Read Mixed User Reviews for Silence

5

IntelliCriticJan 29, 2017

Silence is a bizarre, illusive movie. Before I saw the film, my Catholic pastor and one of my Catholic news sources had demonized it. Several of my friends, though, told me I should go see it, so I did. The trailer does not do SilenceSilence is a bizarre, illusive movie. Before I saw the film, my Catholic pastor and one of my Catholic news sources had demonized it. Several of my friends, though, told me I should go see it, so I did. The trailer does not do Silence justice! The actual movie not include that riveting, fast-paced soundtrack, nor the trailer's tone.

I would not recommend Silence to the average person, adult, Christian, or even Catholic. To properly digest its contents, this film requires a fervently philosophical Christian mind. Indeed, I felt my faith was burning bright within me after I watched the film. But it is not because of any inspiration that the central characters gave me. In fact, the protagonist turns out to be of the haziest gray between black or white. In the end, we will never know whether he has reconciled himself with God or not. This is, for me, extremely disappointing and uninteresting. I could compare this ending to Inception's, which was a far better psychological film.

Silence is one long movie without much music, and a lot of narration. This approach does allow for some impressive Zen experience for viewers. I will probably never watch it again because of its lack of clarity and message. But, as a devout Catholic I did find it intriguing and thought-provoking. At the end in the theater, one man began clapping as the credits rolled down. I thought to myself that there was no way I could clap for such an unclear message. It's a good thing I brought some equally intellectual friends along to discuss the movie!… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

Rebecca31Dec 23, 2016

I genuinely feel like I’ve aged ten years after watching this movie and at 2 hours and 40 minutes I felt every. Single. Minute. That’s 160 minutes total or if you’d prefer 9,600 seconds. 160 minutes of brutal violence. 160 minutes of pain,I genuinely feel like I’ve aged ten years after watching this movie and at 2 hours and 40 minutes I felt every. Single. Minute. That’s 160 minutes total or if you’d prefer 9,600 seconds. 160 minutes of brutal violence. 160 minutes of pain, suffering and silence. As much as I respect Martin Scorsese as a director, I do not understand the drive behind making this torturous endurance test of a movie. It’s an interesting story that unfortunately gets dragged out and lost just after the halfway mark. If there’s one thing I can salvage from this punishing journey it’s the cast. Flawless acting from Andrew Garfield, Adam Driver and Liam Neeson. Garfield is perfection, his standout performance is nothing short of brilliance. Honestly there’s little point in my personal recommendation so if you’re left asking yourself if you should see this film, make sure to look at the trailer beforehand and that will give you your answer.… Expand

4 of 11 users found this helpful47

All this user's reviews

6

AxeTJan 10, 2017

I was disappointed when I first saw the trailer for this at the movies because I thought Scorsese's next picture was going to be the eagerly awaited "The Irishman" with Pacino and DeNiro. Marty is a great legendary director of course and II was disappointed when I first saw the trailer for this at the movies because I thought Scorsese's next picture was going to be the eagerly awaited "The Irishman" with Pacino and DeNiro. Marty is a great legendary director of course and I like any film critic, cinephile, or moviemaker am a fan. Though I was never such a big fan of his earlier efforts which though I always respected felt were widely over-praised in some cases. Yet I found "The Departed", "Shutter Island", and "The Wolf of Wall Street" not only to be excellent (all 10 ratings) but each ranked as my best movie of the respective year. That is quite a roll not to mention how late in an artist's esteemed career! Rarely do they get better with age.

This film doesn't continue that run in my opinion. It's well crafted of course, it's quality, it's thought provoking, and it's a good historical story set in an exotic locale with fine actors. It's also long, slow and boring. Had it been as good all the way through as the intensity that kicks in at about the two hour mark then once again it would have enabled claim as yet another masterpiece from Marty.

