Kritiken

In Bruges is by no means a bad film. It certainly has its moments, both poignant and funny but it is precisely because its first 45 minutes is so accomplished, that the last 45 or so pale in comparison. But if, in future, McDonagh chooses to keep his focus on cleverly drawn characters and smart scripting, rather than throwing the kitchen sink at the plot, he is likely to become a big-screen force to be reckoned with.

I liked the way the film starts off going nowhere, happy to be a drama rooted in character and dialogue instead of standard gangster fare. But McDonagh feels he owes his audience some action, and so in the final third of the film the plot goes into hit-man overdrive... What a shame that we start off in Bruges and end up back in Hollywood.

Theatre audiences have long relished McDonagh's brilliant combinations of the bizarre, macabre and tragicomic and it is very exhilarating to see him transfer this talent to the screen, and provide lip-smackingly satisfying roles for his actors... Farrell personally deserves all the plaudits. And for McDonagh, it is the beginning of a remarkable new career direction.

Just when you think In Bruges has nothing to say, just when you think that it’s a genre revamp and a lazy exercise in film style by its playwright-turned-director Martin McDonagh, the movie suddenly hits you with a moment that warns you against doing just that.

The film’s real pleasure lies in McDonagh’s verbal felicity – the naturalistic dialogue is a breath of fresh air – and while Farrell struggles to juggle his humorous ‘thick’ persona with romantic pathos, Gleeson excels in his role as the weary gangster pondering the possibilities for his own shot at redemption.

Minor pacing issues aside, the film hits most of its targets dead on. Farrell's performance in particular is revelatory, and when his interplay with Gleeson's character is in the sights, the mix of comedy and pathos consistently find their mark.

[In Bruges] takes a genre that shouldn’t be allowed any more, never mind encouraged, and fashions something provocative and original in its thinking... It may not be new, but it’'s a wonderfully fresh take on a familiar genre: fucked-up, far-out and very, very funny.

There’s a disconnect between [the] shattering tragedy [that fuels the film] and the fundamentally bogus genre [McDonagh is] working in. For In Bruges to click, McDonagh needed either to get more real or more fake.

“In Bruges” is itself a goof, both diverting and forgettable... The writing sounds like the handiwork of a very clever young filmmaking student with a fondness for Sartre and Tarantino... [McDonagh] talks a blue streak beautifully, but he has yet to find the nuance and poetry that make his red images signify with commensurate sizzle and pop.

The film is more Tarantinoesque than anything Quentin Tarantino himself has made in years. The trouble is, that's not so much a compliment now. It's more of a mixed blessing... For all his movie's tough talk, it's a sometimes slipshod construction.

It's a tribute to McDonagh's skill that the film can remain essentially comic, while doing justice to the characters' guilt and self-questioning... "In Bruges" is not a great movie, but there's no mistaking that it's the product of a great talent.

In Bruges is at its best when it's just passing the time. The idle dialogue is often priceless and Gleeson (playing against type) is a delight to watch as his big beefy face switches from brutish to benign (though Farrell seems to be generally coasting)... When the action kicks in, however, In Bruges starts to go off the rails. The film's light comedy and dark morality make for an unsettling mix.