny Abrahamson - I'll give it a go at some point... but I don't hold out much hope. At the end of the film I just felt bored and disappointed.

When I first started out as a writer, producers and directors would tell you that they were looking for an original voice, however they rarely meant it, which is why we are subjected to so much pap on our TV and Cinema screens. In Terry McMahon we find an original and exciting voice, that may grate on some, but will find fertile purchase in open minds. I was lucky enough to see the film in Galway at the Film Fleadh. I doubt it will get a general release, but it deserves one. Emmet Scanlan plays the eponymous Charlie a character who feels increasingly embittered by his emasculation through conformity to a society that seems to pander to the underclasses. Of course all fascists need someone to blame their woes upon and here it's the tracksuit mafia. I believe the correct slang term is "Scangers". However it's clear that Charlie has trouble feeling anything at all. After accidentally running a person over in his car he crosses a line - there is no guilt, no remorse - he abdicates responsibility for his actions. From that moment on his decisions are determined by the turn of a playing card. Sometimes the results are amusing, sometimes tragic. Charlie pulsates with anger and venom as he exacts revenge on a boring life. Willing to gamble everything in order to feel something. His superiority complex a cover for deep insecurities that his 187 point IQ cannot get to grips with. He literally doesn't know whether to laugh or cry, can fake both and feel neither. It's a powerful, mesmerizing performance by Emmet Scanlan. Leigh Arnold and Ruth McIntyre are the tragic women in his life. Damien Hannaway is a fantastic foil to the flamboyant Charlie and turns in a beautiful performance. The star however is the script and Terry McMahon's voice as a writer / director.

The film was made for little or no money. This however suits the movie as the camera is almost always in the face of the characters creating a very claustrophobic feel. There are very few cutaways to scenery, sets or indeed wide shots. Mostly I suspect because there were no sets or scenery. It's a film that could have been shot anywhere. Generic hotel bedrooms and bathrooms mean there's no relief in the surroundings. You are trapped in this world just like the characters. The only scenery is a motorway at night, and that seems more like a barrier than a road to anywhere.

The lighting in the film is minimal, but again that adds to the feel. The look of the piece is reminiscent of Mean Streets. It almost has a late seventies feel. This could be Scorsese's New York, but for the Dublin accents.

It is very wordy and theatrical. That alone won't appeal to many. The subject matter will also put some off. After the screening, which invited us to love or hate the film, some people may well have hated it, a few people were sitting on the fence.... It's clear that I and many others loved it. I was buzzing after the event... so much so that I'm writing this review after the long drive home.

I would love to see more from Terry McMahon.

Isn't the whole plot rendered obsolete by the fact that both Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion want the same thing. The secret to remain secret? I found the film entertaining enough, but all rather ludicrous because surely Opus Dei - who know the secret - would not actually believe in Christianity as they apparently know the truth. I also doubt that DNA from so far back would be of any real use.It would probably only be able to show general markers. I also fail to understand Sophie's memory of her "Grandfather" having sex with a woman while surrounded by strangers in robes and masks. What was that about? So with those reservations aside - it was entertaining enough.

It's not awful. I smiled through most of it but I honestly have to say that I left the cinema disappointed.

The pig is no Pinchy. The villain is no Sideshow Bob. And there was none of the wonderful film references that are so standout in the TV series. Thinking of the Psycho sequence wen Maggie hits Homer with the Hammer. Homer as the Ape from 2001 etc etc.

But the biggest crime for me was that the movie concentrates on a plot that takes the Simpsons away from their usually fantastic supporting cast. Why use a nondescript villain instead of Mr Burns or Sideshow Bob?

I found myself thinking about Robert McKee during the middle of it all -Not something I like doing. But one thing that usually prevails in a well made, well scripted film - is that a sense of normality is thrown into imbalance - but this all felt imbalanced from the start. Bart for example felt like a different character. We never saw Homer at work. Or with Barney or at Moes.

Having said all that it is worth seeing - but maybe on DVD and some of the best jokes are at the end credits.

As title says I've given it a one in an effort to encourage a more responsible pattern of voting as this is not a perfect movie. My real rating would be a six.

I stayed with this film for it's length but ultimately it left me disappointed ******** SPOILER ******** Dave - a child abuse victim - abducted as a child - comes home at 3.00am one morning covered in blood, his and someone else's. He concocts a story that he was mugged and may have killed his mugger. His wife offers to deal with his clothes and cover up for him... She's a good wife. She understands it was self defense.

But the truth is that Dave actually spotted a Paedophile with a young boy... Pulled him out of the car getting physical... and was then attacked by the pedophile with a knife... Dave beats him to death. The truth is actually more understandable given his history... So why did he lie to his wife and why does he throughout the film allow this lie to continue? Even when his wife and others then suspect he has killed a friend's daughter.

Psychologically one might argue that the abuse victim hated himself so much that he could not admit the truth. One suspects that in the book we might know what Dave was doing in the area at that time. Was it a known haunt for men to pick up boys? Was he horrifically fascinated by such acts and therefore felt he deserved to suffer? Victims often feel responsible for the crimes committed against them.... But no... That's too deep. He didn't tell his wife the truth because there was over two hours of movie to go through. And if he told her the truth we wouldn't be able to suspect him of being twisted enough to kill his friends daughter... Who coincidentally gets murdered the same night.

And this is how the film is constructed... The reveals must happen in dramatic order therefore we cannot have the characters behaving believably otherwise it might upset the order of the reveal. So Dave can lose everything - his son - his wife - his life... He's damaged goods so who cares? No need to explain.

The police can ignore evidence and procedure... because they too must play the game of suspecting the wrong people at first. And then finding out that the girl's death was - once again - purely coincidental. At least this is what the father is told. Although a long scene where the dead girl's boyfriend accuses his brother of doing it because he was jealous of his brothers love for her is played out before and at least has some sense to it... But it actually seems to be the mute brothers friend who may have pulled the trigger since he has the gun which was used by the brothers father in an unsolved robbery in 1982. Confused? Never mind... we'll have some long lingering close ups of an emoting Sean Penn and it will all make sense in the end. And we'll be so stunned by the acting that we won't need to worry about little things like the plot making sense.

For me Kevin Bacon's performance was the only truthful one... But then his character got saddled with a subplot that was so thin no one bothered to let us know what it was... Wife/ partner has run off to NY and phone's him everyday but says nothing. We don't know how long this has gone on for... But at the end of the film she calls... he says sorry, she says sorry and they are reunited along with their baby daughter in time to watch a parade and play happy families???? We are also treated to a Lady Macbeth style speech by Jimmy's second wife late on in the film that was probably very significant in the book but because we have only seen her fleetingly throughout the movie has no impact.

All in all shoddy lazy work.