The Wind That Shakes The Barley (Ken Loach)
#4
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: The Netherlands
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=62990
Pathé Distribution Ltd. have announced the UK Region 2 DVD release of The Wind That Shakes The Barley for 6th November 2006 priced at £19.99. From acclaimed director Ken Loach comes this epic drama which took the Palme d'Or at this year’s Cannes Film Festival. Cillian Murphy, Liam Cunningham and a remarkable young Irish cast star in the story of the bitter struggle of independence against occupying British forces in Ireland.
This two-disc special edition DVD features a commentary by director Ken Loach and Professor Donal O’Driscoll, an in-depth 45-minute character profile on the director, a stills gallery and the original theatrical trailer.
George
Pathé Distribution Ltd. have announced the UK Region 2 DVD release of The Wind That Shakes The Barley for 6th November 2006 priced at £19.99. From acclaimed director Ken Loach comes this epic drama which took the Palme d'Or at this year’s Cannes Film Festival. Cillian Murphy, Liam Cunningham and a remarkable young Irish cast star in the story of the bitter struggle of independence against occupying British forces in Ireland.
This two-disc special edition DVD features a commentary by director Ken Loach and Professor Donal O’Driscoll, an in-depth 45-minute character profile on the director, a stills gallery and the original theatrical trailer.
George
#5
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Just watched this one….I thought the first half plus was familiar but still excellent. That being said, I do have issue with maybe the last forty percent which I found more inconsistent in a handful of ways (albeit some are minor). I’ll try and be vague so as to not spoil anything.
My point of criticism started shortly after a gun battle (which by the way might have benefited from a long and wide shot (in the sense of cinematography) at some point) at a following scene at a farmhouse, I had a little trouble with the logic of things…I’ll leave it at that so as not to divulge details. In general I thought the last forty percent felt a little rushed or at least some of the politics/character conflicts might have benefited from deeper exploration. There is also a political discussion/meeting scene in the latter half where I believe three separate actors stammer over their lines at what apparently was the director’s attempt for realism. It also happens yet again a few scenes later. But for me, instead of realism it had the opposite effect in that overuse of the technique felt sloppy and called attention to itself. Also, while I thought the first half performances were genuine and excellent, I thought that in small instances in the latter part that the performances lacked some inner fire and it felt more like they were acting. Also some of the close-up shooting scenes suffered from a lack of violence/bloodshed….in this film you get the old-style type of having someone get shot where you see them get shot but there are no bullet holes/blood, etc., where they just fall down, but there isn’t enough graphically violent impact to the shooting…..that happens on occasion here and I felt it diminished the impact of some of the violence. I’m not asking for a gore-fest but I would have liked a slightly more genuine attempt at showing the effect of someone being hit by a bullet. Also like I mentioned earlier I really wish a little more time was given to examining some of the later conflict between two of the main characters especially.
The latter part of the movie does not lack for excellence but it isn’t the equal of the virtually flawless first half. I liked the film and it easily earns a thumbs up, but judging it by its Cannes Golden Palm I will say that the latter sections disappointed in a certain way and had me struggling at times with a nagging feeling of dissatisfaction as opposed to being entirely absorbed in the film experience.
My point of criticism started shortly after a gun battle (which by the way might have benefited from a long and wide shot (in the sense of cinematography) at some point) at a following scene at a farmhouse, I had a little trouble with the logic of things…I’ll leave it at that so as not to divulge details. In general I thought the last forty percent felt a little rushed or at least some of the politics/character conflicts might have benefited from deeper exploration. There is also a political discussion/meeting scene in the latter half where I believe three separate actors stammer over their lines at what apparently was the director’s attempt for realism. It also happens yet again a few scenes later. But for me, instead of realism it had the opposite effect in that overuse of the technique felt sloppy and called attention to itself. Also, while I thought the first half performances were genuine and excellent, I thought that in small instances in the latter part that the performances lacked some inner fire and it felt more like they were acting. Also some of the close-up shooting scenes suffered from a lack of violence/bloodshed….in this film you get the old-style type of having someone get shot where you see them get shot but there are no bullet holes/blood, etc., where they just fall down, but there isn’t enough graphically violent impact to the shooting…..that happens on occasion here and I felt it diminished the impact of some of the violence. I’m not asking for a gore-fest but I would have liked a slightly more genuine attempt at showing the effect of someone being hit by a bullet. Also like I mentioned earlier I really wish a little more time was given to examining some of the later conflict between two of the main characters especially.
The latter part of the movie does not lack for excellence but it isn’t the equal of the virtually flawless first half. I liked the film and it easily earns a thumbs up, but judging it by its Cannes Golden Palm I will say that the latter sections disappointed in a certain way and had me struggling at times with a nagging feeling of dissatisfaction as opposed to being entirely absorbed in the film experience.
#8
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Houston, Texas
Watched this finally last night. I am not sure why it won the Palm d'Or or why there was such controversy surrounding it. It was an accurate presentation (in fiction) of the Irish freedom struggle and the inevitable heavy handedness by the governing forces. I knew that Ken Loach was criticized merrily for this film, but from my perspective it was unwarranted. In saying that, it is also not a great and captivating film. I would not want to watch it again - I may try the commentary to get a historical perspective however.
The video had some faults but overall was excellent. As was the sound track. I am curious to know when watching a PAL region 2 release on a region-free DVD player, weather the overall quality of the video is diminished. May account for some terrible softening and lack of clarity in a couple of the scenes.
Oh yes, at the beginning, I had a terrible time trying to understand the Irish accent. I almost turned on the subtitles for the hard of hearing. It gets better as you go.
The video had some faults but overall was excellent. As was the sound track. I am curious to know when watching a PAL region 2 release on a region-free DVD player, weather the overall quality of the video is diminished. May account for some terrible softening and lack of clarity in a couple of the scenes.
Oh yes, at the beginning, I had a terrible time trying to understand the Irish accent. I almost turned on the subtitles for the hard of hearing. It gets better as you go.
#9
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Europe
I think, as some of the above posts indicate, that quite a few will be a bit disappointed with this, especially in the face of its Cannes win - which in many ways can be accounted for by the near-God-like status Loach enjoys in France. To understand how revered he is in France makes the film's festival success not at all surprising.
While I got on OK with the film, it is a very problematic work in many ways and to be honest is as heavy-handed and clumsy as anything Loach has ever done. It is still worth seeing, however, even if only for Cillian Murphy's excellent performance.
Dazza.
While I got on OK with the film, it is a very problematic work in many ways and to be honest is as heavy-handed and clumsy as anything Loach has ever done. It is still worth seeing, however, even if only for Cillian Murphy's excellent performance.
Dazza.
#11
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I passed on picking this up once I found out it was going to get a theatrical release here in the US on St. Paddy's day weekend. Unfortunately for me, it only played in 3 cities and the closest was 4 hours away. So I went to CD-Wow and ordered it. Got it two days ago and watched it that night - GREAT MOVIE!!! I really can't think of anything I would've liked to see differently.
Pretty sad that some in the British press were so hard on this film (and Loach). I thought he did a fine job at not over-monsterizing the B&T's and the British. There was no "romancing" of the freedom fighters. I think he did an excellent job of neutrality and showing how difficult of a decision they had after the treaty as to which side to take.
Pretty sad that some in the British press were so hard on this film (and Loach). I thought he did a fine job at not over-monsterizing the B&T's and the British. There was no "romancing" of the freedom fighters. I think he did an excellent job of neutrality and showing how difficult of a decision they had after the treaty as to which side to take.





