Ash Wednesday (2002) User Reviews

The art of pointless repetition

[davidturgay · 5/10 · 27 June 2005]

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.

the Irish mob, the Irish neighborhood

[blanche-2 · 5/10 · 10 January 2007]

"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.

Don't leave home without it.

[=G= · 6/10 · 23 February 2003]

In "Ash Wednesday", Burns spins a yarn about a Hell's Kitchen bar owner with a checkered past (Burns) whose younger brother (Wood), who's supposed to be dead, has been seen in the neighborhood (duh) giving rise to inquires from all corners while igniting the plot. In typical Burns fashion, this story about low level Irish-American hoods, is a Mulligan stew of relationships and the non-stop yammering required to explain them and give them impetus. Burns keeps his story in a box, revealing a piece at a time, ostensibly to create suspense, while leaving a trail of gaping plot holes necessary to make the story work. In addition to such dents and dings as having the bro prep to leave town while conveniently leaving his wallet at home to be discovered by the bad guys (duh), Burns makes another huge mistake. The protagonists, whom we're supposed to care about otherwise there's no reason to watch, are all murders. (duh) "Ash Wednesday" is a dark, gritty shoot recommended only for fans of the principals and people into bottom of the marquee crimeland flicks. (C+)

a good, tight, suspenseful drama.

[mdlee · 14 October 2004]

October 14, 2004. I viewed this film last night and I must say that I was in suspense the entire film. I truly believed that the younger brother was in imminent danger. The older brother (Ed Burns) was in danger as well. Trying to convince his brother of his stupidity was done not with yelling or shouting, but understated by a character who by his admissions had lived two lifetimes by the age of thirty.

I am a movie fan who does not expect "Gone With The Wind" or "To Kill a Mockingbird" with every film I watch. This film had an excellent cast who performed beautifully. The director kept an even pace throughout because of the impending double-twist surprise ending.

One gifted actor, who never gets enough credit from the public, only his peers and producers and directors is James Handy (Father Mahoney). I see him constantly appearing in one movie after another as well as numerous guest-starring appearances on TV. He was especially "despicable and conniving" on N.Y.P.D.Blue. Usually plays unsympathetic characters. He, like the rest of the cast were truly believable.

I don't know whether or not you'll be talking about this film for years and years. But I do know that most of you will enjoy this approximately 90 minutes of suspenseful entertainment, will recommend viewing to your friends and may watch this film a second and third time. I know I will!!

Not great but OK

[LatigoMeans · 6/10 · 14 November 2004]

First of all, it could have been shorter due to the redundant establishment of the primary story line. A couple more scenes of Ed Burns walking around the streets with that boring musical theme and I may have given up on this film.

Elijah Wood was totally miscast. A more wrong casting of the role of Sean is not imaginable. OK, maybe imaginable if you include Pee Wee Herman. I agree with another writer here that Oliver Platt could've gotten some more dialog and scenes, but that's what it is. He probably liked the idea of playing a heavy for a change. He should do more I think.

I figured the closing scenes to a "T"... from the saloon showdown to the reason for the crew cap and peacoat. I claim no particular brilliance, it seemed pretty obvious.

All in all I'd say watch it when it appears on cable, save the rental fee. A 6.5 - 7.0 rating is generous but I like Ed Burns, stories about Irish street hoods and a plus when it's Hells Kitchen in NYC instead of the Southies. No offense Boston.

what a simple movie...

[MrSharma · 6/10 · 2 October 2005]

When i saw this film at my local video store, i was immediately attracted to it considering that i am a fan of gangster films myself such as Tarantino's early work and of course the brilliant Mr Scorsese and the cover and back cover blurb provided me with the impression that what i was about to be viewing was similar to a "reservoir dogs" style feature and subsequently something that i would be comfortable with. A competent cast including Edward Burns, Elijah WOod and Rosario Dawson not to mention other smaller named yet equally impressive actors also cemented the impression that this would be a good film but at the conclusion of the film and its ridiculously predictable ending, i was left thinking that this was a potentially brilliant film but it just didn't quite cut it.

