User reviews

...and I wish I could rate them separately. The first act of the film is a fast paced tale of innocence cast into a world of debauchery. It's a beautifully shot, fantastic tale showing the dramatized excesses of show business and the people who would do anything to gain entry into that world. 9/10

The second act was a somewhat more tame and methodical tale of the inner-workings of 1920's film production, with the standout scene being the "hello college" scene. Out of place however, was the whole tangent around the party leading up to the snake. While decidedly funny, I didn't like the pacing very much. 6/10

The final act was a tricky one, and probably could have been 30 minutes shorter. Despite absolutely loving Toby's character, the little side-quest they go on pushed to already exaggerated "Babylonian" theme to to a point of absurdity. It's obvious that some sort of narrative bridge was needed to set up the final scene, but I felt it was overdone. Pitt's character arc wasn't bad, but it lost a lot of steam and I honestly wouldn't have noticed if his character had only been mentioned in the pre-credits sequence. 4/10

If there is one strong point throughout the entire film, it's the use of the dueling saxophone score and quick cuts to drive home the manic energy present throughout the film. Without that score many of the slapstick-heavy scenes would have felt tiresome in an already very lengthy movie. I have a hard time recommending this film to any but the most serious of film nuts, but it's impossible to deny that the bones of a great story are here, they just needed to leave some of the fat on the cutting room floor.

So I just finished watching Babylon.

I really liked it but I hated it. I was bored but I was entertained. It was an emotional rollercoaster and it was plain like the Great Salt Lake. It was clear but it was confusing. It was happy and it was sad.

OMG what a mess!! Not necessarily and not always a bad mess, just a mess - there's a lot going on in this movie, and throughout this complicated web of moving pictures and sounds comes through a story, I think, but I'm not sure.

The whole movie rests on a feeble script, and that's not good, but there's some decent acting, half-decent cinematography (kudos to the crew for managing to navigate through in tight closed quarters with hundreds of naked and clantily clothed people around) and some absolutely fantastic music! In fact, I rated this movie 4 stars, but added 2 for the score - it's mesmerizing! Just do me a favour and be patient through the entire credits, at the very end you'll hear Justin Hurowitz's New York!

Big budget, big actors, huuuge production, but really not much to write home about. Did I waste 3 hours of my life? Not really, yes for sure. Confusing.

Whether it be orgies, showcasing various bodily fluids, plot threads, or the runtime of the film, Damien Chazelle is fully unrestrained in his latest film. La La Land and Whiplash are some of my favorite films and I'm a big fan of Chazelle's directorial style. He shows flashes of that brilliance often throughout Babylon, but does indulge in his most extreme tendencies as well in this modern Hollywood epic.

There is a lot I liked here. The opening sequence is a sight to behold and had me mesmerized with its vibrant energy. The film chugs along at a good pace for the next two hours to the point I really didn't feel the runtime for most of it. It's the last hour or so where Chazelle loses the story a bit. There were several instances where I thought the film was over, but another scene would pop up next. The runtime really feels unnecessary and there's honestly whole plot lines that could be cut out that wouldn't affect the film.

Justin Hurwitz has composed another terrific score (with some nice hints of La La Land) and the photography, costumes, and production design are all stellar. Outside of some shoddy editing, especially a bizarre movie montage at the end that really did not gel, the technical aspects of the film are quite an achievement.

Chazelle really needed someone to tell him no with this film. Some better editing combined with some self-restraint and this would be much closer to the epic masterpiece status he's clearly aiming for. As it stands, it's a pretty entertaining tale of excess and fame in early years of Hollywood.

After an "interesting" opening scene about our main character Manny (Diego Calva) trying to get an elephant up to a party in Bel-Air, Babylon floors the gas pedal and barely comes up for air for the rest of the run time. I wanted to credit Damien Chazelle and his team for providing a unique experience in regards to pacing, setting and tone. The expression "fever dream" is overused but Babylon is captured in such a chaotic and constantly shifting way that kept me enraptured. The movie looks fantastic and even if you don't have an interest in this period of cinema, I don't doubt that Babylon will still pull you in. The costuming and sets are dynamic and show how disorganized and tumultuous early Hollywood was. I was hooked from the get-go and for all the movie's flaws, its presentation is vibrant and fast-moving to keep help you entertained.

While Babylon is distinctive with its look and pacing, when it comes to the characters, things are a little more familiar. Conrad and LaRoy are loosely based on a couple of people from that era but the lessons the movie wants to teach us about Hollywood chewing up and spitting out talent are pretty routine. I think Babylon is effective at getting those across but I was a little let down that the movie starts so bombastically and then quietly tip toes into conventionality by the end. Some characters are meant to be less distinctive (Manny is the audience avatar for example) but while I wish they were a little more fresh, I did want to follow them throughout the length of the movie.

