How hard is it to make a good movie on this topic?

Rating: 1/10 (22 October 2007)

This movie was an abomination. First off, it was hyped, rather, pimped, in the United States, and universally aired in the absolutely indecipherable Irish accent and abysmal audio quality that one would expect from such a horrendously underfunded and unmotivated film. If you want it to be meaningful, make sure the audience can understand it. Second, the special effects. What happened here? Granted, some movies just can't afford and big, theatrical effects, but the inconsistency and utter lack of care for any sort of realism made me very upset. And by lack of consistency, I mean, why is there a lake of blood when someone is punched in the face, yet a man facing a firing squad simply slumps over against the post to which he is bound? This absolute lack of realism vastly softened the effect of this film on me, as it was far too evident that the actor simply stood up again after the directory yelled "cut." Now, don't get me wrong, I am not a person who desires buckets of blood in a movie about absolutely anything, but something, anything, could have been done to at the very least make it evident that a character was, in fact, dead. Overall, this movie was about as visually convincing as a road runner cartoon, as entertaining as a Henry Kissinger speech, and about as moving as watching paint dry.
...Just watch Michael Collins.