Just watched this. What did I think of it?

Just watched this. What did I think of it?
But no, really. I got nothing out of this. No emotion, no heady concepts to deliberate, just numbness. Maybe that's the point. I don't know. Following something as masterful as Wolf of Wall Street with something this experimental just seems like kind of a dumb move on Marty's part.
Also Andrew Garfield was TERRIBLE. Could not take him seriously at all so his suffering, like most everything in the movie, made me feel nothing.

pleb

I think you're the only one who saw this film m80

if is any indication I think you're right

Haven't seen this yet, but Wolf of Wall Street was garbage, shit taste

would you like to elaborate on your opinion? because otherwise you've added nothing of value to this thread

The recurrent "joke" of the traitorous guy killed it for me. I know it was supposed to be an allegory, but it absolutely killed the mood for me.

Watch The Mission. This one really sucked ass.

This sounds more like your problem than the movie's.

PADRE! I NEED CONFESSION!

underage

I've made arguments in the OP as to why I didn't care for the film but we've still yet to have anyone make legit arguments in defense of it.

>arguments

Those aren't arguments. Those are personal reactions. Of course, great criticism comes from personal reaction, but you take it nowhere near that. It's just "I didn't get it."

>no heady concepts to deliberate

This is objectively wrong. I bet you had a secular upbringing.

APOLOGIZE!

I just watched it last night so I am still digesting it. I respect the fact that it didn't speak to you, and I can understand not liking Garfield (though i thought he was better than he has ever been). My issue is the charge that there is "no emotion, no heady concepts to deliberate, just numbness". If you find no emotion in the story or the eternal struggle between faith and human experience, I'm going to assume you are not out of high school, sorry.

Also it's the most beautiful and painterly movie Scorsese has ever made.

>No emotion, no heady concepts to deliberate,
A film about the ethics of martyrdom and colonialism as well as the personal vs dogmatic concepts of faith gave you nothing to ponder?

>Following something as masterful as Wolf of Wall Street with something this experimental just seems like kind of a dumb move on Marty's part.
What does this even mean? It's dumb to experiment?

Personally the more he did it the more compelling it became. I'm still not sure what to make of him but he's stuck with me long after finishing the film

I was raised Catholic against my will.
I'm a college student. There was no genuine emotion to take from this movie. You don't know these characters, outside of their faith. Like, at all. Please, try to describe Andrew Garfield or Adam Driver's characters without referencing their priesthood. Why should I care about what happens to them unless I want to buy into identity politics and associate with them for no reason other than a shared faith?
You make a fair point, I should've worded that point better. I guess what I should have said is that the movie doesn't really say anything about the issue it tackles, just kind of holds them. Like if you've ever watched black mirror (I know the quality of this show is far below Silence but please follow me here) it's a similar kind of thing, where they kind of reference a moral dilemma but provide no unique insights into it beyond its mere representation.

>Following something as masterful as Wolf of Wall Street


I'm really just...trying hard here...I just...can't....

I disagree. Black Mirror takes an obvious exaggerated sci-fi scenario and says "gee, isn't that bad", there's nothing else to be said because it's designed to make you nod your head and agree. I think Silence provides the groundwork for these topics to be considered but leaves any conclusions up to the viewer. I've seen so many takes on it, from pro and anti-christian, to anti-japan, anti-colonialism, allegories for today's muslim immigrant crisis, whether or not Rodrigues was a true catholic by apostatizing or if that even matters, if Ferrera's speech on japans failure to adopt christianity was accurate or a lie he tells himself.

It's not a vague film, just one that doesn't aim to tell you how to feel about any of it's topics.

>You don't know these characters, outside of their faith

Faith, and struggle with faith, is an important part of many people's lives, especially if you're a priest. That's not a copout answer. What you do is an important part of who you are. Regardless, they aren't robots. The two priests obviously have their own distinct personalities and ways of dealing with their problems. I shouldn't have to explain in detail when it's a main part of the plot. It's just baffling to me that you watched the movie and didn't see that.

>what I should have said is that the movie doesn't really say anything about the issue it tackles, just kind of holds them

Art doesn't have to exist to give clear moral lessons. Exploring themes in an intelligent and artful way is very sufficient in creating an aesthetically beautiful and thought provoking work of art. If you can argue a film's message is confused or immoral, that's a very valid reason for not liking it. However this film has its clear sympathies towards its characters. The movie making may be mannered, but it's not emotionless at all.

Your response is so baffling, I have to assume you're autistic or, at the least, emotionally immature. Or maybe you just won't see the point even if you tried because you saying you were raised Catholic "against your will" implies you have some chip on the shoulder against religion and consequentially this movie. May God bless your soul.

Jesus christ, you're an idiot.

>You don't know these characters, outside of their faith. Like, at all.
Because that's what they are. Their faith is the greatest part of their personality. That's why apostatizing is such an unacceptable thing for them. Are you being dense on purpose? You don't have to be a religious person to understand the struggle they're going through.

This post is exactly what a film embryo looks like. I almost want to save this for posterity.

get rekt m8

>doesn't aim to tell you how to feel about any of it's topics
this isn't the issue, the problem is that the film itself is totally unhinged from the concepts on display. like cool, if it were a paperback I had to read for class there'd be a ton of interesting discussion points on the back that we'd debate in class but the movie itself doesn't seem particularly interested in it, at least not as interested as it is in showing crucifixions and torture and a head getting chopped off and people endlessly being persecuted for religion. I get it. it sucks.
I'd like to answer you but your interest in making personal assumptions about me is offputting.
join the discourse if you'd like. or not, calling me an idiot does make you seem smarter by comparison.
you could make this argument for anything.
>see, the poorly written one dimensional characters of the fast and the furious are actually super compelling because cars are what they are. driving is the greatest part of their personality.
legitimately not trying to upset anyone but using the power of religion (which is, admittedly, immense) as an excuse for boring characters seems very suspect. again, not trying to seem intolerant. just don't think that their being priests meant they had to have the personalities of cardboard boxes.

