Both are excellent movies about the Irish revolution, from two different angles.
I feel The Wind that Shakes the Barley is the better of the two. It is so much more emotionally wrenching and I feel it is more realistic.
I like this one just a little bit better. More epic and powerful, methinks.
Keep the change, ya filthy animal...
I prefer Wind that Shakes the Barley. Even with a smaller budget, smaller names, and the lack of blood in shooting scenes, I thought the message and performances were more stirring. In Michael Collins I really felt distracted by the scenes with Kitty, and some of the overboard epicness of it. Barley drives the point home more tightly.
The massacre scene in Collins really shocked me. Still, I felt more tense and worried while watching the scene in Barley where they're slashing off the girl's hair, and the off-screen murder at the beginning.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Like some of the other comments, I find both movies to be very good. I do, however, prefer Michael Collins for sentimental reasons as well as the epic feel everyone has mentioned. The Wind... is definitely more intimate. But no one can top Neeson's performance! And I even love Roberts in it :)
share
I found Barley almost unwatchable, it was so one-sided, and I speak as an Irish patriot.
Watched these two movies almost right in a row. I can't comment on their take on history, but as a movie, thought "Wind that Shakes the Barley" much, much, better. It had such a feel of realism to it. I felt like I was there with those people, forgot they were actors (maybe some of them weren't). The two brothers ending up on different sides of the treaty was truly heartbreaking.
Michael Collins seems just like another Hollywood big budget star vehicle, a "Ghandi" wannabe. I felt like I was watching Julie Roberts and Liam Neeson "ACTING". Yawn. The scenes were short; like o.k., gotta get this out of the way, here's the massacre, here's the scene with the girlfriend, here's the scene with the fight with the buddy who's against the treaty - no real emotion for me. And if you really listen to the dialogue - it's trite.
I liked the Crying Game, but wondering if Neil Jordon has ever, or will ever do anything as good.
jmho
I agree that Wind had more of a feel of realism to it all the way through, I was forgetting that the people were actors. I liked the fact that some of the lines weren't delivered 'perfectly' as they would have been in Collins. I mean, in the scene where the men are arguing in the small room ('how much money have you got in your pocket?') they really show how agitated they are because the lines don't come out as smoothly as one would expect them to be delivered by Liam Neeson when he's mad. When you're mad, your words don't roll off your tongue like honey, do they?
I've always enjoyed Michael Collins but because of certain scenes, people will still only see the Irish Republican movement as inhumanely savage because of his 'twelve apostles' but The Wind That Shakes The Barley, directed by an Englishman (important info, like Bloody Sunday starring Jimmy Nesbitt and directed by Paul Greengrass), shows how much blood was on British hands and how sad it was that they managed to get Irishmen to start killing each other 'for' them. 'Here, we're just plain buggered...yous kill each other for a while. Here's your bloody treaty, enjoy.'
When Englishmen come together to produce a story that says 'Look what we've done to the people of the beautiful nation of Ireland', it has a much more meaningful punch and I applaud them so much for doing that.
I think they complement one another. "Wind/Barley" shows us the rural war of the flying columns, while MC shows us the urban war of Collins's "squad" and the Dublin Castle detectives.
shareI have to agree with Sid-Blitzen. Both movies compliment each other. Collins looks at the rebellion from the top - the Big Picture. "Wind/Barley" looks at the more intimate aspects of the rebellion and how it effected one family.
share