The Guard (Irish film with Brendan Gleeson and Don Cheadle)

humanji

Saw this last night and thought it was really good. Absolutely hilarious at times. But there was something about it that I felt was off. I think it was the way the subplots were really only touched upon. It was almost as if the original script had been really long, like a mini-series or something, and had been shaved down to a films length. There was loads of room to explore the characters in detail, but they just didn't.

Still, I'd recommend it. Not the greatest movie in the world, but great fun to watch.

red_hot_nirvana

Can anybody tell me the name of the last song at the end of the credits? Its an instrumental. . . . its brilliant!

krudler

Saw it earlier today, its ok, nothing amazing, not bad. some funny lines and Gleeson and Cheadle played off each other well, Mark Strong was cool in it as well.

Mickeroo

Just back from it now. I really enjoyed it I have to say. I see what people were talking about with the pointless subplots alright, but it didn't really bother me all that much. Cheadle and Gleeson were great in it, although I thought the buddy aspect could have been played up a little more, I felt their characters didn't really spend enough time together which was a shame as they had really good chemistry I thought. I liked the faux-western sountrack and the quasi-philosaphical bits, although they were a bit odd. MY biggest gripe actually was I felt there really was no need for

the ambiguous ending whatsoever,

Solid effort, not a classic , although in terms of Irish movies its definitley one of the better ones, and it was good they tried to make it a little different.

krudler

I kinda groaned a bit when Pat Shortt turned up, does he have to be in anything made in Ireland?

Mickeroo

krudler wrote: »

I kinda groaned a bit when Pat Shortt turned up, does he have to be in anything made in Ireland?

Imagine if this hit big in the states and he became an international star because of it. Unlikely, but also UNTHINKABLE.

Soby

Saw it tonight.Loved it .Great film by irish standards

professore

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It also seems unfair to let it get away with murder simply because it's Irish

No one said it was awful (oh, one person did) just arguing that we didn't think it was as great as others said. Sensible discourse is only to be encouraged, and yes support independent cinema by all means. But I'm not going to ignore the often crippling flaws of the Guard simply because there's a couple of chuckles and some good ideas. And it's all just opinion.

It's miles ahead of most of the ****e we get to watch on the silver screen nowadays.

Revolution9

krudler wrote: »

I kinda groaned a bit when Pat Shortt turned up, does he have to be in anything made in Ireland?

They'll have his sweat in the Guinness next.

I usually can't stand him, but he ended up having one of the best lines in the film

about the IRA turning gay to infiltrate M15

Gallant_JJ

Loved it too, thoroughly enjoyable, great buzz in the cinema too watching it. Gleeson deserves serious credit. Cheadle's ignorance to the rural attitude towards guards is brilliant.

The Maverick

Very enjoyable as has been said. It's not an oscar winning classic or anything but it is well worth a watch. Brendan Glleson is very believable as the country guard who just doesn't give a **** anymore. The only thing that annoyed me is

Why did the dealers shoot the younger garda? He seemed to become scared of them, persumably because they knew he was gay, and start to leave. Then next thing you know, they've killed him, dumped the body and nobody seems to care.

podgemonster

I really enjoyed the film last night. Laughing at some of lines last night thinking to myself "i really should not be laughing like at this". I thought the location was perfect, vast barren lanscape, harsh conditions and the ordinary rural people are a strange and hostile bunch.

Gleeson portrays a guard who is on autopilot, easily seen in the first scene. The scenes with his mother were quite touching as you could see she was the only he really cared about.

The humour is dark and plenitful. the trio of villain alway brought a some excellent laughs and were not the typical baddies, they had an delusion of grandure about them which i found hilarious. The small part characters were also pretty funny from Pat Shorts to the guy with the lamp.

Favourite quote

Boy: What would the IRA be doing with a little gun like that?
Guard: Porbably for shooting little Prodestants

xalot

Thought it was grand, both leads were excellent and didn't have enough scenese together but it was very run of the mill for me.

johnny_ultimate

professore wrote: »

It's miles ahead of most of the ****e we get to watch on the silver screen nowadays.

I really don't know why this is riling people up so much A few of us are just arguing that it's OK as opposed to great, it's opinion. Is it worth picking over Transformers 3? Yes. Is it worth picking over A Separation or the Tree of Life? No. It is what it is, but it most certainly is not the masterpiece Irish cinema has been waiting for since the Butcher Boy. It's a moderately amusing, throwaway comedy with some great ideas and some poor implementation.

And that, in short, is an opinion.

