Zeiten des Umbruchs

Thia is the only idea that caught my attention in this film.

Being a thirteen or so young boy with a caring full family that loves you, and protects you, this is a privilege.

But no boy at that age is going to realise it despite all the trouble he seems to adore.

I actually hoped the film will focus on the idea of art at that time and originality, but apparently they had other plans.

I think the film discussed and focused at that period of time as a whole and its after effects on the new generation of young boys. Honestly, i didn't feel connected to the boy. I wasn't engaged.

Other than all that, the acting was very good and Sir Anthony Hopkins is always nice to see.

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.

If director Gray thinks Reagan mentioning Armageddon was traumatic, he ought to talk to those of us who lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis! Other than being scared by the suggestion of nuclear war rather than actually being on the brink of it, this film is lackluster and derivitive. Nothing original and nothing new to say, with pedestrian direction, and an uninspired script. This is a movie that thinks it has a lot to say but it just doesn't have anything interesting to say. It's hard to become invested in such silly, shallow, and self-absorbed characters. An excellent cast does the best they can but it all adds up to very little indeed.

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.

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.