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.
Am I the only one who loved this film ?? I want to thank the cinema gods for this film. It was awesome.
Boogie Nights by way of Happy Madison productions. A monumental failure in every way.
Prepare to be disappointed by an utterly exhausting excuse for film, as it squanders the potential of a remarkable ensemble cast, leaving you with an empty feeling and a profound sense of annoyance. This was needlessly long and painfully repulsive.
Started off great but got confusing along the way. Some scenes such as the snake scene seemed rather unnecessary and over the top and only seemed to contribute to the runtime. Cinematography was great though.
Babylon is not only a great film but also a great experience to live in theaters. Maybe a bit too long, just a bit, but so appreciable, entertaining...
The 3 main actors are fantastic: Brad Pitt is true to himself : always great, Margot Robbie is brilliant, but let's talk about Diego Calva: what a marvelous performance ! Wonderful screen presence from start to finish and manages to hit the same level as these two fellows. The directing as well as the photography are splendid, it is a feast for the eyes and the story, despite some tiny scriptwriting facilities, is really cool.
And what a soundtrack, incredible ! A very very very good movie. You have to enjoy seeing it in theaters, not sure you can feel such an experience later at home.
The first part was Babylon and it rocked. The second part was Babble On and...
Like tantric sex: longer than it needed to be and couldn't keep it up until the end, yet Margot Robbie made it worthwhile.
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/
—
What the fuck did I just watch? This is the biggest clusterfuck of a movie I've ever watched, it feels like it was written by 20 different people. But no, just damien chazelle. As someone who's seen whiplash and la la land multiple times, this movie is offensively shit. Whiplash and la la land were so tightly written and brilliantly executed, what the hell happened damien? Were you even trying to make a good movie? Did you get tired of screenwriting?? That would explain why the dialogue and writing are so god awful, but the directing and music are still great as per usual. This movie doesn't even really have characters, more just caricatures and mouthpieces for shitting on hollywood. I'd expect this trash from some pretentious art student, not the guy who made fucking whiplash. This movie feels like such a slap in the face by one of the best directors of our time, what happened damien chazelle?
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.
I think moat people can't do movies anymore without being explicit, then they call it art.
It's just poor and has been done before, learn to tell stories. Waist of time.
Started watching this and had to switch off, came back a couple of weeks later to finish it. Got to around the 1 hour mark and remembered why I switched it off originally - it's shite. Another one of those over the top movies that don't actually go anywhere.
The opening scene was beyond spectacular however.
1/10
The highlight of this film was the moment I fell asleep.
Phenomenal movie. Almost everything is on point. Perfect picture of the early days of cinema and Hollywood. The snake scene was over the line. Plus it is a bit too much 3hours for this type of movie. This could have been at most 2 hours and would have been perfect. 9/10 for me.
Distastefully sinful. It's got drugs, kinky sex and straight-up-shit right in the first 20 mins. I can see why some people might like it but it was too chaotic and uncomfortable to watch for me.
I walked out.
Gawd, is it Oscars time again? A waaaaaay overly long train-wreck of movie; self-indulgent, pretentious garbage with a massive overdose of shlock-shock that really serves no purpose whatsoever. It's hard to get what the point of it was like AT all, just because you can do things in a movies really doesn't mean that you should. Even at 90 minutes this garbage would have been a struggle but 3 hours!!! Literally the ONLY reason I didn't can this movie after the first 20 minutes was Margot Robbie who plays her part extremely well albeit the character is pretty detestable, like just about every other character. Other than that, zero redeeming factors at all, marked as a 4 merely for some of the acting and sets, otherwise a definite 1 star! Is this the start of Brad Pitt's "B List" career?
Babylon is a blast! It's a cinematic theme park with each scene its own attraction. This film is not for everyone, but those who can appreciate the chaos will love this adrenaline filled story of cinema, extravagance, and decadence.
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!
