Come on, who let out a giggle when Neeson started his voiceover? Ultra serious, white, and perfect English. And then you cut to Spiderman being a priest (now with a hilarious beard instead of that hilarious haircut he had in Hacksaw Ridge) followed by a CGI boat trip to Japan with such pearlers as "no luggage except our hearts" and other trite crap. At which point I walked out.
No wonder this is flopping. Its a period that has zero interest to any millennial, same with religion. Its 2017, people with a brain have moved on from blaming a sky fairy for their problems/life.
I'm mid 40s and was not impressed. I probably see more movies in the theater, including foreign and indie, in a year than you see in 10. Stop trying to troll millenials. It wasn't that great of a film. BTW, I also saw Assasins Creed and didn't care for that either. Disappointing movies are created by auteurs and hacks alike.
You rated Underworld: Blood Wars an 8 and Silence a 6? Not sure what qualifies a movie as being disappointing to you, but clearly it doesn't appear to be very sound. The main reason this film is knocked by people like the op and yourself is the subject matter. You are afraid of exposing yourself to ideas about God, it has nothing to do with the quality of the film. Clearly this is the case because there is no way Underworld is higher quality than Silence.
The last thing I enjoy are PG-13 comic book garbage films about tight spandex wearing idiots prancing about on green screens where no bleeds and you can only swear once. By all means make a 3 hour epic but don't make one so dull and dense and heavy.
You mean, don't make one that mentions God. If you are prejudiced against Christians, don't beat around the bush, come out and say it because it is already apparent that you are. Atheists are so predictably close minded and intolerant, but claim to be inclusive of all people. Ha
He should have just made Wolf of Wall Street 2 with Di Caprio getting high for four hours and banging everything in sight. Which would be vastly more entertaining than this mess.
Not a millennial and to be honest I find this movie deeply racist and historically dishonest:
1) ALL the Japanese characters have rotten teeth and they look dirty, while it should be the other way around (at that time the Europeans weren't very clean)
2) The Inquisitor is a sort of old monster who laughs hysterically, makes strange facial expressions to mock people, makes noises when he drinks and speak with a crackly voice.
3) The movie "forgets" to tell the viewers that the Jesuits came in Japan trading firearms in exchange of the right to "save souls", they were involved in a lot of dirty trading business, there was a bloody rebellion against the shogunate by Christians...all things that caused the persecutions (with some good points I would say).
4) In the same years (mid XVIIth Century) the "good" Christians had transformed Europe in a hell with their wars of religion, the worst was of course the 30 years' war that caused the death of one third of the German population, then we had the persecution of the Catholics in Ireland by the British, the English civil war between High Church and the Puritans, in France the Protestants lived under siege, in Spain and Portugal the Catholic church burned the "heretics" in autodafes almost every day and they ethnically cleansed their countries from Jews and Muslims...
....and I should really care about the arms dealers Jesuits to have some troubles in Japan? Really?
Juliet Parrish: You can't win a war if you're extinct!
Absolutely. I was pretty disgusted by Scorcese's apparent racism throughout, as well as your other points. In addition to this story being a bloody bore, it was so incredibly biased towards an idiotic faithful author. Instead of following the obsolete views of the novel, it should have been used as a storytelling platform to revisit Christian imperialism in Asia and shown us a bit more about Japanese life at the time. This has to be one of Scorcese's worst films.
***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**
The thing that makes me laugh is that according to the Catholic view those who persecuted the Christians (Romans, Chinese during the Boxer rebellion and here Tokugawa Japan) are always portrayed as bloodthirsty monsters who do that with no reason.
The justification of the Inquisitor (Christianity is an ugly wife) is ludicrous, it would have been more honest to say:"Look, we know you are the harbingers of invading countries like Portugal and Spain and we don't want you around, you were allowed to spread Christianity decades ago because you gave us firearms but after the bloody uprising of Christian farmers one generation ago we decided you bring trouble".
But of course that wouldn't shed good light on these poor Jesuits, right?
Juliet Parrish: You can't win a war if you're extinct!
Wait. They did show you Japanese life at the time. There was no freedom of religion. It was a statist nationalist emperial government. It remained that way until the end of ww2.
1.) All? No they don't. The rich Japanese do not all have bad teeth. While watching the movie how nice one character's teeth was actually stuck out to me in particular... during the scene on the beach where Adam Driver's character (Garupe) drowns the translator's teeth look just fine.. as do many of the other "nobles" in Japan in the movie. The peasant's all have terrible teeth, though.. which makes sense.
