Armageddon Time

James Gray really can write psychologically and morally complex characters better than the vast majority of filmmakers working today. The central family portrayed in his latest film showcases this.

The people in Gray's 1980 New York are all remarkably flawed with objectionable traits and tendencies, yet they have tangible human qualities that make watching them a constantly riveting experience. They struggle to live and love and Gray gives them all little satisfying moments to grow.

As for the performances, they're equally awe-inspiring, especially Anne Hathaway and Anthony Hopkins. But the young boy, Banks Repeta, is also a standout and manages to carry most of the film on his own.

Plot-wise, however, the film is seriously lacking in momentum and substance. There really is no inviting incident nor is there even a real central conflict in the film; just small subplots that begin and sometimes come to an end over the course of the movie.

The lack of tangible pacing and progress makes the story's conclusion feel a bit hollow and empty, but the journey itself is packed with little rewarding moments and powerful scenes that make the overall experience a mostly satisfying one.

You've seen it many times before, watching other people grow up's such a chore, we've all been adolescent, distracted and pubescent, it's a boring set of takes and you will snore. Perhaps if it had something new to say, portrayed a family more uniquely in their way, a novel circumstance, to catch your eye, a second glance, not monotony of children in their play. If you make it to the end you might just wonder, why fine actors chose to loot your time and plunder, must be quite a fallow year, to want to make this and appear, in something that's so dull, it makes you want to slumber.

Although it also makes you wonder whether an aging Welshman is the only person who could have filled that specific role.

I grew up in NYC and went to PS 154 around the same time Banks Repeta's character did, so I can totally relate to the story. That doesn't mean it makes this film better for me. In fact. I kept thinking "so what?". This entire story is a reality that almost everyone has experienced, whatever side of the coin you're on, so it's absolutely nothing revolutionary, and for that matter, it was rather hollow and bland. It was at least 30 mins too long, and the pacing was too slow to maintain engagement with the narrative. It was all basic filler with very little substance. Nevertheless, the young actors delivered convincing performances, as did the A-listers - although we have to expect that from them. I want to say it's a decent one-time watch for a reason I can't find, so I wont. You'll basically see great performances, a great score and soundtrack, excellent cinematography, but no compelling narrative. It's a generous 6/10 from me, only because it brought back memories when I was growing up in that era and neighborhood.

Didn't really know what the movie was about heading in, but even so the opening sequence was confusing and that feeling persists throughout as the narrative is somewhat chaotic, but this is the result of the movie being shown from a child's point of view. The movie seems like an authentic family experience, and for the most part I didn't really know what the purpose is or what it was leading to but still enjoyed it. A film that's massively elevated by the cast's performances.

The kids can get annoying at times as kids do but the movie let's you relate to them and feel their emotions. It has a few very uncomfortable scenes and has a constant piteous feel after the first act or so. We're just witnessing a family's life, so there's no actual story to it and narration feels off because life isn't always linear or follows a path. This will definitely put some people off.

The acting is superb, especially from the kids who're the lead roles and able to convey their emotion across; Anthony Hopkins and Anne Hathaway were amazing despite being only in supporting roles, felt like watching real people in real life not in a movie. Jessica Chastain was a surprise, she seemed off but I also think that's how her character was meant to be portrayed. It's just unfortunate such great performances had no story for them to hold together. The movie just feels like childhood memories to me all jumbled up.

It's not a movie for everyone and I hesitate to call it perfect nor recommend it but it is beautiful and the performances alone make this a worthy watch. The story wasn't much to behold, but I'll remember this for the heart rending feel it gave. I am still confused as to where the movie titled came from.

This was okay, but that's as much as I can say really.

My mate suggested going when I was visiting him. I had no idea what we were going to see, I just heard him ask for two tickets for 'Armageddon', which probably misled me about what sort of film we were going to see. So for the first half hour or so I was waiting for something to happen: an inciting moment. It never came.

That said, it was a pleasant enough watch, although it was more suited for a rainy afternoon at home, rather than a prequel to a couple of pints and a meal out.

The irony was that before we went out we had been chatting about how many films, usually random picks from Netflix that had proved bearable if not delightful, had resulted in angry shouting at the screen when the final credits seemed to appear mid story.

Armageddon Time proved to be one of those films. But on this occasion it was sort of signalled. I think we both knew it was going to happen a minute or so ahead of the event. Talk about anticlimax. Every one of the smattering of people in the cinema, like us, just stood up and walked out without a word.