An edward burns directed feature, "ash Wednesday" is based in 1980's Hell's Kitchen New York in which Francis (played quite solidly by Ed Burns) is a reformed man; reformed from the ways of murder and crime that is so common in his neighbourhood. slowly but surely, through the weaving of time and the painstakingly slow emergence of dialogue, we are presented with the story of his little brother, Sean (Elijah Wood) who had somehow (not wishing to reveal here) plunged himself into a deadly situation where the local thugs of the neighbourhood wished him to be dead. His arm was later found, and the neighbourhood presumed a bloody and horrible demise That was three years ago. Now, Francis has been facing rumours throughout the neighbourhood that his little brother, Sean, despite being accepted as dead, has come back to the neighbourhood and is alive and well. So, what are the consequences of this? Obviously, the thugs that thought sean to be dead now want to know what the hell is going on, and through their somewhat violent nature, are supposedly going to wreak havoc throughout the entire neighbourhood if sean is still alive. that's what I though was going to happen. its a simple plot, and one that i thought would have been developed into many more layers to keep our interest. but i was left with nothing, and the film emerged as simple as the blurb that described it. with sean's old wife being thrown into the mix and an incredibly weak allusion to the mafia and the mob, edward burns has really created a film without much substance whatsoever.

elijah wood is seriously miscast as Ed Burn's little brother, Sean, and is completely unbelievable as a married man, especially betrothed to the likes of rosario dawson who could more believably be cast as his mother. the plot was underdeveloped, and even though this didn't turn out to be the gangster film i was looking for, i was still interested in the emergence of the reunification of these two estranged brothers and the emergence of their love for one another. i barely saw it. no disrespect to Mr Burns because it is quite evident that there was an attempt at portraying the love of these brothers, but when the likes of Good Will Hunting and Raging Bull have set the standards of showing the frailties of human nature, "ash Wednesday" was far from developing interest the way that it had the potential to do.

however, excellent acting from a talented young cast as well as other supporting actors ensured a credible film but an underdeveloped one nonetheless. The dialogue is good, but doesn't tie in enough with the overall plot and hence ensures a thick wad of words that was unnecessary but was nonetheless typical of Burns' slick writing ability. Usually, it works, but that style of writing wasn't appropriate for this film and hence didn't amp it up the way that tricky dialogue generally does for film. the cinematography and camera work was simple yet quite effective, and the editing did its job as well. The narrative structure that was used also worked and burns, to give him his required credit, has used an effective way to tell the story through keeping the audience themselves in the dark and slowly drawing us thicker into the plot. thus, it would have been brilliant, if the plot we were being drawn into was any good. but, like i mentioned before, it was too simple.

all in all, "ash Wednesday" is a simple movie with too much baggage and not enough substance. good acting lifted it up, but the miscasting of Elijah Wood (as talented as he is) as Sean heaved whatever credibility the film had out the window. Burns indicates his tremendous potential as a big time film director, but just doesn't perform with this fairly weak feature film. i just hope that sometime in the future he will have the time to re-do it, and carve a piece of art out of this potential masterpiece. however, i have no doubt we'll be seeing better things out of Mr Burns and, on that note, I look forward to watching his next film.

Could have been half-decent...

[Adams5905 · 4/10 · 18 March 2017]

I first watched this a number of years ago, stumbling in from the pub after a few too many, and I seem to recall rather enjoying it. As is often the case however, on re-viewing it a second time, stone cold sober, I've completely changed my mind…

First, let's talk about the good things. The photography was excellent, the direction was good, and the casting was inspired in some cases: Malachi McCourt (younger brother of Frank McCourt, of Angela's Ashes fame) as Whitey, and James Handy as the parish priest were both noteworthy, in relatively small parts, but that same casting was monumentally awful in the case of Elijah Wood… If ever an actor was born not to play his part, he is that man… This was even worse than his miscast in 'Green Street', which was so bad it was almost watchable… I thought Rosario Dawson was good in a diluted, under-used sort of way, and looked most delicious in heavy makeup (this is set in the early 80's, remember), and even the man himself, Edward Byrne was believable in places (BTW, note to others-always refer to him as 'Edward'-Ed Byrne is an Irish comedian, which when reviewing this film could get very confusing)… The only really obvious fault here was the woeful waste of Oliver Platt-if you can book talent like him, then you really should use him!..

