Why I Thought In Bruges Was Terrible (SPOILER ALERT)

[Cena's Little Helper]

All right. So, this movie was recently discussed in The Bar Room, and I quickly proclaimed it to be a piece of rubbish. People questioned why I thought this, but, being the stingy man that I am, I decided that I at least should get credit for my response. Hence, why I have decided to post it in here. Simply put, I couldn’t stand In Bruges because it was so hackneyed and contrived.

Let’s start with how unoriginal this film was. Firstly, this film is a comedy…about assassins. Sometimes, I can be a little slow, but there was really no excuse for me here: the two words “comedy” and “assassins” should have a raised a red flag in mind immediately. I mean, really? How many times have we seen this plot? Off the top my head, I’ve already seen this film four times: Analyze This, Analyze That, The Big Hit, and Grosse Point Blank. Just because the settings and accents have changed doesn’t make this a fresh new take on the “ story of sympathetic and humorous hitmen.” Also, anyone who thinks that Ralph Fiennes turned in a great performance obviously hasn’t seen Sexy Beast. Fiennes’ character in this film has the same mannerisms and mindset as Ben Kingsley’s character in the aforementioned movie. Unfortunately, however, I still found Fiennes’ to be so hammy that I probably would have been turned off from British comedy had I known that this abomination was an exception to the rule.

Now, let’s talk about how far-fetched this film is. So, I’m supposed to believe that Colin Farrell’s character is guilt-ridden over killing a kid, although, throughout the whole film, he acts like spiteful asshole? Please! His actions throughout the rest of the film are totally inconsistent with him having the ability to have any remorse whatsoever. The only way that his actions could be reconciled with his guilt is if he was sad that the kid he killed would not be able to grow up to be another person that he could taunt, harass, and physically assault. Also, what is there to say about the dwarf, except that his purpose in the film was obvious as soon as we found out about Fiennes’ principle regarding the killing of children? Good comedy wouldn’t have made it so obvious that the dwarf was there for nothing more than a punch line.

I could go on, but I’ll wait to hear what this film’s supporters have to say about it.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Let’s start with how unoriginal this film was. Firstly, this film is a comedy…about assassins. Sometimes, I can be a little slow, but there was really no excuse for me here: the two words “comedy” and “assassins” should have a raised a red flag in mind immediately. I mean, really? How many times have we seen this plot? Off the top my head, I’ve already seen this film four times: Analyze This, Analyze That, The Big Hit, and Grosse Point Blank. Just because the settings and accents have changed doesn’t make this a fresh new take on the “ story of sympathetic and humorous hitmen.”

Did any of those films have midgets? I think I've answered one part of the question already. Also, as good as Grosse Point Blank is, does it have any heart? Not really. Martin Blank shure as shit doesn't. In Bruges for all it's swearing, with two murderers as the main leads, creates sympathetic characters.

Also, anyone who thinks that Ralph Fiennes turned in a great performance obviously hasn’t seen Sexy Beast.

The general consensus with critics over here was that he was a bit shit.

Fiennes’ character in this film has the same mannerisms and mindset as Ben Kingsley’s character in the aforementioned movie.

Except they're two different types of movie, and Ralph Fiennes is supposed to be pure comedy.

Now, let’s talk about how far-fetched this film is.

Next you'll say that Bruges isn't really a shit hole.

So, I’m supposed to believe that Colin Farrell’s character is guilt-ridden over killing a kid, although, throughout the whole film, he acts like spiteful asshole? Please!

Yeah. It's his first job and he accidentally kills a child. Seen True Romance? Even Tony Soprano threw up after his first kill and that went smoothly.

His actions throughout the rest of the film are totally inconsistent with him having the ability to have any remorse whatsoever.

Most people who are grieving act like ********s.

The only way that his actions could be reconciled with his guilt is if he was sad that the kid he killed would not be able to grow up to be another person that he could taunt, harass, and physically assault.

#1 He gives advice to a fat American and they take offence. Hardly his problem if they couldn't get what he was saying without him being blunt.

#2 A Canadian complaining about smoking in a smoking area, in Europe. Deal with it. Go to a non-smoking area. He deserved to be called an American.

#3 He has a gun pointed at him, what is he supposed to do?

