Tag Archives: Brendan Gleeson

The Banshees of Inisherin-2022

The Banshees of Inisherin-2022

Director Martin McDonagh

Starring Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, Kerry Condon

Scott’s Review #1,348

Reviewed March 2, 2023

Grade: A

Martin McDonagh, who directs The Banshees of Inisherin (2022), is known for films like In Bruges (2008) and Three Billboards Outside of Ebbing, Missouri (2017). His films usually include dark humor stories of humanity and unpleasantness and require some afterthought to ruminate about the characters’ true nature.

This film stars Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson who reunite from their collaboration in In Bruges for another turn playing men dealing with depression and other feelings of loneliness and friendship.

McDonagh is British/Irish so the period and surroundings likely resonate well with him. The gorgeous islands off coastal Ireland are used and key to the story and counterbalance the troubles and tribulations of the characters.

Pádraic (Farrell) and Colm (Gleeson), are lifelong friends and inhabitants of an island off of mainland Ireland. They find themselves embroiled in a feud after Colm one day announces he is ending their friendship. This confuses Pádraic who vows to mend the relationship at all costs.

Their reunion is thwarted by severed fingers, a fire, and the mysterious death of Pádraic’s beloved pet donkey, Jenny.

Mixed into the events are Pádraic’s sister Siobhán (Kerry Condon) and troubled young islander Dominic (Barry Keoghan), who have their problems to face.

The Banshees of Inisherin is slow-paced and cerebral and many questions will be pondered but left unanswered. This will tick off those viewers who prefer a clear conclusion to the characters’ lives.

But, this is a key part of the beauty of the film. Sure, I might have liked one big no-holds-barred argument scene between Pádraic and Colm or more closure in Dominic’s or Siobhán’s stories. Instead, McDonagh challenges the audience to feel perplexed or unsure and use their interpretations.

For example, I wonder if Dominic was being sexually abused by his policeman father who has a penchant for sitting naked in the living room chair and masturbating.

Or, what does Siobhán leave the island for and will she ever return?

On a separate note, I wonder if McDonagh was influenced by the epic 1970 gem Ryan’s Daughter, directed by David Lean. The flowing Irish landscapes and unpleasant, embittered townspeople have key similarities.

The winning formula is ambiguity. The audience is served terrific acting all around, particularly amongst the four principals (Farrell, Gleeson, Condon, and Keoghan) all of whom were awarded Academy Award nominations.

Each provides subdued performances dripping with contained emotion and complexities buried beneath the surface.

Audiences can draw their conclusions but my takeaways were loneliness, longing for new adventures, depression, and begrudgingly accepting meager existence amid the most lavish countryside one can find.

The 1920s Irish Civil War is the backdrop though those events are not central to the plot.

Since Colm’s desire to create music is a central part of the story the accompanying music is crucial to the film. The use of fiddles is incorporated rather than traditional Irish music except in the sprinkling of pub scenes.

A hearty round of applause is due to McDonagh and company for crafting and performing a thinking man’s film. The comic bits are not syrupy but tragic in their honesty and cadence.

The Banshees of Inisherin (2022) separate cinematic thinkers from passive viewers with a quiet story about the friendship between two men and the layers that exist beneath the surface.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Martin McDonagh, Best Actor-Colin Farrell, Best Supporting Actor-Brendan Gleeson, Barry Keoghan, Best Supporting Actress-Kerry Condon, Best Original Screenplay, Best Film Editing, Best Original Score

Gangs of New York-2002

Gangs of New York-2002

Director Martin Scorsese

Starring Leonardo Dicaprio, Daniel Day-Lewis, Cameron Diaz

Scott’s Review #1,327

Reviewed December 26, 2022

Grade: A-

Gangs of New York (2002) is an extremely violent and bloody epic by director Martin Scorsese that is an exquisite piece of filmmaking nearly flawless in every way except maybe its length and story.

On the one hand, it’s a beautifully choreographed and filmed crime drama with perfect costumes, art direction, and cinematography. Still, on the other, it’s tedious and lengthy, especially during the final hour, with choppy storytelling and seemingly one long continuous battle.

Scorsese being Scorsese and knowing his way around crafting an excellent film or two left me ruminating over the cinema and pondering whether I’d ever need to see it again.