Interestingly and disturbingly the film depicts a sort of analogous brutality and unyielding intolerance for religious freedom that the Japanese were guilty of in the 17th Century and the current ISIS with its similarly horrific barbaric torture and slaying of human beings is now. That evil primitive derangement is hard to watch but as it plays here is a fine example of the power of movies and art in general to bring clarity to an audience regarding history and how it pertains to current events. You know, if we don't learn from history we are condemned to repeat it.

technical-aesthetic note: There was an annoying change in the sub-title style during the feature. They begin more traditionally with a subtle drop shadow (in the old days there was never any drop shadow which was always a stupid problem of readability), but then later the drop shadow is very pronounced and downright distracting. Amateur looking and anything but elegant! Obviously this was because they thought the brighter scenes with sub-titles later in the film needed this modified treatment. They don't! Consistency always matters! It's surprising this got by Marty.
And on another similar but broader note regarding all titles now in movies on the big screen, because it's all digital projection there has been this terrible digital aliasing ("jaggies") of text that is so unacceptable on the big screen, so wrong, so not film! It is unbelievable this has been accepted as long as it has been going now! I first noticed it in 2002 actually and was appalled! Jagged digital text reeks of low grade TV/video. Well it doesn't have to be this way. I know how to remedy it. Simply add a slight Gaussian blur and text will appear more filmic even when projected digitally. The trade off is softer focus on the text but worth it! It's the over-crispness of digital text that is so glaring when you can see the staircase edges. I mean come on! Or upgrade cinema projectors to 8K, which they probably should be if even television is going 4K.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

4

SawitRevieweditJan 15, 2017

I love long story driven movies with historical content and this movie looked to have everything I like in one package, so I was anxious to see it. But it was so boring and tediously slow that I started looking at my watch one third into it.I love long story driven movies with historical content and this movie looked to have everything I like in one package, so I was anxious to see it. But it was so boring and tediously slow that I started looking at my watch one third into it. It has just one thing to say "carry on dear Christian through all unrelenting persecution" and it says it over and over for all 2+ hours of its run time.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

Brent_MarchantJan 6, 2017

Despite gorgeous cinematography, a fine supporting performance by Liam Neeson, and a handful of moderately interesting spiritual and historical political discussions, this tedious, overlong saga is largely an exercise in religiousDespite gorgeous cinematography, a fine supporting performance by Liam Neeson, and a handful of moderately interesting spiritual and historical political discussions, this tedious, overlong saga is largely an exercise in religious self-importance and excessively sincere overacting. Whatever points director Martin Scorsese wanted to make are obscured or diluted amidst a story line that lacks focus, direction and continuity of tone. It may not be a great film, but it certainly makes a good cure for insomnia.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

6

SkulbJan 31, 2017

This really is quite the visual spectacle from Scorcese. Sadly, the cinematography might be the best part of Silence. The actors do a mostly admirable job with the material at hand mind you, which is not always saying much. There is horrorThis really is quite the visual spectacle from Scorcese. Sadly, the cinematography might be the best part of Silence. The actors do a mostly admirable job with the material at hand mind you, which is not always saying much. There is horror all around, but all of which can end if someone steps on a religious image. And this motif repeats over and over again for the ridiculous two hour and forty minute duration of this slow and unconvincing torment of movie watchers. The dialogue is stiff, being further hampered by the obvious necessity of having actors translate statements between Japanese and English. But worse than that is that for long stretches of the movie absolutely nothing is happening. Perhaps this is the silence of God the movie is referring to, but it ends up as numbingly boring. I don't know if there is an actor alive who could have carried the nothingness of Rodrigues the Jesuit in this movie, but I know that Garfield is not the man for the job. He's good but this is too much for him, or indeed for anyone. Nor does he get any help from Liam Neeson or most of the other participants, least of all his flock of bedraggled Japanese convert peasants. Better is the villain of the story, Inquisitor Inoue. The scenes featuring him and Garfield together are easily the strongest in the movie, and it is a shame that there aren't more of them. Along with his sardonic interpreter, Issei Ogata manages to give an almost memorable performance in this role, even in the midst of Scorcese's tedium dream. Halfway spitting venom and halfway doing a reasonable good cop impersonation he wrestles with the stubbornness of the frightened priest in front of him. It could have been so much more than this though, and in the end stubborn and scared is all Rodrigues appears to be, whether this was intended or not. If one was to be uncharitable to him one might also say that he was self indulgent, but let's leave that out for now.

