User reviews

Lenny Abrahamson directed the excellent low budget Dublin film ADAM & PAUL so I was eager to see what this newer production was like. WHAT RICHARD DID isn't as good as that film, although it has some promise and typically realistic performances. The best thing about it is Abrahamson's moody direction, which makes you feel every moment of a torrid and emotional storyline.

Unfortunately, WHAT RICHARD DID is also rather slow and lacking in incident. The storyline is a very simple one that drags out a bit, especially in the latter half, and the almost entire lack of an ending is a disappointment in itself. It's a very realistic movie with a solid script, and Jack Reynor does well in a complex leading performance. But after ADAM & PAUL I expected more, and what I got was merely adequate.

What worked:

• the ambiance and the setting of the movie goes in the right direction in the first half of the movie, good enough for the viewers to understand and sympathize with the lead characters

What did not work:

• the movie did not hit the right mark or at least to the extend to make the audience feel the overwhelming tension of the situation. In my opinion, more could have been done to conclude the movie, maybe a different perspective or more scenes to support the point.

Final verdict: It's okay but not a movie that you need not miss.

I almost enjoyed the film but the dialogue was poor and left the film wanting.To be fair the film did have some half decent acting from a young cast and the film ticked along nicely holding my interest throughout.The setting did seem more like the kind of Ireland i grew up in myself during the Celtic tiger.

I doubt this film will be winning awards but it was a decent watch all the same.So just to have a bit of a moan i have to say my major gripe with the film was how annoying the lead actors accent was.This might be a slight exaggeration but it felt as if every second word that came out of his mouth was "like" it really began to grate on me.I honestly don't think i could have "like" taken much more of it "like" you know what i mean "like".

Over the past ten years or so, director Lenny Abrahamson has made something of a name for himself in the Irish film industry. He first burst onto the scene with his feature-length debut, the Beckett-esque 'Adam and Paul', which opened to a positive reception. He followed it up three years with 2007's excellent and downbeat 'Garage', a film which showcased Pat Shortt's capability for a career outside of comedy. After making these two quite different films (both of which showed directorial talent) it would no doubt prove interesting to see where Abrahamson would end up next, and with 'What Richard Did' he has delivered his finest piece of work yet.

One of the most brilliant things about it is how natural it all feels, particularly in its depiction of 18 year old Richard and his peers. Often when it comes to portraying young people on screen, things can feel too forced (aspects of Diablo Cody's work come to mind) or on the other hand become completely misrepresented. This film sees Abrahamson perfect the very difficult technique of accurately depicting teenagers, especially with the way they speak, act, their mannerisms, etc, feeling nothing but natural as if the camera had been placed in the middle of an actual conversation.

At the heart of it all is a terrific central performance by newcomer Jack Reynor as the titular Richard, a popular and achieving school rugby player, living in the upper-middle class area of Dublin. He has to deal with a wide range of emotions and conveys them with nuance and expertise, as we witness how his character fluidly develops as the plot progresses and unfolds. The scene where he confesses to his father about what exactly he 'did', played by Lars Mikkelsen (brother of the stellar Mads) is without a shadow of a doubt, one of the finest pieces of acting of the past twelve months.

Proving to be not a world away from Scandinavian cinema (some likened it to Vinterburg and Bergman) or the films of Michael Haneke, with its consistent aurora of unease and underplayed intensity, 'What Richard Did' is an intelligent, complex and understated drama that confirms Abrahamson's directorial skill and heralds the arrival of brilliant young actor.

The title of this Irish film, What Richard did, contains the excitement right from before you start watching. A neat trick, if you like to create interest, and this does the trick. The script is based on a novel "Bad day in Block Rock" by Kevin Power, which again was inspired by real events.

The film invited us into some youngsters every day Irish life, just outside Dublin. 18 year old Richard Karlsen, obviously the main character, is a sympathetic sports (rugby) guy, and what you would reckon a young alpha male. Irish mother, Danish father, living a normal life. Attractive, serious, sportive and a leader of the pack of youngsters. Not a smoker, but still does, occasionally. Well we're introduced to his holiday life during summer. Happy non important days around a guy with has everything going for him. Even gets a girlfriend, which seems like a perfect match to him.

Great acting all over. Jack Reynor is amazing, and so is his father, Danish Lars Mikkelsen, as always. They're important, but the whole cast is brilliant, which tells us what a great instructor the director Lenny Abrahamson obviously is. Very true, very realistically told, and as far away from what would have been told in a Hollywood film as possible. A very accurate portrait. The film does a terrific job in introducing us to the persons gallery. Beautifully told, and obviously very important if you want to make a film like this with a real punch.

I love realistically told movies like this. We really get inside Richard's feelings, the agonizing pain he suffers from afterwards. The despair. Slowly told, using a lot of silence, this might not be suitable for the one's seeking action. This is a drama which outright tells what a situation like this is, not putting in extra dramatically points to color up the story. I lived the way the camera is used to express thoughts and feeling, showing how it is to be living with guilt.