I can't understand how anyone could dislike this masterpiece. It's an ode to cinema, to its history, its ugliness, everything rotten it carries with it, but also everything beautiful cinema can create—the depth, the emotional involvement, the emotions it gives, the masterpieces of cinema and the terrible movies, the actors who sell out just to get by and those who only create works of art. For me, one of the best films I've ever seen.
If not for Margot Robbie’s skills, this would have been a total waste of time.
Pretentious crap. That pretty much sums it up. The acting is good.
There's nothing wrong with this move. There's also nothing great with this movie. The acting is very good, but the movie is very long and could have been told in two hours or less, it didn't need three.
My wife while watching this… “this movie is pure chaos.”
I think that’s the most perfect description of this flick.
Someone might say this is a very deep movie.
I can only say it is a very dull movie. And boring. It makes no sense. Maybe I dont get it. Probably. But it was painful to watch this whole 3h+ movie. And it doesnt deserve to be 3h+ because all could be said in 1,5h. There was no need to extend this idea so much.
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!
A few decent/funny scenes, but definitely not a rewatch.
Masterpiece. All the shots. Sounds. Musics. Camera movements and etc. It is like combining all the stuff from the cinema history into one movie.
Babylon is a visually stunning film that takes viewers on a creative journey. The movie is not afraid to step outside the box, and it delivers a unique and captivating experience. The soundtrack is particularly noteworthy, adding an extra layer of emotion to an already powerful story. Overall, I loved this film and would highly recommend it to anyone looking for a thought-provoking and visually stunning cinematic experience.
3 hours of manic people, obnoxiously loud drums and trumpets, and a whole lot of nonsense in Hollywood‘a latest self-over-indulgence. WHY, JUST WHY!?
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.
What did I just watch? Literally no idea what the plot was. But it was pretty to the eyes and the music was surprisingly catchy.
I think this movie made me feel just about everything it wanted me to feel, which is saying something -- it is trying to do a lot!
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.
Babylon is a movie with amazing cinematography. The film looks really beautiful, with lots of colorful and detailed scenes that make it a visual treat. The way it captures the early days of Hollywood is impressive and adds a lot to the film’s experience.
However, the movie doesn’t flow very smoothly. It can feel a bit choppy at times, and the story doesn’t always come together in a seamless way. This can make it hard to follow at times and stay fully engaged with the film.
Some scenes in Babylon are quite intense and over the top. These grotesque moments might seem too extreme or shocking for some viewers. They can be a bit much and sometimes take away from the main story.
Another issue is the length of the film. Babylon is quite long, and it feels like it goes on for too long. This extended runtime can make the movie feel drawn out and can test your patience.
Overall, while Babylon has great visuals and some interesting moments, its uneven flow, intense scenes, and long length might make it a challenging watch for some people. If you enjoy excellent cinematography and don’t mind a lengthy film, it might be worth checking out.
I don't care what people thinks
Loved the movie
The first half of the film is a masterpiece. The other half, starting at the snakebite, is all over the place, with an unnecessarily mawkish film montage at the end. I think dismissing this film is a travesty. This may be the Heaven's Gate of this current generation, but Damien's visually dense scenes are what keep me drawn in. If this was turned into a mini series, and the character development was more focused, this would have had rave reviews and accolades. Alas, this is a flawed masterpiece that should have had some additional script revisions in my book.
This is a very bad movie!
Rated a Connor 10, normal 9.5
Movie makers making a movie about movie making and movies. I really underestimated the powerhouses that are Damien Chazelle and Margot Robbie, and even Brad Pitt. The whole cast and crew for that matter because the size of this was insane in both entertainment and quality. Any Tarantino fan would love this for the raw, emotional, unexpecting and wild scenes. The inspiration from so much of 'cinema' just adds to the flavour and spice in dialogue and storytelling if the score wasn't enough. It's impossible not to believe in what this movie expresses. It'll stay with me forever.
There are several scenes I'd have gotten rid of, if it would have been my decision. I still consider it a great movie because there are well thought scenes with fantastic performances in great settings.
