amy conner
whats the color of love ? ... one of world's unanswerable questions of all time perhaps. thats why no one attempts to answer it. its so futile. normal people don't that is. but runt and pig did try.. and thats what got them into trouble. joined at birth runt and pig were destined to be spiritual twins the shared unhealthy camaraderie which was more than borderline obsessive on pig's part. they chose to live in a fantasy world away from the gaze of the madding crowd . perhaps unaware of the fact they would not survive a day in the real !!!! the fixation with each other led them to a tragedy unforeseen by anyone. this is a film which emotionally draining , hard to digest , violent in content and extremely unrealistic but so mesmerizing you ll want to see it over and over again .. its like the perfect dose of heroin for a drug junkie... i gave it 10/10 for its sheer brilliance and audacity . this is a film not only worth watching but to own. a cult classic!!!! thank you ireland for giving us cillian murphy and elaine cassidy. the film would not have been the same without them. i have not had the fortune to see elaine in anything else.. ireland is lucky to have them both. cillian ,, he is an exceptional talent. stay away from Hollywood junk cillian .you are too good for them !!!!
galensaysyes
Apparently I'm one of the immature teens mentioned in another comment, because I enjoyed this film very much--as did the dozen reviewers, doubtless shallow teens also, cited on the DVD case as having rated it at four stars. It reminded me of early Jane Campion and Vincent Ward in the insular, almost hermetically sealed world it portrays; and I wonder if it's only coincidence that it too comes from an island culture. The story is a variation on Les Enfants Terribles in which two young people, telepathically bonded from birth, create a secret society--which in essence constitutes their entire life--consisting of only the two of them. They communicate in a strange private argot which I assume is taken from the novel (it sounds like the product of a novel writer rather than a scriptwriter), vernacular speech elevated into near-poetry. The characters' monologues are quite remarkable, as delivered by the two principal actors. So are the actors themselves: Cillian Murphy, who has the looks to make his fortune as a soap-opera antihero, shows he's much better than that portends, and Elaine Cassidy, who has made rather a line of playing Miranda-like heroines sidetracked into unfortunate attachments, can clearly do more, too: some day I'd like to see her as an equally single-minded Lady Macbeth. The film is strikingly shot, uniquely scored, and held me absorbed all the way through. It has only one large fault, which is the flip side of its biggest asset: its simplified, clarified style, which is much like that of The Piano or Vigil, and in this case parallels the simplified reality of the leading characters. It has this inherent drawback, however: it leads the film away from more complex, messier motives and situations lest they disturb the neatness of the pattern. In a story like this they necessarily arise, and increasingly so as the story goes on, because the subject ultimately is the characters' emergence, kicking and screaming, into the larger world. And so in some respects the transition confuses. For instance, in the early scenes the bonded characters are shown as living in identical houses side by side and coming and going symmetrically, in the Peter Greenaway manner; but this kind of fairy-tale fantasy disappears as the film progresses. True, in the course of things the characters move from a private reality to one more generally shared; but their houses are part of the latter, something they have no control over, and should be pictured in the same way as the rest of the outside world. Or, if the houses were meant to be seen from the point of view of the film itself, everything should have been shown as equally fantastical. Similarly, the script is clear as long as the characters confine themselves to their two-person bubble, from which everybody else is excluded, but then, after they're separated, it never clarifies what exactly happens to their telepathic bond. Does it snap as soon as they're parted? does it weaken with distance? Since it's been the dominant force in their lives, the one secure thing that they've never been without--and the thing the film has been presenting to us for an hour--we should have seen clearly the moment at which each of them lost it and what that loss did to him or her. Following the separation, the structure of the story makes it clear that the girl escapes the boy's influence, so that when they reunite she's no longer a willing partner in what he does; but her turning point isn't shown and her changed attitude isn't defined or explored. Finally, though less importantly, the climax of the story is incredible the way it's staged. Let it pass that seventeen-year-olds are able to buy drinks without question (perhaps on the Irish club scene they can); in the big club to which the couple ultimately find their way, the boy commits an act of battery, probably of murder, and then leaves, with nobody but the girl trying to stop him. I would imagine that in the novel it was described as happening briefly, on a crowded floor where nobody could see quite what was going on; but in the film it's the show in the center ring, it goes on for a very long time, and there are no bouncers anywhere--or, failing bouncers, a few sturdy lads of the type in which Irish stories abound--or for that matter, a single sturdy lad armed with a blunt object in hand. I can't think why the director would have done something to incur disbelief so strongly so near the end of the film: this is it like, eh?Still, in spite of a few missed notes, Disco Pigs is the most interesting film I've seen in a while, and probably the most interesting Irish film ever (though I confess I've not seen many).
ejwells-2
I guess like Jessica Lynch, Kirsten Sheridan figured she could ride daddy's coat tails to the status of instant-auteur. Well...not in my book. I'd be shocked if this massive dud gets any attention whatsoever, aside from the usual "we love anything that sucks" crowd of nose-in-the-air art-house frequenting naval-gazing clods, who wouldn't know quality cinema if it bit them on the arse. Runt and Pig. Pig and Runt. I love you Pig. Happy birthday Runt. Good God.The actors themselves do what they can with the crappy material, and are both fairly talented. But even GREATt actors couldn't come close to saving this terribly dull (and amateurishly lensed) bore-o-rama from it's current status...a film that gets rented maybe once a year from the maybe 10 video stores that actually have it, and only because the title itself would lead one to believe this film would have something going for it...like a small amount of humor amidst the meandering, pretentious, and boring goings on. No such luck. Do yourself a favor and skip it.
slovak_orchids_italian_r
Where do I begin? Disco Pigs is very typical to many Irish films-especially art films-meaning it is raw. I thought this movie was the most amazing Film I have ever seen in my life- Casting wise-Cillian Murphy is my most favourite actor and for very good reason, Pig is not an easy character to become because he is obsessive, dangerous, and still has the innocence of a child-the language and world Pig and Runt invent is poetic with twisted little games that they invent- You could think of this movie being "a more twisted version of romeo and juliet"- so these two soul mates were born only minuets apart, ignoring the world around them they vowed to always keep things the way they were, only them two, Sinead and Darren, Runt and Pig, King and Queen. Them staying in this world only made for them two-all changed days before their 17th birthday-Pig's eyes are being opened on seeing Runt in more of a romantic way-but his obsessiveness gets the best of him-ending in the most heartbreaking sacrifices i have ever seen.
