MovieChat Forums > Calvary (2014) Discussion > What am I missing? Don't get it...

What am I missing? Don't get it...

posted 10 years ago by thinkingdigital
62 replies | jump to latest

I was really looking forward to this after all the rave reviews. What a disappointment. Yes, Gleeson was amazing - lucky he has broad shoulders as he had to carry this over-hyped dismal little experience on his own.

Where were the characters? We were subjected to a series of one-to-ones with Father James Lavelle. Each one more miserable than the last. Most of the characters were selfish, vile, pitiful and badly drawn. Worst of all none of them were interesting. They didn't communicated with each other so the entire plot was told through Gleesons character who is in pretty much every scene. There was no character development apart a small revelation at the end. The the story and plotting is as about as linear as it gets - Man is threatened with murder - man is murdered by the guy who threatened him. Duh?!

I usually fall on the side of the critics opinions with most movies but I'm really beginning to think there's something I'm missing. I understood the themes of retribution, reconciliation etc. And yes, the catholic church has a lot to answer for. However, the whole thing was delivered with such little originality or finesse I found it hard care for to engage with most of it. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise and watch it again. But the first experience were so underwhelming I'll struggle.

3/10

[–] sc_taylor 10 years ago

I agree with you 100%

3/10 because of Gleeson alone. The rest of it was awful! It was a ludicrous caricature of Ireland. Utterly unbelievable.

--------------------------------
My God, it's full of stars!

[–] thinkingdigital 10 years ago

Glad I'm not alone. You're right, Calvary had more in common with Royston Vasey than any real place I've been in Ireland.

[–] sc_taylor 10 years ago

haha! Royston Vasey. Yes. Spot on.

--------------------------------
My God, it's full of stars!

[–] gerrywos 10 years ago

haha i was thinkng Craggy ~Island throughout the whole film

[–] thinkingdigital 10 years ago

Ha.. Wish it was that entertaining.

[–] gerrywos 10 years ago

when i saw the red convertible,i bust out laughing!!I think theres a father ted episode with a really flash south american priest,reminded me of him.
And the couple who are having marital problems,reminded me of the couple that always fight in private
Without a doubt the dopey priest in this is based on Dougal

[–] WolfgangHorizon 10 years ago

No you're not alone. I will say that it was nicely shot and a couple of the characters put on good performances. That doesn't make up for the fact that at the end this is almost like an apologetic Catholic movie. I came away with a "well, the Catholic Church has done some terrible things, but give them a second chance!"

All the "sinner" characters were so one dimensional and basically straw-manned, while the only 2 semi-normal people are the priest and the devout Catholic woman, who is shown in stark unsubtle terms at the end crossing herself on a plane amidst a montage of all these ridiculous caricatures of "bad" people doing all their "sins." That ending was so unsubtle and just plain terrible that any hope I had that this movie might take a more ambiguous moral turn was shattered. Wasted 1 hour and 40 minutes.

What really irked me was that we were shown no reasonable, normal atheists or unbelievers. They are all ridiculous caricatures. The movie went from being entertaining to just plain religious propaganda by the end.

I DID enjoy the scene near the end where the shooter confronts the priest and juxtaposes his reaction to his dead dog vs the reprehensible actions of the priest's church. That held some weight.

Before I travelled my road I was my road.

[–] Veritas_Lux_Mea 10 years ago

I came away with a "well, the Catholic Church has done some terrible things, but give them a second chance!"

Well forgiveness as a virtue is a rather large aspect of the film. It was sort of important to the goings on that Father James was really a good man and that he be "judged" if you will as an individual...not as part of a group. I think it is important to recognize that he has his own ideas on what he is doing and why and he is not "guilty" of the "sins" other members of the Catholic church have committed. I'm not religious but I would not "judge" all Catholics on the crimes of some of them. That would make no sense.

I DID enjoy the scene near the end where the shooter confronts the priest and juxtaposes his reaction to his dead dog vs the reprehensible actions of the priest's church. That held some weight.

