The Badger Herald: ArtsEtc.: ‘In Bruges’ inadequate

ArtsEtc.

‘In Bruges’ inadequate

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Also by Will Buckingham:

Not much new to see in 'The Eye' remake (February 4, 2008)
'Gone Baby Gone' captures heart of tragedy (October 24, 2007)
'Sydney White' no fairy tale, poor girl's chick flick (September 20, 2007)
Black Francis goes Dutch (September 13, 2007)
Hot fuss over parody 'Hot Fuzz' well-deserved (April 24, 2007)

Monday, February 18, 2008 11:43 p.m.

3 Vote 0 Votes

There is a fine line between being clever and just plain stupid. When a filmmaker has to constantly remind you just how brilliant their film is, chances are their tactics are nothing more than a ploy to hide its hollow and meaningless center. “In Bruges” falls into such a category. With its heavy-handed approach at presenting its “quirkiness,” the film tries to hide the fact that little is to be found under the surface.

Fortunately, the surface of “In Bruges” does feature a few bright spots, thanks to deadpan acting and the magical imagery captured of the city. Still, nothing can save this work from trying much too hard.

One can almost tell what first-time writer/director Martin McDonagh’s thought pattern might have been when he was trying to figure out the plot of this film, constantly trying to top each development and up the quirkiness factor. It might have gone something like this: “Two hit men — hide out in Europe after a botched assignment — run afoul of locals and ugly Americans — start feeling the weight of their consciousness — and meet a racist midget making a film — happening all while in medieval Bruges — In Belgium! — And let’s throw in some humor to play with genre conventions — Wow, crazy and weird must equal creative genius!”

As simple as this plot sounds on paper, there is little else that fills out the running time. It seems as though McDonagh forgot he was writing a film but rather just trying to come up with crazy scenarios built around a few solid one-liners like a character’s “cunt kids” or a gay skinhead. In short, “In Bruges” feels like nothing more than several vignettes strung together with a shoestring plot.

This vignettes-turned-feature-film often creates a feel that some characters’ back stories are missing and only turn up at convenient times to drive the film to the next ludicrous and manipulated scene. For example, only three-fourths of the way through does the audience learn of how one hit man, Ken (Brendan Gleeson, “Beowulf”), came into the profession, but only through a purposely random, strung-out speech about a war between races — all from a dwarf no less. And while these few minutes of dialogue provide some insight into the character, much is left to be desired of just exactly who he is.

Such a scene also represents just how childish most of the humor is, like making fun of dwarfs, child abuse or a morbidly obese man yelling at Ray (Colin Farrell, “Miami Vice”). This crass, un-PC humor entertains sometimes, though quickly wears out its welcome.

Farrell provides most of the laughs, acting as a nervous man-child pulled along to see the numerous historic sights of Bruges, constantly sighing and dragging his feet, acting like a 5-year-old forced to see a national park, wishing to be at Disney World.

It is the performances of Farrell, Gleeson and later of Ralph Fiennes (“Harry Potter”) that keep the humor, emotion and energy from completely bottoming out. Farrell proves that he is capable of more than just being a broody pretty boy and is capable of humor and light emotional depth. While Gleeson continues with his solid acting career, he is the film’s emotional rock, completing the Laurel-and-Hardy dynamic between him and Farrell. Both do what they can with the script, but even their acting abilities cannot keep the pace of the film up. It is not until Fiennes shows up as Ken and Ray’s disgruntled boss and starts to chew the scenery that the film truly starts to gain some amount of momentum in the final acts.

Unfortunately, the film’s remaining minutes hits the viewer over the head with the heavy-handed dichotomy between the fairy tale land of Bruges and brutish lifestyle of these three men. A village shoot-out occurs amid medieval buildings, fog and numerous people dressed in costumes, making for an actual fairy tale look. Well beforehand, a running joke commented on how Bruges is like a “fucking fairy tale,” and from then on, this theme is constantly shoved down audience members’ throats. McDonagh seems to feel clever for presenting such a duality, but it’s nothing one hasn’t seen before, certainly since “Hot Fuzz” only came out last year.

Upon entering Bruges for the first time, Farrell’s unimpressed character comments on his new environment, “If I’d grown up on a farm and was retarded, Bruges might impress me, but I didn’t, so it doesn’t.” As offensive and politically incorrect as that line is, nothing could be further from the truth regarding “Bruges.” The broad comedy and unrelenting, phony quirkiness of the film assumes the average moviegoer’s I.Q. falls well under average.

In the end, there is not much underneath the surface of this film for McDonagh to convey, and it’s up to the stars to try and elevate this sad comedy. With only the beautiful and scenic landscape of Bruges to occupy the audience’s eyes, the film quickly bores. There’s certainly not much reason to sightsee “In Bruges.”

2 stars out of 5

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | February 18, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply
IP hash: fa2018f0

Bloody good review, I must grudgingly say. McDonagh’s plays I absolutely cherish. The film I have yet to see, but I already believe your assessment is spot on.