Ash Wednesday (2002)

Touches You

Powerful

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

OK, it wasn't the best drama I've ever seen. But, it wasn't complete torture. I won't waste time discussing the plot, as it was relatively easy to follow. Edward Burns directed, wrote, and starred in this movie. What a chore. I give him points for his acting and for his incredible ability to multi-task, but he loses points for the repetition of the story. One user said that Burns's character spent most of the movie walking around NYC talking to people, and they were quite right. The movie took nearly 30 minutes to actually become "clear", and even then it was still vague.Elijah Wood is my favorite actor, and he is a very talented one. However, he seems quite out of place here. Forgive me, Elijah. I mean no disrespect to him, but maybe Burns should have looked for someone slightly older. I can see why he wanted Wood, as Wood has an inner innocence about him, but he seemed as if his character were from a totally different family. Not his fault, I'm sure. And for those of you who keep saying that Wood plays the same character roles in all of his movies, I have one movie for you: Sin City. I rest my case. Perhaps Burns's should have cast a 25-year-old instead of a 20-year-old. (Yes, Wood was 20 when this movie was shot, not 17, as he appears.) The ending was a total letdown. It was a very fatalistic approach, but it made the entire movie pointless! How could you go for 2 hours trying to establish that Burns's character has to save Wood's, and then just--bang!--take out your main character? It just doesn't work. I remember sitting there and going, "What? That's it?!" A good idea, but not for an ending to a movie like this.I would like to see better movies from Burns in the future, as he is not a bad writer/actor/director, but maybe not another movie like this. He should stop with Mob movies. And the other movies I have starring Elijah Wood are much better ones (except Day Zero). My apologies.6/10, for some choice moments. If you look, you may be able to pick them out.

"Ash Wednesday" is a 2002 film written, directed by, and starring Ed Burns. The story concerns one day, Ash Wednesday, and the events that happen on that day to two Irish-American brothers, Francis (Burns) and Sean (Elijah Wood). Three years earlier, Sean, while tending bar, overheard two thugs plan to kill Francis over money he owed, so Sean took them out. In order to keep him from being killed, Francis, a neighborhood priest, and a mobster fake Sean's death while he goes to Texas to hide out. Unfortunately, on the evening before this particular Ash Wednesday, Sean, who has returned to his brother's apartment, decides to go to a neighborhood bar for a drink. There he's spotted by several people, including an ex-girlfriend of Francis' who wants to get even with Sean's brother for dumping her.In the Catholic church and in several other religions, Ash Wednesday marks the beginning of Lent, the period of time preceding Easter. People go to church and receive a cross in ashes on their forehead to remind them of death, of the sorrow they should feel for their sins, and of the necessity of changing their lives. Normally during Lent people make some sort of sacrifice. Francis, who with his father was a hit man, is surrounded by death and under constant threat of it. The sacrifice he makes is somewhat drastic.This was an interesting movie with some good performances, particularly by Burns. The Irish atmosphere, with the dimly lit bar, the beer-drinking, the Catholocism, and the sense of family, is right on. Elijah Wood, however, is absurd casting. He is too childlike and seems terribly out of place.My problem with this film is that it's based on a ridiculous premise. Why, when you know you're supposed to be dead in order to risk being killed, would you after only 3 years walk into a neighborhood bar and have a drink? I can understand coming back and contacting your family - from somewhere else - and going out for a drink in another area. But the plot for me is built on a moronic idea that this guy was in his brother's apartment above the bar - dangerous enough - and then just for the helluva it went out. I just didn't buy it.This is a dark film about sad people with sad lives. Much of what happened on Ash Wednesday could have been avoided if Sean had just stayed hidden. Certainly the script could have been written to make the plot more believable, to in a sense force Sean to return - finding out he had a child, learning his wife was sick, his mother was dying, whatever. Given the way it was done, the film did not work for me. I don't recommend it unless you want to be depressed and frustrated.