Usually, I’m all in when it comes to repeated viewings of his films,  especially Raging Bull (1980) or Goodfellas (1990) but with Gangs of New York, the sobering almost three hours running time and the non-stop bloodshed gives me pause.

It’s not a mafia film but it is an Irish-centered crime drama harkening back to the mid-1800s so there are historical lessons to be exposed to. Familiar with most of his films there are good guys, bad guys, and a criminal, feuding overtone, and lots of grit and grime to plow through.

I can’t say it’s one of Scorsese’s top 10 but it’s a grandiose, epic-length behemoth that features a host of top-name talent but there are nonetheless aspects that leave it slightly beneath his most famous works.

But that’s nearly akin to comparing the works of Beethoven, Rembrandt, or other geniuses of one art form or another. Anyone respecting Scorsese or appreciating good cinema should see Gangs of New York.

Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a young Irish immigrant released from prison. He returns to the Five Points seeking revenge against his father’s killer, William Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis) also known as ‘The Butcher’, a brutal and powerful anti-immigrant gang leader.

He knows that revenge can only be attained by infiltrating Cutting’s inner circle. Amsterdam’s journey became a fight for personal survival and to find a place for the Irish people in 1860’s New York.

The most delicious part of the film is the rivalry between Amsterdam and ‘The Butcher’. DiCaprio and Day-Lewis make powerful sparring partners and as much as Amsterdam’s motivations are admirable it’s Day-Lewis who has the more interesting character.

To no one’s surprise, the actor channels his inner dictator as he method acts throughout the film. To no one’s additional surprise, he steals the show away from other tremendous actors like DiCaprio, Jim Broadbent, and John C. Reilly in supporting roles.

However, I need to ask why Day-Lewis was selected for the Lead Actor Oscar category when he is a supporting one.

Worthy of mention is Cameron Diaz who, for once, plays the dramatic role of a pickpocket. Typically cast in comedic roles she shows she has acting chops.

The story gets a bit wayward about halfway through and I stopped giving the story much credence about three-quarters of the way through. It’s as if Scorsese had frenetic schizophrenia moments with tons of good ideas but none of them formulating a cohesive plot.

The New York City setting is a favorite of mine especially pre-civil war and well before the NYC of modern times even existed. The prevalence of Canal Street and various others make this northeasterner heavily invested in geography.

Finally, to bring it all full circle, Gangs of New York powerfully reminds the audience of the age-old topic of immigration and how those who have citizenship too often oppose those who desire to enter a country they once also did.

‘The Butcher’s’ brutal opposition is a sad reminder of how the United States of America was never united and the senseless violence towards immigrants is never-ending.

Gangs of New York (2002) may not be Scorsese’s best work but even on his worst day, he creates a film worth watching. Mixing toxic masculinity, and revenge with a crazy story he succeeds where other directors might fail by providing compelling filmmaking with all the fixings.

Just don’t get too hung up on the story points.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Martin Scorsese, Best Actor-Daniel Day-Lewis, Best Original Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing, Best Original Song-“The Hands That Built America”, Best Sound

28 Days Later-2002

28 Days Later-2002

Director Danny Boyle

Starring Cillian Murphy, Noah Huntley

Scott’s Review #507

60027998

Reviewed November 2, 2016

Grade: B+

Before the influx of zombie-related horror films and television shows filled the land- arguably offset by the success of The Walking Dead series, a little film came along- now almost teetering on its influence being forgotten- that presented this genre with fresh insight and creative storytelling posing questions amid the mayhem.

28 Days Later (2002) rejuvenated this largely dormant film category with a gritty story of peril among a group of survivors spared from a deadly virus.

The film is smart as it explores morality issues and the needs of society to continue.

We initially are immersed in confusion as chaos immediately ensues. After a brief prologue of a group of laboratory chimpanzees gone mad, inflicted with rage, being let loose by animal liberators, and killing all present as well as inflicting the humans, we meet a lone man named Joe- the timing is relevant as it is “28 days later” from the incident.

The young man awakens in a hospital to find himself alone amid downtown London- not a soul in sight.  Fortunately, he has been in a coma and missed the crumbling of society due to an outbreak- somehow Joe has been spared.