I had no problem with the linearity of the plot-after all, the whole film takes place over less than 24 hours, so keeping it simple was probably the best thing to do-and if you watched shaking your head in disbelief at the asinine stupidity of some of the characters, watch 'State of Grace'-an infinitely better film, also set in the criminal underbelly of Hell's Kitchen, the consensus is that these are stupid people doing stupid things…

Now the bad bit-and it's simply so bad it lets down the whole film, taking it from what could have been a decent pot-boiler into a risible farce-it's the dialogue-Edward Byrne is credited as the only writer, and it soon becomes obvious that this is simply not his field. The whole film sounds like it's been written by a 12 year-old… I know these are supposed to be 'stupid Mick immigrants of different generations', but really-people (adult people) just don't talk like that!.. It's not the swearing (although God knows, there's enough of it), it's the complete lack of subtlety, double-entendres, jokes & banter-all the things that make up daily conversations… When it's missing, you really notice it… The only really believable conversations are those that Pat McNamara (the barman, Murph) has with his customers-and those may seem more realistic simply because they were ad-libbed… Michael Leydon Campbell as Jimmy Burke was funny, but his were just comments and interjections-no-one really engaged with him… The rest is just too awful for words (pun intended)… And this makes the thing difficult to watch-you'll end up shouting at the screen , losing your temper, and not enjoying the film… It's a shame, because it should have been such an easy thing to fix…

So, I'm afraid my advice is this… If you see 'Ash Wednesday' advertised in your listings, and you've never seen it-give it a go by all means, but don't say I didn't warn you-personally, I'll be watching 'State of Grace' or 'Road to Perdition' instead

Will you shut the f*ck up with the farming!

[lastliberal · 6/10 · 17 February 2010]

It's Ash Wednesday. You know that because everyone is running around with an ash cross on their foreheads.

The movie takes place on that single day in hell's Kitchen. Writer, actor, and director Edward Burns plays Francis, a reformed gangster, who spends most of the first part of the movie chasing down a rumor that his brother Sean (Elijah Wood) is still alive.

I thought I was watching Scarface. The language was just as bad. It was hard to find any line that could be repeated.

Fairly good story with great performances including the above and Rosario Dawson, as well as Oliver Platt.

Noble aspirations, but generally quite bad

[sajasma · 4/10 · 23 February 2003]

Ash Wednesday is a story set in 1980's Hell's Kitchen, where two brothers, Sean (Elijah Wood) and Frances Sullivan (Ed Burns), are involved in the seedy Irish gangs that permeate the neighborhood. When Sean kills 3 men to save his older brother on Ash Wednesday of 1980, he is presumably killed. Now, 3 years later, sightings of Sean around the neighborhood arouse suspicions and stir up old feelings of enmity and revenge.

This film is a noble experiment, except that it fails dramatically. Ed Burns is a talented director, whose films are always interesting and stylishly shot (with some truly breath-taking uses of selective camera focus and lens choices). While the overall appearance of the film is quite beautiful and symbolic (sometimes, too much so), there is not much to say for the rest of it.

It seems as if the only character Ed Burns can play is himself and that the only schpiel that Elijah Wood can actually pull off believably is that of tortured innocence a la "Frodo" in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. To be fair, Wood is horribly mis-cast in this film, as even I find it difficult to believe that wide-eyed Wood is supposed to be a 22-year old murderer who grew up on the tough streets of Hell's Kitchen and is married to a much older-looking Rosario Dawson, saddled with a toddler.

There are plot holes in this film that are big enough for a tornado to whip through them. If one thinks about it, the characters in this film behave as if they have the brains of a squished grape for supposedly street-smart men (Sean leaving his highly-identifiable wallet in his coat? Sitting in the front seat of a car under a street light when on the run? Hell, just going out in the neighborhood when he is supposed to be dead is idiotic).

