Wide Open Spaces (2009) User Reviews

At best, disappointing, at worst, unwatchable

[projectcyclops · 3/10 · 28 June 2009]

I love Ardal O'Hanlon, his performance as Dougal in the sitcom 'Father Ted', is one of the best things about 90's, UK comedy. I love Ewan Bremner, his performance in Trainspotting as the junkie, Spud, is one of the best things about 90's, UK cinema. Why then would both actors agree to star in something that feels like the aborted pilot of the worlds most depressing buddy-comedy? Myles (O'Hanlon) and Austin (Bremner) are best friends, who agree to work on Ireland's first, and only, famine themed adventure park. It's being run by a crooked businessman, who in turn is being funded by an eccentric, video-art obsessed, middle-aged vamp, who takes every opportunity to flirt with both him, and the two lads. They share a tin hut, in which a lot of the film is set, as they sit on their bunks and discuss their various problems in depth. O'Hanlon as Myles actually has a few good lines and his character, a depressed, pseudo intellectual, is quite engaging and sympathetic. He's level headed, but has very bad luck in life, chain smoking and pontificating away. Spud from Trainspotting, sorry, I mean Ewan Bremner, is playing Austin as a complete idiot, stumbling through his chores, and kind of making life more difficult for poor Myles.

Their boss charges them with some inexplicable debt collection, whereby they meet the repugnant Mr. Doo-La-Lee (HAHAHAHAHA!!!), who tries to do a runner, but winds-up becoming their friend, silly adventures follow. The film relies on the same brand of awkward humour that made 'The Office' a huge hit, as well as a little slap-stick and a small dose of dry, self-depreciating navel gazing, which was the only thing that kept me watching. I counted 14 people who left, and it was a press screening and yes, I did count, I was that bored. The film simply doesn't work. It's stilted, boring and frustrating. Written by the talented Arthur Mathews (Brass Eye, The Day Today, Big Train, The Fast Show, Black Books - This guy's a Brit-Com veteran!), Wide Open Spaces is, at best, not very funny and quite disappointing given the talent involved, and at worst, unwatchable.

Very poor.

[Jim_and_Glenda · 2/10 · 21 June 2009]

I couldn't work out if the slacker characters in the dreich muddy locations, with a hard and boring job, sleeping in a cold and boring tin hut, being ripped off, with no interesting future in front of them were:

a. a metaphor for me and the rest of the audience

b. having more fun than me and the rest of the audience.

I also worry about the careers of the actors and screen-writer and I hate posting such a negative review, but I feel quite cross about my wasted afternoon.

This was purportedly a dark comedy, but being a bit dull with a couple of gags that raised a mild titter from the audience leaves it short on both counts. There are very mild echoes of Withnail and I, none of Father Ted, and an overall impression that nobody really believed in what they were doing.

Terrible

[colinmatts · 1/10 · 30 August 2012]

Probably the worst Irish film ever made. "Father Ted" creator, Arthur Matthews penned this awful script and in the DVD extras he confesses to being "plot dyslexic". One is left wondering why a writer who is "plot dyslexic" gets to have his witless ramblings turned into a movie. Seriously, there are thousands of very clever plot writers out there who can't get a break. Anyway, there is no plot, no character development and no meaning to this mess of a movie. Yet, it brings together some fine actors. Gerald Mc Sorely and Owen Rowe are two of Ireland's best actors and its just as well that their careers are established because getting associated with this nonsense could really ruin an actor's career. There is not one proper laugh in what is supposed to be a comedy film. Attempts at Beckett type, minimalism fall embarrassingly flat. There are one or two Laurel and Hardy type visual moments which just look like bad impersonations. The pace of the whole movie is unbearably slow, so slow in fact, that at times it seems as if the director was making it up as he went along. I could go on and on but it really gives me no pleasure to be so critical.

a dumbening waste of time.

[billythehick · 1/10 · 7 November 2009]

i was one of six people who attended the screening, i was one of three that stayed to the end. i thought i was in the clear when the credits started rolling, but then there was more footage during them. i felt like screaming "end you bastard!"

all fault can be landed at the director's feet. the cast do a fine job, the script hits the right notes, the sets are fine, but the whole thing is so, so, so bloody boring.

then i realised that this was one of the most high-profile Irish films that year. then i felt so royally betrayed.

just because your film has all the hallmarks of the Coen Bros, doesn't make you as good, or even comparable to the Coen Bros. Referencing Withnail & I doesn't make people find your movie as good as Withnail & I.

