A pointless movie filled with senseless violence

Rating: 4/10 (1 August 2011)

After watching The Lady Killers and reading all the reviews here saying it was not funny, and then watching In Bruges and seeing all the reviews calling it funny, humorous, hilarious and entertaining, I have to wonder if the world has truly gone mad.
I decided to finally give this movie a try after hearing an interview with Brendan Gleeson on Fresh Air with Terry Gross. I will say this for the film: It is powerful, has beautiful cinematography, all round fine acting and a good score. I can even see elements of black humor, like the encounter in the park -- I'm not obtuse. But unless you enjoy seeing graphic, senseless violence in myriad forms, and find it funny to see it repeated over and over and over, I don't think you can call it funny, humorous or even entertaining, and certainly not hilarious. I would also call it unforgettable, which, sadly, I prefer to do with such violent fare.
I've lost count of all the violence, but I do know we get to witness in graphic detail two suicides, one by blowing his head off with a gun in his mouth, the other by jumping off a tower onto the pavement, two children lying in pools of blood from accidental shootings, a contract shooting or two, a blinding, a beating to death, a beating to near death, a shooting victim who inexplicably lives, and probably more that I don't remember.
The endless gratuitous violence in In Bruges makes Fargo look like a Currier and Ives Christmas card.
What's the point? Killing people is now a joke in the 21st century? Tell that to Norway.
There seem to be some unexplained plot elements, like why Ray shot the priest in the confessional. I don't recall him receiving any instructions, or even getting a gun. I also don't see how the little boy got shot accidentally. Maybe I missed something, but I am not going to go back to figure it out.
In the real world, the shooting of a priest and a small boy would be in the news. In Bruges, nothing. And Ray goes bragging about it to a woman he's just met. This is not realism, it is adolescent fantasy.
There are people who enjoy watching graphic violence. There are American films that cater to those tastes, but I never watch them. Then you see foreigners who think these films are realistic depictions of America. I presume and sincerely hope this is not a realistic depiction of Brits or Europeans; I'm not quite as sure about Russians, from what I read in the news. More to the point, is this movie an indicator of European tastes?
Stepping back for a moment, I think what this film indicates is that there are serious social and moral problems in most places: drugs, violence, prostitution, murder. There also seems to be a decline in aesthetics due to hyper-stimulation, demanding more and more intense experiences, so that some people have lost the ability to appreciate subtlety and delicacy of humor, such as in The Lady Killers.
I suppose there is a place for films like In Bruges, which is a sort of 21st century take on Fellini surrealism. I would have found it more palatable without the graphic gore and violence. Even though it is fiction and make believe, I find it still tends to deaden the soul. Frankly, I found it a degrading experience to be dragged through this sewer.
But not everyone agrees. Oddly enough, Bruges, the city, has worked In Bruges, the movie, into its tourism marketing. I hear tourism is up.
So what's next for Martin McDonagh? How about a week in the life of two sadistic serial killers? Or a mass murderer who blows up buildings and shoots up a children's camp? Or a suicide bomber who hijacks a school bus? Those movies should be a barrel of laughs for this crowd.
Spoiler alert:
The ending is bogus. Harry shoots Ray with a large caliber "dum-dum" bullet clear through, and he not only lives, but Ray runs half way across town with Harry in chase. So Harry shoots him again and again and again, yet Ray is carried off on a stretcher, alive and conscious.
You must be kidding. Is this one of the jokes others find so hilarious?
The whole point of "dum-dum" bullets is that they mushroom on impact, shear open, shredding the innards of the victim beyond any hope of medical help and remain there in fragments, instead of passing through the body intact as shown in the film. Death is usually nearly instantaneous -- a "dum-dum" bullet is designed to stop a rampaging animal dead in its tracks -- or human -- with a single shot. You would not see a bloody exit wound in the back. Look it up.
-- Note to IMDb on spell checker: It's "d u m d u m" not dumb dumb.