Damien Chazelle has enough of a name now that he could probably get any actor/actress he wanted in his cast. He still attracted some big and interesting names for Babylon. I think every member of the main cast did a fantastic job and it's a credit to them and Chazelle for getting the most out of his performers. Brad Pitt's the biggest name and I really enjoyed the work he put in as Jack Conrad. He's appropriately funny in Conrad's lush and over-the-top behaviour but he garners some genuine sympathy for him when the world turns against him. Pitt could have played it so big that he came off as an entitled prick but there's some warmth and passion to Conrad and Pitt gets that across. I've always liked Margot Robbie and she's on point here as Nellie. She throws herself into it completely, there's a surprising amount of physicality and nuance in Nellie's whirlwind behaviour. Much like Pitt, she's really funny when she is given the opportunity to be. Despite the pretty telegraphed arc for her character, you understand why Manny can't resist Nellie even when it's crystal clear she's bad news wrapped in pretty packaging. I would hope that Pitt and Robbie both get awards consideration for their work here. Diego represents the audience, he's witnessing all the craziness and has to go along with it. He's a pretty blank slate but there's enough from Diego that his character is distinct and you understand his motivations. I want to credit Li Jun Li and Jovan Adepo as Lady Fay Zhu and Sidney Palmer respectively. Their characters are written with a heavy hand but both are sympathetic and have their respective moments. The oddest casting is Tobey Maguire as threatening mobster James McKay but Maguire's surprisingly good at being a creepy underworld figure.

Getting to the negatives, Babylon is a movie that indulges in the exact same vices that it's lambasting. As a film, Babylon's determined to show all excess and hedonism of the era in all its "glory." I appreciated some of this but there are moments where the movie gets pretty gross (there's an early scene involving a elephant that is going to shock people) and while I get what Chazelle and his team are trying to show, was it really necessary? I'd argue not. Babylon's lengthy run time is also going to drive some people away but it also has an affect on how the story twists and turns. Characters that started out with more depth gradually turn more generic (Nellie specifically comes to mind) and you could have easily trimmed some of the fat off this movie. The total length of Babylon feels a little self-indulgent and while the previously mentioned frenetic pace keeps you guessing, it saps some of the ending's impact. I got what the movie was trying to say with its wrap-up but I can't deny I was bouncing in my seat in anticipation of getting to leave.

Just like the lavish and insane partying that Babylon presents, you have to choose to take the hit of whatever your poison of choice is and dive in headfirst or not to indulge and slip out the back. Babylon is going to be an incredibly polarizing film and while I enjoyed large parts of this movie, there were also many scenes that fell flat for me. I'd grade Babylon somewhere between a 7 and an 8 but I'm rounding up because there are moments where Babylon has some real cinematic magic. I'm not comfortable wholesale recommending Babylon, if you're interested in a Wolf of Wall Street style comedy about the excess of Hollywood in the 1920s that gets pretty dark, check it out.

Babylon is a long, messy, repulsive, and magnetic spectacle. Unfortunately despite the great performances and set pieces it doesn't live up to Chazelle's previous work.

The movie wants to bring you down into the waste yard that is Hollywood then pull you out to see the beauty that grows out of the trash. The problem is the movie spends so much time in the mud, and goes so deep into it that by the time it tries to pull you out at the end it's too late.

On the upside the cast are great and almost completely carry the movie, especially Margot Robbie's enthralling performance as Nellie. And as with Chazelle's previous work the set pieces are well executed and (some) characters are memorable.

However, these positives could not completely overcome the movie's fundamental flaws which are -- going too far with trying to revolt the audience (to the point of childishness), not spending enough time with the characters or important scenes despite its decadent runtime, and the ending coming off as completely pretentious in the context of how practical/cynical everything leading up to it was.

In the end, Babylon does serve its purpose as an entertaining spectacle, but like the Hollywood it critiques, its self-indulgence prevents it from achieving greatness.

Wow. I came into this flick without great expectations so maybe that's why I was able to really enjoy this. This film was very entertaining to me and that's hard to find in todays film industry of rinse and repeat big picture films and the predictable art house and indie scene (which is ironic considering it's supposed to be what's different and boundary pushing). It was big and loud and at times out of control just like the 20s film industry.

The sets are amazing, cinematography is stellar, the acting is amazing and over the top in the right way, and a fitting soundtrack. The story is a bit all over but this film is better if you approach it like a film that is supposed to be lived in as opposed to followed.

I think Babylon is going to be a film more celebrated and enjoyed as time goes by and more people find it. It's the most fun I've had with a newly released film in the past few years. Film is my favorite hobby and it has been since I was a child. I've seen every type of movie and seen them from every era and modern film is the most disappointing to me. There's no magic anymore and it's just plain boring but this was a nice change of pace. It's is a movie lovers movie and it will now be in my rotation and I think it will only improve on rewatched because there is so much in this film that you can't catch it all the first time around.

This film felt like it was written and directed by a high school drama class kid with ADHD. It was exhausting to watch, and it was all over the place with too much filler, too many unnecessary sub-plots, convoluted scenes and dialogue, with horrible editing and scene start and cuts. In the hands of better more experienced filmmaker, this could've very easily been so much better and more enjoyable. Writer and director Damien Chazelle gave us a hack-job screenplay with overzealous and pointlessly outlandish scenes, that are all style with very little substance. The all star stellar cast were all amazing, especially Margot Robbie - who was the only reason I didn't stop watching 40+ mins into this utter disastrous nonsense. The critics got this one right. It's a very generous 6/10 from me, all going to the performances and decent cinematography.