I liked that scene too but I expect for different reasons. Did you calculate that Father James was not responsible for the actions of the Catholic Church or those that molested children but the person that killed the dog was guilty of killing the animal purely as a sadistic act of revenge and to punish a man that had done no wrong? I think that matters in that scene and I think it matters that Father James answers honestly at a point where he could have went in a much different direction.

[–] WolfgangHorizon 9 years ago

I liked that scene too but I expect for different reasons. Did you calculate that Father James was not responsible for the actions of the Catholic Church or those that molested children but the person that killed the dog was guilty of killing the animal purely as a sadistic act of revenge and to punish a man that had done no wrong? I think that matters in that scene and I think it matters that Father James answers honestly at a point where he could have went in a much different direction.

Yes I did but that still doesn't excuse his reaction. The children that were molested also had "done no wrong" and what the children had received at the hands of trusted men was much worse than killing a dog. If killing someone's dog is a sadistic act, then how much more so the lifelong shame and hurt children would endure after being sexually molested by a "holy man"?

There is no comparison, and that is why I liked the end scene so much. What the priest says is quite true too. Something to the effect of, well, I didn't know those children, whereas I knew my dog. This is unfortunately quite common, but natural. We are only affected by what we witness or are closely tied to. For instance, hearing someone's child was molested is terrible--having it happen to your own child makes it almost unbearable. I mean, if we took on all the hurt of the world onto our shoulders every time, we couldn't bear it.

[–] on3gin 8 years ago

"I DID enjoy the scene near the end where the shooter confronts the priest and juxtaposes his reaction to his dead dog vs the reprehensible actions of the priest's church. That held some weight."

I would carry your thought a little further. The priest was described from the beginning as a "good man," and that was why the anonymous caller wanted to kill him. If he was such a good man, how could he cry over a dead dumb animal, but remain detached when faced with the soul-killing outrages his fellow priests committed against Irish children. The same idea struck me many years ago when the whole parochial school I was forced to attend knew to steer clear of Father X, but he still had children up to his room in the rectory where he lived with four other "good men" who did nothing.

[–] Eddie_Riggs 9 years ago

It was a ludicrous caricature of Ireland. Utterly unbelievable.

Nice to know I wasn't the only person annoyed by the lack of leprechauns in this film.

[–] mags_1962 10 years ago

Well said. Totally agree with you, and love the Royston Vasey comparison!

[–] pjpoconnell 10 years ago

What's Royston Vasey?

[–] lancer165 10 years ago

Hello.

Royston Vassey is a fictional Village from a series called THE LEAGUE OF GENTLEMEN. The stars of this have gone on to be quite big in their own rights in other productions. This was three series long and had a couple of specials. Started in 1999. Much loved by me and I am sorry??? to say I thoroughly enjoyed the cruel humour. There are recurring characters in the series but not having seen Calvary I cannot comment on the suggested similarities.

If you do lie dark and sometimes cruel humour do try and have a look at this classic piece of work.

This may help you should you be inclined.

Check out each of the cast for their own works.

https://torrentz.eu/d03bf198d9ef4dd6e8993832476e4ada74b7329d

Hope you do have a look and also please enjoy their [TLOG ] offerings.

[–] pjpoconnell 10 years ago

lancer: Thank you for your courteous and informative reply.

[–] dperry449 10 years ago

sure it wasnt a true depiciton and the characters are over the top but its about the messages of the fim not how accurate it is to small irish towns

[–] horst-kackebart 10 years ago

Exactly. The story could be taking place in phantasia land for all I care.

Sorry if this post might come off as offending towards those living in or being of Irish origin, it's not meant to do so. I am pissed whenever I see a film inaccurately depicting my homeland and it usually does ruin the movie for me, but it's safe to assume that most people not so educated about the respective area won't care as much.

[–] shurbanm 10 years ago

Right but who said this was supposed to be a representation of Ireland per se. It's just a village. A very similar one could exist in ireland but doesn't have to. This is not a documentary.

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

I am pissed whenever I see a film inaccurately depicting my homeland

You should appreciate what it's like to be from the southern United States or Texas then. It's almost always a caricature.

