|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Dec 23, 2022 4:32:37 GMT
What a massive disappointment. The big problem right from the jump with Chazelle the writer that then bleeds into his work as director is that for all the madness of the opening, none of it is funny, particularly interesting, or even captivating as sheer spectacle. It is a big honking mess that introduces our characters as their flat types - Margot Robbie is a lewd cokehead, Brad Pitt is an egotistical star, Diego Calva is a hyper-competent worker, and Jovan Adepo despite having what could be a pretty interesting part (a black performer dealing with the absurdities of 1920s Hollywood) is reduced to being able to play trumpet really well. Chazelle the director knows exactly what notes he wants to hit emotionally and he's skilled enough behind the camera for you to think scene by scene, "this isn't bad." However, Chazelle the writer completely forgets to give us a reason to feel anything for these characters or care to see what happens to them. Despite the cast from top top bottom being excellent, all of their roles are as thin as a fingernail, with maybe the only one provided a modicum of dimensionality being Brad Pitt playing the same fading star part we've seen dozens of times before. The big structural problem here is the film is simply too sprawling. It wants to touch on so many characters and yet rarely has them together in any kind of meaningful way (a problem that Boogie Nights solved 25 years ago). Prior to the third act, pretty much any interaction involving some combination of our core cast is to highlight the hedonism of the day. The hopes, loves, and dreams that Chazelle has done a phenomenal job articulating for his characters in his previous work is all but absent here, only ever really grasped at in a third act that wildly grasps at straws for anything to tie it all together before reminding you of films you would've been better off watching instead. Also, none of the footage meant to look like 1920s/30s film looks like it. That wouldn't be a problem if this movie was operating in its own kind of heightened reality, but this is a movie that also features footage from The Jazz Singer. Side note: I thought it was pretty hacky to do the exact same "I love you" bit from Singin' in the Rain in this film, especially since the film is already covering the same kind of material with the transition to talkies, but then the ending of the movie was literally just Singin' in the Rain and I couldn't help but laugh aloud.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 23, 2022 6:24:21 GMT
Yeah, I didn't hear about the reviews going into this so I was really let down, not surprised it's getting a mixed response. The big problem here is just that the characters are so flat. They never move beyond their basic archetypes and the performances are fine and that's it. Which might not be a problem but there needed to be something more to justify whatever grand statement Chazelle thought he was making. The big "history of movies" ending just comes off as pretentious and completely unearned in light of that. You get the occasional really good scene like Robbie trying to sound act for the first time but that's not enough to support a three hour runtime and really just serves as a reminder of what the movie could have been. Speaking of which, this is another movie that does not need to be three hours on any level. The ending just got excruciating after a while, Chazelle just couldn't land the plane. Think of the Return of the King ending only if none of the endings were that good. Also agree it feels way too modern. Which might not be an issue except this is sort of trying to be a chronicle of the transition to sound only with fictional characters, so it just rings really false. And the actual 20's were such an interesting and contradictory time, a lot of social liberalism that wouldn't be seen again until the late 60's combined with some holdover Victorian sensibilities. That's why people are still so fascinated by Gatsby and The Sun Also Rises. That's a lot more interesting than whatever this was. I will somewhat defend the Singin' in the Rain bit- I was thinking that it was some kind of meta thing where in the world of the movie that bit in Singin' in the Rain was a deliberate parody of Pitt's movie, which is why the guy takes it so hard when he watches it. Wasn't a fan of that bit overall but I thought that specific callback to earlier in the movie was a nice touch Anyway, don't mind a bit if this gets shut out for major awards. I think I'd just go score, costumes, and PD. I'd give it a 6/10. Liked it maybe a bit better than it seems, it looks great, the party scenes are fun, and some of the early filmmaking scenes are good. But it's just too overlong and hollow.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Dec 23, 2022 13:43:05 GMT
To misquote Don Rickles, "Damien Chazelle is a brilliant filmmaker, just ask him".
This is an aggressively indulgent work (and this is from someone who really likes all of Chazelle's other films), particularly the ending of the film that rings so thematically hollow (it would be a bit like if Wolf of Wall Street ended with showing just how great stock brokering is after all).
