Michael Collins

reviewed 1996??

A documentary on Irish films shown in Seattle recently noted that the truly great films about Ireland (such as The Quiet Man and The Dead) have been made by outsiders, typically Americans. How ironic, then, that a film made by one of the best Irish directors about arguably the greatest Irish hero since St. Patrick should be so infected by the flaws of American films:
-- a totally extraneous love story
-- lots of explosions
-- a minimum of moral ambiguity in the characters
-- the assumption that politicians are evil
-- unnecessary use of Julia Roberts

I'm probably harsher on the film than others would be because 1) I had such high expectations for it (I need to work on that problem) and 2) I read the book. (And if you're really interested in Michael Collins, I highly recommend the book, a biography of him that came out a few years ago.) All in all, the movie's not bad. You sort of have to know the historical context or pay really close attention, because the facts fly fast and furious (and aren't always totally factual). But it's a stirring story and moves along at a good clip. It's not very deep, and it goes for quantity over quality, but it immerses you nicely in the period.

The idea of Julia Roberts being in this film is more offensive than her actual presence is. Although her Irish accent slips off as easily as LaToya Jackson's clothes, she's really not bad. Unfortunately, none of the characters are given much depth, not even the Big Fella, Michael Collins. Liam Neeson, however, makes Collins come to life, despite the lack of material for him to work with. This is obviously the role of Neeson's life. He's terrific (and I don't think I've ever liked him in a movie before), although sometimes his steely-eyed, jutted-chin Collins seems more like the hero of some '30s adventure serial than an Irish peasant.

Back to homepage
Reviews A to F
Reviews G to L
Reviews M to R
Reviews S to Z
Search