#4 Why should he not Karate chop a midget if he feels threatened?

Also, what is there to say about the dwarf, except that his purpose in the film was obvious as soon as we found out about Fiennes’ principle regarding the killing of children?

Everybody loves midgets, if you don't then you're not human. If God didn't want you to laugh at them then he wouldn't have made them now, would he?

The ending is called a ''twist''. You've been watching M Night Shyamalan films for too long. A twist ending doesn need to be obvious.

Good comedy wouldn’t have made it so obvious that the dwarf was there for nothing more than a punch line.

Black comedy would. Sorry, black British comedy would.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Did any of those films have midgets? I think I've answered one part of the question already. Also, as good as Grosse Point Blank is, does it have any heart? Not really. Martin Blank shure as shit doesn't. In Bruges for all it's swearing, with two murderers as the main leads, creates sympathetic characters.

Yes, the one answer I was sure to get: this film has a midget/dwarf. I still don't see how a dwarf makes this film funny. Also, sympathetic? The only real sympathetic character in this whole film is Brendan Gleeson. The only way that you could feel any sympathy for Colin Farrell was when he was about to off himself, as we, the audience, finally found agreement with him on one thing: he's an uninteresting, miserable character, and he needs to die quickly. But, of course, he failed us.

The general consensus with critics over here was that he was a bit shit.

Thanks for letting me know this, as I'm glad to find that I agree with the critics on at least one point.

Except they're two different types of movie, and Ralph Fiennes is supposed to be pure comedy.

I'll give you that they're two different types of movie, but are the characters still the same? I would say yes.

Next you'll say that Bruges isn't really a shit hole.

I don't think anyone but the most perceptive film critic in the world could convince me that In Bruges is not a horrible film.

Yeah. It's his first job and he accidentally kills a child. Seen True Romance? Even Tony Soprano threw up after his first kill and that went smoothly.

True Romance was about a kind, unlucky comic book store clerk who finally gets something precious placed in his lap one day, and who wants to save his new wife from her pimp and start a new life for them. Tony Soprano is a POS through and through, but at least we know that, and there are no punches pulled. In In Bruges, Colin Farrell is just an a-hole that the director wants us to sympathize with, and, to do so, he does nothing but reinforce how much of an a-hole Colin Farrell is throughout the whole film.

So, please elaborate on these comparisons, please.

Most people who are grieving act like ********s.

Most people who are grieving act erratically, but I would see someone going overboard with something that put them in their state of grief in the first place as very, very implausible (in this case, what put Colin Farrell in his state of grief was violence; why would he continue to inflict more and more violence?).

#1 He gives advice to a fat American and they take offence. Hardly his problem if they couldn't get what he was saying without him being blunt.

#2 A Canadian complaining about smoking in a smoking area, in Europe. Deal with it. Go to a non-smoking area. He deserved to be called an American.

#3 He has a gun pointed at him, what is he supposed to do?

#4 Why should he not Karate chop a midget if he feels threatened?

All acts of being an a-hole. Didn't really have a problem with #1 though, as he was just being brutally honest. #3 and #4 could be seen as acts of self-defense, I'll give you that. But, #2 is what made me realize that Colin Farrell was irredeemable.

Everybody loves midgets, if you don't then you're not human. If God didn't want you to laugh at them then he wouldn't have made them now, would he?

No comment.

The ending is called a ''twist''. You've been watching M Night Shyamalan films for too long. A twist ending doesn need to be obvious.

The ending is extremely predictable, in terms of Ralph Fiennes having some kind of contact with the dwarf. Maybe this is Shyamalan's fault though, as it might have made me too perceptive.

Black comedy would. Sorry, black British comedy would.

This is an extremely poor example of British black comedy. It doesn't seem to be that big of a genre, but, the other British black comedies that I have seen were actually funny.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Yes, the one answer I was sure to get: this film has a midget/dwarf. I still don't see how a dwarf makes this film funny.

Dwarf's are awesome, this is medical fact.

Also, sympathetic?

Yes.

The only real sympathetic character in this whole film is Brendan Gleeson.

He's in at least half of it, no?

