Wide Open Spaces

Probably the worst Irish film ever made. "Father Ted" creator, Arthur Matthews penned this awful script and in the DVD extras he confesses to being "plot dyslexic". One is left wondering why a writer who is "plot dyslexic" gets to have his witless ramblings turned into a movie. Seriously, there are thousands of very clever plot writers out there who can't get a break. Anyway, there is no plot, no character development and no meaning to this mess of a movie. Yet, it brings together some fine actors. Gerald Mc Sorely and Owen Rowe are two of Ireland's best actors and its just as well that their careers are established because getting associated with this nonsense could really ruin an actor's career. There is not one proper laugh in what is supposed to be a comedy film. Attempts at Beckett type, minimalism fall embarrassingly flat. There are one or two Laurel and Hardy type visual moments which just look like bad impersonations. The pace of the whole movie is unbearably slow, so slow in fact, that at times it seems as if the director was making it up as he went along. I could go on and on but it really gives me no pleasure to be so critical.

Coming to this film by way of having read that Neil Hannon put some music to it, and being familiar with the Father Ted series, I had expected to see a funny light movie. I was therefore not entirely sure what to make of it at first, it being kind of slow and sombre. If it hadn't been for me wanting to hear the music I might not have finished it, as it was somewhat lacking in clear plot lines and momentum. However, I'm glad I did, because all in all it is a very enjoyable movie, with a humble sense of humour, attention to people, landscape, light and weather (think Bela Tarr, but less depressing). It may have been that seeing this movie in 3 or 4 parts and not in one continuous sitting, has given it more time to sink in and be absorbed (see 15 minutes, pause for making coffee, see some more, sleep over it, and finish on a quiet Sunday, then think about it some more). It will then possibly leave you with a melancholy longing for desolate quarries in the company of one or two acquaintances after having done nothing important but experiencing a kind of satisfactory feeling. Looking forward to a DVD with slow commentary and a making of.

I couldn't work out if the slacker characters in the dreich muddy locations, with a hard and boring job, sleeping in a cold and boring tin hut, being ripped off, with no interesting future in front of them were:

a. a metaphor for me and the rest of the audience

b. having more fun than me and the rest of the audience.

I also worry about the careers of the actors and screen-writer and I hate posting such a negative review, but I feel quite cross about my wasted afternoon.

This was purportedly a dark comedy, but being a bit dull with a couple of gags that raised a mild titter from the audience leaves it short on both counts. There are very mild echoes of Withnail and I, none of Father Ted, and an overall impression that nobody really believed in what they were doing.

Imagine the Irish boom years never happened. Everything is run down. No-one has any actual money, everyone relying on other peoples I.O.U.s. Politicians are grubby and self serving. "Entrepreneurs" and "Developers" are loud mouthed chancers. Some of the best Irish comedians came out of the grimness of the pre-Celtic Tiger era, and now the bad times are back, Arthur Matthews obviously feels back on familiar territory.

Less a conventional film, more an extended shaggy dog story. Echoes of Father Ted? They are there beneath the surface, though disconcertingly Ardal O'Hanlon has morphed from Dougal to Ted. The archetypal comedic paring, stuck together like Vladimir and Estragon, Myles is a self-aware loser, struck by the despair of his situation, unable to part himself from Austin, an innocent fool, never able to see quite how bad things have got.

Owen Roe is the star attraction though, with his famine theme park, and worship of Michael O'Leary. The DVD extras where he is interviewed about the park are almost better than the film. Ted Fans will spot Father Todd Unctious and Father Cyril MacDuff in nice character rolls.

Would the film have been better with more development and a bigger budget? No doubt, but that sort of thing really doesn't matter to connoisseurs of the offbeat.

Those who like Father Ted for its slapstick outrageousness (more Linehan's style) will perhaps be disappointed, those who value it for its sense of place, quirkiness, and getting under the skin of deeply flawed characters are more likely to warm to this film.

I'm not sure exactly what this is.

It's like someone has watched a couple of Beckett and Pinter plays then a Carry On film and decided to have a go themselves.

It's full of inexplicable silences and overblown slow prop mishandling. There's an over- current of drabness with a lot of very affected acting. There's the conversations that go nowhere and have no purpose.

All of these things can be great, if done well... and a lot of it has been done well but still isn't great. There's a mystery here somewhere as to why this has gone wrong; it's hard to point a finger at. Can't fault the actual performances and it's an interesting enough story...It just somehow doesn't work.

If I had to make a stab at it I'd say that there is something in the execution that puts a distance between me and the film. It's the putting together that's made the problem maybe.

I'm coming to the conclusion that they meant to do a play and accidentally ended up making a film. I could see it working as a play, but it just doesn't as a film.