This movie was pure christkino

This movie was pure christkino.

>babbies first slow movie

If by 'christkino' you mean badly written and badly acted movie by a director who should know better, you are certainly right.

was it badly written? i'm waiting for cinemasins to tell me that.

>character mentions God
>"haha silly white man, god doesn't real"
>"Ding!"

First, could you demonstrate how Silence is a christian movie?

Having christians in a movie doesn't make a movie christian, just like having a woman in a movie doesn't make a movie a woman movie.

Or a movie where potato is eaten a potato movie.

For a movie to represent any ideology it has to take a stance. I didn't feel like Silence leaned in any direction.

One of the worst and most ridiculous Hollywood bastardization periodic pieces ive seen. From cringeworthy meme accents to fucking black-and-white presentation of adversarial christian and buddhist "brotherhoods" while ignoring extremely strong split of the christian church and all the other religious implications at the time... i mean i could go on and on, the movies was Scorseses new low and has as much substance to it as your average capeshit.

Oh and Andrew Garfield is the shittiest actor currently inhabiting planet earth.

Call it what you want, doesn't change the fact that it was skull-fuckingly boring

That's a lot of negative wording. Are you feeling OK?

Does a movie have to be historically accurate to be good? I admit it would be better with more accuracy.

A movie about some Jesuits made in the Jesuit theater of holy Wood.
>It's not Christian
I tried it, into the trash it went after about 1 hour. Jesuits are a disgusting cult of Machiavellian Inquisitors constantly whitewashing themselves.

Back to the capeshit thread, friend.

Big boys are talking.

Sounds like you have trouble relating to people who do not share your world view. That's all I can take from your post.

>Oh and Andrew Garfield is the shittiest actor currently inhabiting planet earth.

Put those hands up mate. He did fucking amazing in The Social Network.

How long before that guy shills his review again?

I enjoyed it

Nope, the movie has to be good to be good. I was not immersed to 17th century for a split second during that 2,5h snoozefest. If you want to watch a great believable and very well made periodic movie with religious themes, i recommend watching The Name of the Rose. (even though it is ultimately a murder mystery). It does right everything that Silence fucks up horribly.

Thanks for the sensible post, I'll download the movie.

Also I'd like to add that I'm not defending Silence to the grave. I just thought it was a good movie about the human condition. The respective religions and ideologies felt like a backdrop to human suffering, forgiveness and understanding.

Imagine if it was a movie about radical muslim priests coming to america and facing hardship and banishment.
it's the most bigoted movie I saw in a while

>Imagine if it was a movie about radical muslim priests coming to america and facing hardship and banishment.
it would be a better movie that's for sure.

The priests got BTFO in the end. It's not like the movie was a christian victory march.

Watch best bishop's analysis.

...

but would you feel sympathetic to their cause?

Nice pic. Do you have words of your own?

One of the worst pieces of shits I have seen and I have seen a lot of shit in 2016.

the cross in dude's hands as he was buried indicated the christans kept their faith

>Imagine if it was a movie about radical muslim priests coming to america and facing hardship and banishment.

Pretty dumb comparison

Their cause is irrelevant. Humans behave like humans do.
It was a struggle for influence in a foreign country and there's a lot of that going on.

/amen.

the novel is a lot better but who does that even surprise anymore lol

>fucking black-and-white presentation of adversarial christian and buddhist "brotherhoods"

You must not be a Christian then. A friend of mine nearly had an existential crisis thinking about what he would do in their shoes.

they made it look pretty bad, but I wonder what horrors those priests were exposed to for them to recant.

the accents were atrocious.

beter he had gone wth no accents at all. which movie did that btw?

The truth is a horror to some. If your mind is a dark room you'll be scared of it all your life.

I've been here for like 8 years and I don't think I've ever seen anyone make an argument that wasn't really just facile nitpicking.

>all these mad weebs

Stuff that makes ISIS' torture look like childplay.

Also, Liam Neeson's character was a real person. Supposedly he converted back to Christianity at one point and was tortured and killed for it.

why do you say that? okay maybe not the US, cause here you have a 10x better freedom of religion, but Euopre for instance then. (even in a contemporary setting, let alone in the same period as the silence takes place)
so you are saying that if it were a movie about muslim preachers preaching their word of god in a foreign country you would have no problem with it, it wouldn't bother you and you could enjoy watching the human struggle and the strength of faith in men.

>movie where Japan BTFO's filthy gaijin

You are making some implicating implications, user.

Why does his Christianity even matter when the priest turned into a docile cuck?

Faith without works doesn't exist.

Yes, I consider muslims human. Just like I consider capeshitters, cunnyfags, BLACKED-fags human. There is a motivation behind everything and we share that motivation.

Idolotrist.

well I applaud you friend for being a normal good person I guess.
but you have to agree that given today's background that movie would be seen as an ISIS recruitment video by many people, and not just an honest piece of work.

>WAAAAH THESE EVIL PRIESTS TRYING TO SPREAD THE GOSPEL AS THEIR RELIGION SAYS
>TOTALLY THE SAME AS MUSLIMS CONQUEST

...

Its not perfect but it was way better than Mel's recent Christian circlejerk.

The academy should have given it some kudos just because we all need a reminder that American faith based cinema does not have to be pureflix breed of pure shit.

catholic church of the time used religious conversion as a means of political subversion and defacto conquest.

japs weren't having that

what's the difference then?

that doesn't mean the priests knew that, and didn't have inner struggles.

loved the movie btw.

If you took it as pro-christian you misunderstood the movie.

It showed non-Christian Japanes as caricature like characters.

if it was not pro "Christian faith must go on no matter what" then the film didn't even have any narrative and MS failed

so their inner struggles were born of ignorance. an ignorance so profound and complete it silenced all opposition.

well yeah.

well yea, but there was still enough of the "everyone was fucking wrong" narrative in place for that to come through.