I didn't hate it though, there were enough scenes and individual moments that I did like for the film to get into the positive territory for me. Like Bardo though, it is another film where I would never defend it against another's ire, because I'm sure the ire is earned.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Dec 23, 2022 16:27:16 GMT
Speaking of which, this is another movie that does not need to be three hours on any level. The ending just got excruciating after a while, Chazelle just couldn't land the plane. Think of the Return of the King ending only if none of the endings were that good. Yeah, the ending I think I'd probably like as its own scene (especially the montage), but in the context of this film it felt interminable. Made me wish Chazelle would just do a supercut montage film or make a sleek silent since he can do great work just operating on visuals and has kept the brilliant Justin Hurwitz all to himself.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Dec 24, 2022 1:04:25 GMT
So you all know I love Damien Chazelle. La La Land is one of my favorite movies period. So I was always pretty eager to see this movie.
Which makes it a disappointment to say it’s his worst movie so far. I still don’t think that makes it bad, or that I hate it, but it’s definitely the most thinly stretched movie of his.
After a while, it’s hard for any of the debauchery to feel shocking. Not that it doesn’t have its moments, from the viciously hilarious (Margot Robbie’s first day on a talkie set), to the outright uncomfortable (Jovan Adepo’s lowest moment was genuinely shocking). In isolation, Chazelle knows how to craft a stirring, terrific sequence, and all through Babylon are moments of absolute brilliance, making spectacular showcases in blocking and choreography, with Chazelle operating at the peak of his powers.
The problem is, with how excessively the film throws that extravagance at us (this did not need to be three hours), after a while, you do sort of become numb to it, and it does start to feel repetitive and long-winded. The pieces don’t really coalesce well with each other, so what we have is pieces of a great movie, but warped to fit a wobbly puzzle.
At least, I think the film is meant to be a satire, until the ending, another scene that’s great in isolation, but I think doesn’t fit in the bigger picture. I forgot that this movie was even supposed to be a love letter to Hollywood, considering how underplayed the romanticism to classic cinema is, in favor of making the depravity the big selling point.
The issue here is that in making such broad strokes, they’ve created way too much ground to cover in one sitting, and so you have many interesting ideas, but a lack of real focus on any of them.
This even becomes a problem in the cast, as while Diego Calva has the most attention as the audience surrogate (and kind of a static one at that), he too has to contend with a larger ensemble who are mostly squandered. Robbie does have the natural charm and Star power of those classic leading ladies she emulates, but also feels like she’s playing into type here. Pitt probably has the most played out role, the once-iconic movie star fading away from the limelight, but manages to add some dimension through his vulnerable sense of desperation.
Also, major kudos to composer Justin Hurwitz. May his working relationship with Chazelle never end, because it makes great music.
Babylon is a weird case. It looks like a great movie, sounds like a great movie, and in some scenes feels like a great movie. But too often I find those moments of brilliance smothered by the excess, and odd moments where it seems unaware of itself or its tone.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 27, 2022 22:05:17 GMT
The Tobey Maguire sequence might be the best thing Chazelle's ever done, and proof that his next film should be a horror movie. That was something out of Dante's Inferno.
As for the overall movie, I knew from the moment that elephant shat for ten unbroken seconds all over that guy in front of Survivor: Panama's Shane Powers that we were in for an exercise in excess, and brother, Chazelle did not disappoint. Scorsese's Wolf of Wall Street looks like Sunday school in comparison to this. Anyone who's ever read Kenneth Anger's Hollywood Babylon or perused the sordid histories of Golden Age Hollywood recognize some of these fixtures: Fatty Arbuckle and Virginia Rappe, John Gilbert, Anna May Wong. The names are changed to protect the innocent (or rather, to give Chazelle more artistic liberty to play around with history), but the stories ring familiar.
The problem is, they ring too familiar at times. No matter how ferociously Chazelle stages a sequence or how he remixes history, we know these story beats. Brad Pitt's portrayal of aging Hollywood heartthrob Jack Conrad is pretty much exactly what we've seen for every has-been movie-star, measure for measure. We saw the exact story play out (sans the tragic ending) with The Artist, and even elements of it cropped up in Pitt's last Tinseltown ode. It'll be hard for anyone to dislodge Tarantino's film from their mind while watching this, not just for Pitt's involvement but also for Margot Robbie's, who plays a meteoric ingenue dubbed "The Wild Child," whose rise coincides with the advent of talking pictures... and anyone familiar with Singin' in the Rain knows what's going to happen when this brassy-voiced Jersey girl has to transition to the sound era. (And in case you don't know, Chazelle will be happy to remind you with constant references to the '52 classic, time and time again.)