As for the rest of the characters of the film...I just don't understand. Half of them were of little use to the overall story while the "hardened" detective stuck out like a monkey in a chicken coop. He was, perhaps, the most useless character of all, standing around in the scenery, issuing out badly-acted, emotion-less threats of menace. And let's not get into the nemesis of the brothers, the "bad guy" that the audience is clearly supposed to boo - he had all the evil intensity of a paper bag.

The camera work in this film, while innovative in some areas, also robs us of emotional involvement in a story that clearly depends on it. The near-lack of close ups, or even medium shots, is frustrating. Also, Burns is quite well known for his use of hand-held camera work, and while I think that he employs this use very well, he also misuses it in this film. I would say that the best-shot sequence of the film is during the very first scene. In fact, it is the only scene where I could sense any true emotion at all (it probably helped that Elijah Wood was not speaking).

And just to be nit-picky, the piano-esque score of the film, while interesting and moody at first, quickly descended into repetitive and irritating. Unfortunately, one hears it throughout the entire film and the pain just never ends.

Unfortunately, bad acting, bad dialogue, and a bad, predictable script could not make up for the wonderful look of this film. If you want to watch an intense religion'n'violence flick about two close brothers that is also stylishly fulfilling - go rent The Boondock Saints.

Sullivan Family Values

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 18 July 2016]

Ash Wednesday so titled because the action takes place on that day of repentance in the Catholic faith and into Lent. Leading character Edward Burns who directed as well keeps the ash cross on his forehead until almost the end of the film. Almost as if he was looking for protection. He and brother Elijah Wood sure needed it.

They play the Sullivan brothers at one time sons of a prominent Irish mobster. Seems as though the Wood killed a pair of Italian hoodlums and their relations are looking for payback.

Burns and local priest James Handy have created a fiction that Wood is dead and spirited him out of town where he's lived in Texas for 3 years. Now Wood is back to get his wife Rosario Dawson who has thought her husband was dead, part of the plan to make the death story believable.

Burns is well out of the rackets, but in his effort to protect his brother he's being dragged back in. Wood doesn't make it easy for him either.

Ash Wednesday is a nice if cheaply made film about family loyalty and sacrifice in a working class Irish American family. Note that this is set in the early 80s when Hell's Kitchen still had some working class blocks. It's pretty yuppified now, so Brooklyn's Greenpoint neighborhood stands in. This was the same setting for the Sean Connery/Dustin Hoffman/Matthew Broderick film Family Business which was done in the late 80s and also about family as well.

The characters are well drawn with no stereotyping at all. James Handy is not a typical priest by any means. No comparison to him and Bing Crosby as Father O'Malley in another film which also was set in Hell's Kitchen when it really was Irish working class.

Burns and Wood have good chemistry as brothers. Ash Wednesday has some fine characterizations done by some talented players.

A brother's sacrifice

[jotix100 · 5/10 · 28 November 2004]

Edward Burns' start in films with "The Brothers McMullan", heralded good things for this New York based director, who likes to depict his Irish background in his pictures. Unfortunately, his career has taken a southward detour. He hasn't done anything worthy of his talents in a while. Even with the uneven "Sidewalks of New York", he found a voice, while in "Ash Wednesday", he is doing it by the numbers.

First of all, his story is supposedly based in a Hell's Kitchen that could only exists in the director's mind, as most of it is just a fantasy. Has Mr. Burns taken a tour of this part of town lately? Well, he'd be surprised in how gentrified and sophisticated it has become, quite a departure for the times when it was the turf of ethnic gangs of the 50s. For that matter, it would be hard to find a few good Irish people that are attracted to the area.

Some spoilers herein.

The plot is not well developed. It's hard to realize how stupid Sean is, knowing full well he is a marked man and going for a drink in the old 'hood... Oh well, he must had been suffering from cabin fever, or other similar ailment. Then, there is the story of the involvement of Francis with Grace, Sean's woman. Frances and Grace are evidently acting in two different movies as they have no chemistry. It's hard to believe these two had something going.

