• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

First reviews for Scorcese's "Silence" hit.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Courtesy of EW:
Run-time is 161 minutes.
The Hollywood Reporter
“Ultimately, then, despite the bumpiness of the initial stretch and the intense but narrow conception of the leading roles, Silence gets to where it wants to go, which is to stand as Scorsese’s own reckoning with the religion he was raised in and takes seriously, and which has arguably fueled so much of the inner turmoil and angst that has marked much of his work; this can rightly be regarded as a considerable feat. Germinating — one might even say festering — inside him for 26 years (Jay Cocks and Scorsese wrote their first draft of the script eons ago), Silence, more successfully than not, artfully addresses the core issue of its maker’s lifelong religious struggle. He has flirted with and danced around the subject in many of his other films, most often those featuring transgressive and violent characters, but of his explicitly religious dramas, specifically including Kundun and The Last Temptation of Christ, this is, by a considerable distance, the most eloquent and coherent.”

Variety:
“And yet, judged in broadly cinematic terms, Silence is not a great movie, despite having been directed by one of the medium’s greatest masters at a point of great maturity (this is the last film one might expect to immediately follow the bacchanalian excess of The Wolf of Wall Street). Though undeniably gorgeous, it is punishingly long, frequently boring, and woefully unengaging at some of its most critical moments. It is too subdued for Scorsese-philes, too violent for the most devout, and too abstruse for the great many moviegoers who such an expensive undertaking hopes to attract (which no doubt explains why Scorsese was compelled to cast The Amazing Spider-Man actor Andrew Garfield and two Star Wars stars).”

Still, viewed through the narrow prism of films about faith, “Silence” is a remarkable achievement, tackling as it does a number of Big Questions in a medium that, owing to its commercial nature, so often shies away from Christianity altogether. Considering the dominant role religious belief plays in the lives of so many, it’s surprising, even scandalous, that so few films face the subject head-on. “Silence” is the largest, most serious-minded examination of faith since Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life,” rounding out a trilogy on the subject from the director of “Kundun” and “The Last Temptation of Christ.”

The Wrap:
“Technically, the movie is another triumph for Scorsese’s imagemaking acumen, with Rodrigo Prieto’s cinematography and Dante Ferretti’s sets and costumes grounding a beautiful yet harsh land of mountains and mist, village poverty and feudal wealth. The cautious camerawork and tone is exactingly attuned to the intertwining of grace, peril, and suffering in a beautiful yet harsh land.

Whether filming a conversation, or private distress, or open torture, the movie is hushed to the point of off-putting reverence. But if Scorsese isn’t exactly Ozu when it comes to effortlessly capturing the unseen, he’s also not Mel Gibson making bloody physical agony the star. With Silence, Scorsese’s ambition to dramatize a relentless inner struggle is always admirable.”

Indiewire Grade: B

“By no means a masterwork, Silence nevertheless displays the first-rate craftsmanship. However, it’s a surprisingly subdued approach to a story filled with vicious struggles involving men wandering the wilderness at their wits’ end, avoiding perils such as torture by boiling water and decapitation. (Even so, it’s less violent than the 1971 version; both are adapted from Shusaku Endo’s book.) Silence is a haunting, immersive experience that, were it not for a handful of flaws, would rank among the director’s grandest epics.”

The Telegraph: 5 stars
“That Scorsese could have made this plangent, scalding work of religious art so soon after The Wolf of Wall Street is inconceivable. Based on a 1966 novel, Chinmoku, by the Japanese Catholic writer Shusako Endo (already masterfully adapted once for the screen in 1977 in its original language by Masahiro Shinoda), it’s as soul-pricklingly attuned to matters transcendent and eternal as that previous film was drenched in the short-lived and sticky pleasures of the profane.