And at the center of this sprawling madcap tale is Manny Torres (Diego Calva), a hardworking migrant upstart who gets swept up in the Hollywoodland dream. We've seen similar stories of rising success in the industry play out, even in Chazelle's La La Land, but at least Manny's elevation is behind the camera, first as a gofer, then as an inventive idea-man, and finally as an industry mover-and-shaker. Manny is the source of the film’s freshest moments, but also the biggest missed opportunities. We see Manny rise in esteem pretty quickly, but I feel like the film kinda fails to really dig into the fucked machinations of the Hollywood machine. In this movie, the producers—who are the source for a lot of the true horror stories of Hollywood, old and new—are kinda glossed over, and I feel like for a film all about the exploitation of the film industry, Manny isn’t really exploited. Sure, he kinda becomes more inured to some of the harsh realities (such as the blackface scene), but I feel like Chazelle doesn’t really explore the damage being done to Manny’s soul as much as he should.
(Also, true to form for Chazelle, there is a subplot devoted to a skilled trumpet player—played by Jovan Adepo—that feels so utterly superfluous to the story that it feels like its only existence is to remind us that Damien Chazelle likes jazz.)
There is an awful lot to appreciate and revel in with Babylon. It captures the glitz and glamour of the era better than probably any other film of its era has (yes, Baz Luhrmann, even you couldn’t hit these heights). Linus Sandgren’s sweeping cinematography lends itself to some breathtaking moments. And Justin Hurwitz’s score is the coke-addled life-pulse of this movie. And I certainly don’t think the film is poorly directed in these individual moments. Chazelle is a commanding filmmaker and his vision certainly rings beautifully here . . . but even the greats can overstep, and I think that for what Chazelle was trying to achieve here, there were (as Emperor Joseph said to Mozart once) too many notes.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Dec 27, 2022 23:01:25 GMT
Now that u guys have seen it do u think it misses bp?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 27, 2022 23:10:27 GMT
Now that u guys have seen it do u think it misses bp? I don't think it's safe, but I don't think it's out either. It's going to land a few techs almost by default. Production Design, Costumes, Score . . . those feel fairly safe. And it is bombastically directed and I think the directors' branch could easily respond to it. I wouldn't even say it's out for Editing, either, because even though it's over three hours, it is the most edited movie of the year. Even though it's likely going to flop at the box office, I think the pedigree is strong enough and the quality is strong enough to see it get nominations. Wins might be harder to come by, but I don't even think it's going to get blanked. I'd say it could easily take Score and Production Design.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 28, 2022 1:03:05 GMT
In terms of performances:
1. Tobey Maguire (seriously, he was serving Robert Blake in Lost Highway meets Alfred Molina in Boogie Nights and I was into it -- career-best stuff) 2. Olivia Hamilton (nepotism might've gotten her the role but fuck me, she was fantastic) 3. Brad Pitt (I much preferred him here than his Oscar-winning performance, and he exuded old-school Hollywood class) 4. Diego Calva (such a great find; he anchors this movie rather well considering the missed opportunities with Manny's character) 5. Li Jun Li (definitely deserved more screentime; we need a proper Anna May Wong biopic and she would be fantastic in it) 6. Rory Scovel (his character feels so anachronistic, especially when we meet his roommate Kyle, but he was the source of the biggest laugh I had in the movie) 7. Samara Weaving (a hilarious bit of meta-casting that just worked perfectly) 8. Spike Jonze (I didn't even realize that was him, but he was such a delight) 9. Eric Roberts (his big scene is a lot of fun) 10. Katherine Waterston (I could've used a lot more of her, but she really makes the most of playing such a hoity-toity stage snob) 11. Jean Smart (it's a role she could play in her sleep, but I liked her) 12. Lukas Haas (it's so weird that the kid from Witness is now tasked with playing schlubs who have to pay or be bribed for companionship -- see Widows -- but he was fine in the role) 13. Jovan Adepo (competent but wasted) 12. Margot Robbie (saddled with the most aggravating character in cinema this side of the ladies in American Hustle, and she is just wayyyyy too dialed up; I get that she's an addict and it's realistic but I found Nellie thoroughly unlikable)
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Dec 28, 2022 2:24:44 GMT
Well fuck me and my seemingly blind devotion to massive-budget movies where a director was clearly never once told "no" by the studio execs who let him rob them blind, because I think I liked this damn movie.
