|
Post by pendragon on May 31, 2018 5:03:48 GMT
Has anyone else seen this yet? I'm curious what people's thoughts are on the ending, as I'm still not sure what to make of it. I'm pretty sure that Toller killed himself and his final scene with Mary was a dying dream or some symbolic manifestation. I'm not sure if that was necessarily the best way to end the film, though. I'm still processing it. In any case, it's a great film overall. It's brilliantly directed and has probably Ethan Hawke's best performance.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on May 31, 2018 6:39:28 GMT
I took that scene as Toller literally trying to take his life, because he was essentially insane, and had grown to reject the "church", then realizing at the last minute that it wasn't worth it . Good film. Don't love it as much as critics, but it was interesting.
|
|
|
Post by pendragon on May 31, 2018 17:39:26 GMT
Has anyone else seen this yet? I'm curious what people's thoughts are on the ending, as I'm still not sure what to make of it. I'm pretty sure that Toller killed himself and his final scene with Mary was a dying dream or some symbolic manifestation. I'm not sure if that was necessarily the best way to end the film, though. I'm still processing it. In any case, it's a great film overall. It's brilliantly directed and has probably Ethan Hawke's best performance. Oscar Chance? Probably released too early and will make too little money, not to mention religious films aren't exactly Oscar magnets these days. Maybe there's an outside chance for Hawke if the critics awards really push him and he manages to get a SAG nomination like Demián Bichir and Viggo Mortensen, but I wouldn't necessarily expect that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Sharbs on May 31, 2018 18:38:41 GMT
Loved it. Regarding that final scene. Taken from slant review. I think this point is spot on, I just think he is "liberated" from the faith that has weighed on him so much and is ready to start with indulging in all of his own desires until his inevitable end. The movie itself is an incredible portrait of an outward thinking Christian, usually that term is a good thing, but this case it's self-destructive. For all of his questions about if God will forgive us for destroying his creation, he never raises the question of what he is doing to himself, a creation of God, never once questions his harmful drinking, puts off doctor's visits to tend whatever is needed of him for others. I thought it was super fascinating, there are a few scenes in this that are going to be hard to top.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Jun 1, 2018 17:06:04 GMT
This is the first great film I've seen this year and I'd be surprised if it doesn't end up in my top ten by the end of the year. A searing critique of contemporary church culture, but from a sympathetic point of view, and a probing character study with Hawke's best performance. The Koyaanisqatsi-esque scene was a bit much and some of the dialogue was a sort of on-the-nose, but overall this was pretty fantastic. Re: the ending, I just assumed he killed himself and that the last shot was fantasy
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jun 9, 2018 20:59:58 GMT
Wow wow wow this was amazing. Expected great things from Schrader, and yet this exceeded my anticipation tenfold. It's an insanely riveting thriller, an utterly disturbing portrait of self-destruction, and a scathing expose of our flawed society all wrapped up into one complete whole. Ethan Hawke has never been better, nothing short of a revelation in a gripping, nuanced, often hard-to-watch performance. An essentially perfect film that is also hard to confront and talk about, with so many rich ideas and details to contemplate.
Between this and You Were Never Really Here, 2018 has already offered up two masterpieces, both of the visceral, gut-wrenching, tense, disquieting sort. Shaping up to be a ruthless year of great cinema and I'm all here for it.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Jun 10, 2018 22:52:44 GMT
Good but a little underwhelming. Very very veeeeeeery depressing. Hawke and Seyfried are great. Still not sure what to make of it, honestly. I didn't think the ending was fantasy at all.
|
|
AKenjiB
Badass
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 653
|
Post by AKenjiB on Jun 11, 2018 3:27:01 GMT
I’ve been a big fan of Ethan Hawke for awhile but I honestly think this is the best performance he’s ever given. He’s my current win for best actor as well.
Pretty gripping film. The last 20 minutes had my heart racing and I left the film emotionally overwhelmed. Probably not the most accessible film though. I could tell that some other people in the theater hated the abrupt ending, but I loved the ambiguities and questions the film asked, not to mention the technical merits like the terrific cinematography.