This movie was a nightmare in terms of everything but cinematography. It brought nothing new to the conversation about religion in general, it erased all ambiguity of the end by ending with a scene of the cross, it was edited poorly as well as repetetive scenes that lent themselves more towards bloated filler than anything of import(kinchhihihihiro showing up for the 5th time and running away after renouncing himself, foot stamping scene x 6 when it had lost all meaning past the 2nd scene if not first), sound issues most clearly when adam driver was swimming out to the boat and the mic starts popping, liam neeson straight up becomes the only british portegeuse in history at the time due to laziness.

This movie was 90 minutes too long because this fucktard has no idea how to trim his movies and I would apostatize to spare you all the fate of having wasted your time seeing this.

Pros
>Adam drivers ocean scene
>Ocean crucifix
>beautiful visually
>interrogator

Cons
>Everything else

If you are going to make a 3hour movie about someones inner turmoil with god then at least bring something more than even the barest of minimums to the table.

I would have liked to have seen the original cast of DDL, benecio, and Bernal, but I know that even that would have changed little beyond gripes of laughable accents and mediocre acting by garfield.

thank you, for a sec there i thought i was the only one on Sup Forums who doesn't have scorsese's cock permanently lodged in my throat

kys sempai

Got to the part where Japanese villagers are visiting him and hes living in a small house or something, about 20 minutes in. The film made me feel really depressed for reasons I don't understand

nice rebuttal ya donkey. The movie was a long shallow mess that was only allowed to exist because people like you will do anything to prop up Scorsese's acclaim regardless of the product he turns out.

Go ahead and tell me that a 30min scene after he apostatizes following him identifying christian contraband and ending with a total erasure of ambiguity is good. Tell me why kinchijiro constantly scurries in and out of screen like a fucking cartoon trope, explain to me why this movie was made when it brought nothing of significance to the conversation of religious struggle or even anything of historical importance/interest.

Literally the only reason for this movie to deliberately feel as drawn out and agonizing as it was had to have been to simulate in the audience a relatively equal level of torture.

It is a movie that robs itself of any and all depth, and what chance a good movie could have come of it required the talents of someone who was not Scorsese.

This movie works much better if you are a christian, but if you're not it's basically telling that acceptance of christ comes from the inside and not the outside, if you let people suffer to keep your religious traditions you're not being a treu christian. Garfield learns in the end that providing internal peace and taking people out of pain is the true christian value. There's much more in the movie, but instead of leaving an ambiguous message, it tells a concrete one.

If it works better for a christian it is only because they adore media that plays to their sense of victim hood.

Are you confusing silence with "gods not dead: too" and "Hacksaw Ridge"?

Yes, you are.

I've seen the opposite, devout Christians seem to be the ones criticize it the most of having him betray christ. They don't see any need to apostatize and end the suffering because martyrdom is the path to heaven and all that weird sadistic shit.

I think it plays best to people who have a more complicated relationship with Christianity, like agnostics raised religious or lapsed catholics. People that are open to the idea of faith but not the rigid ways of the church

No, no I am not. Not that those other 2 movies detract from my point in the least and rather serves to reinforce my statement.

NCIE FALLACEE DOE

It links more to the christians because it tells about the complicated relationship we have with faith, but it'll link even more with less fervorous christians than with the devouted and frivolous ones.

I think the majority of modern christians is not really devout, that's why I think it'll link to them, and I agree with you about the devouted ones and your second explanation, it's just that I think modern christianism is more linked to internal faith than external, while devout christianism is more linked to external rather than internal.

From a a technical standpoint of editing/pacing this movie is not even passable.

can you explain what you mean?

Yep. Underage.

You were raised Catholic against your will and yet you can't relate to the concept of having ideology forced on you by authority? Of being told what to believe? Of perhaps dying for the right to think what you wish?

Kofuku...you are a lost cause

zero attention span blowhard detected

Overuse of repetition going far beyond hollywoods rule of 3 that are standard for general films.

The pacing overall, the first hour is well done as things are moving fluidly, explanations of characters and setting, groundwork for religious questioning and various other themes, culminates with the priests witnessing the ocean crucifix, beyond this point it meanders along in no direction whatsoever with brief scenes pertinent to furthering questions and opening up discourse and conflict in the form of the interrogator as well as the inquisitor, then goes back to meandering with very little pertinent things happening as it continues to slow burn to the purposeless end.

>nice rebuttal ya donkey.

How about you explain more than nothing.

lel scorsese kyke cunt fellate ur god more pal, 2deep50me

garfield was terribly miscast and it made me not care about most of the story. 6/10

It's not a hard film to understand. I don't have the capacity to explain to you why you don't like it. I can only assume you got raped by a priest.

this movie was just apocalypse now but a shitty boring abortion instead of a masterpiece.

I never said it was hard to understand, I berated it for not even giving anything that required a modicum of thought.

>It's not a hard film to understand. I don't have the capacity to explain to you why you don't like it.
Literally 2deep4u but i can't explain it to u.

You are the same fucking breed of person that praises prometheus because of lore