Set in Singapore, MISTER JOHN has a straightforward plot: Gerry Devine (Aidan Gillen) travels to Singapore to find out what happen to his dead brother, the proprietor of Mister John's bar. He encounters various people including John's wife Kim (Zoe Tay), his daughter-in-law Isadora (Ashleigh Judith White), and John's best friend Lester (Michael Thomas), and while doing so discovers something about John's life, which seems to Gerry to be idyllic, unlike his own life back home in London, where he has experienced marital difficulties with wife Sarah (Molly Rose Lawlor). Despite numerous opportunities to carve out a new life, Gerry opts instead to return to London. Directors Joe Lawlor and Christine Molloy create a claustrophobic world of interior and Singapore night life - a suitable backdrop for a penetrating study of Gerry's indecisive character. Tormented by memories of the past, he cannot make up his mind in the present. The camera focuses intently on his facial expressions, suggesting that he is somehow imprisoned by his nature. On the other hand we can see why he should think like that - even though John had carved out a good life for himself in Singapore, the world of seedy bars, nighttime pickups and one-night stands does not seem in any way idealistic. Modestly budgeted yet sympathetically photographed with an eye for color both in day and night sequences, MISTER JOHN is an unexpectedly haunting film.
19 Reviews
Could have been much more
soranamicooper1 September 2016
This film has an interesting theme and the potential to be much more than what it is. The central character arrives in Singapore after his brother's death there and, over the indeterminate ensuing period, dreamily drifts into his dead brother's ex-pat life - staying with his family and floating around the seedy bar he ran - while having nightmares/flashbacks about his problematic marriage back home. So, the breakdown of a marriage on the one hand and bereavement on the other. Rich ground for exploring human feelings, yet I didn't really get a sense of his (or affected others') pain or any soul-searching to make sense of his situation. A good drama seldom neatly resolves all the key 'dramas', centring instead on the human condition and the nature of relationships. This film attempts to do that, but the lack of character development makes it difficult to identify with the protagonists and to be moved by or care much about their plight. The actors make a decent fist of a narrative that sometimes wants for coherence (not all scenes/subplots seem relevant or in some cases are underdeveloped) and the largely insipid dialogue, which, with few exceptions, reveals little about the characters and their motives and needs some attention to lend them greater depth. The overall effect is of a potentially relevant piece of work made somewhat prematurely, before the authors had really decided what story it was they wanted to tell or how best to tell it. Despite the score, I'd be tempted to give it a second chance some time to see if I was just being unreceptive.
OK, 3 years later, 2nd viewing accomplished. Enjoyed it more. 3/10? It's better than that. Characters seemed more life-like; some good dialogue; quite atmospheric; may linger.
Probably More Interesting as a 'Spot-The-Inflences' Game
Joseph_Gillis22 August 2016
off the top of my head, I could see snippets/influences of Claire Denis 'The Intruder', and David Lynch, in addition to the more obvious, such as Antonioni's 'The Passenger', and Bogdanovich's similarly-themed, and Singapore-set, 'Saint Jack'. (and at a stretch, I could probably make some Bergman connection, also).
So I guess you could safely conclude that I would classify it as an 'art-house movie', although, perhaps more kindly, an interesting failure than a cinephile's self-indulgence.
'The Passenger' connection might seem the most obvious, on the face of it, but I thing the Singapore connection is more relevant, and particularly to the degree that the filmmakers sought to make an exotic, even mystical connection with the notion that the waters in which the 'Mister John' of the the title had drowned were attempting to claim his soul; which led to brother Jerry immersing himself in those waters with the aim, presumably, of reclaiming his brothers' soul.
I found more interesting the dreamier images set in the bar/brothel, but the filmmakers seemed too focused on domestic pregnant pauses and stares - mostly featuring Aidan Gillen's Gerry - and trivial or tedious dialogues: not so much 'sound and fury' as sound and boredom, signifying nothing.
But I will watch out for the filmmakers next work: if for no other reason than that they've been influenced by the right people.
So I guess you could safely conclude that I would classify it as an 'art-house movie', although, perhaps more kindly, an interesting failure than a cinephile's self-indulgence.
'The Passenger' connection might seem the most obvious, on the face of it, but I thing the Singapore connection is more relevant, and particularly to the degree that the filmmakers sought to make an exotic, even mystical connection with the notion that the waters in which the 'Mister John' of the the title had drowned were attempting to claim his soul; which led to brother Jerry immersing himself in those waters with the aim, presumably, of reclaiming his brothers' soul.
I found more interesting the dreamier images set in the bar/brothel, but the filmmakers seemed too focused on domestic pregnant pauses and stares - mostly featuring Aidan Gillen's Gerry - and trivial or tedious dialogues: not so much 'sound and fury' as sound and boredom, signifying nothing.
