Silence

One star for perfect cinematography, the rest fell victim to utter boredom and annoying Catholic propaganda. The answer to most of the questions asked by Father Rodrigues could be: "Because you came here forcing your delusions on us!" Fortunately, the Japanese did not make the same mistake as the Aztecs and Incas. They allowed the Catholics to become martyrs, thus avoiding the Conquista and the Holy Inquisition. The film was awfully long, and the story was so monotonous it dragged on like a snail soaked in honey. I wished the main characters a slow and painful death, and I was secretly hoping that one of the Japanese would finally run out of patience, reach for a katana and create a ‘pagan's cut,’ cutting the film shorter by at least a third. (2020-01-07)

I often give three stars to some crazy nonsense, but Silence is not nonsense. It just catches up to the fact that Scorsese, especially in his later years, can't work very well with visuals and imagery. A humble, slow, intimate, spiritual theme is not, in my opinion, ideal for stimulating with so many words, so many graphic shots that clearly explain what the scene is supposed to be about. As a result, the film breaks into four parts, where the first hour is like a cut from a TV Noe production (half-measured combo of quiet sensitivity and humility), which then breaks into classic sequences of abuse, during which we watch scene by scene the protagonist's breaking under various influences. This ends with part three, which is an essential dialogue with his teacher, and the rest of the film is a bad adaptation of the book in the style of a voice over saying "There were Dutch merchants in the harbor" and we have a shot of Dutch merchants. I completely understand Scorsese's fascination with the subject and his respect for it, but there's more of the subject than there is of the actual film and that's not how it’s supposed to be. I'll keep knocking on the door of The Revenant, McQueen, or Tarkovsky for religious movies. Those films may not be smart enough, but they have the potential to give the viewer more of a boost than the filmmakers themselves intended, which Silence doesn't have. (2023-04-17)

Martin Scorsese belongs to the directors whom I adore, and it's evident that at his age, he already knows how to make a film, how to make it captivating and beautiful, and how to convey some thoughts that you can ponder. This was done in the film Silence. Great performances, but above all stunning cinematography and direction. (2017-04-21)

It’s clear already from the name of the director of this movie that this won’t be just an ordinary movie. Martin Scorsese has the gift to make revolutionary movies and this one will be no exception. The only problem is that he’s not offering a simple, meaningful and logical plot. You see the Japanese are anything but easy to understand for us and you need a lot of time to study them. And that may be why this film is so interesting and that may have been the reason why Martin Scorsese decided to make a movie like this. And I totally understand the silent camera which has the image of what’s going on in the scene speak for it. You see, this film is so interesting that it’s actually incredibly hard to understand. You be the judge of that. The movie takes 161 minutes. For most of the movie, what you get is silence, destruction and two priests who are evidently somewhere where they shouldn’t be at all. The viewer can’t even by surprised by what they see. What I was surprised by, however, was Andrew Garfield’s acting performance, who is no longer the underage Spiderman who I took him to be. He finally got a chance to show himself. And along with the absolutely amazing cinematography, these are two reasons why this movie is worth watching. I was ecstatic. Silence may not be an easy film, but it’s full of incredible moments. And those sure are worth experiencing! (2017-02-26)

An artistic statement that is not as thought-provoking as The Last Temptation of Christ, yet it is a beautiful piece of filmmaking, thoughtful, with first-class visual compositions. My relationship with this film is ambivalent. The main characters – the Christian priests – didn’t have my sympathy because they were spreading the gospel in a culturally different country where no one asked them to (and where Buddhism was strongly rooted) and at the cost of immeasurable suffering for the common folk, bleeding and dying, but at the same time, this account of Scorsese as a deeply religious man is so honest that you have to admire it, even if you might be ideologically inclined in a different direction. Scorsese wanted more, to show that the people of the distant past deeply believed in symbols and that strongly rooted beliefs cannot be broken, no matter how hard the hostile environment tries. Everyone believes in something. Some believe in the power of nature, some in the power of family, others in the power of money, and Scorsese and other Christians in the power of the Christian God. And I, an ordinary person and a mere atheist, have no right to deny and question this belief. Although I will still side with Father Ferreira (Liam Neeson) and prefer the aforementioned The Last Temptation of Christ, which was deeper. PS: Garfield was brilliant. I was already intrigued by him already in The Social Network and I knew we would hear a lot about this guy. (2017-06-03)