The General (1998) User Reviews

A great film, note to DVD viewers

[drxym · 8/10 · 17 January 2002]

This is a great film, but I should warn people who are watching this on DVD that some versions ship with a black and white on one side and a colour version on the other.

Do not watch the colour version! For some reason this version has different dialogue (and possibly editing) particularly with regards to swearing - freaking replaces f**king etc. I don't know why this is so but maybe the movie was watered down to get some lesser rating. Whatever the reason, watch the black and white version and see the movie as it was meant to be seen.

No frills, just good story telling.

[charlietuna · 7/10 · 19 March 2001]

Boorman if nothing else is a good story teller. As a director, his greatest triumph came early in his career with Deliverance. Yet as a writer, he has brought us quality films such as Excalibur, and Hope & Glory. His adaptation of the Paul Williams novel is straight forward and without frills. Martin Cahill had many aspects to his life that could have easily become the fodder for an over zealous director. Rather than seeking to build a "background" story out of his love triangle, Boorman handles it with style and two scenes. The movie is meant to tell you about the rise and fall of Martin Cahill with a watchful eye to the social and political forces in Ireland. Boorman does just that. The scenes are well thought out and the acting solid. While this movie never hit the critical radar in America, it was praised both in Britain and at Cannes. When your in the mood for a story of a gangster who became a populist hero, take a look at this film. But if you want swift action scenes and graphic violence, it may be time for another viewing of Bonnie and Clyde.

Very funny and quite black

[Dan-153 · 8/10 · 1 June 1999]

This is Boorman's finest film for many years and is dominated by a memorable performance by Brendan Gleeson who has created a character who combines joviality, clownishness and warmth with moral ambiguity and a capacity for great violence. Voight supports well (although there will always be something mannered about his performances) and produces a pretty solid Irish accent. All other supporting players are excellent. Boorman directs well and delivers a very balanced portrayal of what was obviously a very complicated man capable of great charm and love as well also acts of real darkness.

Excellent movie, well acted but perhaps which serves perhaps to glorify an otherwise utterly contemptable character

[elkringo · 7 May 1999]

In terms of acting, direction and entertainment value, the general certainly delivers. Its is well paced, humorous and the performances of all the main actors, in particular Brendan Gleeson and Jon Voight, are excellent. I'm not sure why the film is shot in black and white, I don't think this adds particularly to the film.

My one reservation about the film is the portrayal of the main character, Martin Cahill, whom I think is overly glamorised. I remember before Cahills death his exploits as I saw them in the newspapers and television, and from the many stories which circulated around Dublin at that time of his criminal activity. This was no latter day Robin Hood. He was an unusually successful thief, no doubt, but with none of the charitable spirit. He was also extremely cruel, at one time breaking into the home of a social welfare officer and torturing him for hours simply because he had refused Cahill welfare payments.

I would recommend people to see this film, but at all times remember that the man it portrays was no one to be admired, but an example of the most vile thugs that Ireland has had the shame to produce in recent years. But then they say, "The devil has the best tales".

Rare modern gangster picture with something to do and say.

[Pedro_H · 7/10 · 6 February 2005]

Martin Cahill was perhaps one of the strangest gangsters Europe - no matter Ireland - ever had. One of those lives that no fiction would have touched because it goes so much against the grain. One of those gangsters that took on the police head on and seemed to mix cruel intentions (including attempted murder) with black comedy.

Cahill wasn't really a successful criminal because his game ended up lost. How I won't say, but there is only two options. Think about it. His only success was keeping the inevitable at bay for as long as he did. This film is about the how and why.

The two posters boys are John Voight (Inspector Ned Kenny) and Brendan Gleeson as Cahill himself. Voight brings a bit of Hollywood to the piece but looks out of place - his accent is not at all bad though.

This film has a lot of natural humour because Cahill seemed to enjoy a joke. Taunting an enemy is actually not that clever a ploy when the enemy is the state and he learns this the hard way. Despite what Cahill believed you can't be both an outlaw and a family man. Professionals talks about "living in boxes" and this what Cahill attempted. Family man one minute - cold blooded torturer the next.

What I liked best was the onlookers and the family. Cahill is a criminal who doesn't pretend anything else. However he has weak jellyfish people around him - people that take his favours and therefore his blood money. There is not a Robin Hood story - his actions put good people out of work.

This is a focus on one man and the script isn't clever enough to weave any dimension in to the minor characters. They are people that seem to spend their life nodding and agreeing - they are weak in the face of someone with a brain and ideas.