Humor, drama, tragedy and simply lots of love and appreciation for the cinematic arts.
My weirdest experience with Babylon was to "discover" Olivia Hamilton, as Ruth Adler. I wondered where that talent was coming from, her biography left me even more impressed.
Chaotic but interesting! Definitely worth watching.
Babylon contains moments of cinematic brilliance, but is ultimately too chaotic, anxiety-inducing, and I Ng (3 hrs!) to be enjoyable. It's a grotesque absurdist take on 1920s Hollywood - think wild sex-ridden parties, underground freak shows, vomit, and multiple death or near-death experiences. Manny - a Mexican immigrant - gets swept up in the system, willingly sublimating his own identity. Margot Robbie plays an It Girl whose Jersey accent means she struggles to transition to talkies. Brad Pitt plays an actor based on John Gilbert whose career and reputation also declined when talkies arrived on the scene, partly due to his effected stage-like delivery. The Artist and Singin' in the Rain also based characters on Gilbert and the latter is directly tied to this film in multiple scenes and storylines.
From Wikipedia: The film polarized critics, who generally praised its cinematography, score, editing, production design, lead performances and themes, but were sharply divided on its direction, screenplay, graphic content, and runtime.
I would not generally recommend this film, but cinephiles will probably want to see it. There's so much amazing footage here, I'd love to see another editor take a pass and give us a more cohesive film.
It was a good watch, up to that last 15 minutes, which was awesome! I’m about to play that part again.
Buckle up. This is a film all about excess and that carries over to its runtime as well. At 3+ hours there's a lot here and some of it is spectacular...and some of it isn't. This films opening scene is an epic party scene for the ages and it leads into a high energy take on the wackiness of the silent film era. Honestly, the first 90 minutes are extremely fun, but the latter half of the film I found myself not as connected. The emotional resonance that you're supposed to have with our various leads isn't quite there and I had trouble really caring about the hardships they'd fallen into. I hate to say it knowing how long this already is, but it felt like connecting the first half to the second half of the film could have used some more focus and exploration. What's here is definitely ok, but not quite the full, grand experience it was shooting for.
If they cut out everything other than the Jack Conrad storyline, this would have been a pretty good, normal-length movie.
The rest of it was filmed by shoving a 4k camera directly up Hollywood's asshole for an hour and a half.
Margot Robbie is amazing, this movie is not.
I love the wildness of the early years of Hollywood cinema.
No mention of the Great Depression nor WWII, which is kinda odd, considering how Hollywood studios (Paramount, MGM, and 20th Century Fox) collaborated with the Nazis throughout the 1930s up until 1940.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/books/scholar-asserts-that-hollywood-avidly-aided-nazis.html
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.
This movie could have been so much more with a bit of editing. It tries to be too much of everything, & so sadly fails at it all. The individual stories could have been touching, but they got lost in the Caligula treatment of gratuitous sex for shock value.
Pretentious crap made for the sole purpose of Oscarbait, being that it is set in Hollywood. I couldn't really cheer for any of the characters and they mostly get what they deserve...eventually.
What a blast! I didn’t really want to watch it because of the length, but finally during a flight I watched it. Surprisingly it didn’t feel long, there were almost not lengths in it. The actors are fantastic, the story is fine. I really enjoyed it.
great film...
dunno how this movie got hatred...
margot robbie You're legend
Fell asleep after a while
"With time, one must change themselves, otherwise it will be unfittable and forceful change"(Bradd) The story, acting was good with slightly slow pace and lenghty movie. But, a worthy one.
What a mess of a movie. This movie is all over the place, part great, part frustratingly disjointed and missing the mark. If it was an hour shorter, and I could see it in fewer than 3 sittings, I'd give it an 8... but because it's such hard work to watch, it gets a 5.
Great film and great tribute to cinema. It suffers from some excesses, but it is really entertaining, even when it is 180 minutes long.