Also, it was really weird seeing Cedric the Entertainer in a serious role at first but he was surprisingly good. I wonder how he got cast in this.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jun 11, 2018 15:34:57 GMT
I could tell that some other people in the theater hated the abrupt ending, Yep, several people in my audience literally laughed out loud when the credits started rolling
|
|
jakob
Full Member
Posts: 827
Likes: 698
|
Post by jakob on Jun 14, 2018 22:21:20 GMT
I'm in the minority that thinks it's just simply good, not great. I did really like a lot of it, and appreciated the wild directions the film went, as well as Ethan Hawke's slow burnt mellow descent into madness performance. I did think the pacing lagged a bit too much in the first half, where I could feel myself growing a little detached from the film emotionally (although the discussions the film presented remained intriguing), and it wasn't until the focus on Hawke's physical and psychological deterioration came more into play that the film really started to win me back. There are moments in the film that I felt were a bit preachy and pretentious from a filmmaking standpoint (THAT cerebral batshit scene in particular, you know which one I'm talking about) that felt a little out of place from the more intimate nature of the rest of the film. Most of my problems with the film, though, come from the fact that I'm having honest trouble processing it as a whole, which is probably a compliment to the film. I know most audiences are going to LOATHE this film, which is why I don't have any awards faith outside of a Gotham and Spirit nomination for Hawke, but I do think it's a pretty good piece of work from Schrader.
|
|
|
Post by mrimpossible on Jun 18, 2018 0:26:17 GMT
It really is a phenomenal film. Schrader and Hawke have never been better. The whole cast was on fire.
|
|
|
Post by pendragon on Jun 19, 2018 3:07:56 GMT
Here is a great interview with Paul Schrader that includes a discussion on the film's ending. I particularly liked these parts:
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 23, 2018 3:23:47 GMT
Hawke is excellent and grounds it wonderfully, and Seyfried and Cedric the Entertainer are good as well . . . but man oh man, this film was preachy. True to Schrader form, this isn't a movie so much as it is a screed, and while I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, it's incredibly heavy-handed, lacking in any nuance or subtlety. Problem is, no one in the film seems keyed onto this, nor does Schrader seem to know what sort of movie he wants to make. It all results in a rather ham-fisted final sequence, that despite a fascinating image comes utterly out of nowhere and goes the same route. Yeah, it was a big disappointment for me, but somehow an expected one.
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Jun 28, 2018 1:49:55 GMT
The performances were good but it didn't come together for me at all. One of those films I can't bring myself to ever rewatch.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 1, 2018 13:39:15 GMT
Probably closest to a really great film than anything else I've seen this year (I haven't seen much) - it has many things wrong with it that make me want to rate it lower but I know how bad American movies are nowadays particularly sincerely religious films which makes me want to rate it higher. If this was a 2017 film it would make my top 5 so I have to err on the side of overrating it.
It's not subtle but what would you expect from the guy who made Affliction and wrote Last Temptation Of Christ. It's very obviously not an organic film - it's "constructed" and conceived and there is an urge to call BS on the whole thing but it deepens as it goes along.......and some of the things wrong with it end up being huge pluses in a weird way too.
Hawke, with all due respect, a fine, boring but also up for anything type of actor is just perfect here with all his flaws which dovetail with the role. He has always seemed like a kid and here, nearing 50 (!) he seems like a lost child in relation to God (aren't we all?), a mess of contradictions in personal thought and behavior of life that's gotten away.
8/10
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Aug 25, 2018 18:25:23 GMT
soooo...that ending was interesting. I guess I was wrong to be expecting a more Taxi Driver-esque ending even though everything seemed to be pointing in that direction. The last sequence sort of fell flat for me, and came off as very awkward, though Sharbs' analysis seems keen. In theory it should work, but in execution it just felt clumsy, bizarre, and totally unexpected. I need to let it percolate a bit more, and see if it holds up after a year or two. But dear god was it depressing. The cinematography and the bleak natural lighting gave the film a claustrophobic quality which heightened Toller's desperation and despair. This is by far the best performance I've seen from Hawke, and in one of his most complex roles. Toller feels like a character out of a Dostoyevsky novel. He's such a tragic figure, and very reminiscent of Travis Bickle. Like Bickle, Toller is a veteran with a troubled past who becomes disillusioned and then radicalized in depressed isolation. The film's themes of doubt, spirituality, and shared social guilt are forefront, but at its core and like Taxi Driver, the film is about the darkness that can seep into a person's soul when left to wallow in misery and deepening spiritual isolation. It's not about staring into the abyss, it's about falling in.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 25, 2018 18:51:26 GMT
It's still for me the only movie I've seen this year that approaches greatness - I gave it an 8/10. It's also the only film I've seen this year that doesn't pander to its audience - a lot of the praised films this year that I've seen at least, Hereditary, Blackkklansman, A Quiet Place essentially treat the audience as chess pieces to be moved around or in the case of Blackkklansman manipulated via lecturing.
