In Bruges review

Or why (some) mainstream movie reviewers should quit their day jobs.

What can you say about a movie like In Bruges? I guess i can start by listing all the film's negatives:

It's hard to find.

...

Really, that's about it.

In Bruges is a movie that (like any good movie) is not easily type-cast. It's not a comedy with action parts, it's not an action with drama, and it's not a dramedy. It's a movie that contains elements of action, elements of comedy and elements of drama, but is itself just a very well put together story. As such, it's won high praise from almost everyone who's seen it. This movie is, in essence, what a good movie should be: a good story. And no one can fault a good story.

In fact, most criticisms i've heard for this movie come from those who live and die by the classification system of movies:

"Not enough action for an action flick."
"Not enough comedy for a comedy."
"Not enough drama for a drama."

People who hated this movie are the same types who (self proclaimed, even) are the types that think a movie about hitmen should start and end at Pulp Fiction. Now, don't get me wrong: Pulp Fiction is a good film, but these critics are the very reason hollywood churns out so much god damned trash to begin with. Unoriginality rules the day and anything the least bit original scares or confuses these people.

Why is the concept of two hitmen in bruges a bad idea? Apparently because the "two hitmen" strategy was done once by quinten tarintino in Pulp Fiction. How DARE anyone use two stock characters again, even if they are in a totally different story!

When i deride a movie, i always do so in the same manner: i take specific plot elements and explain HOW it's bad or why i see it as such. What's more, i try very hard to do so in a way that doesn't "give away" the overall plot (with the exception of truly awful movies; but that's more out of sympathy for you). Most other reviewers (sadly, not just the negative reviewers i'm talking about here) will gleefully give away entire plot points, often going as far as recapping the entire movie and NEVER explaining how certain plot elements are bad beyond just stating it. Expect wholesale criticisms of "clunky direction" and "poor tone shifting" without any specific examples*. And yes, it's possible to give specific examples without giving away the plot (i do it all the bloody time). All this adds up to make me wonder what the hell anyone even sees in "mainstream reviewing" at all.

I guess it's not fair to paint all the critics of In Bruges with the above brush: some hated the movie for entirely shallower reasons. I read one review that claimed the writing was purposely "anti-american" for the sake of being edgy (or something like that). However, the amount of "anti-americanism" (politically loaded fictional concept that it is) that exists is confined solely to how characters perceive things. Hating a movie because of a character's character (especially one that's not presented entirely sympathetically, as is the case in In Bruges) is truly bizarre. It's kind of like hating carrots because Hitler was a vegetarian. It may be a fact that the character hates americans or Hitler was a vegetarian, but that in and of itself really doesn't make the movie or carrots less good as a result. Well, maybe not entirely true for the carrots thing.

Anyway, In Bruges is an excellent movie that does the one thing movies should do: tell a story. In a world where too many movies just showcase actors and follow focus-group delivered plots, it's a refreshing breath of fresh air to finally see something that isn't one of those two things. I give it a 9.5 out of 10... because i never give perfects (ask my students).

*both these claims appear in critical reviews of In Bruges and (unsurprisingly) without examples to back them up.