Here's the thing. A great deal of this movie reeks of straight-arrow, workmanlike Chazelle playing pretend as one of the cool kids. These bacchanalian parties and other indulgences are filmed with some bravura, athletic filmmaking, but are simultaneously so lacking in more than surface-level strangeness that it almost never achieves a real sense of surprise or excitement. I'll qualify this criticism by mentioning that its trailer (which I was seemingly one of the only fans of) makes it seem like a much more broad, zany comedy than it actually is. That juvenilia is certainly there (a lot of it frontloaded in the opening 10 or so minutes), and when it is there it's largely unfunny and uninteresting. But in a more general sense the movie operates as a more melancholy, mosaic-like ensemble drama. I've seen comparisons made to Boogie Nights that couldn't be more apt - that's what this most closely resembles both tonally and structurally, down to certain shots and plot points that directly mirror PTA's film. Chazelle does a fine job matching PTA's muscular filmmaking techniques, and yet, as a point of comparison, Babylon lacks in the quirks and human touches that are what actually make Boogie Nights memorable.
And YET ... there is something about Chazelle's endearingly geeky reverie of moviemaking magic that this eventually finds an emotional wavelength that actually works, and rides it pretty well. Sure, you can argue that Chazelle doesn't productively bring anything to the table in exploring the silent to sound transition that Singin' in the Rain didn't already do seven decades ago. (It's interesting how Chazelle's films continue to seem unable to escape Kelly's shadow, though seemingly by choice.) But what Chazelle does effectively capture are the ways that early Hollywood was built on the back of underpaid and overworked labor, and how difficult it is to hold the contradictory truths of Hollywood's horrors and the genuine arcana it's capable of. And I'm not even necessarily talking about the ending here (a truly ill-advised coda that someone absolutely should've rejected yet still somehow charmed me), but more so the exciting first act sequence that simultaneously depicts Nellie's and Manny's first day on set and culminates in an intersection of art and nature that would make Terrence Malick cream his pants. It's in these moments - that capture either the unbelievably cruel exploitation required to mount a moment of cinematic beauty, or when a moment of euphoria in the production process is suddenly undermined by said cruelty and exploitation - that the movie really sings.
I do also think there's a great deal of emotional weight to Calva's character - the guy has an impeccable stare of romantic and ambitious yearning that Chazelle exploits to great advantage. The immense charisma and sex appeal of everyone from Margot Robbie to Li Jun Li goes a long way to support the way the film captures (specifically from Calva's eyes, but really in general) that adoration and obsession that can spring from titillation and spectacle. Pitt feels like a wad of nothing here; though it's maybe unfair that I just happened to re-watch Burn After Reading the night before this, in which he gives a comedic turn for the ages the likes of which this movie can only dream to live up to. I was actively less interested in Jack's story than in Manny's or Nellie's or even Sidney's, but I suppose that sort of unwieldiness is to be expected in a knockoff of early PTA.
The lowkey cast MVP is Olivia Hamilton as the no-nonsense yet kindhearted female director (an impossibly idealized character that the performance completely sells). The highkey cast MVP is a grotesque and strange Tobey Maguire doing the quasi Rahad Jackson part and clearly having a ball.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Dec 30, 2022 1:41:29 GMT
Loved it. One of my most exhilarating cinema experiences... ever tbh. I'm not going to disagree with any of the complaints, but when a movie swings this hard for the fences... it's easy for me to overlook these things.
For me, I was reminded of the vibe of Altman's Kansas City... with a large dose of James Ellroy's old Hollywood seediness... while overall being the most fucked up love letter to the movies ever made. The 30 minute party set piece before we even see the title is such an overwhelming entry into the world... and the first day on set (that had to be another 30 minutes or so) maintains that wild, brilliant energy while somehow never growing exhausting. This has gotta be the most energetic 3 hour movie ever made. The Tobey Maguire sequence... might be burned into my mind forever. The ending montage is so fucking nuts in theory, but somehow works.
