What Richard Did

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 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".

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 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.

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.