Elijah Wood, as Sean, is badly out of place. He is totally miscast. For that matter, the director, himself, doesn't fare much better. Ms. Dawson, also, doesn't have anything to do. The assorted bad guys one sees in the film are just not believable.

The other horrible thing this movie has going for it, is the silly musical theme of the few bars played on the piano.

Better luck next time Mr. Burns, or perhaps on your next film why not give us an incisive view of the world of supermodels, or how can one make a lot of money in advertising since you are an expert in those fields lately?

Burning Drama

[meeza · 9/10 · 6 March 2003]

`Ash Wednesday' is the latest installment by actor/writer/director Edward Burns. The film was released in just a few theaters back in October of 2002. Because of its limited release, it did not have a `prayer' in making a profit. `Ash Wednesday' possesses the usual first-degree `burnisms': irish rituals, catholic guilt, sibling codependence, love triangle, and lots of heineken chugging. Because of its serious dramatic tone, it did lack the witty banter of most of Burns' other films. Burns and Elijah Wood play Irish catholic brothers- francis & sean sullivan. Francis must protect his younger brother Sean from an Irish mob who are suspicious that he is still alive even though he was presumed dead 3 years ago. The film is set in one entire Ash Wednesday in New York's Hells Kitchen during the early 80's. I do commend Burns' by writing & directing out of the box and providing us a more dramatically intense film. However, Eddie please make sure you return and make more jocose romantic comedies because that is where your fire really burns! **** Excellent

Frodo? Oh no!

[robogil-1 · 6/10 · 28 July 2008]

This must have been the movie that taught Eddie Burns the lesson that casting is the most important part of getting a good performance out of your actors and making your story believable. Elijah Wood: Totally wrong for the Sean part. Ed Burns owns the Francis part and watching Elijah Wood play his younger brother is like watching a kid off the monkey bars trying to stand up to a high school bully. They are not even on the same playing field. And we are to believe that this same kid is married to Rosario Dawson. The prospect of this matchup is like watching Dudley Moore and J-Lo dating.

All of the other good stuff that is going on: Period piece of Hell's Kitchen, etc., is overshadowed by the bad casting decision of having Elijah Wood be Burn's brother. Whatayagonnado? Lessons learned.

Not good at all

[DizzyDitz · 3/10 · 11 April 2003]

Not good at all. This movie was boring despite my best efforts to like it. You know the story from reading summaries, but let me say this: Elijah Wood is not at all convincing as someone from the Bronyx living amongst mobsters and murders. The movie drags on and on, endlessly repeating the same dull concepts. One is left thinking of ten million ways that the characters could be smarter. Sorry for the horridness: but this was quite bad.

Could have been better

[Gordon-11 · 31 December 2006]

This is a film about an ex mafia leader getting into trouble with gangs because his dead brother reappeared in the neighbourhood.

The film is initially boring because of poor character development. The film does not tell people what is happening very well, and only towards the middle do people get an idea what on earth was in fact happening. Elijah Wood is obviously miscast. Elijah Wood is very unconvincing as Edward Burns' younger brother, in fact he looks more like the son of Edward Burns. Looks, height, age and physique wise they are too different from each other. This makes the film a lot less credible than it should have been. Otherwise, the plot is not bad, the direction is good, and the sets are nicely done.

Some drama

[Enchorde · 7/10 · 17 February 2008]

Recap: Sean is working in a bar in Hell's Kitchen and suddenly hears three men by the bar planning to kill his older brother. Being the son of a known gangster he feels that he has only one option, kill the men. However, three dead men hardly goes unnoticed and some people want revenge. Best for Sean to disappear or he will end up dead. Or did he die? Now three years later people swears that they have seen him in his old neighborhood.

Comments: This is a great drama. The movie gradually builds suspense like a bubble that must burst sometimes. That will keep you on the edge, because you won't want to miss it. You know that when the end comes, stuff is gonna happen (not gonna tell you what!).