As for the actual conflict between Buddhist and Christian spirituality, if that really exists, we get precious little. The problem with life, or one of them at any rate, is that occasionally very little happens. And the problem with realistic movies then, which is what this basically is, is that they become undernarrated because the protagonists can only know what they would reasonably know given the circumstances. So rather than exposition of any deep nature, Silence offers uneventful, well, silence, punctuated by sporadic but highly calculated outbursts of violence by the Japanese authorities. And these are not characterized by the hopelessness of the damned one might have preferred for some sorely needed dramatic effect, but rather by the pride of the stubborn priest. And this is all a pity because this particular historical conflict is very interesting. It's just that Silence doesn't really delve into it, even at its amazing running length. It is like a theological Last Samurai that refuses to talk about theology. Oh and with Tom Cruise at a safe distance obviously. Otherwise he would have had to do something heroic or hysterical. Anyway, instead of depth we get semi-heroic attempts by the cast at conveying fervor, which generally only end up in ritualistic behavior, on both sides mind you, with tartish, irrelevant symbolism tacked on top. The cross is important and so are bells in the temple. But Christ and Buddha disappear in the silence together, as if the movie isn't about any of that at all. It is weird in a way that might have been interesting but is not.

It might be worth a watch for the patient or for those with a genuine passion for Scorcese and his films. For those with an interest in Japanese culture, Catholic theology, Buddhist philosophy or the general conflict between east and west in past centuries I would recommend giving it a berth. Not a wide berth mind you. You're not risking worse than two and a half hours of boredom, which might work if you pretend you're back in school where it is your job to be bored stiff. Just make sure you have some coffee at hand. Or maybe some sort of exercise equipment to keep your circulation going. Oh, and just like in school you're highly unlikely to learn anything useful, unless you want to count learning a new way of drowning peasants with bales of hay. If you want to know about spirituality, read some Dostojevski. If you want to be bored to death by Martin Scorcese, watch Silence. They really are two completely different things here, glowing reviews in abundance notwithstanding. There is nothing spiritual about anything that occurs in this movie. It is one half European arrogance and intrusiveness and one half Japanese desire for administrative harmony and avoidance of change. They could swap clothes and the movie would very easily become a tale about tax codes and tariffs instead. And then you'd really be bored because all the hairdos and nightgowns would look exactly as boring as Silence actually is behind its flimsy garb of authenticity.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

iCronicAug 9, 2017

You know Scorsese is a good filmmaker when he can make Adam Driver even uglier. Going a bit overboard with the god thing......

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

ourtimehascomeJul 19, 2017

This film is certainly for the religious, and everyone else will probably find it annoying. I enjoyed it for the most part, up until around the 2hr. mark when suddenly the main character Rodrigues (played effortlessly by Andrew Garfield)This film is certainly for the religious, and everyone else will probably find it annoying. I enjoyed it for the most part, up until around the 2hr. mark when suddenly the main character Rodrigues (played effortlessly by Andrew Garfield) decides to go against his upbringing and sacrifice his own beliefs, ultimately leading to an unsatisfying ending. Despite this, the film leading up to it would have sufficed as very well-done and enjoyable enough to see how a group of oppressed Christians in Japan lived and died because of their unwavering faith, which is a more powerful story and resolution than the last 40 min.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

TheQuietGamerFeb 24, 2019

Much like the protagonist Sebastião Rodrigues, the events in this movie are going to be a test of faith for some of those watching it. Perhaps the film's greatest strength is in its ability to place you in the character's shoes as he findsMuch like the protagonist Sebastião Rodrigues, the events in this movie are going to be a test of faith for some of those watching it. Perhaps the film's greatest strength is in its ability to place you in the character's shoes as he finds himself in the unenviable position of having to choose between abandoning his beliefs or continuing to watch others suffer because of them.

It's certainly not an easy film by any means. Despite being gorgeous enough to receive an Academy Award nomination for Best Cinematography, it's hard to not want to look away from time to time due to the horrific displays of persecution, execution, and torture that take place on both physical and psychological levels. That's because there's a bare naked reality to these scenes. You won't find any explicit blood or gore outside of a single beheading, and it's this kind of restraint and maturity that makes everything so much harder to witness. Especially with Andrew Garfield's gut-wrenching performance as the man being forced to bear the burden of it all really driving the conflict home.

