This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

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.

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.

"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.

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.