Calvary (John McDonagh, director of The Guard)

Sarxos

Cavalry, a new Irish film by The Guard director John Michael McDonagh has just begun production. The film sees Brendan Gleeson play a priest whose parish turn against him. It also stars Chris O’Dowd, Aidan Gillen, Domhnall Gleeson, Dylan Moran and Pat Shortt and should be a right laugh.

Murph_D

Eh, that's Calvary. It's not a cowboy film. Well, not intentionally anyway.

JP Liz V1

Surprised no trailer out yet for this considering it is released here the 1st of November 2013

Murph_D

Ha, You are assuming that Irish films compete in a commercial marketplace.Why would they need a trailer?

JP Liz V1

murphd77 wrote: »

Ha, You are assuming that Irish films compete in a commercial marketplace.Why would they need a trailer?

Yes

Sarxos

First trailer for the film has been released.

Gingervitis

Only saw the trailer for this today, didn't know anything about it. The cast list of this is phenomenal, it's almost the Irish equivalent of a Harry Potter movie in terms of prestige!

Looks a lot more serious than the Guard, but I'm sure there will be a lot of dark humour as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UlI6wJzOpc

CatInABox

Looks good, a veritable who's who of Irish acting and comedy.

For all it's faults, I enjoyed The Guard.

OwaynOTT

When is it out?

Murph_D

Calvary has been accepted for the Sundance Film Festival, so I wouldn't expect a general release until after that (the more prestigious festivals generally insist on a premiere). I understand it's down for Irish release in April.

brevity

Looks good but had to stop it half way though far too long.

losthorizon

brevity wrote: »

Looks good but had to stop it half way though far too long.

No wonder you are called brevity!

JP Liz V1

OwaynOTT wrote: »

When is it out?

Looks to be out here the 11th of April

OwaynOTT

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Looks to be out here the 11th of April

Yeah saw an ad for it in cinema recently

Looper007

It's amazing reading the jameson film festival thread how many on there disliked this but the reviews coming out for this are all top notch, the same happened with The Guard many hated it here but it was critical acclaimed. Maybe it's too close to home for many on here to enjoy it, basically too Irish. Got to say from the trailers it looks a very good dark comedy with Gleeson on top form. But I could be wrong.

e_e

Looper007 wrote: »

It's amazing reading the jameson film festival thread how many on there disliked this but the reviews coming out for this are all top notch.

Yeah I'm sort of in the middle. It's an inconsistent film but it has enough to recommend, also found it to be a big step-up from The Guard.

leggo

Saw this today and wrote up a review:

There's a line in this movie where Brendan Gleeson says, "That's a line that sounds like it's clever, but makes no sense when you think about it." Unfortunately that also describes this entire film.

It's like they had an idea, got a fantastic ensemble cast together (pretty much every notable Irish actor makes an appearance), then realised they didn't know what they wanted the movie to be about. It's all very full-of-itself and cocksure, begging the media to like them by showing the Times and Sindo in clear view, then begging the audience too by having Gleeson berate a property developer for ruining the country. It can't pick its battles and decide what it's actually railing against though, like listening to an emigrant patronise the Irish from abroad offering solutions on how to 'fix the country' while pretending their own life is perfect.

The problem is that if you can't decide if the enemy is the bankers, the property developers, people's sense of victimisation, the church or people's apathy towards faith, you don't have a movie. And loads of empty symbolism won't help you if there's no ultimate point to it all. Saying "we just put it out there, make up your own mind: that's art, man," is a cop out. Not exploring topics deeply enough for people to get a balanced view of it is lazy and fence-sitting.

The actors take the piss, Aidan Gillen in particular is having a laugh with his accent, full sure that they have a winning script freeing them to focus on their 'range'. Even stellar turns from the dependable Brendan Gleeson and Chris O'Dowd can't help the fact that they've nothing really to work with.