It’s the kind of work a great filmmaker can only pull off with a lifetime’s accrued expertise behind him. And its representation of death as something faced alone, no matter which collective causes your life may have stood for, gives it a capital-Fs Final Film air that is itself spiritually bracing (though Scorsese is reportedly poised to shoot his 25th, The Irishman, in February).”
 
Still gonna see it even if it's not regarded as an instant classic just because of Scorsese, although this is the first I've heard of the earlier book adaptation.
And it's very interesting to see how he would tackle explicitly the themes of Catholicism as an establishment that were usually just subtexts on his earlier works.
 
From the Wrap review:
It also makes the unfortunate casting of Garfield feel like more of a blunder with each passing, stakes-raising scene. Early on, the “Spiderman” star’s youthful arrogance pings well off Driver’s prickly frustration, the pair sliding nicely into their roles as underground heroes for the persecuted. But as events separate the two, and Rodrigues becomes the central figure of faith-tested heartbreak, Garfield’s emoting falters. His anguish looks childish, not soul-threatening, and his locks are distractingly lush, as if he had a prison coiffeur. Faring better is Neeson, who emerges Kurtz-like to theologically spar with the shaken Rodrigues, projecting a cowed giant for whom matters of life and death have become resignedly practical.

The movie’s true breadth of performance is in the Japanese actors, however, starting with Yosuke Kubozuka (“Ichi”) as the priests’ weak-willed, opportunistically Christian guide Kichijiro, and continuing with Yoshi Oida (“The Pillow Book”) and Shin’ya Tsukamoto (“Tetsuo, the Iron Man”) as devout villagers. Among the persecutors, Tadanobu Asano (“Thor”), as the imprisoned Rodrigues’s interpreter, turns smiling exchanges into a wily form of oppressiveness.

And yet:
While Garfield outdoes himself (and Scorsese gives him room to excel), “Silence” struggles through stretches of redundancy; taut showdowns with Japanese forces and whispery strategy sessions in shadowy hideouts abound. That would completely undo the movie’s spell if its more superficial elements weren’t so expertly rendered. Whether leading a quiet mass in the dead of night or struggling through humiliation as prisoners, the Jesuits’ struggle is a slog, but an engaging one.

and more so:
Garfield and Driver couldn’t imaginably be better – or better cast. Even physically, the contrast between them makes for great cinema: Garfield a spindly stem of wheat, glowing with goodness, Driver sloping, tapered, even (in the handsomest possible way) a little fungal. But it’s their performances, in which both actors drill down into very different seams of piety, that hold your sympathies in flux throughout.
 

Empty

Member
Though undeniably gorgeous, it is punishingly long, frequently boring, and woefully unengaging at some of its most critical moments. It is too subdued for Scorsese-philes, too violent for the most devout, and too abstruse for the great many moviegoers who such an expensive undertaking hopes to attract

sounds like exactly the kind of film i like tbh
 

Corpsepyre

Banned
Man, I wish we had gotten Del Toro and Day Lewis as we were to once. Can't help but shake the disappointment. But I will definitely watch this. Also, wasn't this 3 hours plus?
 
Man, I wish we had gotten Del Toro and Day Lewis as we were to once. Can't help but shake the disappointment. But I will definitely watch this. Also, wasn't this 3 hours plus?
Was, but predictably Paramount didn't want to release a 3 hour film. So it's now about 2 hours 41 minutes.
 

Corpsepyre

Banned
Scorsese has hit the rare heights of Ingmar Bergman and Carl Theodor Dreyer, artists who found in religion a battleground that often left the strongest in tatters. It's a movie desperately needed at a moment when bluster must yield to self-reflection.

Full Review… | December 10, 2016

Joshua Rothkopf
Time Out

5/5

------

Uneven, sometimes repetitive but also powerfully moving and thought-provoking, "Silence" is an imperfect movie that's very hard to shake.

Full Review… | December 10, 2016

Tim Grierson
Screen International
 

Ridley327

Member
Even the less enthusiastic reviews make it sound like a interesting exploration into what drives devotion, so I'm fully on board. Anything to make the month of January less dreary for quality filmmaking.
 

