Triage (2009)

I was very moved by this film. I loved the pacing, the movement back and forth in time, the many-layered meanings of the word "triage". Colin Farrell's work just gets better and better, he is fast becoming my favorite actor. The camera work is gorgeous too, kudos to the DP.

I'll keep this review short, but suffice it to say, this is a Must-See. Right up there with some other finely wrought journalism/war films, like "Welcome to Sarajevo," and general war films, like John Boorman's "Beyond Rangoon." I'm ordering the book to read and then plan to re-watch the film too. It's not often an author pulls of a great adaptation, but judging from the film, he sure did here.

Fmovies: If you like this movie, you should go out and buy/rent "No man's land" from the same director. I haven't seen "L'Enfer" yet, but I'm sure that one is good too. At first I was amazed by the actors at hand here, but the script proves to have been a big part in their involvement. The dialogue and the delivery is just spot on.

And when you watch Christopher Lee going one-on-one with Colin Farrell, you just wish there could have been more scenes, with those two together. There is a great chemistry surrounding them and when they grace the screen together it's almost like magic. There is this constant pushing and delivering, that makes those scenes special.

But of course, the rest of the movie is not lacking in tension and/or good performances. Quite the contrary. Especially the doctor and the others involved all have there scenes. The editing does the rest and makes this more than above average.

this is the third of the 2009 Colin Farrell movies which I have recently following on from Doctor Parnassus and Crazy Heart but this surely is his finest acting performance in a movie to date.

There are many movies of course about war and more recently about Iraq. this is not really an Iraq war story but Colin Farrell does play as a war journalist in Kurdistan and returns from there with a trauma wjhich engrosses the main story of the film.

the film title of TRIAGE is a strange one and requires looking up as to meaning before or after watching the movie. the context of TRIAGE within the movie occurs as i recall in only one actual scene of the film when the Kurdistani Doctor is seen having to play 'God' in order to decide who lives and dies.

Like the American movie 'Brothers', somebody returns from a war-torn drama with a psychological trauma and with a story to tell which is not what the folks back home are expecting. Farrells acting performance is spot on all the way and there are one or two graphic scenes in the film, one near the end, which will definitely make you flinch and probably weep.

overall this is not a powerful film like The Hurt Locker and I disagree with the earlier comment about the Grandfather. He clearly has an important part to play in the movie and Farrell links to all the main characters effortlessly.

Okay it was not filmed in Kurdistan for whatever reason and Kurdistani actors/extra may or may not have been used.

Despite the graphic scenes, I commend this movie for viewing. It is not top notch but it is certainly entertaining.

Would have liked to have seen more focus on the concept of the film title and exploration of issues relating to triage rather than the story which eventually evolved between the character of mark Walsh (Farrell) and his best friend David. I really doubt many people will watch the movie and know what TRIAGE means.

Not on general release anywhere I understand, privileged to watch it on good quality DVD.

Triage fmovies. As a teenager, Elena (Paz Vega) hated her grandfather (Christopher Lee) because he was a "fascist." He treated the fascist leaders after the Spanish War. His explanation of why he did so was most interesting, and showed him to possibly be a great psychiatrist.

She called upon him to treat her war photographer boyfriend (Colin Farrell) after he returned from Kurdistan and was undergoing leg paralysis that was psychosomatic. Their exchanges as Mark (Farrell) relived his war experiences were fascinating, as were Dr. Morales' soliloquies.

The film was excellent in showing the cost of war is far higher than the dollars and cents we spend to fight them. Without adequate treatment, those who return will suffer the rest of their lives for their experiences. Farrell was excellent as was Lee.

This movie is basically about how even a photojournalist(Colin Farrell) who is a vet at taking pictures of war and death can be traumatized. The story starts off with a very ambitious journalist and photographer that sees the horrors of war with his partner and best friend. The thing is at first I just didn't think the stuff he went through in the beginning section of the movie would be enough to traumatize a person like the photojournalist in the movie. But there is enough flashbacks later on to show the reason why. I personally thought it should have put more emphasis on the horrors of war and the part about the photojournalist's wife figuring out the change in her husband seemed to drag. Also some of the situation just isn't all that believable, and believability is a key factor for a movie like this. And most of the story revolve around digging into the photojournalist's mind because of his change in character and the change in his character isn't anything all that terrible. It starts to pick up and get a bit interesting when Christopher Lee who is basically a psychologist in this is put into the equation. And the digging of the mind got interesting and this movie has some good parts. But the direction and everything else isn't all that well made in a professional manner and just seemed like a work done by a novice. Now not all movies should look professional in order for it to be better, but this is the type of film that would have been better if it went that direction.

5.5/10

Firstly, let me just say that the TIFF audience did seem to like it and they responded well to it. There were quite a few moments of light humour that were enjoyed and the Q&A session revealed that a lot of people truly were touched by the movie.

Next, let me say that the story was quite powerful. The character played by Farrel was developed and real. It would be hard not to be emotionally effected by this film, and it would be hard not to leave with something to think about.

Unfortunately, a great story and a great character don't make for a great movie. While many of the scenes were spectacular and a lot of the dialogue worked quite well, on a whole the film didn't do its story justice. It actually felt, much of the time, as if I were watching the subplot of another film. In fact, if you've watched enough war films you'll probably find that this movie WAS the subplot to many of those films. That alone doesn't equal a bad film, but it does make it more challenging for the film to hold its own. That didn't happen. Farrel's character--due to his acting as well as the writer/director's desire to explore that type of character--was fine through and through, but the characters around him all tended to speak their lines solely for the purposes of advancing Farrel's character, or to push out a philosophy of war. To illustrate this, just pay attention to the scene in which we're introduced to the grandfather, Christopher Lee's character. That scene introduces a whole back story and turbulent relationship that has nothing to do with anything... it was just pinned on the story awkwardly so as to justify a powerful speech in which he defended his questionable actions in a long-ago war. Well, that's pretty much what the rest of the story felt like. And the payoff wasn't great. It ended mostly how you expect it will end, and gives a message we've heard from a thousand other films.

So, again, if I had the option, I'd give this story a 9/10. The execution of the story remains a 6.