Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

There are two reasons why I wanted to see this movie: one of them was because it is a British black comedy, and because of the nun. Unfortunately the nun, who is really a nurse by day and a stripper by night, isn't a major character in the movie, but her appearances where still pretty cool, and there were plenty of gags around the nun to keep me amused. The movie was good enough to stand on its own anyway, the nun just made it more interesting.Divorcing Jack is a political, conspiracy, black British comedy and very much lived up to my expectations. It is based around a journalist, Don Starky, who invites a young, attractive university student back to his house for a party. Starky is already married, and is not interested in this girl, but she has other ideas and manages to get her wicked way with him. Unfortunately his wife finds him in the act and throws him out and he is forced to move in with the girl. Unfortunately he returns back from getting a Pizza to find that the girl has been murdered, and then accidentally kills her mother because he thinks she is the murder. Even worse, he discovers that the girl was the daughter and the woman the wife, of an Irish politician: in fact the treasurer. All of this is happening at a time when elections are being held and peace is being promised by the leading candidate. To add a further twist, the girl's ex-boyfriend is Billy Culgan, a rather nasty bankrobber and IRA soldier who is in gaol. Thus Starky becomes the prime suspect and is caught up in this political game.I guess this movie is about secrets, the truth, and how peace is really only a shallow lie that is used to cover up huge amounts of tension. This movie is a very strong mouthpiece that reports on the violence that is tearing Northern Ireland apart, and Don Starky is the person who controls the mouthpiece. A couple of times he comments of the number of names that Northern Ireland has because of the number of people that are competing over control of this small state: the British and the Irish, the Protestants and the Catholics. The Irish want freedom from the British, but under that there is a huge religious tension that is constantly ripping the country apart - and every time a peace plan comes along, it is only shortlived before something happens which rips the country apart again. It is interesting to note that Scotland and Wales are gaining their own parliaments now.The religious violence is interesting because people attack religion claiming that it is the major causes of wars. This I disagree with - it might be an excuse for a war but it generally is not the cause of a war. In this situation, it seems that the whole reason behind the Protestant - Catholic violence in Northern Ireland has been forgotten and they simply fight because they hate each other. I believe the reason stemmed back to the protestants being English and because the Irish hated the English they remained Catholic - but I can only gather this from the history books.Divorcing Jack is a very good movie about the pointlessness of violence, the lies and conspiracies that run riot through areas of unrest and giving us the idea that peace in Ireland is not just around the corner - it is built on centuries of prejudice and hatred and can't simply be solved by one smiling man.

A promising start introduces us to the unconventional world of Dave Starkey (David Thewelis), a maverick newspaper columnist. Fuelled by alcohol, his witty narration opens the door to the "banter" of Belfast life. Ulster's unique sense of humour- heavy sarcasm laced with very colourful language, is captured extremely well and is cleverly used not only to develop the characters but to set a lively pace. Starkey is an intriguing character. Whilst trying to bring order to his marriage and increasingly wayward personal life, he seeks as much disorder as possible in the new Blairite era of Northern Ireland politics. Set in 1999, sound-bites and political correctness have given way to the more familiar fire-and-brimstone and tribalism. One gets the feeling that the script-writer got a little caught up in the recent euphoria surrounding the NI peace settlement talks, and took it upon himself to accelerate the pace of change- a dangerous premise in a conflict lasting nearly a thousand years.A chance meeting with a young Art student Maggie (Laura Fraser) leads to an unlikely, but very compelling relationship. The "Black Irish" beauty of young Maggie contrasts sharply with Starkey's stern-faced wife, reminiscent of those hardened Belfast mothers that fill news reports in the aftermath of violence. After introducing an interesting set of characters, frustratingly the film blows its potential and reverts to type.Cue the terrorists. Maybe one day, someone will make a film about real people who live in Northern Ireland. People who share the same experiences with people in England and Scotland. Highs, lows, laughter, sadness, love, romance- all free of any paramilitary involvement. Neil Jordan's "The Crying Game" came closest but still he had to use the terrorist springboard to develop his curious love story. These terrorists, both Loyalist and Republican, seem to be a cross between trigger-happy Young Guns and the Keystone Cops. This is the first fundamental flaw of this film. In attempting to include both sets of extremists in one plot, the producers show either great naiveté or ill-advised artistic license. The acutely informed Ulster population (and an increasingly knowledgeable British public) will dismiss such a concept. Ulster is a divided society, and divided usually means that rival groups generally do not mix, particularly extremists.To suggest that they not only do they mix, but both collude with the same politician is quite frankly ludicrous. This is such a shame because the politician in question, Michael Brinn (Robert Lindsay) has great potential as a character. Played with the usual gusto one would expect from Lindsay, Brinn is the ultimate modern politician, seemingly able to build a political platform across the religious divide through a stage-managed combination of sensitivity, intelligence and charm. Again, as a character, he is hijacked by a ridiculous notion that he managed to hide his active terrorist past right up to election day. We are all only too aware of the histories of Ulster's real politicians and it is an insult to the electorate of Northern Ireland to suggest that they would be gullible enough to vote for such a person.The second major flaw is the plot, which only begins to develop after an hour. Without getting involved in the complexities, the ping-pong movements of Starkey between the two terrorist groups and the local politicians amidst a rising body count and miraculously managing to avoid the law, becomes farcical. The ineffectiveness of the police is not helped by their appearance, resembling Gatwick Airport security rather than the imposing green-clad RUC in steel land Rovers, an image with which the whole world is familiar.It never ceases to amaze me in these type of films, how with a large cast and crew originating from the Province, that so many glaring inaccuracies manage to make their way into the film. Starting with the terrorist gangs who openly tout their weapons in Belfast's bars and restaurants, as well as letting off rounds with the fury and intensity of a Mafia film, and culminating in the armour-plated car resplendent in red of HM Post Office! However, the best (worst) example is the town of "Crossmaheart", a curious euphemism for Crossmaglen. Presumably changed as to not offend residents of the town, since it is described with venom by Starkey as being a tough Republican stronghold. But as Starkey narrates his description of the particularly nasty IRA rang that run the town, we are treated to a panorama of the main street, radiant with the freshly-painted red, white and blue kerbstones!(Loyalist colours)This film does cannot decide whether it is comical or serious drama. The ridiculousness of the terrorist groups is accentuated by the length of the film, over two hours, and one is left cringing as the plot plods on towards its inevitable end. One must admire an attempt to portray Ulster in its recent light on film, but it is very dangerous to develop humorous characatures of terrorists, particularly pertinent as the films scheduled October release coincided with the sensitive issue of prisoner release.

