LivingWitness
Joined Aug 2015
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews92
LivingWitness's rating
On a technical level, Silence is about as close to perfect as you can hope for. Every shot is beautiful. The performances are tremendous; the character arcs make sense, and every line of dialogue works to move the film forward in some way. The script is also good.
The trouble is that I think you need to be Catholic to fully connect with this movie. At the very least, you need to be some flavour of Christian. If you aren't, this is going to be a very dull, but very beautiful, experience about men having doubts about a faith you've never shared.
Silence makes me wish I were Catholic because I think this would actually be an incredibly profound movie to watch if I was. I might even think this is one of the best films ever shot if I was. As it is, it's just a bit dull.
By the same token though, this is still leagues ahead of most of the Christian-oriented movies I've seen. With most of the others I've seen, they have no real artistic merit and the only reason anyone would defend them is if they have a clear ideological reason to. At least a reasonable person can see why Silence could be a great and deeply profound film to someone, even if it doesn't quite connect with them specifically.
The trouble is that I think you need to be Catholic to fully connect with this movie. At the very least, you need to be some flavour of Christian. If you aren't, this is going to be a very dull, but very beautiful, experience about men having doubts about a faith you've never shared.
Silence makes me wish I were Catholic because I think this would actually be an incredibly profound movie to watch if I was. I might even think this is one of the best films ever shot if I was. As it is, it's just a bit dull.
By the same token though, this is still leagues ahead of most of the Christian-oriented movies I've seen. With most of the others I've seen, they have no real artistic merit and the only reason anyone would defend them is if they have a clear ideological reason to. At least a reasonable person can see why Silence could be a great and deeply profound film to someone, even if it doesn't quite connect with them specifically.
I've seen a few reviews suggest this may work as a standalone film. I've never seen the original version of this film so I can answer this definitively: it doesn't. Even without knowing what the original is like to colour your view of this movie, Ladykillers (2004) just doesn't work.
On one level, the problem is that the jokes don't land. You can definitely tell what the joke is meant to be, so the problem isn't that they're so obscure that nobody except the Coen brothers can fully understand them. It's not even that they're brought down by poor acting: the actors do the best they can with the material they have, and given the cast and directors, that is a tremendous job. It really is just that they're not funny jokes.
The next level is that this kinda feels like a checklist of everything you'd expect from a Coen brothers movie. It has that same style of dialogue, that same visual style, and so on. Usually this is fine because most of their other movies (that I've seen) have been great, but it just doesn't quite work here. It feels like this movie is like this because it's expected to be like this and everyone wanted to do a who's who of a Coen brothers movie, not because it wanted to be like this.
It just sucks because I can definitely see what this movie wanted to be. If it had have been the movie it wanted to be, it would have been great. Unfortunately, it just never quite managed to be that movie.
Plus, you know, it's not like the Coen brothers are incapable of doing a movie like this. If it had have leaned more into the idea that it's a remake of an old movie, it probably would have made it. I mean, "The Man Who Wasn't There" was an original movie, but it still leaned heavily into being a modernised take on the film noir genre and it was great. If they'd taken the same approach here--that this is a modernised take on a movie from sort of era, if not the same genre--then this could have been great, too.
As it is, it just feels like a waste. I get the Coen brothers are great directors, but what's even the point of having them do this movie? Anyone can direct a bad remake of an old comedy, so why waste the time of good directors by having them do it?
That's the frustrating part of this. As I said at the start, I haven't seen the original, so in some ways I'm the ideal audience for this. Even without the preconceptions of knowing what the original is like, this still fell flat for me.
On one level, the problem is that the jokes don't land. You can definitely tell what the joke is meant to be, so the problem isn't that they're so obscure that nobody except the Coen brothers can fully understand them. It's not even that they're brought down by poor acting: the actors do the best they can with the material they have, and given the cast and directors, that is a tremendous job. It really is just that they're not funny jokes.
The next level is that this kinda feels like a checklist of everything you'd expect from a Coen brothers movie. It has that same style of dialogue, that same visual style, and so on. Usually this is fine because most of their other movies (that I've seen) have been great, but it just doesn't quite work here. It feels like this movie is like this because it's expected to be like this and everyone wanted to do a who's who of a Coen brothers movie, not because it wanted to be like this.
It just sucks because I can definitely see what this movie wanted to be. If it had have been the movie it wanted to be, it would have been great. Unfortunately, it just never quite managed to be that movie.
Plus, you know, it's not like the Coen brothers are incapable of doing a movie like this. If it had have leaned more into the idea that it's a remake of an old movie, it probably would have made it. I mean, "The Man Who Wasn't There" was an original movie, but it still leaned heavily into being a modernised take on the film noir genre and it was great. If they'd taken the same approach here--that this is a modernised take on a movie from sort of era, if not the same genre--then this could have been great, too.
As it is, it just feels like a waste. I get the Coen brothers are great directors, but what's even the point of having them do this movie? Anyone can direct a bad remake of an old comedy, so why waste the time of good directors by having them do it?
That's the frustrating part of this. As I said at the start, I haven't seen the original, so in some ways I'm the ideal audience for this. Even without the preconceptions of knowing what the original is like, this still fell flat for me.
I haven't read the book, so I don't know how faithful an adaptation this is. However, as a film, I just don't think this was that great.
For one, what does this even really add to the Hunger Games universe, thematically or conceptually? Sure, it does make the earlier games seem less advanced than the ones we see in the original trilogy, but that's a given. Production values in film and television have gone up as time goes on, so most people are going to get that this would have been how it works in this setting, too.
Thematically, it's much the same. A lot of the underlying themes of this movie are already fairly well explored in the original set of books and movies. Authoritarianism is bad, the Games are like a rot on the soul of Panem, etc. I don't think it really does anything particularly interesting with these themes that the originals didn't do better, or that other books and movies haven't done deeper.
I could at least see the argument if the focus had have been more on the bread and circuses-y elements of the Games instead of it being a straight tool of butchery and control. Most people will sorta understand that the methods of control are aimed just as much at people in the upper crust of society as they are at those down below, and that's the element the earlier trilogy didn't get into as much.
As is though, this just feels like it was a less interesting thematic retread of the original books, but without as much spectacle.
On the plus side, at least the special effects and the performances were good.
For one, what does this even really add to the Hunger Games universe, thematically or conceptually? Sure, it does make the earlier games seem less advanced than the ones we see in the original trilogy, but that's a given. Production values in film and television have gone up as time goes on, so most people are going to get that this would have been how it works in this setting, too.
Thematically, it's much the same. A lot of the underlying themes of this movie are already fairly well explored in the original set of books and movies. Authoritarianism is bad, the Games are like a rot on the soul of Panem, etc. I don't think it really does anything particularly interesting with these themes that the originals didn't do better, or that other books and movies haven't done deeper.
I could at least see the argument if the focus had have been more on the bread and circuses-y elements of the Games instead of it being a straight tool of butchery and control. Most people will sorta understand that the methods of control are aimed just as much at people in the upper crust of society as they are at those down below, and that's the element the earlier trilogy didn't get into as much.
As is though, this just feels like it was a less interesting thematic retread of the original books, but without as much spectacle.
On the plus side, at least the special effects and the performances were good.
Recently taken polls
206 total polls taken
