Babylon 2022

At this point, Damien Chazelle’s career trajectory is one of upping the amount of Oscar bait with every new project.
And I get it, what happened with La La Land at the Academy Awards was most unfortunate, but this film should even be lucky to get nominated, because it's not going to be remembered beyond that.
It’s essentially an exhausting, empty, 3 hour mess that thinks it’s a lot deeper than it is. Lots of fancy camerawork, lots of showy acting, lots of coke and nudity, lots of scenes where it’s clearly trying to be Boogie Nights, but it does not stick the landing at all. Showing excess can be fun and interesting, but combined with the cocaine fueled, Michael Bay-esque editing style it ends up feeling more like Scorsese for the inattentive Tiktok generation. It also leaves you on a note that I thought was incredibly indulgent and pretentious, which soured me even more on the whole experience.
It’s not even one of those films where you need to have a critical eye or a good understanding of cinema in order to get why it’s bad, it’s pretty upfront right from the start. It fails with a lot of the basics, such as plotting (which is incoherent), pacing (which is all over the place) and music (which is incredibly annoying). I wish I could at least praise the acting or characters, but it’s all so over the top in the most annoying, unfunny way. I like the cinematography and some individual moments, but that’s kinda it. The whole film starts with an elephant taking a shit into the camera, so at the very least Chazelle seems to self-aware about what he has delivered here; a massive turd that doesn’t play to his strengths as a filmmaker.

4/10

Babylon is just one of those movies that is too long for no good reason. It’s becoming a trend nowadays and I’m not happy about it.

At first, Babylon comes out swinging. The beginning of the movie is chaotic and really fun. It reminded me of The Wolf of Wall Street in a way. Margot Robbie is fantastic and it promises you the world. Until the half way mark, the time flies by, but it goes south reeeaaaaallllyyy fast after that.

The whole tone of the movie changes… The arcs felt forced and were not fun to watch after that. The fancy party (especially the vomit part) was bizarre. Manny’s sudden upswing in the world felt way too sudden. The ‘blackface scene’ was just there to upset the audience. We see way to little of Nellie’s gambling problem for it too come back in this big way. And the whole sequence in ‘the asshole of LA’ added nothing to the story and is just there to shock you one last time. It’s was bad choice after bad choice in the second half.

I get that they wanted to show the whole old vs. new thing, the rise of cinema as we know it and the icons that get lost on the way to new things. But the first and the last part were way to different for it to be a coherent masterpiece.

Honestly, I’m sad that it turned out this way. I was hoping for more and it looked like it was going that way at first. It’s super disappointing and I feel generous when I give it a 6/10. This could’ve been more.

First of all there are some (read many) absolutely brilliant sequences in Damien Chazelle’s new film… Babylon. The writer and director’s track record certainly qualified him to swing for the fences.

He landed a dream cast. Brad Pitt, Margo Robbie lead one of the most talent laden movies I’ve ever watched. Margo Robbie steals every scene she’s in. Pitt’s Performance is serviceable, but at times perhaps uneven or uninspired.
—
The storyline follows the birth and life of the film industry through the eyes and careers of the lead and a few additional characters. Initially the story lines are interesting and visually compelling, even when these stories become predictable.

But ultimately you begin to wonder when is this going to end. I mean it’s 189 minutes long… . I knew that going in but it became painful during the last 25 minutes, with gratuitously long sequences. I think, up to 45 minutes could have been cut from this film and it would have improved it tremendously.

—
But for all that… Margo Robbie my lord what a performance.

She should get an oscar nod.

