CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!

Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Leofwine_draca Lenny Abrahamson directed the excellent low budget Dublin film ADAM & PAUL so I was eager to see what this newer production was like. WHAT RICHARD DID isn't as good as that film, although it has some promise and typically realistic performances. The best thing about it is Abrahamson's moody direction, which makes you feel every moment of a torrid and emotional storyline.Unfortunately, WHAT RICHARD DID is also rather slow and lacking in incident. The storyline is a very simple one that drags out a bit, especially in the latter half, and the almost entire lack of an ending is a disappointment in itself. It's a very realistic movie with a solid script, and Jack Reynor does well in a complex leading performance. But after ADAM & PAUL I expected more, and what I got was merely adequate.

pc95 Aside from the fairly poor pacing, "What Richard Did" suffers from too much character mumbling between one another - often difficult to understand. It is supposed to be a dilemma type story, but it falls short. As others have mentioned correctly, it has decent camera-work but mediocre dialog. There is a lot of anxiety and some wild fits, but it doesn't have a lot to itself - developmentally it's sparse. Director Lenny Abrahamson, needs clearer and more strongly defined characters from the start with better story concept. To add there is little sympathy for the main character's predicament anyway as he rejects some standard social rules and etiquette - namely you don't date or beguile another person's mate whilst still in a relationship. Very little integrity. 5.5/10 Not recommended

Veldrin There is nothing really redeeming in this surprisingly disappointing endeavour. The viewer is subjected to 88 minutes of terrible acting, unimaginative dialogue and inadequate cinematography. One might just say it was a decent enough if a bit amateurish work and leave it at that, but if we are debating whether this is the best Irish movie of the century..well that would really be just sad for Irish cinema.So without revealing any key elements of the (nonexistent) plot, one could point out that achieving absolutely no character depth in a movie that its pace would suggest it pursues nothing else but character development is an achievement in its own right. Add to that the development of a romantic relationship with no use of meaningful dialogue -because that might have served as indicant of personality particularities and as I said there is no reason to think one character is different from any other here- and no intensity of feeling portrayed, yet a relationship that will supposedly prove to hold great significance in the unfolding events.Then there is the unfolding. The director manages to downplay the only event of significance in the movie. It is deliberate but wrong because it wastes the lulling first half and creates the demand for a powerful emotional buildup which needless to say, the lead actor fails to deliver. There this movie dies.What follows is another lulling part, laden as the first with youthful frivolity and promiscuity, which one could claim if juxtaposed with the first and presented as tasteless and lacking, might help this movie prove it had reason to exist. Obviously that opportunity passes by unseen too. Now those who have surmised that this is a work of art and originality I urge to watch Paranoid Park or even Elephant and see the difference between true mastery and sad imitation.

Armaan Kapur Richard is an affable Irish senior, on the brink of the rest of his life. He finds love, has good friends, loving parents. It's all rainbows and butterflies - until a surprising accident throws his entire future off course. Or so we think? I think the problem with this film isn't that it's badly made, it's just that it didn't exactly NEED to be made. This story has been told before, in better (even more illustrative ways). I kept expecting the rug to be pulled from under many a few times during it but I was never surprised, just continually disappointed. And quite frankly - bored. Furthermore--and this is something that struck me as odd and disappointing--I remember seeing quite a similar film (in terms of plot and imagery) called 'Paranoid Park'. It came out in 2007, and was directed by (you guessed it?) - Gus Van Sant. It was a little ball of atmosphere, full of subtle beautiful music and ambient colours. Sparse dialogue, too, but it had a slow startling impact on me, near the end. Still, it wasn't exemplary or particularly memorable. 'What Richard Did' follows the exact cookie-cutter formula (as niche as that sounds)- to an even more underwhelming effect. I doubt I'll remember it a week from now. The dialogue was stilted (more unrealistic than realistic, ironically), the characters were neither sympathetic or unsympathetic. They were just.. blank. I didn't really care what happened to any of them by the end, and guess what - not much did. I'd say if you love laboriously prolonged scenes and the odd scenic take, watch this. Else - you're wasting your time.2/10