Most of the cast is impressive, but Pitt was fucking amazing. So charismatic and funny, but even moreso genuinely heartbreaking by the end.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Dec 30, 2022 1:51:30 GMT
Wow brad getting good notices.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Jan 1, 2023 23:15:25 GMT
In a few years from now, Babylon will be considered a cult classic and be released on Criterion.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Jan 8, 2023 7:34:11 GMT
Chazelle has been such a scattershot filmmaker to me that, up until now, I hadn’t really decided what to think of him. I hated Whiplash, I loved La La Land, and First Man was fine but unremarkable, so I figured this could be the real litmus test for determining where I fell on him. This movie could have just ended up as an admirable failure of ambition, but unfortunately it’s more than just a disappointment because it has also sparked in me a newfound, general disliking for Chazelle as a filmmaker that wasn’t there before (despite my hatred for Whiplash).
I didn’t completely hate this, but Chazelle so badly wants it to be his own, more epically decadent version of Boogie Nights that the PTA/Scorsese cosplay comes across as so tryhard, and the whole thing just becomes annoying and tiresome after a while: “Look at how WILD and CRAZY my movie is!!” Chazelle yells at the audience repeatedly. It’s the cinematic equivalent of Steve Martin and Dan Aykroyd as the Festrunk brothers on SNL.
And the ending is so ostentatiously stupid, making it abundantly clear that Chazelle is deeply in love with the smell of his own farts.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jan 8, 2023 8:11:02 GMT
Chazelle has been such a scattershot filmmaker to me that, up until now, I hadn’t really decided what to think of him. I hated Whiplash, I loved La La Land, and First Man was fine but unremarkable, so I figured this could be the real litmus test for determining where I fell on him. This movie could have just ended up as an admirable failure of ambition, but unfortunately it’s more than just a disappointment because it has also sparked in me a newfound, general disliking for Chazelle as a filmmaker that wasn’t there before (despite my hatred for Whiplash). I didn’t completely hate this, but Chazelle so badly wants it to be his own, more epically decadent version of Boogie Nights that the PTA/Scorsese cosplay comes across as so tryhard, and the whole thing just becomes annoying and tiresome after a while: “Look at how WILD and CRAZY my movie is!!” Chazelle yells at the audience repeatedly. Well I still believe in Chazelle, although I liked Whiplash so this is his first real failure to me. I do think it will be better for him to go back to something lower budget and simpler next time, which is presumably what is going to happen. Also I just think having a little failure is good for a filmmaker every once in a while. Especially when you make a movie like this, it came off as such an arrogant film. Feels like he felt bullet proof and like he couldn't fail so hopefully he comes back next time hungry with something to prove. Reminds me of when Spielberg said 1941 getting panned was the best thing that ever happened to him because he'd become very arrogant after the Jaws/Close Encounters one two punch and needed to get brought down to Earth. But this post made me think of how good PTA would have done with a classic Hollywood ensemble piece like this (washed up leading man, loose cannon actress, studio hand trying to hustle and con his way into being a producer). PTA should just write and direct everything so every movie could be the best version of itself. He has the secret sauce.