She was good in the haphazard comedy “Amsterdam” released earlier this fall, but this portrayal of Nelly LeRoy is seared in my memory banks, for all the right reasons… and some very wrong reasons.
—
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10640346/
—

Babylon suffers from a style over substance problem, which feels particularly egregious given it's 3+ hour length. There were a lot of extended sequences of non-narrative window dressing that overstayed their welcome. Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't some arthouse film with no story to speak of. There's plenty of story, but it just feels like it plays second fiddle to a disturbing magical realism vibe, an almost fairy tale-esque (Grimm, not Disney) style that took me out of the story (the most extreme example of this was the entire sequence with Tobey Maguire, which went completely off the rails). This was compounded by the film's frantic pacing and aggressive editing. I'm quite confident that this was all intentional; that Damien Chazelle wanted to create a feeling of discomfort. Unfortunately, the discomfort was a bit too much for me.

All of that said, I still enjoyed certain elements of the film. I'm a sucker for stories about Hollywood, so the overall backdrop was appealing. Brad Pitt is also dependable (as always). However, even those elements that I somewhat enjoyed just had me wanting to re-watch movies/tv that I enjoyed even more (i.e. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood or The Last Tycoon).

The last thing I'll say is that the final sequence definitely didn't land for me. I appreciate the idea and, had it served as the conclusion to a movie that I enjoyed more, it might have been effective, but as the finale to this film, it just felt unearned or even cloying.

So many cool sequences and awesome moments. The comedy was hit and miss for me, it's incredibly funny in some scenes and in others incredibly unfunny. Checks all the boxes on a technical level: acting, visuals, costumes.... and the score, the fucking trumpet, I wanna marry that thing.

There's sooo much stuff happening though, it's incredibly exhausting and especially for 3 hours. So chaotic, terribly out of pace, tonally erratic and lacks focus. The performances are absolutely brilliant but it doesn't necessarily make interesting characters, I couldn't connect with any of them and didn't really care about their storylines. It also strays too much from it's original idea with misleading subplots. Most of the time I completely forgot this was even about the 1920s transition from silent to sound movies. It does, thankfully, get back on track before it's third act but you're left realising all these filler scenes were meaningless sinse it ultimately goes for a simplistic ending. The last 15 minutes montage absolutely makes me appreciate film and it's evolution but this movie as a whole: nope. I rather watch the movies featured in the montage, that'll make me appreciate film.

Amidst all this there's the trumpet guy, playing his trumpet... and man did he ever play that trumpet!

A star studded cast and if your interested in the vulgar view of the 1920-30's movie scene, then this is for you. Some really cool scenes here and there, but it basically is the longest crap you will ever waste 3 hours plus of your life on.

Each character is sort of intertwined but mostly is several stories within the story. There's a lot of debauchery, so it's not for teens. Pretty sure a lot of people would be a bit disgusted at the excess debauchery that really seems to have no real value add to any of the scenes it's included in except maybe the initial part of the movie.

Worse it just drags and drags and drags with a couple notable scenes peppered in. Brad Pitt is good in several of his scenes, so is all the cast. But it's piss poor in how it's strung together. Basically a film for film makers to pat themselves on the back about how they will "live forever" amongst the ghosts of films replayed. Ad nauseum. So cliche a message to make it completely worthless.

This is probably one of the worst movies of all time, but it's just so cliche I would expect all the Hollywood types from producers to B level actors to claim it's Oscar worthy. It's not fit to use the film as toilet paper. Don't waste your time.

Ruth Adler: “You cry on cue for every take, how do you do it?”

Nellie LaRoy: “I just think of home.”

An interesting contrast between LaLa Land and this movie in terms of its portrayal of Hollywood; LaLa Land takes a magical and whimsical approach, while Babylon is more honest and chaotic.

I have seen film critics call this “a love letter to cinema”, but I don’t know what movie they watched because there was no love here. This letter that critics bring up is the letter that exposes how cruel, gross, and disturbing Hollywood can be. We see elephant diarrhea shitting all over the camera, someone getting a golden shower, a rat getting eaten alive, deaths on film sets that get brushed aside, suicides, careers failing, a toxic work environment, and an Eye Wide Shut-like party in a dungeon.

But yeah, a love letter.