What made the movie difficult for me personally though was the message. I can see the ending being very divisive among the religious. One of the questions it asks is whether or not one can publicly and repeatedly apostatize, yet still actually hold true to God in their hearts if it is done to protect others. As Liam Neeson's "Father Ferreira" puts it, "Only our Lord can judge your soul." And didn't Peter himself deny God three times? Is this in fact the greatest and most Christlike act of love a man can perform? It's all left open to interpretation, but due to its handling all I feel right now is conflicted.

A remarkable aspect of Silence is how it feels very personal. Like Martin Scorsese's way of addressing his own struggles with religion through the medium he knows so well. Those who have studied him and his work would be remiss to avoid this even if they don't find the subject matter appealing. Perhaps I myself will find a greater appreciation for the film upon further reflection and a rewatch somewhere later on down the line.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

HotelCentralJul 13, 2017

My suspicion is that a significant amount of what Martin Scorsese had inside his head did not actually make it into the movie because what we seem to have here is 161 minutes of screenplay that never really seems to go anywhere.

Frankly, I'dMy suspicion is that a significant amount of what Martin Scorsese had inside his head did not actually make it into the movie because what we seem to have here is 161 minutes of screenplay that never really seems to go anywhere.

Frankly, I'd rather watch Shogun again. (I've watched it a dozen times at least.) The 1980 NBC miniseries ran on for nine hours and change and did a far better job describing Japanese culture and the trials of Europeans and the Catholic church in Japan during a period when samurai ruled the land and various warlords were competing for supreme power.

Silence, by comparison, comes to seem a bit like flogging a dead horse. It's the same thing over and over. The samurai want the priests to renounce their religion. The priests want to evangelize. The peasants get kicked back and forth between opposite poles and you should be able to guess where it all ends.

If you enjoy the obscure, then by all means sit through this film and try to scope out whatever it was that kept Martin Scorsese working on the project for 25+ years. I majored in philosophy and, sorry, I'm not seeing anything here that's particularly profound.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

KaptenVideoMar 21, 2017

Once upon a time in the 17th century. Catholic missionaries (Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver) face their ultimate test of faith when they travel to Japan in search of their missing mentor (Liam Neeson) – at a time when Catholicism is strictlyOnce upon a time in the 17th century. Catholic missionaries (Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver) face their ultimate test of faith when they travel to Japan in search of their missing mentor (Liam Neeson) – at a time when Catholicism is strictly outlawed and their presence forbidden.

Of all the recent critically praised movies I've watched, "Silence" is the one I don't get. I mean, I understand what's happening on screen, and I like the fact that Scorsese realized his long-planned non-mainstream spiritual project... But I find it boring. The first hour or so especially. Also, I was not much impressed by the spiritual side of the story. For starters, there’s nearly not enough deep conversations and thoughts for this 161 minute movie. Often it feels that the story is really not going anywhere and the main attraction is Garfield’s character having glorious mane of hair and making sad faces. The result would mean probably more for Christians but for others, the far and few meditations on God, faith and human nature offered here may wear thin soon. Or maybe I read too much spiritual literature to be carried away by couple of deep lines thrown to us here and there.

The Japanese side of the conflict is actually better fleshed out and more interesting than missionaries’. If it was the intention all along, why is the main emphasis on the latter? After watching „Hacksaw Ridge“, I quite like Garfield but his character is one-note and doesn’t offer many opportunities to flex that acting muscle. There's a limit to how long I can be interested in watching him look sullen and pout around.

Driver’s character has even less screen time and ends up unused and bland. Neeson is solid as usual but his role is also quite small.

„Silence“ felt like a Terence Malick movie, with less beautiful sights and more monotone story. I should try to rewatch in the future. Maybe I will understand then why it’s so highly acclaimed. If the name Scorsese wasn’t attached to it, would the movie lovers still love it so dearly?

I watched the trailer before the movie itself and it felt quite generic, just flashes of action and epic moments searching for a proper common ground. Having seen the movie, I gotta say this approach makes a lot of sense. If one wants to promote "Silence", one has to make it look livelier than it really is, outside or in.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews