If anyone believes that "In Bruges" is overrated, they can go ahead and blame me

Rating: 9/10 (20 February 2008)

In order to see "In Bruges" in my neck of the woods, one would have to be specifically looking for it. It is a film that has been put out in limited release immediately after Oscar Picks have been announced. In other words, the studios aren't giving it much of a shot. So when I hear people refer to this film as "overrated," I scratch my head with a bemused gaze. What were you looking for? What did you think you were about to see? My expectations were exceeded by no small margin. The genre of the bantering hit men has no doubt been played out again and again, but "In Bruges" seemed to put life back into that concept. Others feel that this film doesn't know what kind of film it wants to be, but I argue that this "weakness" is actually the films biggest triumph. The audience reaches a comfort zone of seeing Colin Farrells's character giddy with the prospect of seeing a film crew "filming midgets," only to witness the death of a young boy within minutes. Bruges itself becomes a character, and I felt as though I could comfortably navigate myself through the town (where I have never been) after seeing this film.
The basics can be summed up quickly: Two hit men are sent to hide out in Bruges, Belgium after executing a hit in London. Farrell hates the town, while Brendan Gleeson (who is admittedly un-hitmanish)loves the simplicity of his sightseeing. Simple, right? However, within that simple structure lies intricacies that show the dichotomy between the two characters to the point where it is tough to decide who you sympathize more with. Colin Farrell seems to be caught in a state of arrested development; a pouting- yet humorous- eight year-old, who just so happens to be a novice hit-man. Gleeson reminds one of the history professor who has just retired and is seeing the sights, though he just so happens to be an experienced hit-man. The pleasure is in their exchanges; the little boy and the artful old man who have both found ways to rationalize their occupations to themselves, and are stuck together in Bruges.
Not enough? The absurdities of the situation are amplified by ideas that would have came off well on Mr. Show: A hit-man who wants to talk his mark out of suicide, a racist midget who ironically condemns others for their physical appearances, and the most damage I've ever seen come from shooting blanks. I don't mean to offset the fact that there is a serious side as well. Death is very real here, and humor does not make life cheap. Farrell is honestly suicidal and the image of the dead boy haunts the characters, as well as the audience. But the most important thing is that this film works. I did laugh (and I'm not a saccharine individual) and I did care about the characters.
To think that a film is high on itself does not move me in either direction, mainly because I've never really figured out what it means. What should a film be? Modest? What should this film have done? Cut scenes that one individual might not find as funny as another one? I enjoyed this film beyond all expectations, and if this film is "not smart" or "Too high on itself" then I guess I will accept a regression to being thought of as one of the dumb ones.