Babylon is my most minor film from Damien Chazelle. This movie had no reason to be three hours long, as it could have been two-and-a-half hours long because it felt a bit exhausting towards the end, and I was waiting for it to end. Also, the ending montage of famous movie clips, going as far as to show Avatar was certainly…a choice, which I don’t think worked, as it was very jarring in context with the rest of the 1920s storyline. '

However, there are a lot of great things here. The production and costume design perfectly bring the period alive, and the cinematography is dynamic, with a couple of shots that stuck with me after the credits rolled.

The performances from Diego Calva, Margot Robbie, and Jovan Adepo were all stellar and superstars. It is a star-studded cast whom all manger to shine in their respective roles. Even Tobey Maguires' slim screen time has a creepy weirdo, which made for a memorable scene, and I can tell Damien Chazelle was inspired by Boogie Nights.

One scene that was my favourite was a tender exchange between Brad Pitt and Jean Smart about how artists live on through time long after they are dead through their work in cinema. It’s the monologue delivered wonderfully by Jean Smart which gave me a new and unique perspective on how through art, we inject ourselves into the work, so little pieces of us, words, fingerprints, and tears, can be mortal. I can think about the time watching the greats like James Dean, relating to his struggles and rebellious rage, or Takashi Shimura facing his grim fate in Akira Kurosawa’s Ikiru. Or a painter like Vincent van Gogh or a poet like Rudyard Kipling. All work I admire on a grand scale, all from people who lived and died before I came into this world, yet it still feels relevant and never out of date.

Out of all the chaos, this stood out to me the most. Cinema!

What I love so much about Babylon, is that it feels like a suicide letter written by someone who loves Hollywood. 0r is it a love letter or romance written by someone suicidal in the industry?

We get so many films 'about cinema' or 'about hollywood' that are usually romanticized or seem to celebrate it. BABYLON is something different entirely. It is fun and celebratory and orgiastic until it isn't. The excessive decadence (and debauchery), gorgeously and exhilarating orchestrated, gives way to something sadder, bitter, acidic, and even disgusting.

Much like BOOGIE NIGHTS (and I'm not the first one to compare the two), it starts in one era of a certain industry-- replace porn with old hollywood-- the high highs of it, and then the sudden transition into something new, which not every character can transition to, or even survive. Leading to several downfalls, while others either leave town or rise to the top, while the previous gods are dethroned and fall into their own pits of hell.

It's like Dante's Inferno by way of Cecil B. Demille. Punctuated by a hellish and downright frightening sequence with a great Tobey Maguire cameo, which prompted my viewing partner to say 'I thought we were being led to see Satan himself'. I really hope one day Chazelle directs a horror film, because based off that one sequence he's got a great one in him to be made.

Then of course we've got the cast, everyone turning in superlative work. Margot Robbie gives the best performance of her entire career here, of all the roles she should have been nominated for, this should have been it. Brad Pitt is great as well, especially in the second half, with the fate of his character haunting the proceedings. Jean Smart is also awards worthy as a tabloid writer who can cut you with her words. Again, Maguire is terrifying and grotesque in his one scene, but steals the show. Then there is Jovan Adepo who is heartbreaking but probably one of the few characters who actually has the smarts to recognize the hell he's found himself in. But above all else, is Diego Calva, in a breakthrough role, reminding one of a young Javier Bardem, strikingly handsome, seemingly innocent, until he finds himself at the top, though he never loses his soul. It's a great character and a great performance, and I hope this leads to more roles for him, besides Robbie, this is Calva's film.

This is by far my favorite film by Chazelle. Obviously it's not for everyone, and will turn many off by the 20 minute mark, if not sooner. It's graphic, grotesque, disturbing, but also wildly ambitious, enthralling, gorgeously shot, with amazing costumes, sets, set-pieces, and another incredible soundtrack by Hurwitz, who I hope wins the Oscar. Deliciously indulgent, and doesn't waste a single frame over it's 3 plus hours runtime. Leading to an ending that many wont foresee and is a huge risk that absolutely pays off. It at once glamorizes old Hollywood, and then burns it to the ground and reveals how horrific it can be. Leading to a quieter and than explosive denouement that will stick with me.