The daiymo's dilemma scene alone is sufficient illustration of that narrative.

kek, how the fuck did they not know? That's a horrible reason. Terrorist also think they're doing the right thing and going to heaven, doesn't justify them.

The Japanese christians were poor farmers. Applying modern day standards of christdom seems preposterous.

which is why it didn't get any real nods from anyone.

welcome to the end of the thought process.

>dude literally the same as forced conversion and murder!!!

>weitto piggu wants us to worship some cuck's wife's son, kekekekek

spotted the pleb that actually paid to see God's Not Dead

Hes talking more of the inquisitor and the translator. Who were quite caricaturist.

who, the movie or the terrorists?
I'm confused...

All I got extracted from the Inquisitor he wanted the best for his country. Ruthless methods but it was about preserving a culture.

terrorists leaders surround themselves with children to dissuade drone strikes.

Fucking Inquisitor was out of Donald Duck comic I swar I laughed when he started doing his fucking crab walk and sinister laugh

He's a comedian in real life.

so that makes the strikes somehow less horrible and the ones doing them less guilty?

All faithful follow authority. If the authority is fucked then all the followers are fucked.

I think it attempted to send the message that Christianity as a whole is better suited to fit the needs of the common man better than the priest class or the nobility. Andrew Garfield's character constantly questions how these people can be so fervently in favor of Christianity when he doesn't realize that the promise of an afterlife is all these people really have. They live in a small village and work to pay taxes to their lords and that's about it. The fault in the priests lie in their ability to give up their pride because they also believe that means giving up their faith. Liam Neeson's character (Father Ferreira I think?) mentions this near the end of the movie when they have a bunch of Christians tied upside down and bleeding out.

Furthermore, the death of Adam Driver's character shows that that kind of pride leads to two possible outcomes: one is death, as he experienced, and the other is eventually sacrificing your pride for the good of others, as Andrew Garfield's character did. Andrew Garfield eventually realizes that keeping his pride doesn't do him or his fellow Christians any favors, all it does is add greater punishment. The inquisitor says as much: "The price for your glory is their suffering!"

However, the character Kichijiro exists to be an antithesis to this. He's a coward through and through, and he sold Andrew Garfield's character along with many others down the river plenty of times. However, he's not prideful , even a little bit, and he asks for confession (and is granted it) every time. He has faith without pride, and he's willing to sacrifice that pride so he can live, but he doesn't have to sacrifice his faith to do so. This is shown even at the end of the film when he's taken away, he'll likely be punished for keeping a Christian token, but he's lived keeping his faith for so long while Andrew Garfield's character felt he had to sacrifice it. He realizes this as he dies and keeps the cross in his hand, you can have faith without pride.

Even more, it was really just his job, one of many. He had no real emotional investment for or against the Christians. They were simply a correctly identified subversive force.

>All faithful follow authority.
that's not really true but whatever, especially in the case of islamic dogma. All people are sequel, there are no saint's or popes, and you don't need a priest in order to repent for your sins. I know that today's radical islam is far from that, but that's what the actual book teaches.

>murdering innocent children of x is less horrible than murdering innocent children of y
Or I'm attempting to describe conflicts in which no one is in the right.

Obviously anyone can cook up toxic ideas, but in the case of terrorist attacks I highly doubt no outside influence was involved.

>DUDE I BELIEVE IN GOD
>OW SHIT THAT HURTS i DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD ANYMORE
>LMAO JK I SECRETLY DO
it stinks

Why do you like Jews so much? They're vermin.

Are fear and insecurity foreign concepts to you?

but the question is who is right? Did those sand people really pose that big of a threat that we had to to invade them and destroy them for decades? Or was it all just about oil and world dominance?

>conflicts in which no one is in the right

>WHO WAS RITE THO??

...

but "no one is right" just isn't true dude, someone had to stir up the shit first.
and we all know who did it in this case.

>someone always has to be right

...

Very nice read but I think it's possible the monks/wife put the cross in his dead hands.

Kino are deep movies that manage to portray relavitely deep matters that sometimes come close to being boring but never really do.

Silence was boring as fuck for the most part and pretentious as fuck.

no I didn't say that man. But I guess it's easy to say "it was nobodies fault" when your house isn't the one that's being bombed and you have no notion of what normal life is.

>no one is right
>nobodies fault

these are not the same thing

We've been killing each other forever. One perspective doesn't make right.

By far the best film of 2016. I wonder why it didn't get any nominations...

heavily compromised a better narrative and tried to force a pro-christian one.

Wtf I love atheism, Judaism or Islam now.

Because it was boring as fuck maybe? The premise was promising but Scorsese just went over his head.

Just because you're a fedora tipper doesn't mean the narrative was bad. Could you please explain how the narrative was bad?

It did get a nomination for cinematography actually. Nothing else sadly

Could you explain why it was worth more than dog shit

attempting to force a pro-christian narrative on the kirishitan debacle is profoundly idiotic.

As is assuming anyone who didn't like the movie wears le maymay hat.

Actually I was implying the obvious. It wasn't a serious question. We all know that Jews and white liberals hate Christianity with the passion of a thousand burning suns.

>Nothing else sadly

It really didn't deserve anything else

How was it "forcing a Christian narrative"?

This thread is worth more than dogshit. By proxy the movie was worth more than dogshit. And by dogshit I mean the average Sup Forums thread.

Do you voluntarily reply to dogshit threads?

Your turn.

I juts didn't like it because it was cinematically a low effort turd.

Even Wolf of Wall Street had more quality to the craft

No, the burden of proof is on the original claimant.