|
|
|
Post by mrimpossible on Jan 11, 2023 4:32:29 GMT
In terms of performances: 1. Tobey Maguire (seriously, he was serving Robert Blake in Lost Highway meets Alfred Molina in Boogie Nights and I was into it -- career-best stuff) 2. Olivia Hamilton (nepotism might've gotten her the role but fuck me, she was fantastic) 3. Brad Pitt (I much preferred him here than his Oscar-winning performance, and he exuded old-school Hollywood class) 4. Diego Calva (such a great find; he anchors this movie rather well considering the missed opportunities with Manny's character) 5. Li Jun Li (definitely deserved more screentime; we need a proper Anna May Wong biopic and she would be fantastic in it) 6. Rory Scovel (his character feels so anachronistic, especially when we meet his roommate Kyle, but he was the source of the biggest laugh I had in the movie) 7. Samara Weaving (a hilarious bit of meta-casting that just worked perfectly) 8. Spike Jonze (I didn't even realize that was him, but he was such a delight) 9. Eric Roberts (his big scene is a lot of fun) 10. Katherine Waterston (I could've used a lot more of her, but she really makes the most of playing such a hoity-toity stage snob) 11. Jean Smart (it's a role she could play in her sleep, but I liked her) 12. Lukas Haas (it's so weird that the kid from Witness is now tasked with playing schlubs who have to pay or be bribed for companionship -- see Widows -- but he was fine in the role) 13. Jovan Adepo (competent but wasted) 12. Margot Robbie (saddled with the most aggravating character in cinema this side of the ladies in American Hustle, and she is just wayyyyy too dialed up; I get that she's an addict and it's realistic but I found Nellie thoroughly unlikable)If it's realistic then she clearly gave a good performance. Performances can be good even though the characters are off putting or unlikable.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Jan 19, 2023 19:43:27 GMT
I can't remember the last time I aggressively disliked a movie like I disliked Babylon. I hated Vice and Don't Look Up, but even though I deeply love The Big Short, I always felt that Adam McKay was not my kind of filmmaker. Chazelle has made a movie I really like (Whiplash), I movie I don't get the fuss about (La La Land), and a movie I adore (First Man). So I'm really angry at him for Babylon, it was really a nightmare experience for me. It was an assault on my senses, but definitely not a good one. The Wolf of Wall Street was more or less as aggressive as Babylon but it made sense there. Here it's just a bunch of pointless debauchery.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jan 31, 2023 23:42:39 GMT
Mark this under "Liked it but mostly want to talk about the stuff I was iffy on." I really appreciate Damien Chazelle as a filmmaker and it's clear to me that he doesn't just love movies and celluloid but also loves to present material in the most cinematic way he can think of. He doesn't just point and shoot, he clearly cares about the image as much as about the performances and he obviously tries his best to make his stuff exciting for us to watch. And I think all of that is present here as well. Unfortunately the writer is definitely not as strong as the director this time round, and there're things about the director that are somewhat dubious as well. I've got three main problems with the movie: 1. In theory there's nothing wrong with depicting excess but I feel that Chazelle tries so hard to emphasize it that the thing that ends up being more noticeable is not the excess itself but the fact that it's being emphasized. It's somewhat strange to say this about a film where raunch is chosen as one of the main subjects but its portrayal felt somewhat inorganic. Not to the material but to the filmmaker himself. It's not just the vulgarity - it's that every time something vulgar happens there seems to be a voice behind you saying: "Look! Ain't it vulgar? So edgy, right guys? Right...?" And that voice sounds suspiciously like the film's director. It seems that after being labeled by some to be a bit too safe and clean Chazelle decided to show'em all how out there he REALLY is but unfortunately what pokes through all during those moments is less that and more a sense of try-hardness. You can leave your doubts at the door - this movie will shit on you, piss on you, vomit on you and jizz on you, although the latter comes (heh) with an asterisk. Chazelle is so hellbent on making you gasp and blush that at one point he has Tobey Maguire literally leading you down into what seems like the pits of hell although it ends up more like the realm of stupid. That it's all quite unpleasant is not necessarily a negative quality but the overly in-your-face, look-at-me nature of it kinda sorta is. Except for those moments the directing felt pretty great to me. But let's talk about the writing... 2. The movie's too damn derivative. It's one thing to want to make your own Boogie Nights about early Hollywood but so openly ripping it off is another. Especially since Boogie Nights itself was in many ways openly trampolining off other movies. Call Babylon what you will - an homage to an homage, a ripoff of a ripoff - but the sense of deja vu is hard to deny. From episodes like the party overdose or the Maguire conversation (which apes the Alfred Molina -- a Spider-Man joke by Chazelle? -- scene but with firecrackers replaced by loogies) to specific shots and cuts, the movie feels like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Obviously I'm being facetious but let me put it this way - in my court PTA would definitely get some residuals. There're strong traces of The Wolf of Wall Street here as well but not to such an overt extent. Of course there's Singin' in the Rain too but that one I don't mind since Babylon is kind of like a direct response to it from the opposite angle (the other side of the dream). But even though the film is highly derivative of Boogie Nights, there's an area where they strongly differ... 