Here, Schrader - a genuinely great writer in an era where the screenplay is f'n dead - takes great care to build his plot in partnership with his lead actor (by far the performance of his life, I like Hawke but he's usually a good bore). Things are spelled out a little too much but you also never know where things are going up until and even including the final shot. The film is totally serious about religion and faith in our lives (completely rare in American films), made by a 72 year old who hasn't done anything good in a long time. His comeback is a major story of this year and hasn't been talked about enough.
By the way, I'm not necessarily sure that revisiting it in a year or two is so wise, I saw the film twice in about a week and a half and I think seeing it when you're a little unsure about it, sort of works in its favor. Although everybody's different and there are some people who think a second viewing is almost never a true barometer of a movies quality anyway - in some cases at least........but everyone's different with that stuff.
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Aug 28, 2018 23:20:44 GMT
Not a fan. I found the film rather slow and the work out of the story did not really catch me and I lost interested quite soon. I understood the intentions and that Paul Schrader described the downfall of a priest with many other psychological aspects, pretty much like Taxi Driver in a church, however I found It quite boring to be honest. I guess after all the talk my expectations were just too high for it. It did have good qualities however. First and for most: Ethan Hawke. A tremendous performance, that saved the film from becoming irrelevant. Its one of his best turns as an actor and quite memorable. What I also really liked was the great cinematography. A very underrated feature of the film. Amanda Seyfried was also not bad at all and finally escaped a little bit of her image. Surprised by Cedric the Entertainer in such a serious role and he pulled it off very well. Still I think the execution of that interesting story could have been more affective. Thanks for Ethan Hawke, because even tho I was not a fan of the film, I truly think he should be recognized for this.
Current Nominations for:
Best Actor in a Leading Role: Ethan Hawke Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Amanda Seyfried
Rating: 5/10
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Nov 19, 2018 1:21:19 GMT
Streaming on Amazon Prime, folks! And oops, thought I posted my review here. My #1 of the year when I saw it on release, and it remains my #1. Above all I think it's a terrific character study and Hawke's performance is very great and smartly played. A painstaking look at his character losing everything: his health, his church, his faith. The organ doesn't work - neither does his! Praying is losing its effectiveness, so he writes to create something more "real" and affirmed, while latching onto a "real" cause, and when that proves futile he transgresses further into potential violence (himself, others). Schrader's script and direction is detailed (even wisely in what isn't shown) and the space he puts us in is mostly unpredictable. All of this I found very interesting. I'm not religious but stuff like this or Under the Sun of Satan, characters' crisis of faith merging with a psychological devolving and questioning - I eat it up. One critic, forgot who, pointed out that Schrader could be arguing that the old church is losing its purpose and the new mega churches are losing their meaning. That's kina interesting. Not to mention the project as a whole as a possible cap to Schrader's career and the ways it's informed and compares to his previous works. Now the ending debate, I could be remembering wrongly but didn't Cedric try to get into where Hawke lives and the door is locked? So how would Seyfried get in? I think it's a fantasy and it would make sense with her previous scene in his room when she (also suddenly) shows up and they share that flying fantasy. It's also revealed in the break in the style of the film - which is very intentionally ascetic, and static, until these two fantasy sequences when they're soaring and the camera is soaring, swirling. Side note: I don't love either scene. (Btw has anyone made the connection btwn this final shot and Obsession (also scripted by Schrader) yet?) -- It's to me clearly a break, delineated by the style, of Hawke's impounded faith: he's allowing himself to fantasize about his love for her. So it's a fantasy dammit! That's just my three cents (inflation). Also several witty moments / cuts. Some of the voiceover-- the line he says "exhilarating" made me laugh out loud. How (agree with pacinoyes ) Hawke is like a kid in a principal's office in the scenes he visits Cedric's office and otherwise. And two powerful, ingenious cuts that have stayed with me: Hawke's "I am happy" to the fallen gravestone, and the Everlasting Arms singing to Hawke and his barbed-up seething. Pinch above 8/10 for me.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,555
