The Guard

Grade: B

I like to make comparisons. We all do. It’s an easy way to communicate something to someone else without having to go into too much detail about it. It’s especially prevalent in things like movies and sports where, unless someone reinvents the wheel, it’s easy to compare one to another thanks to an all encompassing and well documented history. The problem is that those comparisons are often lazy and based off a quick assessment. Later that assessment is reevaluated by someone who has done more research and they are often debunked, but sometimes it turns out those assessments were right all along. John Michael McDonagh’s The Guard is one of those movies.

Your immediate connection goes to McDonagh’s brother Martin McDonagh’s ridiculously funny In Bruges. Both are unorthodox comedies about two people forced to be together due to extreme circumstances. There is a relative straight man to counter the manic being caused by the other man. They both star a respectable Hollywood actor (Don Cheadle in The Guard and Colin Farrell in one of my all time favorite performances in In Bruges) and the savagely underappreciated Brendan Gleeson. There is also a lot of cursing, and the bad guy is played by a b-list actor (Ralph Fiennes in Bruges and the also underappreciated Mark Strong) in both.

Okay so about the story (if you have noticed I don’t talk much about the story, that’s because if you want to know the story of a movie go to its website or watch it’s trailer or look it up on IMDB. I like to go into reviewing assuming you have already heard about the movie, it’s just easier). The movie revolves around a murder which leads to information about an international drug smuggling ring in a small town in Ireland. An FBI agent (Cheadle) is sent to investigate and the only man who seems to be able to help, though not exactly forthcomingly, is an “unorthodox” cop played by Gleeson.

This pairing is part of what makes this movie fall short of its comparison to In Bruges. Both Cheadle and Gleeson are great. It’s a whole lot of fun watching Gleeson playfully order and drink milkshake while discussing serious affairs with a prostitute and the chief of police. As well as watch Cheadle try to contain his anger while Gleeson gives him a rough time while he tries to inform the squad of the bad dealings going on, but it’s no Gleeson and Farrell, though what is? The funny thing is that throughout this whole movie I just kept thinking about how much I enjoyed watching Gleeson play the straight man. To me, Gleeson is no Farrell and Cheadle is no Gleeson. I can’t believe I just wrote that sentence. Both are some of the most accomplished actors working right now, but they just fell short of the brilliance from their counterparts. In Gleeson’s case I just enjoy him playing the straight man more, which is once again not to slight just how enjoyable he was as the wild card, but he is the best in the business at the straight man. Cheadle on the other hand has played a great straight man for years now, but he falls shorts of how brilliant Gleeson is when perfectly cast.

My other problem with this film was how it constantly felt the need to remind you of who was who. As if it wasn’t obvious enough that Gleeson was an oddball they threw in lines like “You sure are unconventional” and “you know, I can't tell if you're really motherfuckin' dumb, or really motherfuckin' smart.” We get it he’s an enigma; you don’t have to keep telling us.

As often is the case when talking about good but not great movies I am focusing too much on what could have made it great rather than what it did do right. So just as a reminder it was still a very good movie, and here’s why:

A strength of this movie is its interactions. This must have something to do with the McDonagh’s upbringing because both know how to write some sharp exchanges. The casual interactions between Cheadle and Gleeson are equal parts small town simplicity meets intellectual curiosity. That’s part of where Gleeson’s enigma status stems from. He’s clearly well read and enjoys some of the finer things in life, yet he still indulges in afternoons with call girls and shouts racist things at Cheadle for nothing more than shits and giggles.

Even the criminals, who are often the least appropriately fleshed out characters in movies, take part in enjoyable “three stooges” type exchanges. For instance Mark Strong plays the leader of the three criminals who is from Britain and the only real hardened criminal of the group. So naturally the two other criminals attribute his seriousness to him being a typical Brit. Sorry that’s a poor explanation of their relationship but you’ll know what I mean when you see it.

This movie also delves into a great exploration of the fish out of water theory as well as just how different life is in one place relative to another. For example, at one point Cheadle’s character tries to go door to door to get information on the death of a man, but of course the locals of a small Irish town have no interest in helping an American from the big city, even if they did speak the same language. He then comes to Gleeson looking for help only to get laughed at with a sense of “well of course they don’t speak English there.” It’s a great example of how in one place something is common knowledge whereas someone from another area has no idea of it. There is also some critical commentary on the corruption of the Irish police system in small towns. Though I don’t want to talk too much about it in fear that maybe this is just something the movie does to make the story easier to tell rather than any commentary. Again, we are often oblivious to what is common knowledge to others from other areas.

I guess if I were to summarize this movie I would use this lazy comparison: If you loved In Bruges you will love The Guard just to a slightly less degree. I hate myself.