I wanted to like this movie. So did the audience I watched it in the cinema with, who politely and patiently laughed to the weak jokes that opened the movie. But that patience waned as the film's over-weighty script wore everyone down, and further 'jokes' barely got a cough. Very disappointing. The only people who'll like this are Ray Darcy listeners, people trying to look intelligent and British people who still feel guilty about that 700 years business.

Looper007

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taRhVn7cv0o

No Mark Kermode today but a great review with the great David Morrissey getting in on it. They seemed to think it was great.

Lukehandypants

The Guard was a completely overrated film I went in excited about seeing it but after a good start it just left me cold, such a let down.
I thought the photography was less than impressive, almost like they couldn't afford a generator for the lights and had to make do with whatever was lying around.
It was a bit too Orish for me as well.
The most impressive thing in it was the young guard that get shot on the side of the road, the realisation of the character that he was about to be shot was the highlight of the movie for me, the sub plot about him being gay was completely unessary.
The shoot out at the end felt like it was just something to make the film exciting.

But saying that I'm looking forward to seeing calvary although the above review isn't instilling great hope in me now.

Addle

Not at all what I expected.
I won't forget it in a hurry.

Mickeroo

Saw it tonight. It was a decent enough film but overall it felt a bit clunky.

I admire the ambition behind it in terms of the social commentary they attempt but a lot of didn't work for me.

Some of the "quirky" local characters didn't really fit in the film for me, in particular the guy with the bow tie and also the scene in the prison just seemed very tacked on.

I found it very hard to

take Chris O'Dowd seriously in the scene at the end.

Also, I seriously think Aiden Gillen is becoming a worse actor everytime I see him on screen. The actress who played the woman who was sleeping around was also terrible.

Despite the above I still thought it was a good effort, the armchair philosophy McDonagh seems to love didn't seem as out of place as it did in The Guard (a flawed film I enjoyed for what it was and was fairly puzzled at the vitriol it attracted on here). Kelly reilly and Brendan Gleeson are great in their roles too.

Definitely worth a watch, and a more interesting film than The Guard for sure. Don't expect the "it's like The Guard but with a priest!!" type film the trailers seem to be trying to depict though, it's a much more somber affair than it's been marketed as.

CatFromHue

Saw it today too and thought it was quite good, dark, but good.

The question it left me with, which I presume the is one of the points of the film, is where/what do we see the Church as now?

The Doctor's accent in the film was fairly bad and the guy with the Dickie Bow didn't work as well as he could (I presume he was the nice but dim character) but the other characters were very good. Good in the sense they were well acted and believable but like Love/Hate I didn't personally like them in any way. If anything I strongly disliked them actually.

Also who killed his dog if Chris O'Dowd didn't? Or was that meant to be a part of the general populace's dislike at the Church?

adox

A lot of it filmed a couple of hundred yards from my house in both directions, from the church and beach scenes to the pub scenes, looking forward to seeing this.

leggo

CatFromHue wrote: »

Also who killed his dog if Chris O'Dowd didn't? Or was that meant to be a part of the general populace's dislike at the Church?

I don't think they'd have a good answer for that. I think it came down to

wanting to keep Chris O'Dowd's character somewhat sympathetic

that he didn't. That's the kind of problem I had with it. Just twists for the sake of it then a deferral to 'art' and high-mindedness as an excuse for lack of answers.

e_e

leggo wrote: »

That's the kind of problem I had with it. Just twists for the sake of it then a deferral to 'art' and high-mindedness as an excuse for lack of answers.

I don't see an issue with this as long as it's genuinely provocative and thought-provoking. But yeah that part felt completely obvious to me and sorta distasteful/manipulative, especially when the exact same thing was more or less done in The Hunt 2 years ago too. There isn't even much of a question that the film asks, it's so clearly referring to the society's attitude to the church. It shows a real lack of confidence and subtlety on the writer's part too.

leggo

e_e wrote: »

I don't see an issue with this as long as it's genuinely provocative and thought-provoking. But yeah that part felt completely obvious to me and sorta distasteful/manipulative, especially when the exact same thing was more or less done in The Hunt 2 years ago too. There isn't even much of a question that the film asks, it's so clearly referring to the society's attitude to the church. It shows a real lack of confidence and subtlety on the writer's part too.