Gradually, Joe meets others uninfected by the virus and they forge through the country in search of a military base rumored to be a haven.

The infected humans are not zombies, but rather, violent creatures who destroy anyone in their path. The film not only presents the grotesque creatures but also challenges the audience to think in a political sense- how will the survivors forge a new society?

How will women be treated differently from and by their male counterparts in a world that now lacks any police force or government?

My initial reaction to watching 28 Days Later- years after its initial release- is that it now seems slightly dated, but that has more to do with the legions of copycat films that have come after it and have been exposed to.

We have become more encompassed by this type of film, both in genre and in style. Appreciation is warranted for its gritty, fast-paced camera-work, extreme violence, and the use of “infected” who turn from human beings to vicious beings.

A fantastic part of this film is that it is not simply a horror film, it is more layered than that. There are moments of great beauty and tender moments among Joe and Selena- the sole surviving female other than the young, waif-like, Hannah, whose world has been shattered by the death of her loved ones.

In one sad scene, a couple has peacefully committed suicide, rather than face what would surely become of them.

There is a sense of a human story in 28 Days Later, which made me find the film heartfelt and almost sweet. Even the military soldiers- their motivations questionable- are relatable based on the world being turned upside down. A layered, complex, zombie film with some character-driven elements.

Suffragette-2015

Suffragette-2015

Director Sarah Gavron

Starring Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter

Scott’s Review #291

80046819

Reviewed December 1, 2015

Grade: A-

Led by an excellent performance by Carey Mulligan, Suffragette (2015) is a British film that tells the true story of the fight for women’s suffragette, as a team of women fought endlessly to obtain their right to vote, a vote that today most (men and women) take for granted.

Several characters are real-life portrayals, however, Mulligan’s central character Maud Watts is fictional. She is assumed to be a hybrid of other real-life characters.

Perfectly shot and giving a fantastic impression of life in England in 1912, the film centers around a bevy of working-class women- many of whom work endless and thankless hours in a sewing factory, working for and forced to tolerate a vicious, unkind man.

Their lives are bleak.

A women’s movement has developed, led by the mysterious Emmeline Pankhurst (Meryl Streep) and Edith Ellyn (Helena Bonham Carter), both financially successful, but very passionate women, spearheading the “women’s movement”.

The main character is Maud. The film is told from her perspective.

She is a hard-working laundress in her early twenties, married to her husband, Sonny, and with a young son. Plain, yet pretty, the audience knows this is all her life will ever be.

She has worked at the same sewing shop since a young age and has been sexually abused by her boss for years. While delivering a package, she witnesses a co-worker smashing a window protesting the women’s movement.

Initially reluctant to join the movement, Maud realizes the importance and loses her family and job because of her devotion to the cause.

When women were finally granted the right to vote in England in 1928, sixteen years after the movement began,  this took a brave group of women who risked (and lost) their families, and jobs and were imprisoned, and in one heartbreaking scene, loss of one’s life, all in powerful devotion to what they felt was right and just, despite numerous powerful figures beating them down.

How sad to think this happened.

The film accurately portrays the might and courage that the women possessed.

One of two of the most powerful scenes in the film is as follows and belongs to Mulligan. Left by her husband and community and having been imprisoned more than once, Sonny decides to give their son away to an affluent couple. The boy is ripped from Maud’s arms and we realize she will likely never see the boy again.

It is tragic and painful to watch and Mulligan nails it from an acting standpoint. I have always admired Carey Mulligan, she chooses wonderful and challenging parts, never succumbing to mainstream mediocrity.

Think portrayals in Shame (2011), Never Let Me Go (2010), and An Education (2009).

The second powerful scene comes at the end of the film. When a character sacrifices her life (a real-life person, mind you) at the Epsom Derby where King George V is present, simply so that the women’s movement can get major exposure by running onto the track and wielding a sign, she is brutally trampled to death.

Subsequently, a funeral parade results, finally leading the masses to take notice and realize how important an issue this was.

The filmmakers of Suffragette wisely dedicated real-life footage of the parade that occurred at the time.

An important film with a message, Suffragette (2015) is beautifully shot and led by bravura acting and a true, real-life historical story, to be appreciated for its honesty.