What keep popping up though is the cinematics, the angles and different shots. Burns, as both director and writer, has chosen to shoot scenes in some unusual but very spectacular ways. Through windows, in mirrors, with obstacles in the way. The composition of every scene and shot seems very well thought through and that elevates the entire experience to another level. If you enjoy stuff like that, you should definitely watch this.

7/10

An obscenity laden bore

[emuir-1 · 1/10 · 4 September 2005]

Since when did smart dialogue have to use obscenities as adjectives? this film did not ring true as no one, wherever you go, uses the profanity and obscenities which fell out of the sewer mouths of these moronic characters and they slurped through one drink after another. They drank from morning to night yet still remained standing. Whatever became of style and wit? The film is amateurish and woefully miscast. Elijah Wood was FAR too young and cherubic to play a married man with a child.

The only saving grace was Malachi McCourt who fit the part of the local Irish kingpin perfectly with a saintly appearance which belied his gangster livelihood. This was one of those heavy-handed films where what was coming next whacked you over the head without any subtlety. The film was a poor man's rip off of Saving Grace.

Well....

[Prestige_Never_Pride · 6/10 · 23 April 2009]

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.

Awful

[Leonore · 3/10 · 24 October 2005]

What do you get when you combine inane dialogue, a lackluster plot, half-developed characters, and a terrible musical score? Ash Wednesday. The film had potential to be at least mediocre, but it just didn't work. The film was based around a weak, predictable plot that was filled with glaring plot-holes, and the characters and relationships were too underdeveloped to even make the film a character-driven story. Characters wander in and out of the plot without ever gathering much sympathy or hatred from audiences, and eventually it becomes difficult to care what happens to any of them. Even their dialogue is pitiful: swearing is fine in movies, but this film goes beyond overkill with its ridiculous amount of profanity, even to the point where it becomes distracting. Rather than encouraging viewers to listen for meaning in the characters' words, this film's dialogue quickly becomes a game of seeing just how many variations of the "F word" can be jammed into a single sentence. Just in case the film itself isn't horrible enough, the musical score is also horrendous. It has some sort of bizarre attempt at a musical motive, but it is annoyingly repetitive and changes little from scene to scene. When the film finally limps into its unsatisfying conclusion, those few who managed to sit all the way through it will be wishing that they hadn't wasted 98 minutes of their lives suffering through this film.

HUGE disappointment!

[scirillo · 2/10 · 14 August 2003]

I'm a fan of Edward Burns movies and I like Elijah Wood, so I went into this viewing expecting to enjoy. Unfortunately, the story is totally implausible, the acting is mediocre and the plot is uninteresting -- I wouldn't recommend this movie for any reason.

Lent me your ears!

[meeza · 9/10 · 11 March 2003]

`Ash Wednesday' is the latest installment by Actor/Writer/Director Edward Burns. The film was released in just a few theaters back in October of 2002. Because of its limited release, it did not have a `prayer' in making a profit. `Ash Wednesday' possesses the usual first-degree `Burnisms': Irish rituals, catholic guilt, sibling codependence, love triangle, and lots of Heineken chugging. Because of its serious dramatic tone, it did lack the witty banter of most of Burns' other films. Burns and Elijah Wood play Irish catholic brothers- Francis & Sean Sullivan. Francis must protect his younger brother Sean from an Irish mob who are suspicious that he is still alive even though he was presumed dead 3 years ago. The film is set in one entire Ash Wednesday in New York's Hells Kitchen during the early 80's. I do commend Burns by writing & directing out of the box and providing us a more dramatically intense film. However, Eddie please make sure you return and make more jocose romantic comedies because that is where your fire really burns! ****Excellent

an unbelievably bad film

[gb4 · 2/10 · 20 February 2004]