This is the kind of stuff that the British industry can do. It is small - it is even in black and white - and it achieves what it sets out to do. It carries you through to the end and lingers in the memory, but it makes only limited appeal to a world audience who are not in-tune with Irish politics. Any other country would have fought dirty tricks with dirty tricks - that is why Cahill never went to the British mainland to steal.

Another accomplished performance by Brendan Gleeson, Ireland's Depardieu

[dan-476 · 9/10 · 28 July 2000]

John Boorman's 'The General' was always going to be a controversial movie and a tough sell for its filmmakers.

It's anti-hero, Martin Cahill was Ireland's most infamous criminal of recent times - so much so that there has been four screen depictions of him (Ken Stott in The Vicious Circle, Kevin Spacey in Ordinary Decent Criminal, Pete Postlethwaite in When The Sky Falls and Brendan Gleeson in The General).

He was guilty of some of the country's most outrageous crimes and capable of real brutality - most notably, injuring a forensic scientist in a car bomb and literally nailing one of his gang members to the floor.

Add into the mix the fact that the film has a largely Irish cast deploying thick Dublin accents and that Boorman chose to shoot it in black and white and you have a movie which wasn't exactly going to jump out at international and especially, US audiences demanding to be loved.

The result is perhaps Boorman's finest work, certainly on a par with the wonderful 'Hope and Glory'.

The film is also by a furlong the best of the four movies depicting Cahill's life.

This is in large part due to the brilliant performance of Irish actor, Brendan Gleeson in the central role.

The Irish Depardieu not only physically transforms himself into Cahill but captures the rebellious spirit, the intelligence and the charm.

It would have been easy to depict Cahill as a monster.

However, Gleeson and Boorman treat their audience with respect, building up a character with shades of darkness and light.

On one hand, viewers are given an appreciation of how "The General" was able to command the love of two sisters, his children and the adulation of his criminal associates.

However, Boorman's film is certainly no love letter to Cahill. We also see his sadistic side as in the bombing of the forensic scientist's car and crucifixion of one of his gang members, his lack of consideration and compassion for the 100 workers laid off at a storeroom he has robbed, his cold bargaining with the sexually abused daughter of one of his gang members.

The supporting cast also put in fine performances too.

Jon Voight not only masters the rural Irish brogue of the Garda (police) inspector bedevilled by Cahill but also the attitudes. It is a tough but ultimately sympathetic performance of a cop dragged unwillingly into the gutter.

Maria Doyle Kennedy and Angeline Ball give charming performances as the sisters who were also the women in Cahill's rather unorthodox life, with Ciaran Fitzgerald also making a sympathetic son.

Adrian Dunbar, Sean McGinley and Eanna MacLiam all put in spirited performances as members of Cahill's gang. McGinley, in particular, creates another memorably seedy performance as Gary.

Special mention should also go to Pat Laffan as a brutish Garda sergeant.

With it's cracking script, Richie Buckley's musical score and the black and white camerawork, 'The General' is easily up there with the best of modern movies made in Ireland (certainly, up there with Neil Jordan's 'The Butcher Boy' and Alan Parker's 'The Commitments').

It is a must see - a film which demands cult status.

What quality filmmaking is all about, in "General".

[ToldYaSo · 10/10 · 16 August 1999]

In a small way, I'm almost glad that all films aren't as good as "The General". It's dripping with one of those intangible elements that seems to escape other films. Sheer quality craftsmanship and excellent storytelling.

There's a very rich quality to this film. What we see on screen merely scrapes the surface of a full history that is eluded to but not entirely exposed explicitly, which is what I think works best to keep interests up. Just brilliant film work in every regard makes this story come to life. Crime, ethics, political standpoints and complex relationships.

Martin Cahill, the film's central character, is the anti-hero thief, something of a modern day Robin Hood but much more visceral. I understand that John Boorman was allegedly one of Cahill's break-in victims. From what we see in the film, he remains constant to his own beliefs and principles, even if that means breaking the law at every turn. His schemes and plots to outwit the cops are so simple and effective you can't help but like him. He's very clever despite a lack of education, and he doesn't shift to the world around him as much as it shifts for him. His biggest weakness appears to be cream filled pastries. Even if he's been beaten, he won't allow his adversaries the pleasure of seeing him suffer in any way.

