The Honeymooners

Having just watched this movie at its premier as part of the London Film Festival 2003, I have to say I came out being sorely disappointed.

The movie is basically a series of loosely coupled cinematic clichés stitched together in a rom-com template. First timer Karl Golden has mistakenly crammed too many tricks on to the screen, and the jarring jump-cuts, grainy stock and jerky camera movements are not innovative, merely annoying and nauseating. It is truly a sad indictment of the state of the British film industry when funding can be made available for predictable, plodding, saccharine nonsense like this at the expense of other more worthy projects.

I really enjoyed this movie. It kept me interested throughout and I liked the two leads especially Alex, really nice. I'm sure we'll see more of her in the future. I also liked the use of facial expressions and body language in some scenes instead of dialogue, it added to the atmosphere and told me more about the characters. Some good characters in the Donegal scenes which were very funny. I am grateful to the Sunday Times for this freebie as I had heard about the movie and of course it would never feature in a local cinema. By the way there are lots of big budget movies with plenty of $ and hype that don't come near this little gem despite the shaky camera-work.

Aidan

when was the last time u sat thro a hollywood rom com with a few big names and realised u had seen all the best bits when u saw the trailer a week ago. boring isn't it.

this is a romantic comedy, it will be no shock to get a happy ending, the whole point is how u get there....and how much u care.

and i cared, after the initial shock of the wobbly camera and documentary feel u settle in to the story of 2 people having a very bad day and in the end u are rooting for them to get together.

irish film making cant afford mega buck stars and cgi effects. this movie proves u dont need them when u have talent and a beautiful location. well done.

This film (which was shot on video, by the way) is rather low quality. Someone should tell the director spend some money and buy a tripod. As far as I know, EVERY shot was hand held. Some at high magnification. Lots of moving back and forth. So, apart from that dread feeling when you realise within 90 seconds that your money has been wasted, and that do I or don't I walk out of the cinema, what has the film got to offer? Not much. A storyline that could be written by a teenager. The script that well, sucks. Probably penned in a day, maybe an afternoon. The acting, well some of it was OK. But some of it was useless.

When I first realised the quality of this film, I wondered whether it was a form of self-parody. Sort of like a straight-A student intentionally flunking an entry-level exam. And this may be the case, I don't know. But if it isn't, would the director be embarrassed by his creation? probably.

If you've got 90 minutes to kill, and nothing better is on television, give it a go. But please don't actually spend money on this film. It makes me sad that I could have fed a 3rd world person for a week for the money that it cost me to go.

To be honest, I was expecting a bit more laughter from this film as it was marketed as a comedy. In the end, this was a decent drama movie that did offer some laughs as well.

The shaky camera made the film resemble modern day's reality TV-shows, but after the initial shock wore off, it actually suited the plot.

The idea about the movie was rather good. Somehow the film started to remind me of films directed by Kaurismäki. Lots of awkward silence between the main characters. Perhaps Finnish and Irish folks have more in common than just the love for beer / other alcoholic beverages =)

Alex Raid who played the role of Claire had probably the stronger performance in the movie. Jonathan Byrne did perform some fine acting, but perhaps due to the screenplay - at times seemed at loss with his role. He seemed to play the "strong, silent type" that Tony Soprano preaches about in the Sopranos. Minus the strong =)