But I will watch out for the filmmakers next work: if for no other reason than that they've been influenced by the right people.
Not much going on in this film
damehyde14 January 2018
Honestly, there's not much going on in this film. It's one of those movies that you aren't missing out on anything if you don't watch it at all. If you do watch it, you will mostly feel like it had wasted your time. Not sure why someone on Wikipedia called this movie a thriller.
Irishmen Abroad
arthurcrown16 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This Christine Malloy / Joe Lawlor film is the latest of their incisive and sensitive features I've had the privilege to watch.
With outstanding performances from Aidan Gillan (Gerry Devine), Zoe Tay (Kim Devine), Michael Thomas (Lester), Claire Keelan (Kathleen Devine), Michael Walsh (the late and floating John Devine) and newcomers Molly Rose Lawlor (Sarah Devine) and Ashleigh Judith White (Isadora Devine); this film about sexual exploitation and systemic child abuse shows not only the nobility of the human spirit underlying the intractible consequences both biological and emotional of the innocent lives rent assunder; but also the ripples in the lake of human suffering stretch far back into Eire and England.
Quiter and more insidious than the open secret that was the Magdelene Laundries and the Industrial Schools of rural Ireland; this film explores and explains the social problems that ordinary people will take generations to begin to face, let alone resolve.
Another new chapter in the textbook of human suffering. Our thanks to Christine Malloy and Joe Lawlor for spelling it out so unmistakably in words and pictures.
With outstanding performances from Aidan Gillan (Gerry Devine), Zoe Tay (Kim Devine), Michael Thomas (Lester), Claire Keelan (Kathleen Devine), Michael Walsh (the late and floating John Devine) and newcomers Molly Rose Lawlor (Sarah Devine) and Ashleigh Judith White (Isadora Devine); this film about sexual exploitation and systemic child abuse shows not only the nobility of the human spirit underlying the intractible consequences both biological and emotional of the innocent lives rent assunder; but also the ripples in the lake of human suffering stretch far back into Eire and England.
Quiter and more insidious than the open secret that was the Magdelene Laundries and the Industrial Schools of rural Ireland; this film explores and explains the social problems that ordinary people will take generations to begin to face, let alone resolve.
Another new chapter in the textbook of human suffering. Our thanks to Christine Malloy and Joe Lawlor for spelling it out so unmistakably in words and pictures.
wooden acting ,poor direction, awful script
afmwass18 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I thought I must have seen a different film from several other reviewers who thought this was wonderful.... It isn't -the script is so stilted and the acting wooden. Aiden Gillens facial expressions range from those of someone constipated to a toddler about to have a tantrum. the scenes are so poorly directed that you are left wondering what on earth is going on. The main actor gets bitten by a snake whilst on a remote island and falls to the floor looking like he is going to die ,his eyes glazing over and the next scene shows him in a hospital A and E department looking perfectly fine. another scene slowly and menacingly pans away from 2 of the characters to show ....nothing. ??!! appallingly poor
Not as bad as the other reviewers say
greekned20 October 2019
This film is about grief, and being lost.
It's not a badly made film, the subject matter while uneasy is something that other countries have to deal with a lot more than ours. Just because we are unfamiliar with it, or don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
It is well shot, has good acting and the music is spot on.
It's the kind of film that may hold a mirror up to how one deals with relationships, and that may make people uncomfortable.
As always, watch it and make your own mind up.
One of the worst films I have ever seen
rmcclean912 October 2013
The Irish Film Board should be ashamed for producing a film like this. Not only was the acting horrific, from the full cast, but the narrative seemed like it was thrown together in the editing room. This film is on a similar level with 'The Room'.
In the IFB's defence, I suspect that the Singapore Tourist board had a hand up their asses. The unnecessary eroticism and prostitution made me wonder whether the country is trying to adopt South East Asias sex tourism as part of their national identity.
I don't question how they got their funding, I question the choice of directors and actors. The talent in Ireland is being wasted on this drivel.
I want my money back.
In the IFB's defence, I suspect that the Singapore Tourist board had a hand up their asses. The unnecessary eroticism and prostitution made me wonder whether the country is trying to adopt South East Asias sex tourism as part of their national identity.
I don't question how they got their funding, I question the choice of directors and actors. The talent in Ireland is being wasted on this drivel.
I want my money back.
Pointless and tedious
timlittle15 March 2019
This was the most pointless film I think I have ever watched.
The cast mumble their way through the limited dialogue and a good portion of the film seems to comprise of endless pensive gazes into the near distance, endless pensive gazes into the far distance and endless pensive gazes at other members of the cast.