3. It doesn't make you care enough about its characters. I'm not saying we're supposed to like them or fall for them but for true greatness there should be a level of investment in them and their predicaments that will make it impossible for you to take your eyes off the screen. I felt that way during Boogie Nights (because that movie made you love the characters) and even during The Wolf of Wall Street (not because I liked the people but because the immersion in their world was so deep and the depiction of their lives was so thorough and rich). I didn't during Babylon though. I was invested enough to keep watching the movie and not getting bored/tired of the characters but at some point during the third hour I felt that their fates didn't matter that much to me. Character-wise the movie was mostly a superficial experience and I certainly enjoyed it on that level but that superficiality is probably what kept it from reaching genuinely high heights. Many a time I felt as if Chazelle used his central figures as parts of the circus show he was creating without really diving into their souls and personalities. And in and of itself the circus show was indeed impressive. But because moments of real humanity were few and far between, my emotional involvement in the lives depicted never approached the catharsis that it was eventually supposed to reach (or at least I think it was supposed to reach). There's always a ton of stuff happening on the screen with every frame being consistently vivid and rich but the inside of that magnificent shell is rather hollow. And believe me, I can (and did!) appreciate a stupendous shell. But I hoped for something more than that. So these are my issues. I guess those three paragraphs make it seem like I hated the thing or something but I absolutely didn't - I definitely enjoyed the film and as someone who really digs the technical aspects of cinema I often felt as if I was in some sort of craft paradise. It's not that I disliked it - I just wanted to like it more because so many components of it were top-notch. Chazelle's handling of large crowded setpieces (which is what most of the flick consists of) is fantastic, visually it's just stunning with Linus Sandgren delivering some of the tastiest cinematography of 2022 and Justin Hurwitz's new collaboration with Chazelle proves to be another memorable one even if some bits of it are clearly repurposed from La La Land and the jazzy noises of it all almost (but thankfully not quite) reach a tipping point of my tolerance. It's probably in the score that I found the excesses working best - I kinda don't want to hear the sounds of trumpets for at least a week from now but I dig how their intensity and sheer loudness helped establish the movie's pulse and pulled me into its world. I've got nothing but compliments to say about the cast too even though some of them are clearly underused (Chazelle gives Jovan Adepo and Li Jun Li some strong scenes but doesn't flesh out their characters at all). Best in show is Margot Robbie to me who gives her best performance (which is supporting btw) since The Wolf of Wall Street. I don't really care if the character's one-dimensional or not (she's more like 1.62-dimensional) - what impressed me is how committed she was to the performance and how absorbed in the role she felt. Those scenes with her on the set are just fantastic and all the "wild child" energy she embodies felt completely believable and real to me. Pitt was very good too and probably provided most of the emotional engagement among the film's characters despite the overall trajectory of Jack Conrad being quite predictable. And a word about the ending: I've seen a lot of people describe the final montage as a dreamy love letter to movies and their development but if anything I saw it as a lamenting of the analog moviemaking processes. Of course it's partially about Manny "being part of something bigger" too but I don't think it's an entirely optimistic epilogue. I mean, right before Chazelle jumps to the CGI shots there's a Godard title card which reads "FIN DE CINEMA". And right after the CGI montage he leaps back in time to show the most traditional and rudimentary methods of coloring film - all those weird shots with dye and stuff like that. Manny cries thinking about the old days and Chazelle seems to be crying right along with him. Which doesn't surprise me considering how much he loves celluloid and old cinema. But then both of them choose to succumb to the magic of the movies anyway. It's a very bittersweet montage, as if Chazelle is saying: "I'll love movies no matter how digitized they are but I sure weep for the days long gone." That's the main reason I liked it although its inclusion was certainly a risky choice. I wonder if it's one of those films that keep growing on you with time.
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Feb 1, 2023 19:47:26 GMT
Oh honeys, I'm 20 minutes in and I'm already bored by how derivative it seems... Clearly someone is Hollywood got around to watching the German series Babylon Berlin (2017) for that party scene, what's with the asian Marlene Dietrich doing the routine from Morocco (1930)?... Garbo also didn't become the top MGM star until 1928-29 yet the opening scene says it is 1926, which was the year she made her first movie... so why would she be the biggest name at a party? It's looking a bit unoriginal and sloppily research...