What is this?

[lav13 · 2/10 · 30 October 2009]

I'm not sure exactly what this is.

It's like someone has watched a couple of Beckett and Pinter plays then a Carry On film and decided to have a go themselves.

It's full of inexplicable silences and overblown slow prop mishandling. There's an over- current of drabness with a lot of very affected acting. There's the conversations that go nowhere and have no purpose.

All of these things can be great, if done well... and a lot of it has been done well but still isn't great. There's a mystery here somewhere as to why this has gone wrong; it's hard to point a finger at. Can't fault the actual performances and it's an interesting enough story...It just somehow doesn't work.

If I had to make a stab at it I'd say that there is something in the execution that puts a distance between me and the film. It's the putting together that's made the problem maybe.

I'm coming to the conclusion that they meant to do a play and accidentally ended up making a film. I could see it working as a play, but it just doesn't as a film.

Peculiar, slightly comic, strangely hypnotic, earthy-rainy movie

[jacobdijkstra · 7/10 · 14 February 2010]

Coming to this film by way of having read that Neil Hannon put some music to it, and being familiar with the Father Ted series, I had expected to see a funny light movie. I was therefore not entirely sure what to make of it at first, it being kind of slow and sombre. If it hadn't been for me wanting to hear the music I might not have finished it, as it was somewhat lacking in clear plot lines and momentum. However, I'm glad I did, because all in all it is a very enjoyable movie, with a humble sense of humour, attention to people, landscape, light and weather (think Bela Tarr, but less depressing). It may have been that seeing this movie in 3 or 4 parts and not in one continuous sitting, has given it more time to sink in and be absorbed (see 15 minutes, pause for making coffee, see some more, sleep over it, and finish on a quiet Sunday, then think about it some more). It will then possibly leave you with a melancholy longing for desolate quarries in the company of one or two acquaintances after having done nothing important but experiencing a kind of satisfactory feeling. Looking forward to a DVD with slow commentary and a making of.

Roll up, roll up for the famine theme park................

[arthurdaley69 · 2/10 · 13 September 2012]

Wide Open Spaces is one of the UNfunniest comedies I have ever had the misfortune to watch. Gerard Ring (Owen Roe) is a chancer of the highest order with seemingly an endless supply of failing get rich quick schemes. The latest of these being a 'Famine Theme Park'. Myles (Ardal O'Hanlon) and Austin (Ewan Bremner) are flatmates who owe people a lot of money after selling fake merchandise on e-bay and they land jobs with Ring setting up his park.

Characters are introduced all over the place at random with seemingly no thought and all are idiotic. Inevitably disappear just as randomly and with little or no explanation. The dialogue is flat, boring and pointless. The plot is non-existent. The only good things about this movie are the Neil Hannon soundtrack and the fact that it's mercifully short. If you have this DVD and haven't watched it yet pop on the special features and go through them. The bits they have there are ten times better than the movie itself.

For aficionados of downbeat humour

[james-1752 · 7/10 · 26 February 2011]

Imagine the Irish boom years never happened. Everything is run down. No-one has any actual money, everyone relying on other peoples I.O.U.s. Politicians are grubby and self serving. "Entrepreneurs" and "Developers" are loud mouthed chancers. Some of the best Irish comedians came out of the grimness of the pre-Celtic Tiger era, and now the bad times are back, Arthur Matthews obviously feels back on familiar territory.

Less a conventional film, more an extended shaggy dog story. Echoes of Father Ted? They are there beneath the surface, though disconcertingly Ardal O'Hanlon has morphed from Dougal to Ted. The archetypal comedic paring, stuck together like Vladimir and Estragon, Myles is a self-aware loser, struck by the despair of his situation, unable to part himself from Austin, an innocent fool, never able to see quite how bad things have got.

Owen Roe is the star attraction though, with his famine theme park, and worship of Michael O'Leary. The DVD extras where he is interviewed about the park are almost better than the film. Ted Fans will spot Father Todd Unctious and Father Cyril MacDuff in nice character rolls.

Would the film have been better with more development and a bigger budget? No doubt, but that sort of thing really doesn't matter to connoisseurs of the offbeat.

Those who like Father Ted for its slapstick outrageousness (more Linehan's style) will perhaps be disappointed, those who value it for its sense of place, quirkiness, and getting under the skin of deeply flawed characters are more likely to warm to this film.