I don't know how faithful the film is to the truth, history or the spirit of Cahill's actions. But one thing I do know is that the superb craftsmanship of this film should propel it on to everyone's must see list, but that's not too likely to be. At least for North American audiences this film has many things going against it. It's in black and white. The Irish accents are thick and difficult to understand at times. It doesn't seem to have the sort of advertising campaign that it deserves. And worst of all, it appears to have unanimous critical acclaim. Often great films aren't hits, they don't strike a chord with the masses, but in my book, that's fine. You can only tell the quality of a great film in comparison to one that's inferior. Personal taste aside, this film is simply done extremely well.

an incomplete dinner

[gkarasik · 6/10 · 4 January 1999]

This film's main fault is the same one made by so many directors who attempt to make films about "true-life" events or "real-life" characters: These directors believe that there's so much drama and interest inherent in the event or character they're portraying that they forget to give us a complete film.

This is clearly what happened here. John Boorman recreates for us what I guess are famous parts of the Martin Cahill (aka The General) legend, but he leaves out of the script much indication of who this man is or why he turned out the way he did. And if, like me, you'd never heard of him, you're left wondering what you're supposed to be getting from this film. It's not terribly funny; it's not terribly clever; and Cahill as he's portrayed by Brendan Gleeson, is not terribly smart. What he is is bold and ruthless in a way that the (as portrayed by Boorman) mild Irish temperament is not equipped to handle.

I suspect that this film would play better for an Anglo-Irish audience, people who knew who Cahill was and who understood the culture in which he developed. For me, it wasn't a good caper movie, it wasn't a good comedy, and it wasn't a good character study.

And I'm getting a little overfull of films portraying the Irish as large leprechauns.

Gangster Movie in Classic Tradtion

[hammy-3 · 9/10 · 15 December 1998]

If you're watching one of the Classic Warner Brothers Gangster movies on tv and someone asserts that "They don't make 'em like that anymore", here's a movie to prove them wrong. As real-life Dublin gangster Martin Cahill Irish actor Brendan Gleeson provides a criminal hero to compare with those played by Edward G. Robinson and Jimmy Cagney. Brutal and Compassionate by turns, Gleeson's Cahill eschews links to anything outside himself and his home and circle of acquaintances. Hating the state, he turns Ireland's liberal justice system upon itself; hating the media, he blocks his face from TV cameras. Ultimately, it's this status as an existential outsider that brigs about his tragic downfall, but along the way there are moments of incredible comedy as the Gardai, or Irish Police are made to look like bumbling Keysone cops. The monochrome cinematograhy gives an excellent verite effect and the supporting cast with Jon Voight and a host of Irish stalwarts, are superb.

Well-made film, but a morally abhorrent subject

[JoeytheBrit · 6/10 · 28 July 2008]

John Boorman's highly-feted 'comeback' picture is an entertaining tale that is fatally undermined by its almost light-hearted depiction of a vicious career criminal who thought nothing of intimidating witnesses to prevent them testifying against him and who matter-of-factly nails the hands of one of his cohorts, whom he (wrongly) suspects of stealing from him, to a snooker table. It appears that, in Boorman's mind at least, Martin Cahill's less savoury tendencies can be forgiven because he stood up to the IRA, and you can only wonder how anybody can arrive at such a simplistic notion.

Cahill is portrayed as a modern-day Robin Hood, but he's a Robin Hood who steals gold from the rich and gives nappies to the poor. When he's not committing crimes he's a lovable rogue with an engaging sense of humour and a love of pigeons. He lives in a nice house and has a loving wife (and sister-in-law) and he's really just like you and me. The police, meanwhile, are either dim-witted fools whom Cahill uses to provide him with alibis as he carries out his audacious crimes or corrupt bullies who take sadistic pleasure in upsetting Cahill at every opportunity.

Brendan Gleeson is OK as Cahill, but he's effortlessly overshadowed by the under-rated Adrian Dunbar as his sidekick Noel Curley. While rarely holding down a starring role, Dunbar never fails to give a convincing performance and he makes the most of a role here that is given scant attention in Boorman's quest to sanctify the memory of Cahill.

Enjoy the film – you'll find it difficult not to – but as you chuckle at Cahill's exploits (some of which are highly unlikely) just remember he's no different in character from the scum who steal your cars and stab your sons.

