Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:30 pm**

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant based on name only. You're saying that people dismiss Haggis films based on his name (that's essentially what is meant when you say "If NAME directed it and it was the exact same, it'd be dismissed). So the appreciation of In Bruges is therefore connected to McDonagh's name. I don't think he's achieved a position where he could get credit (or discredit, as the case may be) based on his name.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2009 3:11 pm**

Okri wrote:Now, even following through on your comment Bog, it then stands to reason that you're making the assumption that the film is liked because of the writer-director

I dig your argument for the most part, and we can agree to disagree without a doubt. Initially I found it so alarming that people had considered this to be anything above maybe 2 stars, where I voted a definite one star (but had no other option).

The only other thing I'll say about my assumption is answered by the last 2 words of the quote above...there is no other voice. Maybe the acting or scenery or even cinematography could raise a film to that 2 star level or something, but to vote a film 3 or more stars that was written and directed by the same individual in itself raises that assumption.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:14 pm**

Fair enough. I'm referring to McDonagh's voice in general, based on his plays as well.

The reason that it irritates me is that it then assumes that another director would've made the exact same choices, when that's obviously false. A different director... would've made a different movie. I doubt Haggis would've included that offbeat sense of humour, or nailed that sense of guilt and forgiveness, or created characterizations this endearing.

Now, even following through on your comment Bog, it then stands to reason that you're making the assumption that the film is liked because of the writer-director, and lets be honest, outside of the theatre, McDonagh's hardly a name to really earn that type of credit from cinephiles. It's not like he's Clint Eastwood or Martin Scorsese, both who get by thanks to ardent fans.

Hell, a number of people here were able to avoid hating Frost/Nixon despite it's director, so I think you're not giving us as much credit as you should.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:02 pm**

Just responding to Okri's comment that this director is completely different from Haggis and that comparing them as Heksagon had done was frankly stupid.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:59 pm**

Bog wrote:I'm sure McDonagh has different sensibilities than several other directors...but picking his films out of a lineup ain't exactly like figuring out Gus Van Sant was behind Last Days or Malick behind The New World

I enjoyed In Bruges, but didn't love it, but this comment seems a little odd considering that McDonagh has made...one film.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:54 pm**

I can understand the crock of shit comment...but my point is that it's the attitude of most on this board that if a certain person or persons is involved with a film that one hasn't liked or has convinced themselves they don't like, then their attitude is "I hate this and I would never see it and if you did then you're an idiot".

I just meant to agree that this was as bad as a Haggis film.

I'm sure McDonagh has different sensibilities than several other directors...but picking his films out of a lineup ain't exactly like figuring out Gus Van Sant was behind Last Days or Malick behind The New World

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:28 pm**

The movie was OK, but the location was the thing. I wonder what the film has done for tourism in the City of Bruges.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:59 am**

Put me down in the negative column. "Derivative" is the word I'd use for it, although I won't deny that scattered here and there are some hilarious moments and Gleeson and Ferrell are a terrific comic duo. But McDonagh is no filmmaker. It's stagy and uncinematic, and gives off an overwhelming air of oh-so-pleased-with-itself. And its much too reminscent of so many other, better crime films that came before... not to mention "Living In Oblivion".

I do recommend the city Bruges, though. If I ever get the means to go to Europe again, I'll take it over Londond or Paris without thinking twice.

Edited By Sonic Youth on 1237129224

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:41 am**

I've gotta say that I think the complaint "If so-and-so had directed/written this it would've been panned" always struck me as a crock of shit. Haggis and McDonagh come from two completely different sensibilities that to see them compared like this is really stupid, frankly.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:52 am**

My man Heks...so many people on this board are convincing themselves that Slumdog isn't an awful Oscar winner (or that it deserved an Oscar), that Frost/Nixon might have be nomination-worty, and that this crap film was a lost in the mix gem. I was beginning to lose my mind.

If this exact same film was made only with the Paul Haggis brand on it, sanity would have been partly restored. Sadly people aren't seeing through this without a name like that on it, you've been fooled.

2009 Oscar season cannot come soon enough!

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2009 7:34 am**

I don't remember if I voted in this poll or if I just pushed the "null vote" button, but I'll be happy to say that I didn't like this film. The script is boring and pretentious, and the characters are so unbelievable that it should make Paul Haggis envious. The acting is fine, but it doesn't save the film.

Posted: **Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:54 am**

At least one other sane person here, who's down there with me?

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:52 pm**

Also voted *** 1/2 stars, though it's more a high ***/low ***1/2 effort.

I'd rank it in the middle of McDonagh's work - ahead of Beauty Queen of Lenane and The Lonesome West, behind The Pillowman and The Lieutenant of Inishmore.

I love his comic sensibility, though, and eagerly await his next film.

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:55 am**

I want to see it again but this is a very solid film that has risen and risen in my estimation. Beyond any shortcomings and there are a few, this is a very touching tale about stray bullets, a concept too under-explored in film today but brilliantly so here. I think Brendan Gleeson should've been nominated for Best Actor but Colin Farrell has never been better. There is something incredibly funny about his destitution.

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:45 am**

It was fine. Nothing near what McDonaugh has created for the stage.