Crappy film

A bit overrated, but still an amazing film

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Others have given details of the play on which this film, 'Dancing at Lughnasa," is based. I too think that the movie has a stagy feel to it. That doesn't take away from the story – what there is of it; but it does speak to the lower technical quality of the film. The country shots do seem patched to the set scenes. I would like to have seen the stage play.The acting is quite good all around. No role was exceptional, but all were very good. I've enjoyed reading the different comments of reviewers, especially where some see the family as ordinary while others see it as exceptional. My take is that this is an ordinary family in the sense of relationships, but a somewhat eccentric family in their circumstances. For instance, all of the girls are unmarried and living together. And, a much older brother priest returns from the missions to retire at home, but with dementia setting in and some sort of mixed bag of spirituality that we can't quite grasp or figure out. Did he have a reverse conversion? Did he become pagan instead of converting Africans to Christianity? Whether in the movie, in the original play or in both, this point weakens the story. Unanswered questions like this distract the viewer. So, we miss the flow of the movie which centers around the five sisters. Another nagging distraction is a question of the parents. What happened to them? How long have then been dead? What about them – they are never mentioned that I can recall. Kate (Meryl Streep) seems to be no older than 40, with the youngest girl, Rose, mot much older than 20. But Father Jack is clearly well over 60. If they all had the same parents, their mother would have borne children for 40 years. Not impossible, but certainly exceptional. At one point, the narrator (Michael Mundy grown) makes a comment about this, but it's another piece that leaves viewers with a question – and another distraction.Finally, this is a family of girls who are very close-knit. They are different individuals, and they have quarrels and disagreements. But we see nothing so deep that it would rend this family apart. They care deeply for one another. When they dance together spontaneously, they share a common moment of joy and fun. The story ends on a sad note, which is OK for a good movie or story. But, in this case, we don't know why Agnes and Rose just sneaked off together one night, never more to be seen or heard from. There was no apparent rift or irreparable rending of the family. The grown Michael expresses the surprise of all the rest of them. Two sisters just flee a family circle of siblings they have been so close with all their lives? It's another question that leaves the film wanting.

I saw this play turned into a movie with my wife from a TIVO copy. We were so moved by its beauty, reality, pathos, characters, and what we took to be an authentic depiction of people and scenery in Ireland, at the time of the Spanish Civil War (1936), and of a certain simplicity in an insecure rural life, that I rushed upstairs to this computer to find out who wrote it--and what others may have made of it.I landed here--where several reviewers confirmed my belief that this is a "keeper". I will save it to be seen (and not to be missed) by all my children and grandchildren. I believe it is a rare chance to meet people whose world is very small, and often very plain, whose words you don't want to miss.

This is a lovely film with a simple story line: the day to day lives of a family (all women, though one brother who very much counts at least in his ruined optimism) and a (love) child and a father. I found the group very loving and burning deep inside for life to bring them something each wanted. The terminal sadness lay in the fact that none of them were able to rise to a powerful and charismatic persona that conquers the world, which has so often been used in other films (Seldom in plays. They are too real and difficult.) to satisfy our need to live through the character(s) and become a force to be reckoned with. I never read the play (to my chagrin) nor did I see the Broadway show which I recall received much praise, but though I too was saddened as the family structure unravels, I felt it was so true that I had to accept the way the story comes to a close.I didn't view the film with the thought of this family being staunch Catholics, with the fervid strictness imposed on the lives of believers (in that country, particularly). Nevertheless I found the dance (where Danny tries to overwhelm Rose, and thanks to her brother does not succeed) alarming and disquieting, whereas the dance performed by the five sisters was alive with joy and desire-- abandon--which when the music stops, they each fall into self-consciousness at the revelation of their deep feelings.I give the movie a 9 only because I do not have the technical, critical, artistic knowledge to give it the 10 I believe it deserves.

This is a pretty film visually, and some of the acting was good. Although I have not seen the play on which it was based, it seemed to me that this would be better as a play than a film. My favorite films are those that make me think, or evoke strong emotions. This one did neither. It did have a nice aesthetic content, visually. And, Meryl Streep gave one of her usual masterful performances. But, I didn't care about any of the characters, except the little boy. The film just left me cold, and it didn't seem memorable.