Gritty and Brutal Portrayal

[gbheron · 9/10 · 2 March 2003]

"The General" is the nickname of the real-life, contemporary Irish criminal, Martin Cahill. Brilliantly played by Brendan Gleeson, director John Boorman dramatizes Cahill's odd career as a very successful thief and robber. Shot in black and white the movie has a gritty realism that doesn't glamorize Cahill and his gang. But Cahill, as portrayed by Gleeson and Boorman, is a likable and quirky eccentric who does things his own way, a characteristic which causes him to fall afoul of both the police and the IRA.

Not your typical A-List Hollywood crime melodrama, this movie is not for everyone, especially those looking for the typical Vin Diesel or Al Pacino crime flick. This is more like the Sopranos in the Irish slums. And, I recommend it highly for a Saturday night rental; just be forewarned that it is quite brutal and intense at times.

Over touted, misbilled as drama, and only mildly entertaining.

[=G= · 6/10 · 19 October 2001]

"The General" is a critically acclaimed, misdirected mistelling of the misadventures of an Irish gangster of some repute for his eccentric ways. The film is a drama with very strong comedic overtones such that it is doesn't work well as either drama or comedy. In short, "The General" is only mildly interesting, mildly entertaining, and mildly amusing. I was suckered into watching the film by good reviews and high marks from IMDB.com users. A cute flick for those with an interest in recent Irish history in general or Martin Cahill in particular.

Fat sociopath gets comeuppance

[jd-116 · 3/10 · 9 November 2010]

I saw this film just after having sat through The Sopranos, and was struck by the similarities.

The central character is a fat sociopath who leads a life of crime including armed robbery, murder, torture and perverting the course of justice. He is surrounded by a small army of other low-lives who carry out his instructions.

None of the characters is engaging, and I personally didn't give a damn what happened to any of them, except that I was quite pleased when the Cahill character got rubbed out, which happens at the very start of the film. (The rest of what you see is a flash-back.) On the positive side, at least you didn't have to watch 6 whole series of one-hour episodes to reach the denouement, and there's a decent performance from Jon Voigt. I'm not Irish but I thought his accent was pretty good.

Superbly drawn character study of infamous Irish criminal

[pooch-8 · 14 August 1999]

Brendan Gleeson's performance as notorious Irish master criminal Martin "The General" Cahill is a small miracle. Alternating between a brash swagger and a sullen fatalism, Gleeson utterly transforms himself (I love how he hides his face simply by cocking his head down and shielding it with his hand, peeking out between splayed fingers) into the charismatic thief. Director and screenwriter John Boorman, who delighted in revealing that he had once been robbed of a gold record by the real-life Cahill (he references it anecdotally in the film) has done some of his best work here, creating a totally engrossing character study that includes tense robberies, playful confrontations with the police, and eyebrow-raising relationships, but he never forgets to maintain the delicate balance between the light-hearted (and light-fingered) humor and the danger and desperation inherent in a high-profile life of crime.

specifically, there's an even cooler aspect

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 29 March 2009]

In the first few minutes of "The General", it may throw you off and make you think that you already know the ending. But it turns out that John Boorman has a fine plot in store. The film shows how Martin Cahill (Brendan Gleeson) not only had to deal with the English occupation, but with the police in his native Ireland. And clearly, when you see his background, it's clear that he wasn't going to be a "model citizen". Cahill, like any other person, was a product of the society that created him. And it led to a very good biopic.

I certainly recommend this movie. You have to be patient with it, just to let the characters develop, but it's certainly an enjoyable film. Also starring Jon Voight.

Terrific biopic

[SKG-2 · 9/10 · 2 September 1999]

Being Irish-American, I can tell this; there's an old joke about an Irishman who washes ashore of a new country and asks the first person he sees, "What kind of government do they have here?" The person tells him, and the Irishman responds, "Well, whatever it is, I'm against it." Martin Cahill, from what I know, would seem to share that sentiment, but not out of any political bent; indeed, he's all the more fascinating for being completely apolitical. He just rails against any government that, by definition, is there to ensure he can't make a living at the thing he likes to do the most; steal from the rich.

John Boorman's portrayal of Cahill, nicknamed THE GENERAL(the title of this movie), portrays him as the thug he can be, not only in his viciousness(the famous pool table scene), but also his selfishness(as soon as he's successful, the only "poor" he gives to after robbing the rich is himself and the rest of the gang), yet allows him his delusions of grandeur; after all, isn't that all we often have to fall back on? Of course, Cahill is quite talented at what he does, using ingenuity as much as brute force to get what he wants, like going to talk to police inspector Ned Kenny(Jon Voight) while his men are robbing a bank, not just to keep Kenny occupied, but to give himself an alibi(the look on Voight's face when he realizes he's been set up is alone worth the price of admission).