Contains spoiler It's dissapointing how bad this movie is b/c it had such potential to be a rich character driven story. instead, it falls flat on its face almost from the very beginning and insults the viewer throughout the entire film. most of the problems w/ the horrible script have been addressed already (my favorite is that elijah wood's character brutally murders three men and then is 'shocked' and 'surprised' when told that his father and brother killed people - yeah, ok). burns' character and his involvement w/ dawson's character is never fleshed out and is instead left to be an unbelievable storyline simply meant to garner sympathy in the end. the climax scene at the end in the bar is ridiculously stupid and insults the viewer's intelligence - but by that point i didn't expect anything short of retarded anyway. the point alot of people are overlooking is that the main performances are a huge letdown. the worst, by far, is elijah wood. you're going to tell me that a kid who spent the first 18 years of his life growing up in hell's kitchen surrounded by tough irish men and then shoots three men in cold blood grows up to be the wimp that elijah wood presents on screen? AND WHAT ABOUT HIS LACK OF AN ACCENT!!!! virtually every other character either has an irish roll or at least an affected new york accent. i mean COME ON! he sounds like he just walked off the set of lord of the rings! he throws in a few words here and there but overall he spends the entire movie speaking w/ a standard english dialect. the scenes between he and burns are unbelievably boring. besides the pointless dialogue - which throws in a 'fu<k' every other sentence to give it flavor - both actors are extremely wooden. at one point wood's character gets mad at his brother and is supposed to hit him to say 'f-u, back off!' - but the emotion that wood shows is virtually non-exsistent. as far as his character in the script - the kid is supposed to be the smart one in the family and he comes back to town after 3 years, goes out for a drink, buys a pack of cigarettes and blahblahblah when the consequences are as big as they are? pleeeeaaaasssseeee.... rosario dawson is another letdown. she is playing a poor puerto rican living in hell's kitchen and not only does her accent go in and out, but when she's told that her husband is alive after thinking that he has been dead for 3 years she shows virtually no emotion whatsoever. the camera direction is good as well as the soundtrack, which manages to hold your attention from scene to scene and sticks w/ you afterwards. the script is bad, the acting is bad. overall, a very bad movie. no surprise it never made it theatres. Ed Burns has been better and hopefully will be better again, but there is no denying how bad this movie is and how dissapointed i was afterwards.

Too Many Distractions - small spoiler

[bondibox · 13 March 2003]

I had a few problems with this movie, ranging from small - Burns' ash-cross looking different in every scene, to medium - the same music playing during their 2nd beers as was playing when they entered the bar, to undeniably wrong... The thing I have the biggest problem with is the onset of events. The movie starts on ash Wednesday when Sean kills 3 local men who are about to kill his brother, Francis. Somehow, in the space of a couple hours, a hit-man from California is dispatched to kill Sean but Francis kills the guy, puts Sean's watch and ring on his severed arm and that's how Sean's death is rigged (so why DIDN'T Francis have the watch now?). IMO you can't build an entire movie around this implausible timeline. Also, it didn't help that Sean's son, who he never knew about and therefore can't be more that 2 years and 4 months old, looks like he's going on Five. Also, Sean looks pretty pale to have been farming in Texas for 3 years :-\

I want my 2 hours back

[mlahr99 · 2/10 · 28 May 2003]

What a dud! Even the tiniest actions in this movie are telegraphed in the plot. There's no sympathy for any of the characters - they're vicious murderers who are, at times, so stupid that it's a miracle they've survived to adulthood (i.e. making your great escape leaving your wallet behind or dressing in the coat & hat of the person every thug in Hell's Kitchen is looking to kill). I wish I had those 2 hours of my life back - I'd watch grass grow or paint dry instead.

Spaceygirl's thoughts..

[Spaceygirl · 5/10 · 7 December 2003]

Although it has major flaws, this is a good little film. A good script and great acting by a terrific cast is let down by plot-holes and THE most irritating soundtrack since "Eyes Wide Shut". Edward Burns is at his brooding best and it's great to see Elijah Wood not playing Frodo! Rosario Dawson is wonderfully cast and Oliver Platt rounds off the ensemble. However, that said, it's also one of the most depressing cinematic experiences I've ever had. Not to be recommended if you're down in the dumps!