BABYLON is everything I could want in a film, and then some. An absolute mess of a masterpiece in the best way possible.

USA. DRAMA/COMEDY. 3hrs9m. Rated R (strong, crude, sexual content and humor, graphic nudity , pervasive strong language , drug and alcohol use, bloody violence, some disturbing images)

Damien Chazelle's Babylon is grand in nature and visually striking, but its structure is not entirely solid. Unlike his previous films, Whiplash, La La Land, and First Man, Babylon left me feeling disconnected. The film explores the excesses and debauchery of 1920s Hollywood as the industry transitions from silent films to "talkies." The performances by Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, and Diego Calva are strong, and the cinematography and score are impressive. However, the writing and runtime detract from the overall impact of the film. The characters feel like caricatures and the second half lacks focus. The movie also pays homage to Singin' in the Rain, which hinders the delivery of the story. While Babylon is a feast for the eyes, it ultimately falls short in delivering a cohesive and emotionally engaging narrative.

Babylon de Damien Chazelle es grande en su naturaleza y visualmente impresionante, pero su estructura no es del todo sólida. A diferencia de sus películas anteriores, Whiplash, La La Land y First Man, Babylon me dejó con una sensación de desconexión. La película explora los excesos y la decadencia de Hollywood de los años 20 mientras la industria se transiciona de las películas mudas a las "habladas". Las actuaciones de Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie y Diego Calva son sólidas y la fotografía y la banda sonora son impresionantes. Sin embargo, la escritura y la duración restan impacto a la película. Los personajes se sienten como caricaturas y la segunda mitad carece de enfoque. La película también rinde homenaje a Singin' in the Rain, lo que dificulta la entrega de la historia. Aunque Babylon es una delicia para los ojos, finalmente falla en la entrega de una narrativa cohesiva y emocionalmente atractiva.

Whether one is able to enjoy "Babylon" or not probably depends to a large extent on one's own tolerance level regarding the point at which something is "too much." While watching Damien Chazelle's new film, I discovered that this threshold is pretty high for me. But there will certainly be others who are going to throw in the towel after the opening sequence, which I completely understand.

In any case, I had a tremendous amount of fun. The soundtrack is fantastic and the tempo remains high throughout; there is not much time to slow down over the entire runtime of 189 minutes (!). It is indeed a real adrenaline rush. The cast is superb, especially Brad Pitt and Margot Robbie. The latter, however, also apparently limits herself more and more to a certain type of role. In the pure escalation that is "Babylon", this archetype fits right in, though.

Damien Chazelle's Hollywood epic could be described as a mixture of "The Wolf of Wall Street", "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood" and Baz Luhrmann's "The Great Gatsby". To anyone not put off by this description, I would recommend giving the film a chance. Especially the first half is so much fun.

A film that I wanted to love, but only liked. Some of the scenes were brilliant, while others were unnecessary and even ridiculous at times. This is a film that was meant to appeal to film buffs with its nods to Alexander Nevsky and Singing In the Rain, with the latter being easily recognized while the Nevsky film really only being understood by cinephiles. A couple times they made reference to the Bauhaus without really making any real connections. You could find some of those historical old art world tie ins if you already know your history, but even then they often were loose and weak.

In some ways, this struck me as a How The West Was Won of the Hollywood film industry. Or so it seemed to try to be. Not up to par though. Just okay. The montage at the end was probably the most interesting and did the best job of doing so. Worth watching, at least once, if you are into film, but others will probably find that it outlasts their patience for getting through a evening's worth of film watching. The performances were good and there were other aspects that stood out. But as a whole, it just doesn't really hold up as it should.