A sprawling mess with evocative scenes and so many callbacks and references to stars and movie history it boggles the mind. Overlong and tries to be too many genres at once but it is visually rich and sonically explosive. Its ambition was set too high, but it was certainly a ride, like in that ambulance. At times Keystone Cops, and at others melodrama. Sometimes looked too see how much time was left to go, which is never a good sign. Not unhappy I watched it, but one of those that needs no revisiting. Other films have touched on this theme far better and with less of the sledgehammer.
Rated a Connor 10, normal 9.1
The phrase I came up with for the first half is "an orgy of visual extravagance".
Also, one of those movies where I said "What the f***!" multiple times and had to rewind by 10 seconds to watch the scene again.
I went into this movie fully wanting to love it. And I do really enjoy several sections of this movie, but when it is over three hours there is quite a bit of wasted time here. It is a hard one to totally recommend because I could recommend the first half to some people and the back half to others. Regardless, it is a wild movie. Check it out for yourself to see if you latch on to any of the crazy aspects of it!
Rating: 3/5 - 7.5/10 - Worth Watching
A wild and sexy adventure through film.
a chaotic movie start to finish, with a bit of a sad atmosphere but at the same time, a joyful ode to old time hollywood, i love such type of movies,
plus, great performances, especially from Margot Robbie
it gets weird, really weird at times, but it pulls you in, and lets you truly feel what Manuel feels towards the end of it, and reminds us of our love for movies
A rollercoaster of enjoyment but toooooo long. They should have ended it right when she walked away. The rest? I just don’t even know what to say. It was like they didn’t have an end and gave it over to the studio’s cutting room floor. It was an 8 and then in the last 10 minutes crashed to a 6.
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!
A film that's hard to love or hate. A polarizing work that courts debate. Debauchery runs rampant, wild, and free. But a cinematic experience it is, indeed. Potential squandered, an unfortunate fate. No limits or rules, it refuses to conform. Not for the faint of heart, it's clear. But those who relish it, shall hold dear. An unforgettable journey, this much we know. Despite the flaws, it holds a mesmerizing glow.
Babylon (2022): 6/10 (Fair, Above Average)
I’m usually first in line when it’s about excess, bad taste, and recklessness. And, as expected, "Babylon" managed to entertain, thrill, and even enchant me with its (most probably incoherent and exaggerated) representation of a decadent Hollywood. Then I looked at my watch towards the ending, and realized there were still over 100 minutes to go. The movie goes on for hours playing with characters you would never care about, as they are mere excuses to connect overchoreographed set pieces for no particular reason. The fact that Brad Pitt does his Italian gag from “Inglorious Basterds” for two hours straight should already say something. I should be the one to choke in the closet, to puke on the carpet, to be raped by crocodiles.
However, I feel the movie will stay in my heart somehow, as the individual scenes can be quite memorable.
A flimsily strung together set of set-piece scenes. Some of them are excellent, but too few, and you don't care about any of the characters. Despite its excessive length, Jovan Adepo in particular seems to have been stuck in as an afterthought (or his role was drastically cut before release). An excellent earworm-y soundtrack, though! Margot Robbie is never not watchable here but her performance as manic pixie dream girl disappointed because it was dialled up to 11, compared to her not dissimilar role in Amsterdam.
Hollywood loves to make movies about Hollywood. I give the director credit in that he clearly set out to make an epic. That said, he didn't get there. Much of the first two hours of the movie were really, really disjointed. This movie kind of reminded me of The French Dispatch in that I wondered if I was one of the people in that line of business would I have appreciated more? For the most part it didn't work for me despite some really fantastic performances by the leads (particularly Robbie and Calva, although the scene with Pitt and Smart might be the best one in the movie). The part that did work for me was the last 30 minutes of the film. When the movie got past some of the sillier scenes and got down to some real drama things seemed to go a lot better. The movie is ultimately about stars being made and discarded as part of a bigger machine. It's a shame that the majority of the movie doesn't work because the final scenes (the montage) are unbelievable.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
Very good movie, but it just drags on for too long…
Far too long a movie,good in parts.