The only way that you could feel any sympathy for Colin Farrell was when he was about to off himself,

He's so guilt stricken about accidentally killing a child that he wants to kill himself, how does that not make him sympathetic?

as we, the audience, finally found agreement with him on one thing: he's an uninteresting,

How is he unintresting? He's an assasin. I for one would love to pick his brain.

miserable character,

Didn't you list Anazlyze This/That & Grosse Point Blank in your first post? Is Robert De Niro or Billy Crystal a happy chappy in in those films? John Cusak isn't.

and he needs to die quickly. But, of course, he failed us.

He dies at the end, you know that, right?

I'll give you that they're two different types of movie, but are the characters still the same? I would say yes.

Mockney gangsters are always the same, but I fail to see in what way Farrell & Gleeson are the same as in other movies. By virtue of them going sight seeing they're different than most.

I don't think anyone but the most perceptive film critic in the world could convince me that In Bruges is not a horrible film.

Yet you are one of the only people I've read or met that doesn't like it.

True Romance was about a kind, unlucky comic book store clerk who finally gets something precious placed in his lap one day, and who wants to save his new wife from her pimp and start a new life for them.

Christian Slater is a smarmy, arrogant, murderer in that film.

Tony Soprano is a POS through and through, but at least we know that, and there are no punches pulled.

It's also not a comedy.

In In Bruges, Colin Farrell is just an a-hole that the director wants us to sympathize with, and, to do so, he does nothing but reinforce how much of an a-hole Colin Farrell is throughout the whole film.

So what if he's an aresehole. Are you trying to say that some of the greatest anti-heroes of all time aren't?

Most people who are grieving act erratically, but I would see someone going overboard with something that put them in their state of grief in the first place as very, very implausible (in this case, what put Colin Farrell in his state of grief was violence; why would he continue to inflict more and more violence?).

If you're a violent person then why wouldn't you be more violent, if that's how you deal with pain?

Come to think of it, in what way wasn't any of the violence justified?

All acts of being an a-hole. Didn't really have a problem with #1 though, as he was just being brutally honest.

As most British & Irish people are.

#3 and #4 could be seen as acts of self-defense, I'll give you that.

What's wrong with self-defense?

But, #2 is what made me realize that Colin Farrell was irredeemable.

Why because he's pushed over the edge by somebody very annoying. It was a nothing situation. A complaint made when the complainer doesn't know the situation properly will always get you a verbal bollocking. I've seen it plenty of times.

The ending is extremely predictable, in terms of Ralph Fiennes having some kind of contact with the dwarf.

There are 5 main characters. I'd have been very surprised if they all hadn't come into contact.

Maybe this is Shyamalan's fault though, as it might have made me too perceptive.

Shyamalan does endings that even the simplest of people would understand.

This is an extremely poor example of British black comedy.

It's a great example. If more Americans don't like it then it's even better.

It doesn't seem to be that big of a genre,

Watch some TV shows.

but, the other British black comedies that I have seen were actually funny.

Like?

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Dwarf's are awesome, this is medical fact.

No comment.

Yes.

We can agree to disagree, then.

He's in at least half of it, no?

Point conceded, about Brendan Gleeson.

He's so guilt stricken about accidentally killing a child that he wants to kill himself, how does that not make him sympathetic?

I didn't really sympathize with him, though. The only thing I thought he was doing was the right thing, albeit for totally different reasons than accidentally killing a child (I already stated this reason in the post you are quoting from).

How is he unintresting? He's an assasin. I for one would love to pick his brain.

His just a typical asshole, it's not like we haven't seen that type of character played in about a hundred other films. It's just too bad that him being an assassin did absolutely nothing in terms of making his character more appealing. Furthermore, why would you want to pick his brain? It's obvious from the plot of this film that he's not very good at what he does.

Didn't you list Anazlyze This/That & Grosse Point Blank in your first post? Is Robert De Niro or Billy Crystal a happy chappy in in those films? John Cusak isn't.

Not quite what I was trying to get at there, but you do raise a valid point, as I should have chosen my words more carefully. Colin Farrell's character made me feel miserable for having to endure his company on the screen. The others didn't make me feel that way.

He dies at the end, you know that, right?

About 40 minutes too late.