Brendan Gleeson, a regular in Irish movies(and recently seen in LAKE PLACID), makes everything Cahill does seem somehow normal, even his habit of hiding his face with his hand when he wants to avoid unpleasantness, or the fact that he lives with both his wife and her sister(Maria Doyle Kennedy and Angeline Ball, from THE COMMITMENTS), even, of course, his job. Obviously, we're not supposed to like Cahill, but like Inspector Kenny, we develop a sneaking admiration for him just the same(if there's a flaw, it's we see Kenny sinking to the level of Cahill once by punching him out, but we don't see the character arc there).

Boorman is obviously a great visual director(much has been made of the black-and-white photography - too much, in my humble opinion - while not enough has been made of his use of quick fades, which lend it a dreamlike quality), but he needs a good story to engage him. When he doesn't have it, like in BEYOND RANGOON or - sad to say, for me for the most part - DELIVERANCE, it's all empty. When he does have it, like in POINT BLANK or HOPE AND GLORY, it's engaging and compelling, and he has a great story here(isn't it funny that while he's know for his visual work, his best films, like this and HOPE AND GLORY, he also wrote?). A terrific biopic.

Honor Among Thieves

[slokes · 7/10 · 21 November 2007]

Irish gangster Martin Cahill may have been a murdering creep in real-life, but the on-screen version portrayed by Brendan Gleeson is every bit of all right in this captivating character study by director-screenwriter John Boorman.

Growing up in the Dublin slum Hollyfield, Cahill becomes a bold and crafty thief who develops a strong antipathy for law and order in all its forms. Recruiting a like-minded collection of ex-Hollyfield low lifes around him, he breaks the law repeatedly, and with mounting daring, shoving the low-class verdict of the high and mighty back in their faces.

"I want something big," Cahill tells his men before one of his record-breaking jobs. "To humiliate them."

Gleeson delivers a masterful performance, with his gently cynical grin and half wink, melting our resistance to his criminal ways as we see him play the angles like Little Rascal Spanky all grown up wrong. Seeing him trade barbs with police inspector Ned Kenny (Jon Voight, who surprises with a terrific accent and low-key manner), it's hard not to take sides no matter how much in the wrong you know Cahill to be.

Boorman doesn't even try to have it both ways. Even when Cahill does something nasty, like nailing an associate to a snooker table for suspicion of embezzlement, you wind up only admiring the guy's sense of fairness. Sleeping with his wife's sister? If the wife's for it, why do you mind? Ripping off a collection of Dutch Masters? Well, the owner did exploit Africans, so it serves him right.

You even get mad, along with Cahill, when after one very well-executed job, the IRA tries to bully him into giving up half the haul. "There's nothing' as low as robbin' a robber!" Cahill shouts.

Such selective morality limits "The General" as a lesson in civic responsibility, but it also accounts for why the film is as good as it is, serving as a vehicle for a subversive yet somehow merry view of life it takes which unites "The General" with other Boorman films even if it is visually more muted that what we have come to expect from him, especially in its original black-and-white version.

I get the feeling Boorman was taking his cues from the hit Irish film "The Commitments", which also features actresses Maria Doyle Kennedy and Angeline Ball and a doughy lead ("You're not fat. Just cuddly.") In both there's a kitchen-sink feeling of rain-slick Dublin crumbing under soulful wailing and heavy bass tones, while the characters at the center try to break out of their grim surroundings. One tries through music, the other through crime. The best you can say about "The General" is it almost makes you believe one's as good as the other.

That may be the worst thing about it, too. Cahill's crimes hurt others, as Doyle points out, and ultimately himself as he reaches beyond his means, yet Boorman seems to suggest it's alright because its his life to lose. A better film might have examined the collateral damage more closely, but at risk of being less entertaining.

The perfect anti-hero

[29055 · 9/10 · 4 January 1999]

There are few modern directors whom I respect as well as John Boorman. His biopics are always keenly observed, and he has a great eye for the comic moment. Cahill, history tells us, was a vicious thug - his only redeeming qualities, Boorman tells us, were his love for his family and comrades. Even if a few of Cahill's blemishes were airbrushed out to present him as a modern day Robin Hood, what the hell, it makes great cinema. Cahill is the perfect anti-hero, and with Boorman's decision to show us the ending at the beginning - we know that he ultimately pays the ultimate price for his crimes.