Exactly, it was trolling (

as was the likes of Gleeson berating Dylan Moran saying, "You ruined this country!"

). Lazy writing to try and elicit a short-term emotional reaction rather than weaving the story naturally toward the same end. The fact that they didn't even try to tie up this loose end or give any subtle clues pretty much proves that they had nothing.

Just saw the 5 Live review, had to laugh as it pretty much proved my point about Brits calling this a masterpiece on account of their residual guilt. Tenner bets that once it's out of cinemas we never hear it mentioned on that show again.

mindfuldrone

Leggo:
Explain what "residual guilt" of the Brits has to do with standing by while Catholic priests rape Irish kiddies for hundreds of years. Did you even watch the movie or was the view obscured by the collosal chips on each shoulder?

leggo

mindfuldrone wrote: »

Leggo:
Explain what "residual guilt" of the Brits has to do with standing by while Catholic priests rape Irish kiddies for hundreds of years. Did you even watch the movie or was the view obscured by the collosal chips on each shoulder?

You're missing my point completely, I'm referring to how English professionals tend to laud undeserved praise on a lot of mediocre/poor Irish projects like this. See also: how they celebrate our sporting success.

It has nothing to do with the church. It's a comment on the type of people who overlook gaping holes like those prevalent in movies like this and, thus, how those people will likely consider this genius when it's far from it and more of a lazy, clunky, evocative look at...well I don't think even the filmmakers know what exactly they're looking at here.

johnny_ultimate

I just don't think McDonagh has managed to get the right mix between broad comedy and sombre philosophising down. Calvary's biggest problem* is that it's so all over the gaff tonally speaking - while there's undoubtedly interesting stuff going on throughout (more so than The Guard anyway), it always feels undermined by its fondness for crude clownery and caricatures. Gleeson does lend a weight and sophistication to the material that's much needed, however: even when the film is farting around or overstating its themes, it seems as if Gleeson can navigate the tonal tightrope even when his director can't.

*I lied - its biggest problem is Aidan Gillen turning in one of the worst performances in the history of Irish cinema.

philstar

haven't seen it but why is he dressed like a priest from the 1950s ??

priests don't dress like that anymore surely

safetyboy

Aidan Gillen was dodgy, but I enjoyed the film apart from David Wilmot, he's only good in intermission!

e_e

Dylan Moran was damn good in this I have to say.

fro9etb8j5qsl2

leggo wrote: »

The only people who'll like this are Ray Darcy listeners, people trying to look intelligent and British people who still feel guilty about that 700 years business.

This is one of the most ridiculous, condescending, judgemental generalisations I have ever read :rolleyes:

leggo

Why do you care if some random person makes that generalisation though?

PTH2009

really enjoyed the movie,

suprised it was Chris O Dowds character that was the killer, i thought it was going to be the guard or the doctor

Pat shortt was good in it as the bar man as was Dylan Moran, Chris O Dowd and Killian Scott. Aidan Gillan had a weird accent but his character was good

P_1

Decent enough film I thought aside from Aidan Gillen's accent (did he think he was in Hardy Bucks or something?).

Rob094

I genuinely thought....

...it was that american(?) guy with the cross necklace. The conversation Father James had with him when playing pool had layers and his "accent" sort of broke at the end. Thought it'd work with the audience not recognising the voice of the killer.

johnny_ultimate

leggo wrote: »

Why do you care if some random person makes that generalisation though?

Because that kind of childish generalisation is toxic to discussion and has no place in reasonable let alone interesting film discussion. Please lay off that type of language, because it's not welcome here.

leggo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Because that kind of childish generalisation is toxic to discussion and has no place in reasonable let alone interesting film discussion. Please lay off that type of language, because it's not welcome here.