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Feb 3, 2023 17:22:39 GMT
I never want to hear the words "it's party time, sparkle cocks" ever again
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Feb 3, 2023 19:15:03 GMT
I never want to hear the words "it's party time, sparkle cocks" ever again
Oh honey, I couldn't help wondering if this was only made so Chazelle could try and bang Margot Robbie? I haven't seen a movie this pointless in a long time...
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Feb 3, 2023 19:32:05 GMT
Oh honey, I couldn't help wondering if this was only made so Chazelle could try and bang Margot Robbie? This was literally what I thought the whole way through the movie
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Feb 3, 2023 20:12:09 GMT
There's a lot of good stuff in here and even some great stuff. Chazelle's comic timing and crass indulgence makes for some hilarious moments (Pitt wondering aloud in a bathroom if the world is ready for sound in their movies followed by the sound of explosive diarrhea - I choked) and others that are downright grating (everything at the Hearst party, elephant poop right at the damn beginning of the film, snake-fighting) but it's an hour too long and Chazelle spends time on the wrong things. The opening party scene and following movie shoots take up well over 40 minutes. Meanwhile, Manny's character is sidelined and his rise in the industry just kind of happens, Sidney Palmer and Lady Fay Zhu aren't given enough time to make more than glorified extras, the relationship between Manny and Nellie is half-baked at best which undermines the climax, and there are too many scenes that go on waaay too long. "Would that it 'twere so simple" in Hail Caesar accomplishes more with the concept of Hollywood's silent-to-talkie transition than this movie does in multiple 5+ minutes scenes and ALL while keeping Singin' in the Rain out its fuckin mouth. The movie has its strengths and if Chazelle had edited himself more and reigned in Robbie's chaos, this would've been closer to great than not great, not terrible. The Tobey Maguire stuff was brilliant (better than Molina if you ask me), the production design is a remarkable recreation of Old Hollywood, it's occasionally really funny, and Brad Pitt is fantastic. I think the movie also strikes a better balance between nostalgia for past Hollywood eras and acknowledgement for the abuses and injustices in that system than say, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood which seemed only interested in worship. The exploitative decadence on display in Babylon exists partly in the context of something lost as Hollywood became more repressed under the Hays Code. The exploitation of cheap immigrant labor to service raucous parties and film sets is traded for new exploitations on non-white talent and new restrictions on sexual freedom. The questionable nature of centering Conrad's dwindling career as conduit for this evolving social restrictiveness instead of the Zhu or Palmer characters notwithstanding, that moment of Conrad wistfully reminiscing about the good times in the twilight of his career is so affecting and so dramatically satisfying. Pitt's performance was the highlight of the film for me. This is one of his funniest, saddest and richest characterizations to date. The ending is garbage. That whole collage is embarrassing and all the Singin' in the Rain stuff is doubly embarrassing. and this is a nitpickier thing but I was disappointed by the costumes, especially Robbie's. If her makeup is too contemporary-looking the boho-chic outfits are an even worse offender. I know Zophres put tons of work and thousands of costumes into this movie but most of the ones that do stand out (and I'll admit, because Chazelle's pace is so hyper and the camera so constantly in motion that most of them didn't) are for the wrong reasons. The red dress in the opening scene is genuinely something Emma Stone would've worn in La La Land and a some of her other pieces look like they could've been sourced off-the-rack at H&M. I know Chazelle and Zophres didn't want to just do the flapper thing but is it too much to ask that your 1920 Hollywood starlet isn't dressed like she's about to hit the beach club for some cocktails with the girlies?
|
|
havok2
Junior Member
Posts: 396
Likes: 184
|
Post by havok2 on Feb 4, 2023 14:20:10 GMT
I dont get why this is getting so much hate but I can understand the mixed sentiments. It's definitely Chazelle most daring work to date and maybe his best piece. The last 30 minutes or so are just a cathartic exploration of images. Loved the Tobey sequence.
|
|
havok2
Junior Member
Posts: 396
Likes: 184
|
Post by havok2 on Feb 4, 2023 14:23:03 GMT
This and Blondie shows how vile and pedestrian Oscar fanatics are about cinema. You clearly aren't passionate about the art, you see it as a sport
|
|