Whimsical and touching

Rating: 7/10 (5 July 2009)

In many ways, In Bruges is something of a little gem. It is marketed as a 'dark comedy' and it is, indeed very funny if you like dry wit and irony and enjoy seeing the world through the eyes of two Dublin men who have rather inexplicably been ordered to leave London and lie low in an obscure Flemish town. That these two men happen to be killers is initially neither here nor there. They could — or, at least, Brendan Gleeson, as the older and more mature hit-man could — be just like any two tourists you might meet seeing the sights of a beautiful medieval town. Colin Farrell, the second, younger hit-man, is not at all enamoured of Bruges and sightseeing, and his lack of sophistication is typified when he memorably describes history as just a load of stuff that has happened. Where in Bruges is not something of a little gem is when it is reluctantly forced to abandon the Irish whimsy — one of the central conceits of a hit-man taking time off to relax and enjoy a spot of culture is nothing if not whimsical — and begins to plod down the more familiar paths of film-making convention. Thus the various whimsical strands of the story all come together in a rather neat finale, which is, unfortunately too neat to be satisfying. The writer/director Michael McDonagh can't be blamed for that, and as this is only his second feature — and his first full-length feature — his handling of the techniques of film-making is outstanding. So far he has written plays for the stage, and in many ways In Bruges is still a play which has been transferred to the big screen, and that is not meant in a derogatory way. The dialogue is naturalistic and, at times, exquisite. But in a sense In Bruges is still a play in that McDonagh wants to deal with rather big themes: conscience, guilt, a sense of honour, loyalty and revenge, and what might have worked well on stage finally doesn't work quite as well on the screen. Although oddly both the Gleeson and Farrell characters are rather likable despite the fact that they have killed without mercy for money, by the end of the film they don't quite ring as true as they did when we first meet them. Similarly, despite Ralph Fiennes's character being established as a sadistic crime boss without heart or feeling, his final honourable act is also wholly unconvincing. So where does that leave us? Well, because in so many way In Bruges is the excellent side of good, the reservations I make are rather ungenerous. My point is that because so much of the film is very good, it sets itself such high standards that when, in just a few respects, it doesn't quite meet those standards, this apparent 'failure' stands out all the more. Let me be clear: In Bruges is streets ahead of many other films which masquerade as 'comedy' or 'thriller' or 'drama'. In hindsight there are one or two niggles such as the implausibility of the Farrell character being discovered and arrested on a train leaving Bruges, the way that various characters conveniently bump into each other, and, it has to be said, the implausibility of some of the characters' motivation. But at the end of the day these are minor points. In Bruges stands alone and has an identity all of its own. I do, however, suspect that whether or not you enjoy In Bruges will largely depend on what kind of films you otherwise enjoy. Yes, there is a chase at the end, and, yes, it all ends in bloody, murderous violence, but these elements to not define the film, if you are the kind of moron who values so much of the dishonest, quick-cut, super-slick, in-yer-face mush which keeps the cinema cash tills ringing, you would undoubtedly feel your attention and interest flag long before the guns are fired. If, on the other hand, you have the wit and taste to watch a story unfold (however implausible that story might finally be) and enjoy the kind of Irish dry humour which is not in-yer-face, your will enjoy In Bruges very much.