Artdayne

Member
Woah, Scorsese is one of my favorite directors and I've been waiting for this film for about 10 years but even this makes me nervously excited:

"History has remembered “Citizen Kane” and “Vertigo.” These were two films not wholeheartedly recognized as masterpieces of their time. History now, however, will remember “Silence,” a marvelous and inspiring cinematic experience not to be forgotten."

http://www.awardscircuit.com/2016/1...hes-respect-martin-scorseses-ultimate-legacy/
 
Even his stinkers are still watchable with good qualities too them. So I'll still see this.

Shame it's a dud though, can't hit em all.
 

Empty

Member
That's not necessarily the case though, Heart of Darkness was a short book as well, and Apocalypse Now a long movie. Still turned out pretty good.

or solaris which is 100pgs shorter than silence in my copies of the books and was turned into a decent three hour film
 

Window

Member
Even his stinkers are still watchable with good qualities too them. So I'll still see this.

Shame it's a dud though, can't hit em all.

It may very well turn out to be a flawed film but I don't see how it can be labelled a dud based on a highly positive consensus from about a dozen critics in total?
 

kswiston

Member
Yeah, that average rating is no joke.

If we want to just look at Metacritic, the Departed had an 85. Everything else Scorsese has done in the past 20 years is somewhere under that. Taxi Driver (93), Raging Bull (92) and Goodfellas (89) are his only films that received super high scores.
 
My favorite scorcese is Gangs of New York and that was one of his films that received worse reviews than many of his most acclaimed.

Gangs is a really good movie. I want to see it again!
 

Rootbeer

Banned
No OT yet so just gonna post here for now.

I haven't been able to find any showtimes for Silence in my area this week yet (SF Bay)

I hope they start listing it on ticketing sites soon. Want to see it Friday.
 

Blader

Member
No OT yet so just gonna post here for now.

I haven't been able to find any showtimes for Silence in my area this week yet (SF Bay)

I hope they start listing it on ticketing sites soon. Want to see it Friday.

It's only opening in NY/LA this weekend. Expands everywhere else on Jan 6th.
 

Budi

Member
Man, I wish we had gotten Del Toro and Day Lewis as we were to once. Can't help but shake the disappointment. But I will definitely watch this. Also, wasn't this 3 hours plus?

Yup! I was very excited when this was supposed to be the casting. I got bit worried with new cast, though I have faith in Adam Driver. But Garfield hasn't proven himself to me yet, especially after seeing the trailer. Didn't sell me on the role on that one, but seeing the whole movie could be very different. Also Liam Neeson is a bit hit and miss, he has been great in great films. But with so much schlock it feels that he isn't always really trying. But I would assume that in Scorsese movie he cares.

Really worried that it isn't playing in my local theater. Almost certain it wont, that bums me out. Scorsese is the only director that always draws me to see a film in theater.
 

GusBus

Member
Saw it this afternoon (NYC). The acting and cinematography are on point, but the film is a little heavy handed at times. Still, Scorcese is a master of his craft, and the movie is a powerful meditation on Christianity, colonialism, and theodicy. Definitely worth seeing - 8.5/10
 

Budi

Member
Saw it this afternoon (NYC). The acting and cinematography are on point, but the film is a little heavy handed at times. Still, Scorcese is a master of his craft, and the movie is a powerful meditation on Christianity, colonialism, and theodicy. Definitely worth seeing - 8.5/10

Thanks for the impressions, can't wait to get a chance to see this.
 

Futureman

Member
Seems to be reviewing really well. Has anyone on GAF seen it?

Bought a 12-movie pass for my GF for Christmas at a local theater and this opens today. Will probably check it out this weekend.
 
Scorsese's best work in a decade. Or even longer if you don't care for The Departed or Gangs Of New York.

Makes me want to watch some Ozu and Kobayashi.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom