Before I say anything about the quality or plot of this film, let me start by saying that I watched it with the original voices of the actors and German subtitles. That is also how I came across the German title "Am Sonntag bist du tot" ("Sunday you will be dead"). Another really embarrassing choice of title. The original is named after the hill where Jesus Christ was crucified and for the German title they pick something that sounds like a trashy horror movie. What a shame.
Anyway, back to the actual movie. If you are familiar with Brendan Gleeson, you will know that pretty much all other aspects of a film have to suck in order to make it a bad film. He just carries everything he is in. Same goes for this one. The awards attention outside of Ireland may not be that big, but he still gives one of the best 2014 performances I have seen. The McDonagh brothers are right now possibly the most interesting film makers from Ireland and if you have seen any of their earlier work (which also features Gleeson prominently), you know that their dialogs are as rough as their action. In other, words, there is lots of violence in here. Don't watch it if you're easily offended.
What I liked pretty much about the whole film is that you could have a guess until the very end who is the one that threaten's the priest's life. I don't know if you could recognize the voice or if they took another voice in order to make it not too easy, but I had no idea who it was until they showed it. Another pro is that, now that you know who it was, the film does not lose all its appeal for a rewatch, but gains immense rewatch potential as you can see the scenes with the priest and the culprit in a totally different light possibly (such as the slaughterhouse love making reference). And you can ask yourself the question if the one did know that the priest knew where he was. McDonagh did not make it easy to guess. There are scenes where the priest puts a gun to the head of somebody else. Or you could try to find out what you think actually happened to the dog. Or ask yourself if the priest's actions in the pub for example were intentional as the culprit early on says he wants to kill a good priest. Was it some kind of protection or was the priest simply unable to cope with his dog's death and the whole situation in general? And what was the exact purpose of the gun? What about the daughter seeing the killer at the very end? (a scene I could have done without, I'd have preferred the film to end simultaneously with the priest's life) You could probably make an own movie or write a book analyzing everything portrayed in here.
However, I would say that this film could have worked equally well without all the murder threat up in the air, simply showing the life of the priest, how he tries to reconnect with his daughter, how he meets the townsfolk, all pretty unique characters etc. (sometimes almost too extreme like the hustler). The murder plot added lots of drama, but it was not really the center of the film. However, we could have missed out on some nice scenes. I was not too big on the confession scene at the start, but the culprit walking up towards the priest near the end was nicely done. Great angle and camera work. What I could have done without was the rich guy randomly nearby as well. Just too much of a coincidence I guess and I wonder if McDonagh wanted the audience to wonder if he is the one. The talk between him and the priest was slightly pretentious too. The rich guy did not seem to be the character to be all whiny and devotional all of a sudden looking at his previous actions.
The daughter and the priest's apprentice did not add that much and the rekindling father-daughter relationship left me fairly unattached I have to say. I did like the bartender, the doctor and the policeman though. Can't nail them all I guess. The film had many nice quotes. One of my favorites was that people talk too much about sins and not enough about virtues. The explanation about why we cry for our dead pets, but not for boys abused by priests gave me goosebumps as well (detachment vs. attachment). Nicely done. Finally, the film plays in a village near the Irish coast, so of course it is also a visual feast.
Anyway, back to the actual movie. If you are familiar with Brendan Gleeson, you will know that pretty much all other aspects of a film have to suck in order to make it a bad film. He just carries everything he is in. Same goes for this one. The awards attention outside of Ireland may not be that big, but he still gives one of the best 2014 performances I have seen. The McDonagh brothers are right now possibly the most interesting film makers from Ireland and if you have seen any of their earlier work (which also features Gleeson prominently), you know that their dialogs are as rough as their action. In other, words, there is lots of violence in here. Don't watch it if you're easily offended.
What I liked pretty much about the whole film is that you could have a guess until the very end who is the one that threaten's the priest's life. I don't know if you could recognize the voice or if they took another voice in order to make it not too easy, but I had no idea who it was until they showed it. Another pro is that, now that you know who it was, the film does not lose all its appeal for a rewatch, but gains immense rewatch potential as you can see the scenes with the priest and the culprit in a totally different light possibly (such as the slaughterhouse love making reference). And you can ask yourself the question if the one did know that the priest knew where he was. McDonagh did not make it easy to guess. There are scenes where the priest puts a gun to the head of somebody else. Or you could try to find out what you think actually happened to the dog. Or ask yourself if the priest's actions in the pub for example were intentional as the culprit early on says he wants to kill a good priest. Was it some kind of protection or was the priest simply unable to cope with his dog's death and the whole situation in general? And what was the exact purpose of the gun? What about the daughter seeing the killer at the very end? (a scene I could have done without, I'd have preferred the film to end simultaneously with the priest's life) You could probably make an own movie or write a book analyzing everything portrayed in here.
However, I would say that this film could have worked equally well without all the murder threat up in the air, simply showing the life of the priest, how he tries to reconnect with his daughter, how he meets the townsfolk, all pretty unique characters etc. (sometimes almost too extreme like the hustler). The murder plot added lots of drama, but it was not really the center of the film. However, we could have missed out on some nice scenes. I was not too big on the confession scene at the start, but the culprit walking up towards the priest near the end was nicely done. Great angle and camera work. What I could have done without was the rich guy randomly nearby as well. Just too much of a coincidence I guess and I wonder if McDonagh wanted the audience to wonder if he is the one. The talk between him and the priest was slightly pretentious too. The rich guy did not seem to be the character to be all whiny and devotional all of a sudden looking at his previous actions.
The daughter and the priest's apprentice did not add that much and the rekindling father-daughter relationship left me fairly unattached I have to say. I did like the bartender, the doctor and the policeman though. Can't nail them all I guess. The film had many nice quotes. One of my favorites was that people talk too much about sins and not enough about virtues. The explanation about why we cry for our dead pets, but not for boys abused by priests gave me goosebumps as well (detachment vs. attachment). Nicely done. Finally, the film plays in a village near the Irish coast, so of course it is also a visual feast.