No point in harping on about the use of monochrome photography. I don't particularly think it matters - it just makes me wish I was watching Casablanca. But the principal actors are perfect. Brendan Gleeson and Adrian Dunbar make a fine pairing, and Jon Voight as Cahill's nemesis, Inspector Ned Kenny, is surprisingly good at the Irish accent, and back to his best form as an actor.

Boorman, although not as prolific, deserves to be regarded alongside Scorsese, Coppola and Kubrik for his insight into humanity and the sometimes strange bonds that result. No other modern directors do this as well as the above mentioned.

Sympathy for a madman

[davidmvining · 7/10 · 2 June 2023]

John Boorman had been getting more explicitly political for about a decade, but he moves his focus from far-away jungles to close to home, namely his adoptive home of Dublin. Based on a book by Paul Williams, Boorman wrote his script about the brazen and notorious criminal Martin Cahill with a particular emphasis on a melancholic attitude towards Ireland, using Cahill as a vehicle for this telling of the collapse and, perhaps, reconstruction of Irish society into something new. It's easy to see how this story could get pushed in the direction of Boorman's larger points about civilization, the heart of darkness, and losing our humanity in the face of technology.

Cahill (Brendan Gleeson) grew up in Dublin having to steal every little thing in order to find the kind of small luxuries in life, like when he stole some pastries, giving one to his future wife Frances (Maria Doyle Kennedy). He develops an extreme "us versus them" mentality towards pretty much everyone outside of his small group of friends, family, and fellow criminals. It's not just him versus the police, but also the IRA and the church. No one is on his side except those within his group, the Hollyfields. His chief antagonist, though, is the police, represented by Inspector Ned Kelly (Jon Voight), an officer from the same area brought back to the neighborhood when Cahill reaches adulthood and starts on his small tirade of crime.

Leading a small cadre of criminals with his second in command Noel (Adrian Dunbar), they initiate a series of increasingly brazen heists while Cahill has to keep his family together under increasing pressure from the police in response to his actions. The first is an armed robbery where Cahill, in a moment of frustration, hits his helmet against a bit of wood, leaving a mark of paint on his helmet that the police are able to use to acquire physical evidence which leads to actual charges against Cahill. While the trial goes on, Cahill, who is free, organizes a heist on a fortified jewelry wholesaler that even the IRA had decided to back off from, which is successful. He also starts learning the law in trying to find ways out of his trial from trying to have the whole proceeding declared as a mistrial through disturbances to threatening the sole witness into changing her testimony about feeling threatened to get him out of the most demanding charge.

What tips the scales in terms of police response to Cahill's antics is his brazen theft of a dozen works of art, including a $20 million Vermeer, from an Irish estate. It leads to an obvious and brazen effort from the police to monitor his every movement as they make no effort to hide their presence, walking right behind him in uniform all the time, and following him in their marked cars when he drives.

Cahill seems to represent something about the Irish identity, especially when you consider the early parts of his story. His lower-class beginnings and his efforts to fight the larger powers, especially through a real estate deal that left poorer tenants without a place to live, making him something of a working class hero in of the time. However, despite the film centering on him and, perhaps, treating him with some level of kid gloves, I don't think the film is all that enamored with him personally. I was reminded of both Fellini's La Dolce Vita and Scorsese's Goodfellas where both showed the highs of an immoral and illegal life, only to counterbalance with the views of the downfalls. The highs here are nowhere near the dizzying heights of the previous films, but I get the same structural sensibilities. Throw in the fact that the film does show Cahill being a violent psychopath from time to time, like the scene where he crucifies one of his mates on a pool table because he thinks he stole a gold bar from him before taking him to the hospital, and you've got a portrait of a man who is extremely prone to violence in horrible ways.

I also don't get a sense that the film disapproves of the police response. The police are dismissive and rhetorically abusive towards Cahill and his family, but Cahill is violent and stealing anything that's not nailed down. As the film moves into its final act, things begin to move from just following Cahill's actions towards a more melancholic tone. It's right about the time Cahill intentionally shoots a friend in the knee that this is happening, and it's countered with the police's most obnoxious attempts to get under Cahill's skin. I get the sense that Boorman feels like Cahill deserved it. I don't think that Boorman hated Cahill, though (despite Cahill stealing his gold album for the Deliverance soundtrack, something that gets shown in the film). I think Boorman saw Cahill as something of a tragic figure, a man driven by a sense of justice early in life and who got completely lost in crime as things went on.