And there are very few European characters. The few who are in it are priests... people who tend to NOT be unclean and filthy, unlike peasants.
2.) That is racist....?
3.) I doubt the movie "forgets" to do that... more-so that would be cringe inducing exposition which would require much time to explain thoroughly (as if the movie isn't already quite lengthy)... what you seem to be implying it should have explained could require a full history course at a university to understand in-depth. And how you explain the Nanban trade is not very accurate from most history I've read... I don't recall "saving souls" being the primary currency when it came to trade... Resources and wealth mattered quite a bit more.
4.) You're right about that.
Not sure how this stuff makes the movie racist, nor dishonest... care to explain a bit better?
Edit: Need to add in that I am irreligious, in case I get accusations of being a brainwashed Catholic.
1) No the governor and inquisitor makes ape like facial expressions, he's a sadist, boasts to break people and makes ugly noises when drinks tea. Am I missing anything?
And yes, at that time ALL Europeans were dirty, priests and noblemen included.
2)Yes it is: it's clear that the vision of the Japanese society is biased and the Westerners are supposed to be more "civilised", and I challenge anybody to say otherwise.
3) The movie is 2 hours and 20 minutes, not long enough? Really?
Is that sufficiently explained?
Juliet Parrish: You can't win a war if you're extinct!
Some people have trouble with history because it is not politically correct. The Europeans were far more civilized and organized at this time. Japan was a tribal community ruled by an emperor.
Actually this movie has a great deal of significance to any person regardless of faith or generation. I too was skeptical of the movie during the first half hour or so but it does find its groove soon after. I also thought Liam Neason was awkward in the beginning as well, but towards the end he is a far more interesting character. As an atheist I was wary going into this movie for the potential of it to be unapproachable to the faithless and yet I found it to have a more general poignancy outside of religion. Meeting with the Japanese Inquisitor, they have a discussion about what is the true religion and whether or not the Japanese are oppressing truth. Albeit the priest's truth is that of the Christian god but this could all be taken as a metaphor for universal truth. You could almost interchange the plight of the priests with that of the scientist during Galileo's time as they challenged the idea of the Earth being flat and the story would be essentially the same. The film then becomes more about suppression of ideas and maintaining your conviction in the face of rigid persecution. You could apply it to any period in history and it holds up. Civil rights, McCarthyism, Maoism, the American Revolution, The Persian Empire. You then sort of begin to feel a sympathy for early Christians for what they went through just because they wanted to believe in a happy afterlife. It's hard to sympathize with the dominant Christian complex of today, but at least you can get a feel for its once upon a time underdog status.
The film even also touches upon the topic of vanity, questioning whether the priests motives are genuine or in pursuit of the glory of martyrdom. It drives the conflict further by presenting the dilemma of standing up for basic rights even though it brings torture and death to others. All of it under the uncertainty of truth because there is never any evidence that the right thing is being done. The uncertainty of knowing what is true is almost as universal as truth itself and therefore this movie should have much more appeal.
This exactly the kind of movie people with a brain should be flocking too.
Fascinating, but I don't watch films to have an intellectual wank and meditate about Weighty Issues. Especially if they are slower than watching paint dry. You could make a film about all that and set it in era that isn't so niche and more accessible. Crusades maybe? Kingdom of Heaven at least kept me awake (the Director's Cut).
Please, if you thought this was slow than you haven't really explored cinema. I've seen movies that are so boring they'll make you age backwards. Silence was actually quite riveting in comparison.
Not just millenials! I'm 50 and a third generation atheist. I'm not sure exactly how long I slept, probably most of the middle section. I woke when Liam was explaining to the young one that there was no hope for Christianity in the swamp of Japan. I was SOOOOOOOOOOO boRed the entire time watching idiot after idiot going to death after imaginary beings. I don't know why I even bothered. I should have known better. But it was movie night and that was my last option. What a super bore.
***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**
Dull average acting overly long crappy dialogue and of course laudatory of the jesuits as martyrs when they were banned from 100 countries for fomenting revolutions and causing all kinds of trouble.
Are you dumb? You have no idea what good cinema is, The acting was incredible. Crappy dialogue? Nope, There is not crappy dialogue here, kid. The run-time fits perfectly for a Scorsese film, I found myself absolutely transfixed by the film for all 2 hours and 41 minutes of its run time. its technical elements are excellent, The way Scorsese realizes this world and its setting though is absolutely astonishing. The cinematography is downright awe inspiring. The score and even the sound is so brilliantly used here as you deeply feel the sequences in such a remarkable way.
You need to learn a lot kid, And stop bashing films that you didn't even understand.