Movie Review: The Banshees of Inisheren

The Banshees of Inisheren (2022) 

Directed by Martin McDonough 

Written by Martin McDonough 

Starring Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, Kerry Condon, Barry Keoghan 

Release Date November 4th, 2022 

The Banshees of Inisherin stars Colin Farrell as a farmer named Padraic whose life is thrown into chaos when his closest friend, Colm (Brendan Gleeson), randomly decides that they are not friends anymore. Without explaining why, Colm refuses to answer the door when Padraic comes to call at the usual time to go to the pub. Later, Colm returns only to find Colm has left to go to the pub. He assumes this means they will meet for a pint but at the bar, Colm tells Padraic to leave him alone. 

Did Padraic get drunk and offend his friend? He doesn't think so but Colm won't say either way. Eventually, after prodding from Padraic's sister, Siobahn (Kerry Condon), and the local priest, during confession, Colm finally says what is going on. In a blunt conversation, Colm says Padraic is boring and conversations with him are a waste of time. Colm wants to spend what life he has left, however many years that is, building a legacy for himself by writing music and creating art and he can no longer afford to have Padraic wasting his time with nattering, inane conversations about farming. 

The story of The Banshees of Inisherin is set in 1923 on a fictional island off of the coast of Ireland. The tiny village is lined with rock walls and dirt walkways and roads. Everyone is in everyone else's business all the time. Gossip is trade on Inisherin and thus, the unexpected conflict between Colm and Padraic becomes a top conversation. As the story evolves and the sweet, naïve, and sensitive Padraic tries to reach out to his friend, things take a dark and darkly comic turn. I don't want to spoil any of the oddity of The Banshees of Inisherin, the strange and unexpected twists and turns, especially from Gleeson's Colm drive the second start of the third act of The Banshees of Inisherin. 

The Banshees of Inisherin is strange only because it's a story that isn't often told in movies, a story of male friendship and companionship. Director Martin McDonaugh is exploring the complex dynamic of masculinity and friendship in a sensitive and terrifically odd way. The character of Padraic is representative of a group of men who define themselves in their work, they keep their head down and they let the world happen around them. Colm, through his age and experience, is eager to be a man with a legacy, a man to be remembered. He wants to make things happen while Padraic just wants to have a pint with someone. 

The unique dynamic between these two men, one complicated and fraught, the other simple and resigned, is fascinating as much for the heart and soul that Gleeson and Farrell invest in these characters as it is for the unusual topic of complicated male friendships. I'm resisting assigning political metaphors to each character but that is certainly one reading. One man thinking of the future and a legacy, the other wanting the world to stay as it is. One man willing to go to extremes to push forward the other lost in despair at what is being lost. 

Read my complete review on Geeks.Media 

Movie Review Green Zone

Green Zone (2010)

Directed by Paul Greengrass

Written by Brian Helgeland

Starring Matt Damon, Greg Kinnear, Brendan Gleeson, Amy Ryan

Release Date March 12th, 2010

Published March 11th, 2010 

It’s tempting to say ‘too little, too late’ about the politics of the new thriller “Green Zone.” I was just getting started working in talk radio in 2002 and 2003 when the march to war in Iraq began and I was wondering at the time when Hollywood or anyone other than me, and a coterie of liberal groups, were going to start asking serious questions about why we were going to war in a country that had not attacked us and did not have any weapons of mass destruction.

Joe Wilson told us that the intelligence was faulty while others told the true tale of the Bush Administration wanting a war against Saddam and a chance to finish the job left undone by the first gulf war, and Bush's father George H.W. Bush. This information was readily available at the time but Hollywood, like so many others, allowed themselves to be cowed by administration goons screaming about a lack of patriotism in those who opposed war.

In the years since the decision was made Hollywood has become slightly less timid. Sure, there was always Michael Moore but he’s not Hollywood, he’s never been cowed by anyone but the occasional untruth. No, the filmmakers timidly attempted telling human stories, soldier stories but avoided really taking on the central issues of the war in Iraq and the war on terror.

It wasn’t until last year when the boldest critique of Bush administration policy arrived in James Cameron’s “Avatar.” Yes, though some loathe admitting it, not wanting to spoil the brain free fun of the film’s fantastic visuals, the most successful film of all time is an anti-war tract scoring points against preemptive war, occupying armies and how the war on terror has been fought.

I have issues with the heavy handed points that the ultra-liberal James Cameron makes in “Avatar” but mostly I was irritated that it came so late to the game. We needed a movie like “Avatar” 6 years ago when the topic was bold, fresh and there was an impact to be made. That same feeling clouds my appreciation of Matt Damon’s new thriller “Green Zone,” arguably the boldest direct criticism of the war in Iraq Hollywood has yet delivered.