The camera gazes pensively at the back of the casts neck, head .........and so on.
A snake steals the show and out-acts the whole cast.
Avoid. Did I mention it's completely pointless ?
A dreamy and enigmatic character study
Trev1 December 2013
A dreamy and enigmatic character study about a man who flies to Singapore to wind up his dead brother's affair but finds himself coming adrift. Gerry (Gillen) is a man whose marriage is heading for the rocks and a visit to his dead brother's family and hostess bar in Singapore brings him into contact with a decadent, ex pat' world that starts to fit him too well.
The film plays somewhere between an Antonioni and the wonderful yet under-rated Peter Bogdanovitch film Saint Jack. The bar scenes while stylised feel truthful and affectionate, and the film has some powerful moments - a scene where a bar girl interview becomes a template for a disintegrating marriage is both original and uncomfortable to watch.
Gillen is cast against type and has really worked his way into the character who loses himself through the simple act of wearing a dead man's clothes and walking in his steps.
I notice one reviewer seems concerned with nudity in the film - there isn't any to speak of, so those seeking titillation look elsewhere.
The film plays somewhere between an Antonioni and the wonderful yet under-rated Peter Bogdanovitch film Saint Jack. The bar scenes while stylised feel truthful and affectionate, and the film has some powerful moments - a scene where a bar girl interview becomes a template for a disintegrating marriage is both original and uncomfortable to watch.
Gillen is cast against type and has really worked his way into the character who loses himself through the simple act of wearing a dead man's clothes and walking in his steps.
I notice one reviewer seems concerned with nudity in the film - there isn't any to speak of, so those seeking titillation look elsewhere.
Slowest film ever?
Chrid-90921 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Totally agree with 'afmwass' here. This film is very very slow to watch, but not in a good way.
I appreciate a good art-house film and I don't mind slow scenes if it fits the story but this is just dreadful. Even within the first minute of the film I was asking my friend 'what's happening?' and this we continued to ask each other throughout the movie.
Whole long takes are just about things like the main character changing his shirt or going to the toilet! Whenever it seems as if the story is going to pick up and there is going to be some action, it just peters out or the director cuts forward to nothing happening the next day.
There are basically only three scenes in the whole movie where there is a bit of action but they all just lead to nothing:
1. The guy gets bitten by a snake, he seems to be dying but the next shot shows him in the hospital and ready to leave.
2. The guy drags a drunk visitor along a hotel corridor to a room where there is a very beautiful girl who wants to share his room, and he does nothing!
3. The confrontation with 'bad guy' Lester, which has actually been built up to with a bit of suspense, only delivers a very anti-climatic bout of clumsy fisticuffs.
Bottom line, don't be fooled by the reviews that say that this film is 'deep' or 'haunting'. It is not deep, it is shallow. Yes, it could be called 'haunting' in the sense that the next day you vaguely remember how crap it was and wonder why they bothered to make it, and why you bothered to watch it!
I appreciate a good art-house film and I don't mind slow scenes if it fits the story but this is just dreadful. Even within the first minute of the film I was asking my friend 'what's happening?' and this we continued to ask each other throughout the movie.
Whole long takes are just about things like the main character changing his shirt or going to the toilet! Whenever it seems as if the story is going to pick up and there is going to be some action, it just peters out or the director cuts forward to nothing happening the next day.
There are basically only three scenes in the whole movie where there is a bit of action but they all just lead to nothing:
1. The guy gets bitten by a snake, he seems to be dying but the next shot shows him in the hospital and ready to leave.
2. The guy drags a drunk visitor along a hotel corridor to a room where there is a very beautiful girl who wants to share his room, and he does nothing!
3. The confrontation with 'bad guy' Lester, which has actually been built up to with a bit of suspense, only delivers a very anti-climatic bout of clumsy fisticuffs.
Bottom line, don't be fooled by the reviews that say that this film is 'deep' or 'haunting'. It is not deep, it is shallow. Yes, it could be called 'haunting' in the sense that the next day you vaguely remember how crap it was and wonder why they bothered to make it, and why you bothered to watch it!
Pointless waste of celluloid
martin-worthing16 January 2018
don't bother
tartlet17 January 2018
Boring
ryan-binks28 October 2019
Boring, this movie is so slow, there is a very basic storyline. Bad acting they are not very believable in character. Found it hard to watch , and had to force myself to concentrate on the whole movie. 1/10 . Should be an option for 0/10.
Pointless
Vindelander21 October 2019
Very slow with no real story to tell and mediocre acting. I persevered to the end but I'd recommend that you don't.
The scenery is probably the best aspect and there are plenty of asiatic girls to ogle but that's about it I'm afraid.
