Support NeoGAF

[RocknRola]

I'm really looking forward to this opening here. I read the book recently and loved it. Deeply personal and very reflective on the journey of faith and doubt, and sheds some great light on the less glamorous aspects of missionary work and the selfishness that can come from it. I hope Scorcese managed to capture the tone of the book well. For those who have seen it, does it justify the 161 minute runtime? That's the only thing that has me a little concerned because it seems really long for what the story is.

The middle part is gonna be a bit slow, but to me it payed off with the final act. It gave it more impact. Not that it wouldn't have worked if the pace didn't slow down as much, but seeing just how much the characters go through gave it a lot more depth I feel.

 

[Hexxen-Panda]

I'm really looking forward to this opening here. I read the book recently and loved it. Deeply personal and very reflective on the journey of faith and doubt, and sheds some great light on the less glamorous aspects of missionary work and the selfishness that can come from it. I hope Scorcese managed to capture the tone of the book well. For those who have seen it, does it justify the 161 minute runtime? That's the only thing that has me a little concerned because it seems really long for what the story is.

I saw it earlier today, and I personally didn't feel the running time that much.
Maybe you'd feel it more because you've read the book and already know the story, but I was experiencing the story for the first time and the running time gave pivotal scenes time to breathe and allowed me to reflect on the film as it is happening.

Seeing it in a theatre is essential, IMO, because the sound design is very subdued and environmental, so any distraction from watching it at home would wreck the world-building that the sound design achieved in this film.

 

[RocknRola]

I saw it earlier today, and I personally didn't feel the running time that much.
Maybe you'd feel it more because you've read the book and already know the story, but I was experiencing the story for the first time and the running time gave pivotal scenes time to breathe and allowed me to reflect on the film as it is happening.

Seeing it in a theatre is essential, IMO, because the sound design is very subdued and environmental, so any distraction from watching it at home would wreck the world-building that the sound design achieved in this film.

Oh yeah, the lack of any real music was awesome. Definitely made us feel like we were actually there, on set, acting as the actual camera to what was happening.

 

[derder]

Went to see it with my parents who are devout christians (who avoid violent movies at all costs). They seemed to really enjoy it and said that the violence and gore were "ok given the subject matter". They were disturbed, but picked on some biblical allusions like the denial of christ and the three crows.

I honestly had no idea what I was getting them into. I'm really glad that they could enjoy it.

 

[An-Det]

I literally just got home from seeing Silence, and thought it was great. I felt that it dragged a bit at times, but by and large the long running time worked in it's favor, letting everything play out and drawing you in. Garfield was fucking fantastic in the role.

I definitely agree with Hexxen-Panda on seeing it in a theater. My showing this evening was empty besides me, so sitting optimally, no distractions and the big screen and being able to take it all in like that as I did was incredible.

 

["God's Beard!"]

Saw it today and was super disappointed. Really awkwardly made movie for a master like Scorcese. Really abrupt jump cuts, tons of exposition, sections that drag on for no apparent reason, actors' accents dropping in and out(or in Liam Neeson's case, no accent at all). Not to mention a lot of scenes, especially early on, almost seem to be cut for comedy? A lot of the weight of the subject matter was lessened because of the poor editing and acting compared to what I expect from a director of this level.

I really wanted to love this movie, the story is interesting and the production and supporting cast are all amazing. I loved how the inquisitor's actor added noh theater mannerisms into the role. There were a couple stand out scenes but overall it's just not what I expect from Scorcese.

 

[Fugu]

I would rank this somewhere in the upper middle of Scorsese's works. I liked it quite a bit and very much appreciated the, ehem, silence and the aesthetics of sound in the film. I also enjoyed the references to Ozu, Kurosawa and Mizoguchi. It was a bit slow for me, however.

 

[Steiner84]

im a sucker for scorsese, but this movie at no point in time, from announcemnt up to today, left absolutely no desire whatsoever in me to see it...

 

[Chumley]

Just got back. It was a masterpiece, probably the most passionate film Scorcese has ever made, you can tell by the time the credits hit how much this meant to him. An extremely thought provoking, dark, and complicated affirmation of faith. There's a lot of layers here and a lot to talk about, I can't believe how underlooked and underappreciated it's been. It should be nominated for Best Picture, it's as if the distribution company just gave up and figured this would be one of those movies only truly given it's due years from now.

 

[RJT]

I'm really looking forward to this opening here. I read the book recently and loved it. Deeply personal and very reflective on the journey of faith and doubt, and sheds some great light on the less glamorous aspects of missionary work and the selfishness that can come from it. I hope Scorcese managed to capture the tone of the book well. For those who have seen it, does it justify the 161 minute runtime? That's the only thing that has me a little concerned because it seems really long for what the story is.

IMO, it would have been better with 30-40 minutes cut from the movie. Some parts do feel a bit repetetive.

 

[Krev]

Just got back. It was a masterpiece, probably the most passionate film Scorcese has ever made, you can tell by the time the credits hit how much this meant to him. An extremely thought provoking, dark, and complicated affirmation of faith. There's a lot of layers here and a lot to talk about, I can't believe how underlooked and underappreciated it's been. It should be nominated for Best Picture, it's as if the distribution company just gave up and figured this would be one of those movies only truly given it's due years from now.

Agreed. This is a deeply beautiful, rich, devastating film, and one of Scorsese's best.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Well this was excellent.

Might be Scorsese's best film since The Aviator. I need to sleep on it. But I'm pretty sure it is.

 

[The Jackdog]

i thought it was okay, just didnt even measure up to his past work really.

felt unfocused to me, lackadaisical.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

i thought it was okay, just didnt even measure up to his past work really.

felt unfocused to me, lackadaisical.

Wtf. You can call this film a lot of things, but trying to say Scorsese's heart wasn't in it is kinda crazy to me.

 

[Krev]

Yeah, and I found this to be really, incredibly focused and disciplined, especially compared to Scorsese's last few films.

 

[Speevy]

I thought it could have done with some moments of levity or excitement to cut through the punishing torture scenes and contemplative final act.

It's an excellent movie but it doesn't actually need to make you feel as uncomfortable as it does, and I'm sure you're going to tell me the opposite but I disagree.

 

[duckroll]

Oh I realized I never posted here after watching it. I liked it, but I liked the book a lot more. This is by far one of Scorsese's most personal films, and you can see that in how deliberate almost every aspect of it is. There are two things that took me out of the film a little, and neither are really the fault of the film. I don't really like the main casting that much. I think Adam Driver was way better than Andrew Garfield, and I didn't really buy him in the role early in the film. He got better, but I just couldn't unsee him as Andrew Garfield at first. The other thing is the film's interpretation of Inoue. I think for what they went for, it worked really well. He comes off as a theatrical jester-like character whose mannerisms are clearly trained and performed because he's always playing to an "audience" so to speak. But my internal vision of the character was somewhat more subdued and philosophical, from the book.

Where I think the film really excelled is in the sound direction and how it handled the epilogue. That was some truly brilliant stuff. The audio was such a vital component of the direction and in setting the atmosphere. It sold a lot of scenes. The epilogue is probably the toughest part of the entire book to adapt into film, and I was pleased with how it was handled. There was a lot cut from it, and those were good decisions, while there were also details added to it not in the book, which I thought really bookended the film well.

But aside from all that, can we talk about AWFUL Scorcese's ADR work continues to be? That scene where the interpretor first enters the cell to taunt Rodriguez was truly awful. It was like watching a foreign film dubbed in English. Super weird.