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Nov 19, 2018 2:06:03 GMT
really good
|
|
|
Post by getclutch on Nov 19, 2018 19:19:27 GMT
It was an intense movie. Really well filmed, acted, and written. It was saying a lot in a heavy handed way.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Nov 27, 2018 1:03:17 GMT
Schrader gave a screenwriting lecture and Q&A the other day at BAFTA and the transcript is up now -- it was filmed so the video will be up probably soon but I couldn't wait and read the thing. It's well worth reading for fans and screenwriters out there. I love his straightforwardness and he makes a lot of good points on the practicality of crafting ideas and structure. Lotta hilarious bits from him too. Also -- he says he's already meeting financiers for an upcoming movie he wants to do "with Willem and Ethan." Hmmm. www.bafta.org/media-centre/transcripts/bafta-screenwriters-lecture-series-paul-schrader
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Dec 7, 2018 12:06:56 GMT
Finally watched this. Geez Schrader, go buy a hybrid and join Greenpeace already. Also I don't think anyone should have been surprised by Schrader's "kids these days" after watching the film, he devoted a whole scene to it.
|
|
|
Post by ingmarhepburn on Dec 15, 2018 20:52:29 GMT
Just saw it. I thought the acting, directing and especially the writing were great. I loved the way how it delved into the protagonist's mind, exposing his inner conflict, and also the way how Schrader kids his audience into thinking that something is gonna happen and then just goes on a totally different direction and something completely different happens (like in the flying fantasy scene and in the final scene) . Hawke is indeed great, and I'm glad he's getting the recognition he deserves, which will (hopefully) ultimately lead him to another Oscar nomination, but I'll be more upset if Schader misses on screenplay. They criminally snubbed him for Taxi Driver, so they better do him justice this time.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Jan 5, 2019 4:40:32 GMT
Hot take: This movie is balls.
I'm still fresh from cleaning the vomit out of my mouth, so this won't be very organized.
My first item of contention is experiential. I grew up in a Christian environment, a lot of Christian people... I have never in my life encountered anyone who speaks or thinks the way these "characters" do. But we can chalk that up to me being raised around people who acted normal, because they are normal. With normal concerns, normal joys, normal hobbies. Not one character in First Reformed is normal (they're all mouthpieces for Schrader's sermon screed), and maybe that's part of the point.
But... what is this movie about? "Faith?" Bull. It's about a prick who thinks the world revolves around him and throws a tantrum if anyone challenges the belief that he's always right. It doesn't help that nobody offers convincing arguments that he's always right, because Schrader believes that he's always right. What this movie isn't about is faith. It isn't about wrestling with a conscience, because Schrader's agenda is too clear to allow for that level of nuance. It isn't about wrestling with faith in God's goodness or power, because the protagonist never cares about any other person in the whole movie, and if he can't care about them, he sure as hell (see what I did there?) can't care about God.
If Schrader had made the movie knowing this, he could have made something interesting: the self-absorbed prophet so caught up in his message that he forces away the flock. But instead, he's a stand-in for the author... who is a self-absorbed filmmaker so caught up in his message that he forces away his audience.
I'll stick with Fiddler on the Roof and its portrayal of a father wrestling toe-to-toe with his God over the right of his children to be happy, and if God ever promised them that. I'll take Till We Have Faces and its portrayal of someone who loves her sister so much that she can't bear for some deity to take away her affections. I'll watch Madoka Magica, with its sinners so deep in their own sins that no god could ever forgive them, because they can't forgive themselves.
But I won't take this infested, preachy bullshit. Pissed off rant over.
|
|