It all starts out making me think of the Gatsby world throughout the roaring '20s hanging out at Studio 54, but slightly less gay. Eventually, it both builds and falls apart as time progresses. Brad Pitt, the Gatsby like character struck me as being a slightly loose reference to Howard Hughes, and probably with a few other Hollywood characters that got by me. There are other borrowed legends that find there place in this film, though you need to know your history to pick up on them. Ultimately, it's an okay film for buffs, but probably a bore for the average viewer.

It is amazing how we differ in our tastes -- after watching the film, I came here to comment and read what others had to say, expecting possibly some in-depth positive reviews and was so surprised when reading reviews contrary to what I had expected. As many of you have, I grew up watching Brad Pitt at a peer age level (he's a few days short of a year older than I am), and have always appreciated what he has consistently put into the roles he has played, giving substance and depth to so many of the characters he has portrayed; however, his portrayal in this film brought more realism to his character than I have observed before IMO (I know this whole review is "in my opinion," though I still felt it was necessary to make that clear).

My first thought after the conclusion of the film was to wonder if Babylon was pure fiction or based on actual people and events (especially after recognizing Paramount Studios there in Culver City just blocks from where I worked some time ago), and was pleasantly surprised to find that it was 'loosely' based on real people and events rumored to have occurred during the circa in which this story was set. It was near the end of the movie when I noticed that I had enjoyed the film far more than I had expected, which was only apparent to me after reading a review below which mentioned that the movie was over three hours long -- that surprised the hell out of me, so much so that I had to confirm to satisfy my curiosity not feeling that I just watched a movie that was more than three hours in length.

Going back to Brad -- [spoiler] It was when Jack (Brad) was confessing to Lady Fay Zhu (Li Jun Li) that he was just tired, reflecting back on earlier times when it was fun, and that after so many projects that it was a good run (and getting his agent to admit that the movie was a piece of $hit and that Jack was bailing him out of his situation while agreeing to do the part). It was at that time that I could see what was going to follow, saying to myself out loud, "Oh no, he's going to eat a bullet." I could just see it in his eyes, hear it in voice, and read between the lines of the words he was saying (the words were that of the writer, of course, but the other couple of signs were made clear through Brad's portrayal -- his expressions, eyes, and mannerisms, which again IMO painted that picture so clear to me because of what he put into the role -- the quality of his acting). Even the poor acting of his character was clear to me because of the great acting Brad showed.[/spoilokiouI'm a pretty easy, enjoying many crappy movies thought knowing the difference -- I may enjoy some of the bad films out there, but I will never call them good, showing only that the bad movies entertain me, while good films and good actors will always get my respect and praise to the efforts put into the roles and stories which set them apart from being just entertaining, expressing my opinion as I've done here. I've seen so many movies that I know when a film is over two hours and almost always over three or four but I fell way short of feeling the three until it was expressed in a review here,

I hope this review helps people by giving a contrasting analysis and opinions based on the results. If you have a short attention-span, three hours may be difficult to sit through though - and don't do it alone!

I will start by saying that I am not a fan of Damien Chazelle's work, in fact I did not understand why La la land and Whiplash were re-released in theaters, although they seemed good movies, they did not deserve a re-release. Babylon has a problem, and it's a big problem: it's pretentious. I imagine Chazelle wanted to create the most eye-catching movie of the year that everyone would talk about. It's obvious that he was trying to pull us into 80-years-ago Hollywood with such stunning visuals that we'd be mesmerized. It didn't work. Although the colorimetry is very successful in projecting the glamour, the waste, the luminosity of cinematographic life, the script is lost with a direction that extends the film much more than it should have. They might as well take a whole hour out of it and the movie would work better. In this fake behind the scenes (as I found it), the performances of Brad Pitt and Margot Robbie seemed completely adequate, but the ovation goes to Diego Calva: he's fantastic. Another ovation goes to Mandy Moore's choreography in all the sequence shots (which are several). The music is good, the photography is good, everything is fine... but the story didn't hold three hours. It just should have been shorter.