As a movie it was grand but as a big fan of the Gleeson/McDonagh brothers films it's hard not to draw comparisons and in that sense it's a let down.
Maybe it's my own fault for expecting more humour with the bleak like their other work.
Condon was great as some said but as others said I didn't like Keoghan's performance although I have to say I'm not sure I ever warm to him.
It must have something going for it given all the plaudits, but it left me unmoved unfortunately. I didn’t care about any of the characters and the whole thing had a self-indulgent almost am-dram feel. The comedic sequences, for instance the confession scene, didn’t land at all for me, nor did the supposedly ‘shocking’ scenes.
You weren't alone. In the Cinema there was only myself laughing at the confession scene.
Watched this the other night. It was alright, but not worth all the praise it's getting. Acting was superb, but the 'funny' parts weren't very funny and the 'shocking' parts were just silly in my opinion. I kept thinking of The Field when I was watching it. And thinking of how much better that film was.
Not saying that the field was a bad film but I think O'Toole overacted a bit.
Didn't really like the film at all. The base premise was ridiculous ("stop talking to me or ill cut my fingers off"), but played too serious for such a silly concept. Thought the overuse of "feck this and that" was a bit oirish. Not sure where the love for Barry keoghan is coming from either, thought his portrayal was bordering on cartoonish.
It felt like a bit of a pisstake of island living from people who had only read about island living from a book
I think that you may have mixed up actors there.
Yes, Harris it was alright. Don't know why I always get them confused.
That first but is how I felt. Not enough comedy for the weird premise and too much of a weird premise to be a very good drama. As a big fan of the McDonaghs Irish based films this was really lacking for me.
As for the island thing ya it was set on an island but it really could have been any of the many isolated communities in Ireland. But even the biting satire of that version of Irish life felt flat in comparison to say Calvary or the Guard.
I'd completely agree. The Field is a great film. Much better than this nonsense.
I watched it and didn't really get it, and what was the fingers thing about? I can't say i enjoyed it.
The best thing he's done, banshees would have been better as short film as well. Maybe an anthology type thing should be his next film project.
Were you watching the film, or scrolling through facebook and glancing at it occasionally?
The fingers thing is pretty central to the whole plot of the movie
You didn't even have to watch the film, the trailers gave that part away
I thnk the spate of bad reviews from people after it came out on streaming, is mostly due to people 'watching' the movie while also 'multitasking'
This isn't a film where you can ignore it until an explosion tells you something important just happened.
I liked this film but I don't understand why it is quite so highly regarded.
It's extremely well made and the performances are superb across the board. But I'm not surprised to see so many "huh?" reactions now that it's on streaming.
As a film, it's not particularly clear in what it's trying to say. And while that may appeal to my inner film snob who "gets it", there's a pretension to its execution. The ending isn't particularly satisfying. I wouldn't watch it again.
Will his fingers grow back in time for the sequel??
Banshees would have been sh1t as a short
I can understand why. Here is the two of them together socially.
And they were both as drunk as a flock as skunks and loving every moment of it
Not being particularly clear on what it's trying to say used to be called Subtlety
And the Film wasn't even subtle, it was very clear about the main themes. (while still having nuance and ambuguity within the main plot)
If people actually watched the film, with their eyes, when their phones were somewhere else, then they would get the themes and while the ending isn't spelt out, this was done on purpose. Cinema isn't about preaching a story to the audience, it's often about provoking the audience to ask questions and interpret the movie themselves
I watched it, no phones no distraction but the fingers thing went right over my head. No clue what it was about. As i said it wasn't into the film from the start maybe i disengaged from the plot.
What was your interpretation of the fingers being cut off?
Sure, a film can absolutely be as subtle as it wants to be. No dispute there. All I'm saying is that I'm not surprised by the reaction people are having watching it on TV.
I watched it in the cinema after having read about it (without using my phone). For what it's worth, I "get" the film. But the average viewer looking for some evening entertainment may not be so keen on a film of this style.
I like the film, I just didn't think it was as satisfying an experience as the phenomenal critical acclaim would have suggested (admittedly a very high bar).
True and I got more enjoyment from that clip than the film (bringing back on topic).
I thought the film had a grim depressing feel to it. I ended up watching it as i was in the company of a couple of people during the week and one said he liked it and the other said it was terrible. I was interested to see if it was any good.
Lost all interest when dunbelievables turned up, total feckin eejits who'd ruin a **** day.
Fair enough. I just think art should be judged by the people who are paying attention
So, about 10 minutes in?
It's a dark comedy. You're supposed to extract humour from the grimness.
Not everyone finds the humour but for those who do, it's very funny
Yup, only other thing I remember is the donkey dead from choking on a finger. Was very disappointed with it!
So you don't like a film you didn't watch.
Fair enough
