In Bruges: Review

In Bruges, the film which opened 2008’s Sundance Film Festival is a mixed bag, a deceivingly morally complex thriller that is gleefully offensive and awfully violent, particularly in its last 25 minutes or so when it all comes flying off the rails. Up to that point, Martin McDonagh’s feature debut is an enjoyable thriller with a sharp script and a number of great performances. It is because the first two thirds are as enjoyable as they are that one is left confused and disappointed by the final act.

In Bruges tells the story of two hit men, Ray and Ken (Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson), who are told by their boss, Harry (Ralph Finnes) to hide out in the title city following a hit gone wrong. For Ray, as he quickly informs the viewer, the idea of hiding in Bruges is less than ideal. Ken, on the other hand, relishes the time off and the ability to explore the most well preserved medieval city in Europe. As the film progresses, Ray, continuing to ignore the advice of his boss, goes out for a couple nights out on the town, drawing the ire of both Ken and Harry.

Led by Colin Farrell, in his best performance in ages, and Brendan Gleeson, In Bruges is held up by the cast, who take McDonagh’s quick wit script and create a profane tapestry of Tarantino-esque dialogue. However, where Tarantino displays a tremendous knack for popular culture knowledge, McDonagh concentrates on his thematic constructions, a sure sign of his theatre background. Unlike Tarantino’s postmodern deconstructions of genre, McDonagh is more at home in traditional threads, relying on a fairly straightforward narrative.

The approach benefits In Bruges, which is surprising in its complexity. It is by no means a simple thriller, but rather one that poses a series of conflicted characters that will force the audience to consider its alliances. Farrell’s character, a first time hit man who accidentally kills an innocent bystander, is initially a dislikable killer but as In Bruges moves through its story, it becomes increasingly difficult to come to simple decisions about the characters. Much like Pulp Fiction’s iconic Vincent Vega and Jules Winfield, Ray and Ken are hit men with morals and feelings. While they are able to do their job, they aren’t always the happiest about having to do it. Writing it here seems ridiculous, but during the course of the film, McDonagh creates a difficult situation upon which to choose sides.

With all this comparison to Tarantino and his work, it is important to note one key distinction. While he may be an able, even downright talented writer and creator of characters, McDonagh doesn’t possess the same cinematic language and technique as Tarantino. Without his feverish referencing of other films, genres and even other mediums of pop culture, all wrapped in a neat cinematic bow, Tarantino’s films would feel much less fun and that is what we have here with In Bruges. McDonagh seems to be a capable director but when the action gets hot and heavy at the end of the film, In Bruges is at its worst, relying on a few shootouts and some out of place gore to carry it to the end.

Farrell, Gleeson and Finnes should all be applauded, as each put in memorable performances. Farrell, who seems to mix awful career decisions with brilliant ones, gives the film his all, taking McDonagh’s Ray and making him into a fully formed human being. Combine that with the reliable Gleeson and Finnes, who routinely turn in wonderful work and the cast is solely responsible from keeping this film out of the outright failure category. While the film’s finale is not enough to ruin the entire experience, it certainly puts a damper on the proceedings. In Bruges could have been something special, but instead, it joins the line of films since the mid 90’s who desperately want to match the brilliance of Pulp Fiction but come up short, time and time again.