Mindkiller

I remember saying to my father once that I thought The Field was a load of contrived poorly written nonsense. He said I shouldn't say stuff like that because people would see it as 'going against your own' or something ridiculous like that

I'll probably pick this up when it comes out on DVD, but statements like 'It's a great film by Irish standards' don't fill me with confidence. Are our standards just appallingly low?

don ramo

krudler wrote: »

I kinda groaned a bit when Pat Shortt turned up, does he have to be in anything made in Ireland?

yeah you cant funding from the irish film board without him

don ramo

Mindkiller wrote: »

I remember saying to my father once that I thought The Field was a load of contrived poorly written nonsense. He said I shouldn't say stuff like that because people would see it as 'going against your own' or something ridiculous like that

I'll probably pick this up when it comes out on DVD, but statements like 'It's a great film by Irish standards' don't fill me with confidence. Are our standards just appallingly low?

its not a great film by irish standards, its acceptable by irish standards, i thought irish film was going somewhere a few years ago, with a song for raggy boy, veronica guerin, man about dog, intermission and then it just seemed to stop for no reason,

Mickeroo

don ramo wrote: »

its not a great film by irish standards, its acceptable by irish standards, i thought irish film was going somewhere a few years ago, with a song for raggy boy, veronica guerin, man about dog, intermission and then it just seemed to stop for no reason,

Veronica Guerin and Man About Dog were rubbish imo, not seen Song for a Raggy Boy properly but thought The Guard was easily as good if not better than Intermission.

Mindkiller

Bleh, Intermission was terrible. Xtravision were practically giving it away at one point. I have a copy I got for free when I rented In Bruges (which was a great Irish movie. 'They're filming midgets! ')

Aldebaran

Just back from seeing it, wasn't impressed at all. I can only remember one genuine laugh out loud moment. Very disappointing.

El Horseboxo

I thought it was decent enough for a bit of entertainment to pass 90 mins or so. Not great by any stretch of the imagination but did have some funny moments. However a lot of the jokes seemed like they thought up of a punchline and then tried desperately to build up to it rather than creating an entire comical scene. Either that or just cheap jokes. For example the part when Cheadle first comes over and gives the run down of whats up.

As seen in the trailer Gleeson says he thought only black lads and Mexicans were drug dealers. Even after all the trailers the packed cinema i was at still burst out laughing. Why would somebody that is a sargeant and presumably has been a garda for years think since nonsense. Especially someone that alluded towards buying various drugs throughout the film. So between possibly encountering numerous drug dealers in his career and personal life he has never bought from an Irish white dealer?

Too many lazy cheap jokes.

Mickeroo

El Horseboxo wrote: »

As seen in the trailer Gleeson says he thought only black lads and Mexicans were drug dealers. Even after all the trailers the packed cinema i was at still burst out laughing. Why would somebody that is a sargeant and presumably has been a garda for years think since nonsense. Especially someone that alluded towards buying various drugs throughout the film. So between possibly encountering numerous drug dealers in his career and personal life he has never bought from an Irish white dealer?

He was deliberately doing it to get a rise out of the guy and the other garda present.

krudler

podgemonster wrote: »

I really enjoyed the film last night. Laughing at some of lines last night thinking to myself "i really should not be laughing like at this". I thought the location was perfect, vast barren lanscape, harsh conditions and the ordinary rural people are a strange and hostile bunch.

I dont think the people of Salthill would appreciate it being called a "vast barren landscape" its 5 mins away from Galway city :pac:

krudler

Soby wrote: »

Saw it tonight.Loved it .Great film by irish standards

whys it just have to be by Irish standards though? why cant it just be a great film?

kippy

krudler wrote: »

I dont think the people of Salthill would appreciate it being called a "vast barren landscape" its 5 mins away from Galway city :pac:

Probably talking more about the remote scenes,

where the guns were found for instance.......

optogirl

Phony Scott wrote: »

Why was she even upset if it was a marriage of convenience? 4/10

?? Cos her friend was murdered!

I really enjoyed it I have to say. I thought Brendan Gleeson was excellent. Thought the Pat Shortt bit was pointless but overall thoroughly enjoyed it.

Buceph

SKIP PAST THIS POST IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM: THERE ARE SPOILERS IN IT BECAUSE I COULDN'T RESPOND TO SOME OF THE OTHER PEOPLE'S POINTS WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE FILM IN DEPTH.


IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM SKIP PAST THIS POST

Phony Scott wrote: »

A massive disappointment, I tittered here and there, but didn’t laugh.

The writing tried way too hard to be sophisticated and postmodern where the drug barons talk about Nietzsche for no real reason

I thought it was kind of funny. Even the sociopath obviously got a bit of reading done while he was in "The Joy."

or where one of them (the English guy) berates two bagmen for counting money. But it’s utterly pointless.

Two bagmen? One of them was one of the high ranking guards. And it was funny for exactly the reasons he outlined. He wanted something from them, why would he rip them off? It was a pisstake of stupid, lazy lines from other films and tv. Films and TV that the guards picking up the money would be basing their entire criminal dealings on. thatsthejoke.jpg

Other bits of the film didn't add up or didn’t have any pay-off for example, what was the point of having the Croatian girl in the film? She added nothing to the story.

It was foreshadowing for Boyles eventual disappearance. The part where he meets her at night is to show her that someone cared that her husband/friend died and was going to do something about it. And his line about getting to know her better was either A) him showing the audience that he was going to his death or b) setting up a chain of evidence for his eventual disappearance.

What was the whole marriage thing about? Why was she even upset if it was a marriage of convenience?

She obviously loved him. Loads of marriages based on visas are done between two friends. I know a couple who married so he could get an American visa. They had spent ages travelling and it was a deal between two friends who loved each other, but in a platonic way.