It really makes me think that Cahill is supposed to represent something of Ireland for Boorman. Something about a people, facing centuries of dominance from England, refusing to find themselves a better way out and descending into criminality (Cahill says at one point that half the country is criminals). His downfall is sad because Cahill was smart (Kenny says that early to him) and could have made something more positive of himself, and instead he chose to rob, maim, and steal. Was that all his fault? Perhaps not, but Cahill himself was the main contributor to that.

That angle of tragedy is interesting, and it's all anchored by Gleeson in the title role. This was his breakout role, and he threw himself into it, covering his face with his hands like Cahill did, wearing his pig themed t-shirts, and being the right kind of interesting crazy as his world builds up and then collapses around him.

This isn't one of Boorman's great films. I think it needed to make the rise of Cahill more infectiously entertaining to help make the downfall more impactful, but it's a well-managed, well-acted, and well-put together production that makes its point well. It's a nice return to form after the misdirected Beyond Rangoon.

The General (1998)

[SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain · 8/10 · 13 December 2011]

John Boorman delicately handles the life of a criminal. It's always a tough job to do because these are horrible people. They thrive on false placed loyalty and self pity that their lives aren't better. The film succeeds as it presents Cahill (accurately or not) as a mischievous little devil. His crimes are often funny, as is his relationship with the police. Like a good film should, it gradually shows his physical and mental deterioration. It isn't long before he is taken over by paranoia, and when the police begin to use his own form of harassment against him, we see a broken and sad man. As the film progresses, we see his associates as they truly are. Drugs addicts, sex offenders, terrorists, we get the sense that Cahill realises he is not the romanticised character he is. Great stuff all round, with a moody saxophone score, and stunning performances.

The Butcher Boy 30 Years Later

[Robbo-7 · 6/10 · 10 January 1999]

Not as great as the Butcher Boy, but another nice, small, deeply Irish film -- though billed as a "true story," it stretches credibility at points. Writer/director John Boorman and Cinematographer Seamus Deasy deserve a lot of credit for making a movie that's always easy on the eyes, and for using black-and-white, which works very well in this film. Brendan Gleeson, as clever Irish thief and working class hero Martin Cahill, gives a fine, nuanced performance. At the very least you gotta love his various piggy tee-shirts. John Voight finally gets a chance to show some complexity in his familiar role of bad/good guy. Dug the accents, but could have used sub-titles at certain points!

I liked it, despite a few niggly flaws

[mvd · 8/10 · 30 July 1999]

The General is a movie probably only truly appreciated by those familiar with the environment it was based on. For many American viewers, I feel the black humour is lost and they might expect it purely to be classic gangster movie where the plot leaves an air of tension through a developing story and a series of climaxing events. Im sorry but Hollyfield is definitely not Hollywood! I think that might explain some of the 'boring' commentary in previous reviews. As for my own views, i think it is an excellent movie which is interesting, witty and depressing. What makes it so is a central character who can be so creative and innovative with a pronounced intelligence and set of values BUT who wastes these assets through devoting his life to crime, self indulgence and power. The character of Martin Cahill is not portrayed accurately in the film as he is seen as a likeable rogue whereas the real General was a brutal, horrific thug who despite all the interesting facets to his personality, was ultimately beyond redemption. So that is my chief gripe with the film but it does not deter from a fantastic movie which is extremely enjoyable, about the life of Dublin's most enigmatic crimelord. For a more accurate portrayal of the actions of The General, i would suggest reading the book by Paul Williams on the man himself. For those of you who found the film boring, i would suggest never watching another movie made in 'real ireland' again, because you will not have the appreciation for the background, dialogue or humour at all.

MD

no matter what happens at any moment--no matter the intended impact--the only reaction you get from this rather flimsy gangster movie is "okay...so what?"

[TheUnknown837-1 · 4/10 · 3 August 2009]

Like with any movie genre, there are good gangster movies and there are bad gangster movies. If you asked me to name a good gangster movie, I'd have dozens to choose from. If you asked me to name a bad gangster movie, probably the first one to pop up in my mind is one that still has me in a sort of depression of disappointment about a week since I saw the film for the first and I promise you, the last time. That film is "The General", unrelated to the 1926 silent film of the same name. This is a very dry, very slow gangster epic that raises questions not about the story (it's more than easy to follow) but about why the filmmakers chose to make this rather flimsy endeavor.