Mockney gangsters are always the same, but I fail to see in what way Farrell & Gleeson are the same as in other movies. By virtue of them going sight seeing they're different than most.

So, just the setting then makes this film original? By that logic, Rush Hour 3 should have been refreshing seeing as how it takes place in Paris. However, it sucked ass.

Yet you are one of the only people I've read or met that doesn't like it.

And I think I dislike this film for pretty good reasons.

Christian Slater is a smarmy, arrogant, murderer in that film.

He actually has a motive, though. He's not a cunt just because he wants to be one.

It's also not a comedy.

Why did you bring it up in the first place then?

So what if he's an aresehole. Are you trying to say that some of the greatest anti-heroes of all time aren't?

I think motive is key here. Furthermore, a well-written anti-hero is never really supposed to be looked up to. At most, we should come to an understanding of why they're doing what they're doing and admire their efforts (e.g., Johnny in Naked). Or, we should just be amazed at how they can actually function (e.g., Withnail in Withnail And I).

If you're a violent person then why wouldn't you be more violent, if that's how you deal with pain?

Come to think of it, in what way wasn't any of the violence justified?

So, violence is what brought you into your funk, but the only way that you can deal with your somberness/depression is by committing more acts of violence? Sorry, I can't sympathize with or feel for someone who is so illogical and ill-minded (I think these adjective perfectly describe Colin Farrell in In Bruges).

There are 5 main characters. I'd have been very surprised if they all hadn't come into contact.

All right, then. So, why is the dwarf getting mistaken for a child such a good ending if it can be seen from a mile away?

Shyamalan does endings that even the simplest of people would understand.

So the simplest of people could have seen that Ralph Fiennes was going to kill the dwarf then.

It's a great example. If more Americans don't like it then it's even better.

If this film would have been called In Reno, and starred Morgan Freeman and Tom Hanks, I would have instead called it an extremely poor example of American black comedy. It being a poor example of British black comedy has more to do with the fact that I don't think I've ever seen a comedy from Britain worse than this one than with the fact that it fails at pissing off Americans (although it does try pretty hard).

Watch some TV shows.

All right.

Like?

Naked, Withnail And I, and Trainspotting are all loads better than this steaming pile of feces.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Tdingle, you main argument seems to be centered around how unsympathetic you think Colin Farrell is. I fail to see how that's even an issue. I've seen films where paedophiles can be sympathetic, where racist thugs find repemption, where Robin Williams tries to kill kids with cancer through the medium of schmaltz.

You don't like a film then so be it. I hate The Talented Mr. Ripley. Slyfox could tell me how good Matt Damon is in it and I won't care. I think it's awful.

The fact is that is was a very well reviewed film. Critics loved it. Now it's all just opinion. But if most people have the same opinion then you have to concede that you simply don't like a very good film.

It's a great example of a British black comedy. It's irrelevant that you don't get it. You said yourself that you've not seen many British black comedies. I have, even if I can't think of many off the top of my head. American humour, for the most part, is very broad and easy to understand. People outside of American always understand whatever comedy comes out of your country, even if they don't enjoy it. But Americans don't always understand what comes out of other nations.

I also think In Bruges does in fact piss off Americans. I think the fact that they're mocked in this film and you don't like it proves that. Weren't you amused when he gave the fat guy the run around? I can understand why you wouldn't be. I'm not amused when Americans take the piss out of the English when they say we have bad teeth and we're presented as either being posh of worse, from London.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Tdingle, you main argument seems to be centered around how unsympathetic you think Colin Farrell is. I fail to see how that's even an issue. I've seen films where paedophiles can be sympathetic, where racist thugs find repemption, where Robin Williams tries to kill kids with cancer through the medium of schmaltz.

And about how trite it is.

You don't like a film then so be it. I hate The Talented Mr. Ripley. Slyfox could tell me how good Matt Damon is in it and I won't care. I think it's awful.

Nothing wrong with not liking something. I think we can both agree that we have two very different views about this film.

The fact is that is was a very well reviewed film. Critics loved it. Now it's all just opinion. But if most people have the same opinion then you have to concede that you simply don't like a very good film.