The film has a very important message. It's very easy to do acts under the influence of alcohol. It may ruin lives in just a bad decision. Things like thick force not only have one victim, is has several, and it'll also easily ruin both the innocence, the friendship and at least a part of the future, making marks which never fully mend. There's many living with this pain around, a pain which will always be there.

'What Richard Did' is a distinctly underwhelming title for this film, but it is at least descriptive. Richard is a good looking middle class lad, seemingly someone with few problems other than a bit of entirely normal teenage sexual jealousy; then something bad happens, and he has to deal with it. I thought the portrait of his everyday life was pretty convincing and well done; but the film's refuasl to descend into melodrama thereafter is a weakness as much as a strength: following the shock, nothing much happens. The result feels like half a story: well-enough told, but without sufficient underlying narrative purpose.

This film seems to confirm and amplify Abrahamson's (Adam & Paul, Garage) considerable strengths as a film-maker, and, to a lesser extent his frustrating weaknesses.

On the plus side, he is great with his actors, both in who he casts and what he gets out of them. His characters always feel complex and real. He also sets up very convincing, morally ambiguous worlds, situations and people. No easy heroes and villains.

But he also has a tendency to be drawn to melodramatic twists, and those actually make his films less interesting, not more, as it feels like he's trying to force the emotional issues.

In many ways my favorite part of the film was the first 45 minutes before the central incident. Abrahamson is great at observing and capturing the complexities of late teen-age life with subtlety and a fresh eye. These aren't the desperate angry street kids of poverty, nor are they the morally bankrupt idiots we often see rich kids portrayed as. They feel real; they drink, but they're not all alcoholics and stoners. They have sex, but more often than not it's attached to some sense of emotion, at graspings towards being in a relationship. Their parents are flawed but trying. Its people as people, not just symbols, even though subtle issues of class and social standing inform the whole story.

But when it gets to the big twists and the big themes, I felt it laboring more, working at it's effects instead of letting them happen. It's not that the 2nd half isn't good,it's that it lacks the power the set up and situation seems to promise. It sticks to it's ambiguity, but it starts to feel just a touch like an intellectual conceit, not an exploration of darker human truths.

'What Richard Did' is a bit of a slow burn, but it's complex and often emotional, consistently anchored by an amazingly ambiguous and complicated performance from Jack Reynor.

I would disagree with some of the reviewers on here that the dialogue is weak or flimsy - it is certainly understated but that's really part of the whole film. When something so dramatic happens to the characters there doesn't need to be a rapid outpouring of feelings and melodramatic soliloquies - in fact by keeping it understated Abrahamson slowly builds up the tension as to what it is Richard is exactly going to do next. There may be several shots of silence in this film, but that doesn't mean they aren't saying anything.

There are flashes of brilliance, especially in the scenes between father and son, but I was slightly unnerved/annoyed by the complete lack of mother figure in all of this - the characters are all given some amount of layers which are built upon and yet we see Richard's mother for two short scenes only. I can't imagine that Abrahamson didn't mean for this to be the case but for me it broke the realism slightly - as his mother, wouldn't she have thought something was different about her son recently? It could have added a more interesting aspect to the father as well in that he didn't want to let her in on her son's secret but for some reason she is never dealt with.

Overall though, a beautifully tranquil soundtrack and a cinematography of rustic, windswept Dublin outskirts add to the haunted performance by Jack Reynor to make a slow building but thoughtful film. I think calling it the most important Irish film of the decade could be stretching it a bit - but it's certainly got me looking forward to Abrahamson's next work, which might well be.

I definitely sought this out because I was a big fan of the director's recent film Room. His directorial hand is sort of similar here, in terms of giving a lot of weight and true significant to the little details in character interactions, and in terms of each half of the film being primarily centered around a different development (although the first half of this is basically set-up and character development so the second half hits harder, and boy does it do a great job of that). I thought all of the performances here were very refined and pretty realistic. The actors do a great job of really inhabiting their characters and making the most out of small moments with he director's help. Overall, very effective film, moves along nicely and a very powerful morality act. That ending is genius.

An understated, meticulously made Irish film, What Richard Did is a haunting tale that is in its structure too cold for its own good but also in scenes that can only be provided as gut wrenchingly raw impressively effective and a showcase for the young acting talent that is Jack Reynor.

