caidyc Reviews

The Wind that Shakes the Barley (2006)

Historically accurate Visually stunning

[10/10 · 17 June 2006]

I saw this film at a private screening and found it difficult yet beautiful to watch. I have a personal history with the subject matter as I come from a family from both sides of the political divide in Ireland. A stigma that exists to this day but is reflected so profoundly with this film. Ken Loach's direction is crisp and perfect. The performances are, each and every one, incredibly believable and achingly visceral in the depiction of the conflicts of civil war. Cillian Murphy is wonderful and quite possibly the best Irish actor ever. Pádraic Delaney as his brother and enemy takes the role and makes it one of the best male performances I've seen. It is rare when a film allows you to understand both sides of a violent divide so clearly. The Wind that Shakes the Barley does this with blinding perfection. This film is a template for what film makers can achieve with a small budget, dedicated performers and a timeless topic.

Some who find this so provocative need to look further into their own loyalties to determine why the truth bothers them so much. Those who feel this to be Republican propaganda, ( and for you Americans I mean Irish Republican ), need, seriously, to investigate their own history. It doesn't surprise me that so many British people know nothing of their countries colonizing tactics in Ireland and elsewhere in the world. Six counties of Ireland still remain under British control. The sacrifices made 80 years ago still resonate today but the Republic of Ireland is now the third richest country in Europe. The question still debated is Was it Worth it? The question we ask is how's Scotland and Wales doing?

The House of the Spirits (1993)

Quite possible the most beautiful 'worst' film of the 90's

[30 September 2002]

Having read the wonderful book by Isabel Allende I looked forward to viewing this film. I was put off by the cast list however. Jeremy Irons as Esteban? That actor is more anglo than the Queen of England. It would appear that this was a movie of great intent. The scenery and costumes are magnificent and a great deal of historical detail is evident. It would almost make it worth watching if it weren't for the cast. Why would a story centered in South America about native South Americans have actors so obviously white? It was almost as painful to watch the aforesaid Mr. Irons with his dental apparatus clicking and clacking through the film as it probably was for him to wear it. And why? It was an unnecessary affectation. Vanessa Redgrave was completely wasted as her role was very short with just a few lines of dialogue. However her character did provide some comic relief, (however unintentionally) in a very strange plot point. Meryl Streep is good but did not portray the incandescence of her character as written. Winona Ryder was a presence in the role but she is always pleasurable to look at in any film however badly written. Antonio Banderas provided the only authentic Hispanic presence and he did a commendable job, however, as with other characters his screen time was inadequate. It is a very long story but the director chose to linger on some of the more obscure and unnecessary subplots in order to tell it. This compressed the main plot and created confusion with the overall story. I am not familiar with this director. In fact I had never heard the name before, (or since for that matter). I believe the reason for the unknown quality is the fact that a great deal of money was spent on this film, it is obvious from the look of it, but it was unpopular when it was initially released and will not be a remembered classic. It's almost tragic as the story is still a beautiful one and deserved to be brought to the screen competently.