Matt Damon stars as Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, leader of a squad searching for WMD in the days immediately following the invasion of Iraq. Roy is growing frustrated quickly. Each site his team raids comes up empty and looks to have been empty for a very long time. When Miller questions the ‘intel’ that keeps sending him to empty sites he is told not to ask questions, just follow orders.

Miller’s questions however catch the ear of a CIA Agent, Martin Brown (Brenden Gleeson), who encourages Miller to keep asking questions and if he turns up something useful, call him. Miller soon does turn up something interesting and it is something that some very powerful people will do anything to keep quiet. Greg Kinnear plays a shady White House official who opposes Miller and Brown.

“Green Zone” boldly tackles the Bush Administration’s main justification for war in Iraq, the need to secure Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. We know now, really we knew then, that Saddam had no weapons and hadn’t had weapons since the first gulf war. The futile search for weapons they knew weren’t there cost far too many innocent lives, though “Green Zone” doesn’t pause too long to ponder that, the point is made in brief.

The film goes further in other avenues of the war however, wading into the strategy of the administration’s post war policy. In disbanding the Iraqi army the Bush Administration missed an important opportunity to shorten the war by keeping the guys with the guns employed on our side as opposed to unemployed, armed and desperate. Keeping some of the Baathists in power would have been controversial but it also would have saved lives.

Now, I am making “Green Zone” out to be heavier than it is. Trust me; this is an action thriller at its heart. Directed by Paul Greengrass, the director of two of the Jason Bourne blockbusters, “Green Zone” starts fast and is relentless in its pulse pounding action and suspense. The political points are scored on the edges while the action and suspense dominate the foreground.

“Green Zone” features bold politics and bad ass action and yet, like “Avatar,” it comes far too late to the party. Don’t get me wrong, it’s nice to have my opinions reiterated with the force of pop culture behind them but I was making these points about the war at the time. I know Hollywood can’t make movies quickly but seven years late is a little much.

For those not invested in an anti-war stance as I was and am, “Green Zone” still offers the pleasure of being a seriously butt kicking action flick with realism, violence and chest tightening, pulse pounding suspense. I may still be lamenting the war in Iraq but “Green Zone” moves so quickly that lament will be the last thing most will feel while watching.

Movie Review: Dark Blue

Dark Blue (2003) 

Directed by Ron Shelton

Written by David Ayer

Starring Kurt Russell, Ving Rhames, Scott Speedman, Michael Michele, Brendan Gleeson 

Release Date February 21st, 2003

Published February 20th, 2003

The corrupt cop movie has become a genre all it's own and a surprisingly compelling one. Two of the genres most recent entries are Joe Carnahan's Narc and Antoine Fuqua's Training Day, two well-acted and well-written films. However, the genre is also a convenient backdrop for straight to video exploitation films starring Baldwin brothers. So to which extreme does the Kurt Russell-Ron Shelton teaming Dark Blue lean? Sadly a little bit of both.

Set in Los Angeles in 1992, one year after the Rodney King beating and just four days before the acquittal of the four officers involved in the beating, Dark Blue stars Russell as LAPD detective Elden Perry. A member of LA's feared S.I.S unit, Perry and his young partner Bobby Keogh (Felicity's Scott Speedman) have a “play by their own rules” style that flies in the face of legality but does get things done.

As we join the story, Keough is in front of an investigative board to determine whether his use of deadly force in a recent bust was justified. The investigators seem to be willing to accept that the shooting was justified, all of them accept Deputy Chief Arthur Holland (Ving Rhames) who has been suspicious of S.I.S tactics for a very long time. As we soon find out the shooting wasn't clean and Keough wasn't the one who actually pulled the trigger. Indeed, it's questionable whether the guy they shot was even the right criminal.

The S.I.S is headed up by a corrupt lifetime cop Jack Van Meter (Brenden Gleeson), who served with Elden's father and taught Perry the tactics of planting evidence and closing cases regardless of the evidence.

The ambitious Arthur Holland sees the S.I.S for the criminals they are but also as an opportunity. Take down the S.I.S, clean up the department’s most corrupt cops and make a run at becoming LA's first black police chief. With the help of his assistant, SGT. Beth Williamson (Michael Michele), Holland begins an investigation into the S.I.S and Williamson discovers that the cop she has been dating anonymously is Bobby Keough.