Like "Goodfellas" (1990) and "American Gangster" (2007)—two superior mob movies—"The General" is based on real people and true events. The film revolves around an Irish criminal named Martin Cahill (Brendan Gleeson) who started his long chain of crimes stealing food as a teenager and then moving up to robbing museums and houses as an adult. Meanwhile, the police led by an inspector named Kenny (Jon Voight) try desperately and vigorously to prove just one of his crimes and convict (or kill) him.

Perhaps because it's a film in the same category as the marvelous "Goodfellas" (1990) and the first two "Godfather" films, I was expecting too much from "The General." But that may be going too easy on it. This would have been a bad film had I not seen the aforementioned masterpieces before being swamped by boredom in this oater and its far-too-stretched running time of screaming bad scenes. Let's start knocking the film by just looking at the style in which it is presented. For some reason, director John Boorman and cinematographer Seamus Deasy selected to film this movie in black-and-white while its style and presentation are clearly the elements that belong to a full-fledged color film. Now I have nothing against b/w pictures, not even ones made in modern-day times. "Schindler's List" (1993) was more than ninety percent filmed in black-and-white and it's a masterpiece. "The General", made just five years after "Schindler's List" is not. The cinematography is also far too blown out with high lighting keys that seem very distracting and give the movie a very video-game-like quality that I found simply annoying. The filmmakers were obviously going for a realist's documentary-like style, like "Schindler's List" did, but they fail by making it seem too much like a documentary and at the same time, too much like a classic-style motion picture. Performances in the film range from passable to poor. Brendan Gleeson and Jon Voight gave decent enthusiasm for their roles, but it seemed to me at times that even they were getting kind of run down by the awful screenplay from which they were quoting. The sound design is also very primitive, probably in an attempt to give it a 40s crime-noir appeal, but that also fails because again, it's made too much like a contemporary picture and seems vastly out of place.

But the worst thing that occurs is that there's not one—not one—character in the film that I felt any emotions or opinions for. In fact, for every moment of every scene, the only thought going through my head was "okay…so what?" Moments that in a better film might come across as shocking or appalling are just dull and time-consuming here. I did not sympathize or hate the Brendan Gleeson character because the way the Cahill character is written is simply flat and dull. Gleeson just plays the common criminal and does not strike out with the impact the real Martin Cahill obviously did. If a character is killed off (as they always are in gangster films), we feel nothing. No remorse, no relief, no surprise, nothing. We just say "so what?" And that's all I did during the entire running time of this very flimsy, very poorly-made crime film.

Very funny, enjoyable tale that is equal handed if a little sentimental

[bob the moo · 5 December 2002]

Martin Cahill is an Irish thief but is generally a well mannered man with a good sense of humour. His actions draw the attention of the police, although he always manages to stay one step ahead of them. However his life is one of crime and violence and a major art robbery brings him to be the focus of a police investigation and brings the IRA demanding a cut. When a deal is made with the UVF Cahill's position becomes increasingly untenable.

Films about the troubles (or around the troubles) in Northern Ireland usually tend to put me off because they often wear their colours very large on their sleeves and seem more interesting in scoring political points than telling a good story. However this happily manages to avoid that and tells a Robin Hood style tale that is fairly well told.

Cahill is a little romanticised in that he has a great sense of humour and is very likeable, but the film doesn't hold back from showing the violence of the life with Cahill having to do nasty stuff as well. For me it worked so well because of the gentle comedy that ran through the story, but it still held plenty of drama and the characters (especially Cahill) held my attention easily.

Gleeson gives a great performance. He has got Cahill's little habits down really well – the covering of the face at every opportunity etc. Dunbar is good as are most of the support cast. Voight is an interesting bit of casting that is only used occasionally. However it is really Gleeson's show and his good humour carries the film easily.

Overall this film is very entertaining with a dark edge to it. The story is very enjoyable itself but with the dark humour provided by Gleeson it is even better.

Outstanding Dynamic

[vicmck · 10/10 · 4 June 2000]

The General is one of the best films dealing with true life that I have seen. John Boorman has done us all proud both as director and in the Writing credits. As Martin Cahill Brendan Gleeson who bears an uncanny resemblance to the real Cahill is superb bringing with him the humor as well as the hardcore attitude of the Dublin underworld. Well deserved the B.F.C. awards for best director and best actor. This is one for your library as you will want to watch it again and again.