It has been three years since young Sean killed some local hoods to prevent them killing his older brother Francis. At the time it all blew over as parts of Sean's body were found to prove he had been "taken care of" for killing mobsters. However a sighting of Sean in a local bar suggests that he may not have been as dead as all that. Francis naturally plays down the rumours as being the malicious actions of his ex Maggie Shea. Meanwhile in Francis' flat, Sean regrets going out for a drink after laying low for three years as the rumours start to take hold.I could have written the plot summary to help this film out but I'm not sure why I owe it that so instead I have delivered it as it stands – lack of internal logic, holes and all. Where you have plot holes you usually need something to help cover it up but here there isn't really anything like pace, action or depth to help this out. The plot is very simplistic and I was looking for it to use this as a frame to step back into the characters but it never does – so I'm left with a lacklustre crime drama that crawls along, relying on the moment. Burns' script is obvious and I didn't buy into it at all – not the characters and certainly not the scenario.Ironically his biggest worry as director is his script because it does drag his film down. Visually he does well to build a shadowy vision of Hell's Kitchen. His use of music slows it all down further though, and I never really felt like this was actually set in the early 1980's. Putting himself in the lead was probably also a mistake as he has nobody to tell him that he is only a so-so job. However he is nothing to compare to the woefully miscast Wood, who isn't very good even if you ignore how very young and fresh he looks throughout. Dawson was the main reason I came to this film (sorry, but I would watch her in anything pretty much), but she isn't given much to do, although to her credit she tries to find the feelings that Burns' script doesn't give her. The support cast has by-the-numbers turns from Gerety, McCourt, Platt and others but nobody can find gold in the dirt.Overall then a plodding and rather uninteresting drama that is not as good as the names in the cast would suggest. Burns (or rather cinematographer Fines) gives the film a great look but nothing else is really there – the story only gets you so far and the characters are superficial and don't really have much in the way of development. Average at best and not really worth a look.

I never understood what the big deal about Edward Burns was about. I mean, he surely is likable, but none of his writer-director-actor-ventures have amazed me at all. Given the right role he can do a convincing and entertaining job, but for me, that's about it."Ash Wednesday" isn't really a disaster, but it feels as if it was close to becoming one. All the way the movie feels only halfway good or bad, always going along a thin line of ambiguous quality. In the end (and especially in the final scene) the bad qualities win and the movie leaves you deeply unsatisfied.Fran (Edward Burns) lives above a bar in Hell's Kitchen. He once was a crook, but has now become "clean", which means he has a job (of which we don't see a lot) and, well, doesn't seem to kill a lot of people anymore. Three years ago his brother Shaun (Elijah Wood) killed some guys who wanted to kill Fran and vanished afterwards, presumably being dead. But now people are talking about him reappearing in the neighborhood and Fran has to deal with the rumors and his old enemies.I don't even know if this sounds interesting enough to watch the movie. When I saw it, I had no clue what it was about and maybe that was the reason it slightly intrigued me at first. But the fascination didn't last long, especially once you realize that Burns will spend a lot of time of the movie running around town talking to people. Which wouldn't be that bad, but if you listen to the dialog you realize that it gets rather repetitious.I didn't count but there must be at least 5 conversations that develop in exactly the same way. Somebody tells Fran his brother is supposed to be alive after all, he denies it, the other one doesn't believe it, both go on. This isn't the most exciting idea of communication in the first place and various instances of it doesn't make it better, but if, in addition to that, those conversations are put together so that one just follows another for half an hour, it gets rather frustrating.What is even more irritating is the complete lack of suspense here. How can any viewer seriously believe that Shaun is really dead? We're talking Elijah Wood here and that makes it pretty much 100% certain that he will sooner or later turn up in the movie again. The only point of suspense could come from the question whether Fran knows his brother is alive or not. But that's about it.And that's about much of the movie too. It takes about 30 minutes till we find out what's the deal with the dead brother. From then on nothing of importance seems to happen. There are a lot of guys who want to kill both brothers. There is Shaun's supposed widow/wife and a priest who knows a lot. All of the roles are thankless. Elijah Wood has to deliver a monologue during which may wonder if he can't deliver it convincingly or if it is written so bad that no one could deliver it. I think it's a bit of both, but the scene is either way painful to watch. Oliver Platt is also in this movie, but there is simply nothing to say about him or his role. Same goes for Rosario Dawson who..., well is just there.David Shire's music follows Burns' character for his first half of repeating the same dialog by repeating the same theme over and over again. The movie looks pale and dry, almost lifeless. There is some editing, especially in the final scene, that is inexcusable. Religious symbolism floats through the movie, looking for a place to make sense (again, especially in the last shot). The use of the F-word is so excessive, you wonder if the characters get a bonus for every time they use it. And there is one flashback scene (apart from the first one) that is as pointless as pointless can be.And then there is the end. We get a rather conventional shootout finale and think, well, that's a fine way to end a movie, even if it's not really good. But then come the last shots and it completely destroys a movie which wasn't particularly good anyway. The ending gives you no satisfaction, no sense of righteousness or penance, nothing. In the end, there is nothing really appealing to this film.