The odd thing about Dark Blue is how little screentime Ving Rhames actually has. The films ad campaign plays up the rivalry between Rhames' and Russell's characters. However, most of that war is off screen and what we see more often is the interaction between Russell and Scott Speedman as they investigate a crime they have been instructed not to solve.

The film is based on a story by James Ellroy, best known for LA Confidential. Dark Blue was actually written with the Watts riots of the 1960's as the backdrop. The time shift from then to the 90's and the LA riots touched off by the Rodney King verdict doesn't hurt the story. In addition, the 1992 riots are a good touchstone for modern audiences who still haven't forgotten the riots themselves even if not much was learned from their brutality.

A lot has been made of Russell's performance, which some have said is the best of his career. I disagree. I found Russell's performance to be mostly on the surface. He is the anti-hero, at first he is a bad guy because he plants evidence and believes that cops who beat Rodney King were right to have done it. But he is also conflicted about his work and drinks heavily to cover his emotions. Whether he gets the right bad guy or not, he always busts criminals. Still, Russell never seems to believe the things he says or does. I'm sure the character is supposed to believe them but Russell's laid-back line delivery betrays that.

As for Scott Speedman, there is a reason why his character has little face-time in the film’s marketing. It’s because in every scene he communicates how over-matched he is by the material. Russell and Michael Michele do what they can to carry Speedman but his performance never comes together. Ving Rhames,  meanwhile, really gets abused in Dark Blue. He gets star billing and little screen time. The screen time he does get is mostly silent brooding and pious speechifying. This amazing powerful actor deserves far better than this underused and underwritten character.

Dark Blue isn't a bad film and indeed once it begins dramatizing the beginning of the LA riots, it takes on a visceral excitement that puts the film’s many problems in the background if only momentarily. It's only moments later that we get to Russell's big scene where he gives a rather long-winded speech as the city burns to the ground.

Director Ron Shelton is a technician who knows how to frame the film’s action. Problem is, the script spends too much time painting its characters motivations and not enough time dealing with it's politics about race and corruption in the LAPD. That is the story the film wants to tell but disregards in favor of a more action-centered plot involving a pair of criminals bankrolled by Gleeson's corrupt cop.

There is a film to be made about the racial politics of the LAPD leading from the Rodney King case to the LA riots but Dark Blue is not that film.

Movie Review: 28 Days Later

28 Days Later (2003) 

Directed by Danny Boyle

Written by Alex Garland 

Starring Cillian Murphy, Noah Huntley, Naomie Harris, Brendan Gleeson, Christopher Eccleston

Release Date June 27th, 2003 

Published June 27th, 2003

While the masses seek out mindless entertainment in Charlie’s Angels amongst others, real film fans have been anticipating the release of this much buzzed about British horror film that portends the end of the world. Oh yeah and it's got zombies. 28 Days Later, the newest work from Trainspotting auteur Danny Boyle, was actually released some 6 months ago worldwide. Only now reaching the States, it has not lost anything of the buzz and in fact, it's one of the rare films that surpass the buzz to become something even more than expected.

In a scenario that will have Republicans smiling, a group of animal activists break into a research facility and release a group of monkeys who they believe are being abused. Unfortunately, the monkeys happen to be infected with a disease that the doctors call the rage virus. The infection is passed by blood and when the monkey bites a human, it takes little more than 30 seconds before that person becomes a mindless flesh-eating zombie. The zombies can be killed like any normal human being but they are also excessively quick and strong.

Within 28 days, the virus has spread throughout the whole of Britain. Only a few lucky people remain uninfected. One of the uninfected is Jim (Cillian Murphy) who has just awakened from a coma to find the hospital entirely empty. He then finds the neighborhood around the hospital empty, then finally all of London. That is until he stumbles into a church filled with zombies.

Jim escapes with the aid of a pair of survivors, Mark (Noah Huntley) and Selena (Naomie Harris). They give Jim the 411 on what has happened since his coma and then accompany Jim to his parents home where he finds his parents dead. It's not long before the zombies arrive there and Mark is killed by Selena after he is bitten. As she has explained to Jim, if someone is infected you have only seconds to kill them before they turn. She won't hesitate to kill Jim if the same happens to him.

The two then venture out to find new shelter and stumble upon a father and daughter (Brenden Gleeson and Megan Burns) who are hiding out in what remains of their apartment building. Though they have had little to no interaction with the outside world, they have heard what they believe is a recorded message on the radio about some military officers who may have a cure for the virus. Whether that is true or not, the soldiers at least offer protection from the zombies and that is good enough to get them on the road. Once arriving at the military base, they find a ramshackle crew who is no more well prepared than they are.

