Armageddon Time

You've seen it many times before, watching other people grow up's such a chore, we've all been adolescent, distracted and pubescent, it's a boring set of takes and you will snore. Perhaps if it had something new to say, portrayed a family more uniquely in their way, a novel circumstance, to catch your eye, a second glance, not monotony of children in their play. If you make it to the end you might just wonder, why fine actors chose to loot your time and plunder, must be quite a fallow year, to want to make this and appear, in something that's so dull, it makes you want to slumber.

Although it also makes you wonder whether an aging Welshman is the only person who could have filled that specific role.

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.

A dull and boring film which ended with me thinking "what was the point" and what a waste of time. A complete mystery as to what was the story and more importantly what was the moral of the story. Even Anthony Hopkins could not save this film. I kept on waiting for the wisdom of Hopkins' character to be revealed and passed on to his grandson given his obliquely alluded to family history of terror during the Second World War at the hands of the Nazis during the Holocaust. All Hopkins' character could come up with was a single reference to "be a mensch". We had to put up with two extremely annoying adolescents.

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.

As the credits of "Armageddon Time" began to roll, I noticed a man sitting in front of me lean over to the couple beside him. He asked them if that was it, as he didn't understand what the movie was trying to say and thought there had to be more to it. They responded "that was our childhood", as if having just watched a memory from their childhoods in the 80s. The man then asked them if they missed that time. They swiftly responded with a "Not at all". I bring this up because, as someone who didn't grow up in the 80s, this movie showed me why that couple said "not at all". So many coming-of-age films that take place in the 70s, 80s or 90s eras usually glorify the times they take place in with lots of nostalgic feelings from the writers and directors behind them. This movie was one of the first that told this type of story without using a charming, nostalgic lens, and it was actually quite refreshing. James Gray doesn't seem very pleased with the past: he doesn't seem pleased with his own past.

Much like what Cameron Crowe did with "Almost Famous" this film uses elements from Gray's own childhood, however this film is not as nostalgic as Crowe's, and very clearly shows decisions his childhood self made that he is not very proud of. Some may label this a "white guilt" film, which I agree with, and I think this emboldens the film's message and clearly lays out what Gray is trying to do. The film deals with themes of inequality (mainly racial inequality) as well as morality and the generational pursuit of the so-called "American Dream". It is a very matter-of-fact look at this 12 year old boy's life in the 80s as he navigates his life, dreams, school, family and his friendship with a black boy. I felt very absorbed in the drama of his life, and there was very little sensationalism about it. It is more James Grey reflecting on his childhood and the nature of growing up in the 80s. The plot can meander at times, but the most fascinating element that kept me engaged was this film's dissection of white privilege. The friendship between Paul and the black boy in his class, Johnny, makes Paul realize that even though both of them are troublemakers, one of them will always face greater consequences. The film doesn't shy away from this, and also draws parallels between the rampant republicanism of the Reagan era and modern politics, even featuring a scene with Fred and Mary Trump. These two preach that all the success you have in life is due to hard work and determination, and that handouts are essentially meaningless, and at the same time we see clear examples in this movie of white people leveraging their power and wealth to make sure that each other maintains an advantage. This movie is indeed a takedown of white privilege, and it is pretty direct and damning while not feeling forced, James Gray just hits the nail right on the head.

The characters in the film are all quite complex in their own ways, and while a lot of the credit does have to go to the writing, it is the acting that makes them all stand out. Banks Repeat is wonderfully cast as Paul, and it reminds me of the casting of Elsie Fisher in "Eighth Grade", casting a child actor who may not be the most well-polished or well-trained, but instead really felt believable as a misfit, allowing the dialogue and delivery to feel authentic to how people at that age communicate. He was really great in this role! Anne Hathaway is good here too - I wouldn't say she's doing anything that will surprise anyone who has seen her work before. Same goes for Anthony Hopkins, but at least his role is a lot more weighty. Still feels like he could do this performance in his sleep though! The one who really surprised me (probably because I haven't seen "Succession") was Jeremy Strong, as he initially comes across as a stern, emotionally distant father, but later in the film he has scenes where the emotions start to come through the cracks. There is one particularly charming scene with him too where he's clanging and dancing around trying to wake up his kids in the morning. Strong was really allowed to showcase such a range. The characters were all very interesting, but there were points I wished the script explored the family dynamics/relationships a bit more.

There are many instances with the script that I wish it took a little more time to go into greater depth, and doesn't go as deep into some of the themes as much as I would have liked it to. Gray lets the plot meander along, and it did feel like without the thematic elements this movie would not be as strong as it is. This is after all a pretty standard drama film, and I'm somewhat doubtful of its awards chances. It is really good, but overall nothing too crazy. Heck, I only liked it this much after thinking about it for a while after watching it, when I initially finished it I was a little more lukewarm on the film. I have felt mixed about most of Gray's films, but I think I liked this one most out of all of them. It feels like an old school Hollywood coming of age story, and really does feel like this is from Gray's childhood. It feels like you are reading an autobiographical book at times, and there are pros and cons to that. One con being it does feel a little like a montage film at times, as it jumps from relationship to relationship and never dives too deeply into each aspect. This will work for some people, it did for me, and for some it won't, but regardless it will leave you feeling like it was a tad undercooked at times. But I thought it was very worth the watch! I don't think it will be up for too many awards this year, it is a pretty standard drama and it isn't working for many people, but it is a good movie to me at least!