KnotMissPriceless
Why so much hype?
SunnyHello
Nice effects though.
Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin
The movie really just wants to entertain people.
Geraldine
The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.
MrBobWhite
This is the most boring movie ever made! Idare anyone to find anything worse. This movie should be banned as it could lead to suicides! And the irony in this is that suicide is the main theme of this piece of hot steaming garbage. I am shocked that such an awful thing gets produced. Do you guys realize how many chances people had to stop this garbage from being released onto the world? From writing to pre production then filming ,editing and marketing someone at some point could have said "ok people are were really gonna release this?" Well. It got made. It got out. And it's worth 0 in my opinion. I was forced to give this piece of crap 1 star. But to be honest one is too much.
Ahmed Farrag
Liking or hating a movie can have many factors that lead a viewer to develop an opinion upon the whole, without paying attention to the subtle technical details; but finding a film such as TSL, with all its components, scenes and fading moments, a piece of collective brilliance, an ensemble of great writing, cinematography, directing and acting — it is extremely difficult to list the the reasons for how this film cuts deep into the soul of the human condition.I find myself searching in vain for the most proper way of reviewing such a film — a way that could capture the message of an artist par excellence like Mr. Mccarthy — but to review a film of this standard is to encapsulate a myriad of feelings and observations into one hopelessly unfair critique.One can view this movie as trying to show the incommensurability of two drastically incompatible world views. This is a reading that greatly undermines the depth of the film's theme, and shows a lack of insight that cannot even penetrate the outer skin of the onion like scheme of the film."Whatever Happened?" is the question that Peter Wessel Zappfe asked in his famous article The last Messiah; but the answer was obvious. It was "A breach in the very unity of life, a biological paradox, an abomination, an absurdity, an exaggeration of disastrous nature. Life had overshot its target, blowing itself apart."That life has not the meaning — the teleological sense that humans desperately crave — has been known from the times of the ancient Greeks, and echoed by clever artists through the centuries to our present day. The problem of existential nihilism had never any resemblance to other animal problems; this is because it is not a disease that is seen as having its origin in anything other than being human. And if a cure to human angst, to our the essence — the absurdity of the overdeveloped animal — can only be in death, it does not mean that there are no palliatives that can mask the problem.So, what will happen if anchoring oneself to a "foundational firmament" does not work anymore? "Depressions, excesses, and suicides result." But is going back a viable option? that is what the movie tries to answer. We cannot but anchor ourselves to something, be it a religion, or a cause, or the aspects of our own culture; for unleashing yourself from them will only lead to a horrific fall into the soul crushing abysm of being an intelligent animal in a not so intelligent world.
Joe Que
This is a good film, with great acting, provided you don't think it's going to be an atheist/theist discussion film. I see many people think that, but that's not what this really is about. The atheist is suicidal, so he isn't representing a typical scientific, optimistic outlook on life as we have grown accustomed to from argumentative professors lately. In fact, most atheists will feel quite uneasy with many of his arguments. To him, everything is futile. You need to see this in the context of the post WW2 era, since he's very much caught up in the holocaust which to him made everything pointless. This is interesting, but in a sense, this is also the film's weakness, that I get the feeling that they have made a film out of a 50 year old drama.(I haven't found out when it was written but it doesn't seem like it was staged before after 2000) You should think that this is a timeless subject, but things have changed.While the preacher, being a lay preacher with a prison background, uses 50 year old arguments, this is not so uncommon for this type. However, in the beginning, I got annoyed when the professor couldn't counter these fairly simple arguments. This may have been the whole point, that the professor was a bit out of it. However, in the end, the professor completely rips through the preacher's arguments as he unleashes all his inner darkness. His depression and bleak outlook of life is what makes the film good. Don't expect to find good arguments for a happy godless life, because there aren't anyone in this movie.
chancellorpink
The movie was a major disappointment given the talent. However, knowing much of McCarthy's atheistic writing, it was obvious to me from the start that the religious advocate would be: a) non-intellectual; and b) defeated by his own doubt at the end. Yawn. McCarthy let's the Jackson character do most of the talking throughout the piece, so "stupid" people of faith can be duped into hoping that perhaps the Jackson character is making some headway in his quest to save Jones. But, of course, McCarthy is really only saving his "brilliant" atheistic diatribe to be inserted into Jones' mouth, in rapid "wow, that's said so fast, it must be true" grand finale fashion, at the end.It's a dirty pool trick on any viewer unfamiliar with McCarthy's personal bent, who's hoping for an honest and consistent resolution of the discussion between the characters. Instead, we get what amounts to a political rant designed to blow faith out of the water.Bravo, not.The dishonesty of the "dramatic" structure ruins the entire film. Although, I'm sure know-it- all atheists like McCarthy and the Jones character will love it.