A major hit in its home country upon release and later on in its life cleaning up at the 2013 Irish Film and Television Awards with 5 big wins, Lenny Abrahamson's (keep an eye on this filmmaker with his upcoming film Frank creating some very decent hype) film is a unique and realistic look into a young life that will forever be changed due to the films centring act that is based upon an all too familiar true life event. The film asks a lot of its audience in its short 80 minute run time as director Lenny Abrahamson is in no hurry to tell the tale of Richard. The film doesn't adhere to normal narrative structure and we don't know a whole lot about who Richard or others in the film are yet what we do end up knowing about them is just enough to care and be affected by their situations that play out in such a realism that it would be impossible not to be moved by the occurrences. Abrahamson can take credit for this but major notices must be made of the films young star Reynor as the titular Richard.

Reynor's performance in What Richard Did was enough to not only earn him praise in his home country but subsequent to the success of this venture Reynor moved straight into big screen behemoth Transformers: Age of Extinction and will likely be seen in more of the same to come. Reynor is a revelation here as the smart, in love and eventually tortured young man displaying a wide range of acting attributes that suggest a long career is to follow. A scene towards the later part of the film at Richard's family's beach house is particularly impressive with Reynor expressing a burst of internal emotion that will leave you feeling just as shell-shocked as the young man is.

Professionally filmed, scored to perfection and acted with class from all involved What Richard Did is a fine film that is held back its sparseness at times and a conclusion that feels like a missed opportunity to provide something truly heart wrenching. For a film about youth and all the troubles that can come with it and a tale about life changing decisions it is top quality stuff and it's always a joy to see a new young actor of considerable talent ply their trade and set their career on a path that hopefully makes good use of some undeniable talent.

3 and a half Irish beers out of 5

For more movie reviews and opinions check out -

www.jordanandeddie.wordpress.com

I saw this film at the Ghent (Belgium) film festival 2013, where it was part of the Global Cinema section. The descriptions on festival website, Facebook and IMDb sounded intriguing. But I can tell upfront that it was a disappointment, after all. The movie starts wrong, letting us endure half an hour of tittle-tattle, partying etcetera, which time could have been spent more fruitfully. It was probably meant to gradually introduce the characters involved. It did not work for me. I got lost in the process to remember who would become important for the plot, and who was just entourage. After that, there were a few potentially memorable moments, but the film makers missed all the opportunities without exception.

Some examples of what I found wrong:

Firstly, the mother of the victim held an impressive and moving speech in church during the memorial service. This could have been the trigger for interesting developments, but it was not. It should have been placed much sooner in the script anyway, and could have been the perfect point where people start fighting with their conscience, and contemplating arguments pro and con, so that we can feel along with their reasoning.

Secondly, the conversation with his father where Richard finally confesses what has happened, is also poorly written and executed. The intro about the tree house is negligent and a waste of time. It is still not clear to me how and why Richard decided to confess, being visibly hesitant at first. He evenly could have chosen to lie to his father and deny every involvement.

Thirdly, several friends of Richard knew more or less what happened, and one of them could have leaked the truth by accident (to police, to parents, to other friends, whatever). Conversely, they all saw the victim standing up again after the confrontation, but wasted that observation to defend themselves to everyone why they did not make an issue out of the fight and check the victim's condition, or even call anonymously for an ambulance.

Finally, the police investigation falters for reasons unclear to us. This could have been exploited much better while Richard's friends knew more of the fatal accident than they told the police. This could have been excellent material for a so-called prisoner's dilemma. Alas, the police was not that competent in the case at hand, and this opportunity also got wasted.

At first sight it does not seem useful to add my user review to the many that already appear on IMDb, given already a few as negative as I am. On the other hand, their negativism has many other reasons than I had, so the above may be useful for some readers anyway. This film received a lowly 50th place for the audience award, with score 3.64 out of 5.

There is nothing really redeeming in this surprisingly disappointing endeavour. The viewer is subjected to 88 minutes of terrible acting, unimaginative dialogue and inadequate cinematography. One might just say it was a decent enough if a bit amateurish work and leave it at that, but if we are debating whether this is the best Irish movie of the century..well that would really be just sad for Irish cinema.

So without revealing any key elements of the (nonexistent) plot, one could point out that achieving absolutely no character depth in a movie that its pace would suggest it pursues nothing else but character development is an achievement in its own right.

Add to that the development of a romantic relationship with no use of meaningful dialogue -because that might have served as indicant of personality particularities and as I said there is no reason to think one character is different from any other here- and no intensity of feeling portrayed, yet a relationship that will supposedly prove to hold great significance in the unfolding events.

Then there is the unfolding. The director manages to downplay the only event of significance in the movie. It is deliberate but wrong because it wastes the lulling first half and creates the demand for a powerful emotional buildup which needless to say, the lead actor fails to deliver. There this movie dies.

What follows is another lulling part, laden as the first with youthful frivolity and promiscuity, which one could claim if juxtaposed with the first and presented as tasteless and lacking, might help this movie prove it had reason to exist. Obviously that opportunity passes by unseen too.

Now those who have surmised that this is a work of art and originality I urge to watch Paranoid Park or even Elephant and see the difference between true mastery and sad imitation.