It's best to stop there because to give away too much would ruin what is a terrifying, brilliant story. The conceit is a frightening one, a virus that could wipe out a large group of people in a short amount of time is a concern right out of our Homeland Security department. In the time of Anthrax and Monkeypox, the story put forth in 28 Days Later is more immediate and frightening. Though the zombie thing gives the film a far-fetched feeling, the reality comes in Boyle's camerawork that has a mind’s eye feeling to it. It's  very unsettling the way Boyle's camera becomes like a dream from your own mind.

28 Days Later is the rare horror film with actual horror in it. There is very little of the camp that marks most modern horror films. There is wit to it, a welcome black humor amidst a sea of jarring horror imagery. Boyle never allows the film to rollover into parody even in it's odd Lord Of the Flies style climax in the military base.

The buzz that accompanied 28 Days Later is well deserved, it's an art house horror film that has real scares and real behind the scenes talent in director Danny Boyle. I wasn't a big fan of Boyle's previous work, but 28 Days Later has me seeking out his other films for re-evaluation of what looks to a great director for years to come.

Movie Review Assassin's Creed

Assassin's Creed (2016) 

Directed by Justin Kurzel 

Written by Michael Lesslie, Adam Cooper, Bill Collage

Starring Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson, Charlotte Rampling

Release Date December 21st, 2016 

Published December 20th, 2016

I cannot win with this review. I can, in my mind, already hear the voices of those who say that because I don’t like videogames I cannot appreciate a videogame movie. Then there are those who will recall the number of times I have decried the videogame movie subgenre and will also claim I went into “Assassin’s Creed” with bias. My only response to these spectral voices is believe whatever you want, Assassin’s Creed is simply not a very good movie, videogame adaptation or otherwise.

Michael Fassbender stars in “Assassin’s Creed” as Callum Lynch, the son of a murdered mother and a murderer father who grows up to be a killer himself. We meet the adult Callum on the day he is to be executed for what we can only assume was some sort of murder spree. The execution however, does not take and Callum wakes up in Spain where he’s been kidnapped by the Knights Templar who plan to hook Callum to a machine that can access the memories of his ancestors (just go with it).

Callum’s ancestors were members of an ancient order of Assassins known as the Creed. The Creed were created to battle the Knights Templar and specifically keep the Knights from getting their hands on The Apple, literally the apple taken from the tree knowledge in the Garden of Eden. For the reasons of the plot the Apple has the power to remove free will from the world and grant the Knights Templar the power to enslave humanity.

Through his time in the machine, called the Animus, Callum will learn the story of the Creed and will polish his assassin skills. Will he use those skills to continue his family legacy? Yeah, probably, the Knights Templar are obviously the bad guys here. Nevertheless, I will leave some mystery for you to discover if you choose to subject yourself to “Assassin’s Creed,” though I do not recommend that you do that.

“Assassin’s Creed” is a forgettable bad movie, not one that will leave much of any lasting impression. Michael Fassbender and co-stars Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons and Michael K. Williams are all professionals who give life to the material even if it proves unworthy of the effort. Fassbender is a physical specimen whose glower certainly can petrify an enemy but he’s at a loss to overcome the CGI splattered all around him in messy edits that render every frame of “Assassin’s Creed” a minor eyesore.

“Assassin’s Creed” comes from Director Justin Kurzel whose adaptation of “MacBeth,” yes that “Macbeth,” also starred Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard and was similarly an eyesore. At least his “MacBeth” has ambition, Kurzel’s “Assassin’s Creed,” on the other hand, feels like an attempt to appease a studio eager for a well-known product to churn into a formula franchise that creates new revenue streams and elevates stock prices.

Poor Michael Fassbender; he seems lost in a Hollywood that doesn’t understand his gifts. Despite that chin that could cut glass and eyes that could pierce steel, Fassbender isn’t a classic “movie star.” We, the popcorn chomping blockbuster masses, simply respect him as an actor too much to watch him act below his skill level. Sure, his version of the “X-Men” villain Magneto is well liked but we’d all hoped that was his “one for them” studio picture that would let him get back to being a real actor.

Instead he has stranded himself in “Assassin’s Creed” as another “one for them” movie and we are left to lament the kinds of performances he could be dedicating his time too. Quirky, wonderful indie flicks like “Frank” and “Fish Tank” gave us the Michael Fassbender we truly want while “X-Men” was supposed to be the insurance for the next “Frank” or “Fish Tank.” Now, with “Assassin’s Creed,” who knows where Fassbender may be headed, probably cruddier looking CGI claptrap. What a shame.