I will concede that I don't like a well-reviewed film. But, I don't think I have any hidden agenda, or any unreasonable bias here that would affect my ability to judge this film. I find it unoriginal, and, yes, I find Colin Farrell to be a very unsympathetic character. This wouldn't be such a problem if I felt that the director wasn't trying to get the audience to sympathize with him. Thus, I think that's a pretty good reason why someone could consider this movie a failure.

It's a great example of a British black comedy.

I asked about this in a thread in The Bar Room. How come you didn't list anymore British black comedies? I already mentioned three in my previous post, and I don't see how In Bruges is anything but utter rubbish in comparison to these films.

It's irrelevant that you don't get it.

I don't think there's much to this film to get. It's not very deep, and I think our conversation here justifies that claim. There's no particular themes that we have discussed that are touched upon in In Bruges, and all of its reviews laud it mainly for its un-PC comedy, nothing more, nothing less.

You said yourself that you've not seen many British black comedies.

I've seen a few, but, from our conversation, it seems like there's not that many films within this particular genre. So, it is quite probable that I've seen a majority of them.

I have, even if I can't think of many off the top of my head.

I would really appreciate it if you could give me a list. Then, maybe I'd be able to understand where you're coming from with your love for In Bruges.

American humour, for the most part, is very broad and easy to understand. People outside of American always understand whatever comedy comes out of your country, even if they don't enjoy it. But Americans don't always understand what comes out of other nations.

I'll give you that: our humor is not as subtle as what comes from Britain. That doesn't mean that we can't understand it, though.

It's not as if I don't like British humor. I'm very familiar with some of the satirical novelists of the UK: Kingsley Amis, Martin Amis, Will Self, Ardal O'Hanlon, and Jonathan Coe. Save for Will Self, whom I think comes across as a right cunt, I think all of these writers are uproariously funny. And, they are all at least somewhat cold to and critical of the American way of life.

I also think In Bruges does in fact piss off Americans. I think the fact that they're mocked in this film and you don't like it proves that.

It didn't really piss me off, though: I just thought it was not funny. You talk about subtle humor, but don't you find it odd that this film adopts the American way of humor that you described above to convey its dislike for that country? This film is far from subtle.

 

[Murfish]

Now, let’s talk about how far-fetched this film is. So, I’m supposed to believe that Colin Farrell’s character is guilt-ridden over killing a kid, although, throughout the whole film, he acts like spiteful asshole? Please! His actions throughout the rest of the film are totally inconsistent with him having the ability to have any remorse whatsoever. The only way that his actions could be reconciled with his guilt is if he was sad that the kid he killed would not be able to grow up to be another person that he could taunt, harass, and physically assault.

Alright, here's my view on Coin's character. He is an asshole, douche, and whatever else you want to call him. When he kill the kid, it marks the beginning of a change. This change happens over the course of the film, and you can't expect him to be nice from the get go. He starts out by trying to forget what happened and go back to his usual self. Slowly, the guilt builds and affects his actions more and more. He tries to be a little bit subtle when he meets the Americans(he fails, but his change is a process), and in the restaurant he's more worried about keeping things perfect for this woman. The reason why he repeatedly resorts to violence that it appears as though it is the only way he has to resolve conflicts. It's either that, or be an ass.

I meandered a bit. Point: he's trying to change who he is, and it's a difficult process that includes many setbacks.

Also, what is there to say about the dwarf, except that his purpose in the film was obvious as soon as we found out about Fiennes’ principle regarding the killing of children? Good comedy wouldn’t have made it so obvious that the dwarf was there for nothing more than a punch line.

I thought he was good besides his death, though I did like the final scene. I didn't think it was that obvious. You can see it coming, but it isn't that overt. Maybe I haven't seen enough of M. Night Shamylon.


This is just my opinion. I'm not an expert on films.

 

[NSL]

I'd agree that Fiennes was shit here, but that's only cause I've seen him do so much better elsewhere. Maybe it fit for his character, but they could've chosen someone else.

As far as Farrell's character, I thought he did pretty well. If the problems were that big, more people would have noticed, and it would've been killed by critics and fans. They're obviously issues for you, but nothing can be perfect for everyone.

The only thing I didn't like in the whole film, was when Gleeson fell from the bell tower, and lived long enough to talk, after already being shot twice...