Language? There was no language used? Did you even read or understand the quote (I've already had one person think I was blaming the British for the church's wrongdoings, so there's precedent)? I didn't insult or aim it at anyone personally, it was a comment on the type of people who enjoy these broad strokes arguments that fail to zone in on anything specific or suggest a solution and, thus, a comment on the movie itself. What I'm doing is a little technique called 'drawing parallels'.

If you thought there was language used or it was an attack on anyone, then you don't seem qualified to talk to anyone in the dreaded bold text. You've never read an evocative movie review before? You've never heard of the 'You'll enjoy this if you...' format being used? All of the above are pretty established staples of film discussion. If you'd let the conversation flow without banging your mod hammer, you'd be surprised how we'd likely be able to spark an interesting and thought-provoking discussion of the movie without anyone's feelings getting hurt since, you know, there was never actually any personal attack there.

"It has no place in reasonable conversation." :pac:

johnny_ultimate

leggo wrote: »

If you'd let the conversation flow without banging your mod hammer, you'd be surprised how we'd likely be able to spark an interesting and thought-provoking discussion of the movie without anyone's feelings getting hurt since, you know, there was never actually any personal attack there.

Oh, but there was an attack - you felt it necessary to condescend and insult everyone who happened to enjoy a very highly acclaimed film in condescending manner (and IMO undermining your own interesting point of view in the process). If anything, it's even worse than a direct personal attack, as you pull in a huge range of people - there's a huge difference between saying 'you'll probably like this if you liked The Guard', and 'you'll only like this is if you're trying to sound intelligent'. I've been around here long enough to see the unpleasant directions that kind of 'language' (and language it is, as are most words typed) always takes discussion, and instead of sparking interesting discussion it absolutely kills it. The amount of negative comments and reports your comments caused lay testament to that - it adds an unpleasant, hostile tone to the conversation that is not in any way necessary.

Anyway, that's enough of this tangent, sadly this has only dragged the thread further off from the interesting, lively conversation that is taking place in the thread, and surrounding a divisive, interesting film. Yes, I am going to pull out that bold text again: So no more on this topic - if you want to discuss this further with me, please take it to PM. Let the discussion here focus on the film itself from now on, as opposed to the many people who have or are going to like or dislike it.

(Mod note: two posts have been deleted to just get the discussion back on track)

leggo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Oh, but there was an attack - you felt it necessary to condescend and insult everyone who happened to enjoy a very highly acclaimed film in condescending manner (and IMO undermining your own interesting point of view in the process). If anything, it's even worse than a direct personal attack, as you pull in a huge range of people - there's a huge difference between saying 'you'll probably like this if you liked The Guard', and 'you'll only like this is if you're trying to sound intelligent'. I've been around here long enough to see the unpleasant directions that kind of 'language' (and language it is, as are most words typed) always takes discussion, and instead of sparking interesting discussion it absolutely kills it. The amount of negative comments and reports your comments caused lay testament to that - it adds an unpleasant, hostile tone to the conversation that is not in any way necessary.

Anyway, that's enough of this tangent, sadly this has only dragged the thread further off from the interesting, lively conversation that is taking place in the thread, and surrounding a divisive, interesting film. Yes, I am going to pull out that bold text again: So no more on this topic - if you want to discuss this further with me, please take it to PM. Let the discussion here focus on the film itself from now on, as opposed to the many people who have or are going to like or dislike it.

Grand, I'll happily drop it and continue with a proper discussion. That was always my intention. Made the last post while you were writing this.

Hrududu

I saw this at the Dublin Film Festival and found it a bit messy. There were a lot of characters thrown in and each scene they had with Gleeson seemed to have a different tone. There were some who could have easily been cut and it would have made the film stronger. As others have said Aidan Gillen was pretty terrible in it.

