I just thought it was one of the most tedious films I ever saw! I can understand the beauty of a few shots lasting for more than a few minutes but all of them?! The actors were non professionals meaning it was more a documentary than an actual motion picture. From the start to the end all you had is a crying man....give me a break...And why is the grand father always smiling? He was creeping me out... Don't waste your life...
shareThis is certainly not a film for everybody. I would certainly be careful in who I recommend this movie to. It is a challenging because it is like a meditation, you need to surrender to it, ignore what your mind is telling you about what a movie should be, surrender to the slowness first and then to the lack of expressed emotion. There is very little you can chew on, even the acclaimed picture is unsatisfying (don't see this movie for that reason), the emotions are inhibited. Everything is internal, barely reaching the surface. If you can surrender though, like in a meditation, you will become ultra sensitive and start to appreciate it and some scenes will manage to fill your spirit. One word of caution if you intend to see this movie in a theatre, it is very likely that some people will become inconfortable and leave, keep talking, protest etc... which makes it even more difficult to watch it with serenity. If you enjoy walking in the countryside watching nature without talking you'll probably enjoy this movie. If you prefer talking, commenting or being entertained then you'll probably not.
share>"...meaning it was more a documentary than an actual motion picture."<
I think this quote gives a person all the context they need in which to consider your overall comment.
Well I've seen similar films before where time stood still. I understand the plot and what the director wanted to convey. I even appreciated the sunrise and sunset moments although they were separated by months timescale wise. Pure genius or laziness in the editing room. Well let's just put this one into the artsy category which everyone sees whatever they want to see. At least he was gutsy enough to make such a film.
shareI've seen the movie yesterday and I didn't like it. It was so frustrating! I mean, I have nothing against a slow pace, but this was too much, why were ALL the scenes so slow?, the noises began to irritate, the people in the film said almost nothing, where I would be angry and scream maybe. Come on, your husband is cheating and you don't even fight with him? And Marianne, why does she put up with that man, demand that that guy makes a choice! And he's complaining that it is so hard, give me a break. And the end was just too fabulous, I couldn't stop laughing, it was just too much. And I hoped to learn more about the Mennonite community, but sadly there wasn't almost any comment or scene about that. There were many scenes that didn't have anything to do with the story. No, the movie with this theme could have been so interesting, but sadly it didn't happen.
shareWatching this movie in cinema was something really awkward for me. I came randomly to watch it, I didn't know what it was about. And I was late, so it already started. As I crawled to an empty space (luckily, there were lots of them ^_^) I was slowly dragged into the story of this movie, and its inner world.
It's definitely not for everyone ! And frankly, I wouldn't watch it again :)
if you want action, like Mr Indiana Jones or Batman - go elsewhere - pls leave now and do not go in. Some would say: slow, dumb and boring - others here anyway, (and I agree) would say it is like a meditation - it sort of happens in real time - obviously not completely - but the beginning and the end more or less are - although the director said - no CGI, no time lapse in those sequences - how the?? - its a secret apparently. Put your brain into neutral and just drift along with it. If your attention span is 5 minutes - and your ideal cut length is 15 secs max.(some of these single takes are 5 mins or more) this alone might try some people.
shareOnce upon a time, I was very willing to watch (and rewatch!) slow movies. But then I realized that life is simply too short, and there are so many great non-action movies out there. Therefore, no matter how "deep" the movie is, I'm leery of long movies that ultimately don't say much. I'd far better invest my time in a book.
shareI've enjoyed lots of slow-movie indie films, such as "Frozen River" and "Winter's Bone". So I clearly don't need lots of action or have a maximum fifteen-second attention span. Even so, "Silent Light" struck me as very nearly the equivalent of watching paint dry.
shareOh well, never mind, there'll soon be another Michael Bay film out.
shareYou know what? It's almost more childish to spout stuff like that out when someone says they don't like something. I understand, I'll defend my favorite films until I die. But the OP isn't saying foolish things...I saw it tonight and was FURIOUS at how bad it was. And I have a lot of reasons. I will admit that the cinematography is stunning, but this film was unforgivably bad.
Oddly enough, I do NOT like the films of Michael Bay! Can...can it be true?? Someone who doesn't like Silent Light isn't just in life to watch mindless action films?? I hope this knowledge doesn't make you want to throw up and pull over in the rain.
Absolutely. I thought the film's opening shot was one of the most skillful and beautiful I have ever seen, and I have loved slower-paced films like "Into Great Silence" (which is longer, quieter, more spiritually significant, and also populated by "unprofessionals"). . . but this is outrageously bad. Pretentious. Wooden. Silly.
This emperor has no clothes.
I agree with you, in part. I actually really liked the film, but I wouldn't blame someone for finding it way too slow, nor would I assume they only could handle blockbuster schlock. There have been other slow, critically acclaimed films that I got bored with. This one, strangely, fascinated me (maybe because I have always been curious about Mennonites).
--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc
If you wanted to learn about this type of Mennonite community this was a pretty perfect movie for you. That is probably a very realistic depiction of how a problem like that would be dealt with. Some said it's "documentary" styles, and to a point I think it is. It has the realism of a Terrance Malick film or something, but not to rain on the parade, but some of these actors are not actually from that community and are city living, English speaking people. They are Mennonite still. I am Mennonite. The highest population of Mennonites are actually Africans. There are a variety and it's great to see one aspect of our story on film. Incredible and extraordinary movie. I am a bias patriot.
shareHow is it a documentary? It's a fictional story.
shareI am also a Mennonite and speak Plautdietsche. I am pretty open with movies, and like some length of shots not directly involved (example, Half Nelson). I know the movie tried to portray the silence of Mennonites, but it came out wrong with very bland acting. Not even the Amish are that silent. I could hardly understand what they were saying, Johan mumbled a lot. The theme of "losing faith in God" didn't really exist, since he believed the new relationship was "in God's hands." I agree that it was more about relationships. Considering the Mexican Mennonites hold their faith very close, this film did a pretty bad job of teaching about Mennonites, or their faith.
