Michael Collins

Search Reviews · Now Playing · All Reviews

Starring	Liam Neeson, Aidan Quinn, Alan Rickman, Julia Roberts, Stephen Rea
Director	Neil Jordan
Year	1996
What it's worth		Second run (See it as part of a double-feature or at a dollar house.)

It rather surprises me that there's been such a reported uproar about Michael Collins as a "Pro-IRA movie." Yes, the movie's about the man who largely founded the Irish Republican Army, and many of the tactics it still uses today. But Collins was also murdered by his own people in the end, and with the exception of a few scenes, I found the movie to be more condemning of some Irish actions and attitudes than British. Go figure; this is probably one of those films that will always show you the worst of what you expect to see, whichever side of this emotional issue you come down on.

Michael Collins, played by Liam Neeson, is a man devoted to the cause of a free Ireland. Unfortunately, as he well knows, his strength is in fighting the battles, piercing an pierceable enemy with minimal damage to his own men. When his battles actually lead to diplomacy and public relations, he begins to lose his footing, and the world threatens to crash down on him.

That, for the most part, is the story of the movie Michael Collins. There's also, as a sidebar, the story of Collin's romance with Kitty Kierman, played by Julia Roberts with a generally-passable Irish accent, and his rivalry for her with his best friend, Aidan Quinn's Harry Boland.

The acting in this movie is generally superb. Liam Neeson is making an early run for the Oscars with his portrayal, and Aidan Quinn is almost always underrated for the great work he does. Unfortunately, the direction lacks focus. Details get left behind that could have brought so much more emotion to this tale, and other bits are left in for confusing reasons. Maybe, a year or so down the road, the "director's cut" of this film will come out, and we'll find that it was much, much better at three hours than it was at two. But for now, the story just didn't keep me going, didn't get me emotionally involved with the characters or their cause. That really surprised me, because Neil Jordan has generally been an exceptional director. But this time he didn't build the bases in the movie strongly enough.

Perhaps, being an Irish director, he was already too rooted in the story to see the basics he needed to build. Perhaps an American director would make the same mistakes making a movie about the American Revolution; he might assume we already sympathize with his cause, know the reasons for the rebellion, know who to trust and who not. These are the mistakes that Jordan makes with story of the Irish Republic. What has driven these people to such lengths? When Collins brings together his small band of trustworthy men, how does he know who it is that is trustworthy? When he strikes at the Irishmen who are helping the British to strike fear in their hearts, is he really succeeding, or is he just annoying the British?

(As a side note, here, let me just make one political-correctness note: my comparison of the Irish question to the American Revolution was for director perspective only. If you really want to know what I think about the issues themselves, don't draw the conclusions from that. Ask me.)

Michael Collins is a good movie, but it also could have been much, much more. I was a bit disappointed when I left the theater. Don't crank your hopes up too high before seeing this film.

Search Reviews · Now Playing · All Reviews

More information about this movie is available at the Internet Movie database has about this movie.

In the Dark is created by Beth Ann Griese. In the Dark and the reviews on it are copyrighted; you may link to any portion of this site, but the contents cannot be copied without permission.