The scenery is probably the best aspect and there are plenty of asiatic girls to ogle but that's about it I'm afraid.
Is this the most boring film ever made?
mrmatthewadams19 March 2019
If ever you feel like wasting 1hr 35m of your time then there are infinitely more better ways of doing so than watching this piece of crap! Who the heck ever thought that it would be a good idea investing money in this dire non-event of a movie? Nothing happens... and then it ends. Let me save you time - watch something else!
Lost in a sea of grief we each need to find our own way out.
face-819-9337264 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Touching, and sad, but there is a lot of hope. This was a very well written, acted, and directed movie, that is scored masterfully. Mister Gerry is still quite a mystery to me at the end of this very sad, and personal journey. I felt that we were being shown a very good man who was now at his life's very crossroads, and this is where he gets to decide which way to go next, but who is as torn as anyone would be. Some parts of this movie were so hard to read. There is a point where Gerry is literally tripping balls, and it is difficult to tell as the viewer which of these things are really happening. Very artistic direction lets you feel as though you can just slip away from the characters in the story at anytime. In the end I did quite Enjoy this movie, and would recommend it to people who like it when movies make them have to think. This is certainly not for everyone, it is a good meaningful drama, riddled with sentiment, and strange misdirections. However if you know loss, then there is a lot to relate to in this movie, and it just might be for you.
'Mister John' is a clever film, and a very subtle one too.
dipesh-parmar23 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Husband-and-wife team Joe Lawlor and Christine Molloy return with their second film 'Mister John', starring Aidan Gillen as Gerry. He's had to travel to Singapore because his brother John had an untimely death.
Gerry has never been to see John in Singapore before, and in turn never met his wife Kim (Zoe Tay) and teenage daughter Sarah (Molly Rose Lawlor). The title of the film refers to the name of Johns bar, which Kim now has to run on her own. Gerry seems to have enough problems of his own, not least his dwindling relationship with his wife and daughter. Its an excuse that Gerry takes advantage of, the distraction of foreign climes and John's demise are at first enough to keep him occupied. He thrives on taking on the responsibility of standing in for John, he even wears John's clothes. Kim keeps her grief in check too, mostly to lessen the pain on her daughter.
'Mister John' is a clever film, and a very subtle one too. This beautifully shot film could have gone down many routes, but instead paints an opaque picture of a mans struggles within himself. Little is known about a lot of things, and you can't help but ask a lot of questions. Why had Gerry not seen John in such a long time? Why has his marriage broken down? Was John's death an accident? Is there more to John's business than we are shown? Who is Kim, and can she be trusted? None, and many others, go unanswered.
Rather than become frustrated by any lack of closure, you're fascinated with Gerry's passive acceptance of his troubles. Gerry does slowly reveal his impotence and vulnerability, issues which plague his relationship with his wife and brother. Its an incredibly subtle performance from the excellent Aidan Gillen, you witness a man who has finally come to terms with loss, and by doing so breaks down whatever wall was stopping him from moving on.
Gerry has never been to see John in Singapore before, and in turn never met his wife Kim (Zoe Tay) and teenage daughter Sarah (Molly Rose Lawlor). The title of the film refers to the name of Johns bar, which Kim now has to run on her own. Gerry seems to have enough problems of his own, not least his dwindling relationship with his wife and daughter. Its an excuse that Gerry takes advantage of, the distraction of foreign climes and John's demise are at first enough to keep him occupied. He thrives on taking on the responsibility of standing in for John, he even wears John's clothes. Kim keeps her grief in check too, mostly to lessen the pain on her daughter.
'Mister John' is a clever film, and a very subtle one too. This beautifully shot film could have gone down many routes, but instead paints an opaque picture of a mans struggles within himself. Little is known about a lot of things, and you can't help but ask a lot of questions. Why had Gerry not seen John in such a long time? Why has his marriage broken down? Was John's death an accident? Is there more to John's business than we are shown? Who is Kim, and can she be trusted? None, and many others, go unanswered.
Rather than become frustrated by any lack of closure, you're fascinated with Gerry's passive acceptance of his troubles. Gerry does slowly reveal his impotence and vulnerability, issues which plague his relationship with his wife and brother. Its an incredibly subtle performance from the excellent Aidan Gillen, you witness a man who has finally come to terms with loss, and by doing so breaks down whatever wall was stopping him from moving on.
...sepia will colour the moment like so many tangled exxotic plants and trees...
jsrwilkins10 March 2019
An evocation of a moment - to evoke a moment - to question this - and your - life ...sometimes the pain will show...even though you didn't want to reveal it, or you thought you didn't, but really you did...A spirit in this world...on reflection too many knowing looks in contradiction of the feelings ot tries to evoke...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