Gleeson gave a very strong performance in it, I just wish he had a better film around him if that makes sense.

nyarlothothep

I enjoyed it and I thought I would hate it as I normally don't go near maudlin oirish productions. However I liked the philosophical dimension to the film and honestly Aiden Gillen wasn't that bad, ok it was like he wandered off the set of GoT and was playing littlefinger with a country accent but other than that I enjoyed the silliness of his performance. Brendan Gleeson was unbelievable in it and should win an award for it, it was an acting masterclass imo. I thought it didn't try too hard to be funny, if anything it started out with some jokes because it basically goes unrelentingly serious without much let up about midway through. I thought the different characters were interesting, it did feel a bit ridiculous however when Brendan Gleeson was turning up in every scene, solemn and ready to impart advice, it came to a head in the cocaine scene. I thought the prison scene was a bit jarring. Other than that I thought it was good and I usually avoid these types of films.

AerynSun

I saw Calvary today, and enjoyed it far more than I thought I would. I didn't think it was as comic as it was billed to be, it was much darker with plenty of cynicism thrown in, but it worked, because the emotion that emerged was ... what would be the word ... fragile, deep.

Beautiful film. Made me want to visit Sligo

Basq

I loved it.. it was hilarious and quite dark in parts and the the performances was largely (I'll get to the exception in a minute) excellent - particularly Gleeson, Moran and O Dowd.

And I will admit it was great to see the beautiful county of Sligo up on the big screen, and especially to see places I visit every week like Strandhill, Culleenamore and Ben Bulben up there was amazing. Even the sights of

seeing an Aer Lingus plane leaving Strandhill Airport was bizarre considering the last public flight out of there was Aer Arann almost 3 years ago!

The one bad point was definitely Aidan Gillen - I don't know how he continues to get work.. he's godawful - anyone else think he was channelling Viper Higgins with that character?! It was ludicrous!

Anyways, I enjoyed it much more than The Guard if I'm being honest, and the closing few minutes were incredibly powerful IMO.

baby and crumble

Went to see this tonight, and I have to say I found it to be one of the best Irish movies in a fair while. Aiden Gillens accent was truly bizarre, I don't know why he couldn't just use his own, not like it'd be weird.

I thought it looked stunning, visually. I also thought it showed off some great Irish talent- both the Gleesons were great, as were O'Dowd and Moran.

When the credits rolled, the whole cinema (and it was a fully packed one) was just dead quiet- nobody moved, talked or did anything for a good 90 seconds. You could've heard a pin drop. I think that says more about the film than anything else really.

wp_rathead

Really enjoyed the film - Moran, Gleeson and O'Dowd were brilliant - but my fav character was Milo played by Killian Scott.

Aidan Gillen (the doc) and Gleeson's daughter let film down abit, but apart from that was great.

One question I did wish was answered was:

WHO KILLED HIS DOG?!?!?!

Rob094

wprathead wrote: »

One question I did wish was answered was:

WHO KILLED HIS DOG?!?!?!

That was interesting and there's a number of things I hope I'll pick up on when I re-watch.

Presumably the dog was suggestive that similar feelings towards the church was had my others in the community. Also I'm wondering about that flashback part towards the end when James is walking with his daughter and she mentions something being buried in the dune

fro9etb8j5qsl2

Besides

the dog

, I'm confused as to why gleeson

went to dublin. He said he had some business to take care of but we are not shown what it was (unless i missed something)

ronnie3585

I saw this at the weekend and I was hugely disappointed. I really wanted to like it, the cast looked strong and I thought it was an interesting premise. However, I found the movie completely disjointed, lacking any direction. It got completely lost in itself, was it supposed to be an allegory, a satire or a who done it? It was over stylised to the point of ridicule.

The scene where Gleeson is shot in the head is laughable.

The characters were weak and one dimensional. Aidan Gillen turns in one of his worst performances, he was like a character from Hardy Bucks - what was up with his accent?

I was looking forward to this as I loved the Guard, however for me it fell flat on its face.

walshb

I am mixed in this. Gleeson is a very good actor,. No drama or exaggeration with him. Just straight up and solid. I thought Killian and Gillen's characters could have been toned down a wee bit. Overall a 7.5/10. Enjoyed it.