[–] amackeh 10 years ago

I feel like this film might have shattered the expectations you hold over film in general.

I have no clue why you would be willing to re-watch a film you just gave a 3/10 to, but I guess a person that would actually give a 3/10 to this film would be the type of person to re-watch something they thought so poorly of.

[–] bektaskonca 10 years ago

what is not to get re telling a story of Jesus who died for your sins in a modern way.

[–] ben101-1 10 years ago

I agree with the OP ,big fan of gleeson,coincidently he used to be one of my teachers in school,lovely guy.But this film was so depressing.I would like to think most people are decent human beings,well at least 60% of people but nearly every one in this movie were horrible ,nasty people and if gleeson was supposed to be a modern Jesus he wasted his life as most of the characters wouldn't give a sh*t that he died.

[–] bektaskonca 10 years ago

ben101-1 that was the whole point of the movie although every one in the movie was a sinner and some even disgusting levels he decided to die for their sins and the sins of the church. i myself would have not sacrifice a hair for those characters other than his daughter which committed a mortal sin due to loosing mother at young age and fathers absence for choosing religion over daughter another reason for him to feel guilty about.??

[–] shurbanm 10 years ago

In the story of Jesus nobody really cared either when he supposedly died (apart from his mother and lover of course). So not much of a difference there

[–] latin_buddy 10 years ago

In the story of Jesus nobody really cared either when he supposedly died (apart from his mother and lover of course). So not much of a difference there

The male lover (the young man who was following Jesus just before his capture, covered with just a linen cloth) or the female lover?

[–] akkratte 9 years ago

The male lover? Dude, that's Mark (the AUTHOR). He includes it to show he was at the scene. It wasn't a male lover.

[–] Anthony-23 10 years ago

Totally agree with you. Don't know why so many great reviews. There are no interaction between the other characters so it is just like multiple stories involving Father Lavelle.

[–] knoxfan2008 10 years ago

I think it was pretty good. It was interesting, but all the characters were pretty one dimensional, most of them were incredibly unrealistic, like the over-the-top atheist guy, the not-very-subtle town skank and worst of all, a Brooklyn male Gigolo who works in a small Irish town? How the hell does that happen?

The acting was good by some of the actors, especially gleeson, Moran and Reily. O'Dowd was good even though his accent was a bit overdone. The CGI Blood at the end was also really distracting and the film didn't really have anything special cinematography wise. The Music was just awful in this, completely takes you out of it and blares at inappropriate times.

I did however really like that O'Dowd was the killer, it made sense as to why he did not care about his wife's promiscuity and was a sign I feel like I should have caught on earlier.

All in all, a 6/10, not great, but good enough that i wanna see 'the guard'

[–] bjorkwrist 10 years ago

O'Dowd's accent wasn't overdone.

THAT'S HOW HE TALKS!

[–] knoxfan2008 10 years ago

Nuh, listen to him in other films and interviews, he definitely made a conscious effort to lower his voice and it's really distracting

[–] bjorkwrist 9 years ago

it's not distracting. It's how he talks in the film. That's the character's voice.

[–] Jeff-The-God-Of-Biscuits 9 years ago

The 'Brooklyn male Gigolo' was a local Irish guy doing a bad Jimmy Cagney impression. When Father James talks to him while he's playing pool, there's a moment where he drops the character to say he's fine to get the priest to leave.

It doesn't surprise me all that much to see a male gigolo working there. The policemen wanted occasional no strings gay sex, and there's probably other people in the nearby towns and villages wanting the same, so there's a demand not being met by a thriving 'gay scene', so it just takes one guy who also wants no strings gay sex to start charging the others for it.

[–] WrenjaminButton 9 years ago

I'm guessing you didn't even watch the film? Plenty of the characters interacted with one another. Do you think Law & Order is a bad show because some of the characters they interview on the street don't go down to the local bar and make out with each other and talk about their favorite bands? What an ignorant point as to why a movie is good or not...

[–] hump3 10 years ago

I agree with the original post.

If Broadchurch was set on Craggy Island.....

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]