Normally my instinct-- on the few occasions I am exposed to utter tripe-- is to walk away without complaining. Let others see the film and make up their own minds. Who knows, some might even like it. Chacun a son gout.But this waste product is so puffed in its own conceit it begs me to comment. It is the worst movie/DVD experience of my life. I was trapped by company or I would have walked out-- of my own house! It purports to be a comedy. It is not funny. It purports to be a commentary on the turmoil of Northern Ireland. It is nothing more than the typical cheapjack cynicism the British pass off as political insight. It purports to star David Thewlis. Unfortunately it does. The premise of this movie is so painfully weak that it falls apart like wet toilet paper even to describe it. Let us just say that someone with a high school equivalency degree will guess the significance of the phrase "divorcing jack" long before the Thewlis character does-- and that the tedium of waiting for Thewlis's character to catch up is not enlivened by a succession of ridiculous characters such as the nun imposter (oh, haha, heehee), the unbelievable Boston Globe reporter or the overdrawn IRA gunman (Jason Isaacs, who should choose his roles better.) What really keynotes this as a bad movie for me is that the discovery of what the Big Secret is, the rationale behind all these deaths, takes place OFF SCREEN-- and then someone has to sit down in another scene and painfully tell Thewlis all about it. An anticlimax to an anticlimax, and so typical of the incompetence of this director!

Easily the most hyped film ever made in Northern Ireland, 'Divorcing Jack' falls very short of expectations. Billed as a refreshing satire on the petty bigotries that dominate Northern Irish life and the attempt by some to gloss over them, this is pretty heavy handed stuff.Desperately trying to be as hip as Danny Boyle's 'Trainspotting,' David Caffrey's film lacks bite. David Thewlis, an accomplished actor, is totally at sea in the lead role - his accent is all over the place - as are other quality actors like Robert Lindsay and Jason Isaacs. The journalist anti-hero is the same old stereotype of the hard drinking, womanising hack we have grown tired of seeing onscreen and bears no reality to the real life models.The difference between the anti-hero here and the anti-hero, Boyle in Oliver Stone's brilliant 'Salvador' is the latter is still human. James Woods' character in 'Salvador' is believable. David Thewlis's character is merely a cartoon sketch by comparison.And at least Stone's film has some things to say about American involvement in Central America and the relationship between journalists and their sources. 'Divorcing Jack,' by way of contrast, has practically nothing to say. It can only offer feeble humour about the political stereotypes in the province - loyalist hard men, republican hard men and new model Irish republicans. What's all the more appalling is the smug way it tries to pass off this shoddy humour.The one bright spark in the film is Rachel Griffith's performance. But all in all, this is pretty dismal stuff. Here's hoping 'Wild About Harry' is much, much better!