Why tell the audience that the cop was gay?

To further the story. To set up the connection between the guard, the woman and the murdered guard. To cast doubt on why he was murdered and to give Boyle something to ruminate over.

What was the point of the weapons cache? How did the little kid find them? What was the point of having the IRA in the film other than to have a cheap gag about MI5, which, by the way, noone at the screening I saw laughed at?

First off. I was at a 2pm showing on a Thursday and loads of people laughed at that line. The point of it was obviously to get the guns into Boyles hands. How many rural stations have automatic weapons in a locker for the local seargant to bust out? He couldn't call in the armed response unit because the decoy was set for Cork, and anyway, the higher ups he would have had to go through were all paid off.

I’m flummoxed how this film is getting brilliant reviews. Brendan Gleeson is on autopilot and nobody else stands out, with the exception of Don Cheadle, who is excellent as always. In Bruges was a masterpiece compared to this muck. 4/10

Of course your flummoxed. You seemed to watch the film "on autopilot." Maybe if you thought about it a bit you'd get it.

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

I thought Gleeson was lazy in his role and the usual suspects got sweet pay checks.

I thought Gleeson was fantastic. Really showed what the typical view of a country guard is. Boyle was so relaxed throughout the film, but that was only a veneer, the truth being that he just didn't give a ****. Drug dealer dies, he doesn't care. Car crashes full of retards doing drugs and drinking, he saves their Mammies some embarrasment and pops a bit of their acid. Bigshot FBI agent comes with half a billion of drugs, so he jokes about "what street do you get your drugs from." Even when meeting his mother's doctor he's sullenly resigned to her fate, but when he spends time with his mother, he lights up, starts talking about literature and music. Gleeson changes absolutely between these two roles, excellent acting. The transformation was slower than his "coked up" face in In Bruges, but just as good as it. And the way he shows determination at the end, still in the "not giving a ****" role outwardly, but obviously caring about the wrongs that have been perpetrated.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Yeah can't say I was too fond of it either. It was pretty up itself at the best of times, having pretentions the writer/director was unable to live up too. For every funny moment, there was a ludicrously pointless subplot - especially the romantic one which was beyond a joke.

What romantic subplot? There was a hint that he would like to get to know the Polish women better (and not in a dirty way) but that was literally one line, and a line said as Boyle went to his death.

The most ludicrous thing was that a polish women would need a visa for here, seeing as they're freely allowed to stay here. It's different in Britain, but the writer obviously didn't realise that.

And actually thought Cheadle was pretty bland in it - doing his best with a limited role, I guess!

Cheadle was great. He went from an FBI agent on business, to a friend of the guard in a matter of days. And not in a "I'll come to your barbeque and help you build your kids swing set" way, but a professional friend who'll use his employers phone to talk every few months. And a professional police officer friend who would risk his life for his "friend." If you didn't catch the change in tone from "You are one unconventional police officer" line, then I feel sorry for you. You missed out on a great deal of the film.





To be honest, I came out of the cinema a little disappointed. The comedy was far more overt than in In Bruges, and far less surreal, but still it seemed a little flat. But after ruminating on it, The Guard, while with more overt comedy, is actually a lot subtler than In Bruges. Where in Bruges had coked up faces and midgets talking about race wars, the Guard has a depressed but honourable man trudging through life with whatever little jollies he can take and a dying mother. He gets his little kicks out of life, and that's where the funnies in the film are, but really he doesn't have much of substance. Cheadle's character and the murder of Gleeson's guard underling adds something of importance to the proceedings. The film doesn't take it and run straight to the finish line from there, but explores the characters and their thoughts. I honestly felt like I knew every one of the major characters by the end of it, and there was a lot of them. I thought the film was excellent, and not because it was a comedy, because that was actually its weakest part, and really only used as a foil to everything else.


The one down side of it. That kid's accent, really annoyed me.






























POST ENDED. YOU MAY NOW RESUME YOUR NORMAL READING


I'd have spoilered this but you can't do spoilers and quotes.

johnny_ultimate

I merely read the grieving widow subplot as an attempt to lampoon superfluous romantic subplots. Like many things in this film the intentions were good, but lacking in delivery. It's like the sick mother plot - we don't learn anything majorly important in the third, fourth or fifth scenes of these plots that we didn't learn in the first. And that's why I feel they clog up screentime - they remind us that Boyle is a fundamentally decent guy, but I got that (and the other minor concerns of these plots) and hence I felt I was being lectured too. They were devoid of laughs, awkwardly delivered and repetitive, and I personally felt they could have been trimmed into a far leaner package.

Benny_Cake

Buceph wrote: »

The most ludicrous thing was that a polish women would need a visa for here, seeing as they're freely allowed to stay here. It's different in Britain, but the writer obviously didn't realise that.

Just to nitpick, she was Croatian, so she would need a visa!

margio

just went to see film tonight, it was good, i left just as they were going through the cast, so just wondering after that bit did they return to

what actually happened to Brendan Gleeson's character, or are we just left to wonder whether he survived or what