A film that is intoxicating in the first half. It sublimely details the excesses of the film industry while spitting on to highlight what really matters, art and the love of filmmaking.
Starts out exciting and fun but meanders and struggles to keep interesting. Was way too long at 3 hours!
Not really my cup of tea. First half quite interesting, the second however really heavy to follow, due to some Tarantino's hints and an important duration. The ending however recovers some of the interesting themes outlined in the first half. Either you like this kind of movies, or three hours are too many to stay awake.
What the fuck four five
It is a long staging of ideas that are sometimes grotesque and almost always provocative, excessive in their magnificence and voracious in their ability to engulf the viewer. It begins as an ostentatious celebration at a party reminiscent of "Salò or the 120 days of Sodom" (1975) and step by step it takes us down to hell (literally). A love letter to the cinema, but a poisoned dart to Hollywood; a passionate look at fantasy but a cruel portrait of reality, which is reflected in its putrefaction through the images within images. That it begins with diarrheal shit from an elephant is a perfect description of a bombastic movie that contains a lot of shit inside.
1920s Hollywood seems a lot more exciting than Hollywood of today. Really good movie much better than I was expecting
Not the disaster we were lead to believe. A major work that you have all failed.
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.
The movie was okay.
Great realization, cool music and everything but... that was all for me.
A pleasure to the eyes surely and real interesting part of the cinematic history but that's all. The scenario was too much and not enough at the same time, the characters were a bit empty even tho the actors were reallyyyy great
I wanted to love this movie but it didn't really made me feel anything. at all.
I can say I'm disappointed
It's an extremely twisted and dark take on Hollywood in the 1920s but is an spectacle alright. Every aspect of it, casting, cinematography, sets, and those crazy ass parties are part of the whole cocktail of mess that Chazelle chosed to create. In ways, is a hate letter to the industry but makes an interesting homage to cinema, to the experience of watching movies and the magic behind making them, putting in all the nasty, dark and grotesque side of fame with absolutely no shame.
I liked it, I agree with someone who said that it was as if the guys from Singing in the Rain had gotten high on cocaine.
A good film, with an amazing soundtrack, that captures the chaos of an emerging art-form that was the early life of cinema and film production.
The first portion of the story is all larger than life, with humour, few limits, and opportunity for those willing to take them, the second takes a dark turn, possibly too dark for me, but it's an interesting contrast as the world turns more corporate and controlled, with criminal elements moving in around the edges.
Every new form goes through this cycle of excess and fall, you can see it in the ongoing evolution of social media now, where everyone thinks they can be a star, and the ridiculous status and reward afforded to "influencers" followed by the inevitable crash.
It's weird to think that Damien Chazelle thought that La La Land wasn't a sufficient enough love letter to Hollywood so he started it once again.
So instead we get Damien Chazelle's attempt at something darker. Something along the tone of Great Gatsby meets Once Upon a Time In Hollywood, so much that he casts Brad Pitt and Margot Robbie.
A lot of this movie works, in some ways it truly capture the struggles of acting and fame, true human pain and the shallowness of Hollywood. The real fragility of the human condition.
But the pacing is weird, the sub-plots often miss in addition to feeling forced. The script lacks direction, which leaves its never ending-pursuit of greater runtime undermining the themes and emotions.
The audience is left to exit with a few nuggets in an otherwise discombobulated mess of what can only be described as artificial psychedelia. The result is less than the sum of its parts.
I could have given it a 7 but for that massive 3 hours long it was a 6
trakt, I think Toby Maguire is missing from the cast
Shout by shmosbyVIP 5BlockedParent2022-12-27T14:05:46Z
Am I the only one who loved this movie?
Sure, it's not perfect. But it shoots for the moon and, in my opinion, mostly succeeds.