If you can enjoy it, props to you for a great attention span and immersing yourself in it, but I can't agree that this gives a well-rounded view of Mennonites, not even of the colonies located in Mexico. Anyways, it's okay for a movie not to be so factual and educational. I just didn't find this movie had any power over me while watching it, which is generally how I guague them.
Just my two cents.
"Vann ons eascht aules pracktisch ess, dann flijcht daut junge lawe ut 'm fensta rut!"
Execrable
The cinematography was nothing short of horrid. I don't understand why extreme wide screen was used, especially when most shots screamed out for vertical(!) compositions. Why show a wide screen full of walls and empty space, while chopping off heads and bodies and feet? Wide-screen is good for movies of snakes, and little else. The pacing was glacial. The director could have told this story in 45-75 minutes, at most. He should have shot this in Academy aperture (1:1.37) This was simply AWFUL.
[deleted]
I liked it. It's slow, but i liked it. And saying that the cinematography is horrible is a very dumb thing to say. This is not about Cinema 101 (cutting peoples face, long shots of walls). In movies, you do whatever you want to do. If people appreciate it, then all is won.
You'd think we'd have modern movies without Godard breaking the rules at some point ?
Stellet Licht was a beautiful movie, with time to think and "dive" in the movie, the world. A few scenes were absolutly gorgeous of colors and framing. Tarkovsky would have been proud.
I agree that this was tedious. Did you notice that whenever he went to pick up his tractor part he parked his truck about 100 yards from the premises? Two guys had to carry the heavy part the whole way across the yard for no reason. I had to watch them doing that for no reason. The director must have just liked the shot but failed to notice how absurd it was.
share[deleted]
I have to be honest I am struggling to understand why this film is critically acclaimed. It is deliberately paced by the director but I don't believe there is any justification for its running time. There is a convincing argument that 40% to 50% of the scenes presented to us do nothing to develop or propel the story forward and it would therefore be far better served by a running time of around 80 minutes. The aspect of the film that particularly annoyed me however was not the pacing but the wake sequence which is nothing short of plagiarism. Anyone who has seen Carl Theodor Dreyer's Ordet will know exactly what I mean. There are some picture postcard images in the last 4 minutes which are the very epitome of tranquility (note: this is not cinematography) but the only real stand out aspect of the film is the sound recording which is exceptional. Its technicians should and possibly did take a lot of plaudits for it. It is not a film I would recommend you should be in any rush to see.
shareIf you cut everything that didn't propel the story forward, the movie would only be about five minutes long! Okay, maybe fifteen. This is almost like "Gerry", a movie I loved but a lot of people hated. In "Gerry", there were long scenes showing two guys walking without saying anything, and just holding on the "crunch" of their shoes against the ground.
So it's more about a kind of visual poetry than storytelling for the most part. If that's not your cup of tea, that's cool. I'm not going to insult you and tell you to go watch a Michael Bay movie, because I can easily imagine someone who is intelligent and discerning not wanting to watch something so slow. I liked it though.
--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc
So instead of being insulting you settle on condescending. I think I'd rather be insulted. Who is Michael Bay? If you like slow films I'd recommend Sokurov's Mother and Son or Angelopoulos' The Travelling Players. They make Silent Light look like a tense nailbiter. Sorry but if I want visual poetry I'll stick to Terrence Malick. There is nothing quite like Days of Heaven.
shareI'm sorry if I came across as condescending; that was not my intent. I did after all say:
"I can easily imagine someone who is intelligent and discerning not wanting to watch something so slow. I liked it though."
I don't see how that is condescending. I fully allowed that you are likely to be intelligent and discerning.
I would say there is a lot of plot in Days of Heaven. But since you brought up Terence Malik, I was bored to tears by Tree of Life. So, there you go: de gustibus.
--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc
Yeah, he gave me the creeps as well.
And the kids were looking right into the camera, pointing towards the camera...why include that many kids, I suppose they were supposed to have a lot of kids. But OMG.
On the Norwegian cover it said running time 1hrs and 17mins. But unfortunately, that was not right. I spent the last hours surfing the Internet. Luckily enough, I am clearly not the only one who thought this movie was to silent.
I am also a big fan of "slow" movies. It doesnt really have to be that much conversation..but this is too much, even for me. If you want to see another movie, but a more well made movie, which is sort of silent, check out Bent Hamer's "Eggs", http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112934/
or you could also check out "Kitchen Stories" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323872/
But these are just SOOOOO much better. I dont know if I just will have to stop this movie and never see the ending. 6 mins of some sun.....
Tedious? "Transformers" is tedious. Lack of imagination is tedious. Pushing the envelope is bracing. Also this movie has to be seen in a theater where your attention is focused. On tv while surfing the internet is the way to watch the news while eating breakfast.
shareI am also a big fan of "slow" movies. It doesnt really have to be that much conversation..but this is too much, even for me. If you want to see another movie, but a more well made movie, which is sort of silent, check out Bent Hamer's "Eggs", http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112934/
or you could also check out "Kitchen Stories" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323872/