"Babylon" tracks the career of Manny Torres, an aspiring filmmaker from Mexico who crosses paths with fellow aspiring starlet Nelly LaRoy at a bacchanalian party one night in 1920s Los Angeles. The film also follows several other characters at the same party, including movie star Jack Conrad, cabaret performer Fay Zhu, tabloid journalist Elinor St. John, and musician Sidney Palmer, as each rise and fall in their respective careers spanning the end of silent films and the beginning of sound productions; each of the characters cross paths throughout as they navigate the shifting business of Hollywood.

This large-scale epic from Damien Chazelle is, in a word, ambitious, both in scope and mere technicality. It opens with an utterly ravishing, debaucherous party sequence that captures the maddening spirit of roaring twenties Hollywood, setting a visual bar that is fairly high. While there are a number of fantastic sequences throughout the film, this key party sequence where each of the characters are introduced/first intervene is, without a doubt, the highlight of the film. While its characters are fictional, the screenplay blends them in with passing names of real-life historical Hollywood figures, as well as thinly-veiled references to others.

Firstly, it almost goes without saying that "Babylon" is gorgeously photographed. The performances are also uniformly solid. Diego Calva is a likable presence as the centerpiece character, while Margot Robbie's portrayal of the brash and troubled Jersey girl flying by the seat of her pants is comical and poignant by turns. Brad Pitt fittingly plays the drunken but goodhearted movie star, and Jean Smart is also a welcome presence as the curt and astute gossip columnist, ostensibly based on Louella Parsons (or a writer of her ilk).

The film is consciously over the top, at many points capturing the madcap spirit of something the late Ken Russell would have directed. Its first three quarters are particularly outstanding, and demonstrate the realities (and technicalities) of how the transition from silent films to motion picture talkies posed legitimate, career-altering (or more often, career-destroying) challenges for nearly everyone who was part of the business. Chazelle projects this theme to the audience in one memorable and protracted sequence in which Robbie's character (along with the sound man) struggles, fails, is interrupted, and struggles again to perform a simple one-page scene. The nuts and bolts of these logistical challenges in a then-fledgling industry are perhaps the most intriguing components of the story, highlighting just how vastly different (and more arduous) the process was of making a sound picture for the actors and filmmakers accustomed to the established ways.

By the time it reaches its final act, however, the viewer does get the sense that the project is beginning to implode under its own weight to some degree; the focus on certain characters ebbs and flows, and the film begins to lose some steam. It is revived somewhat by an insane sequence in which Torres and another crew member of his film studio (in an attempt to save LaRoy from reckless gambling decisions) cross paths with an eccentric crime boss played by Tobey Maguire, and journey into a subterranean gathering place for the city's debaucherous denizens, who have literally gone underground following the more reserved moral code of the 1930s. The garish and ghoulish sequence feels like a tour of Dante's Inferno (probably quite intentionally), and is almost more madcap than the opening party sequence.

The film grinds to a somewhat abrupt halt as each of the characters' lives and careers face further significant devastation in the last thirty minutes, and the sense of tragedy that one might expect to feel is strangely absent, perhaps because these characters are in and of themselves larger than life, even cartoonish at times; still, I felt that there was an emotional core missing as their stories are resolved. The film ends on a profoundly cynical note, showing Hollywood as a place that metaphorically devours its own, only to be constantly replenished by the unending stream of those who make pilgrimage there, seeking to etch their mark in the tapestry of cinema. The observation is astute, and the implications are splashed across the screen in a century-spanning montage of snippets from the earliest films to contemporary ones.

All in all, "Babylon" has many strong points: Mainly its visuals, sturdy performances, and focus on the industrial realities of early filmmaking that most 21st-century viewers would take for granted. It eventually grows a bit long in the tooth into its third hour, and loses some tenacity, but not enough so that the film entirely collapses in on itself (though it comes close). If nothing else, it earns its keep as an ambitious and scabrous love (and hate) letter to cinema. 8/10.

An American epic historical black-comedy drama; A story about the rise and fall of Hollywood careers during the transition from silent films to sound films in the late 1920s. The burgeoning era of the American film industry was no less prurient, harsh, or nasty on its artistes than modern-day Tinseltown, which is why the film's theme is interesting: people who are subject to rapid change and exposed to excess, struggle to curb their personal indulgences and suffer for their art in the hope of big success. The tone is provocative and tragi-comic, but in overstating excess in the way it does, too many character stories don't lead anywhere; lavish Felliniesque scenes with their sweeping camera shots and high-spirit music test one's patience in the longer sequences. Also, it doesn't quite capture the period: stage sets, props and costumes look over-embellished. The self-entitled way some characters speak sounds like they belong to the 2020s, not the 1930s. There is no one to especially care about, with only Brad Pitt's "Jack Conrad" being relatable. All in all, it dazzles and shocks to please. There's a definite feel of good intention to show the magic of the movies, but sometimes the story lacks cohesion.

So many reviews praise this film for the level of "debauchery" shown in it or the devotion the actors gave to said debauchery. But just because you have the willingness to fill your film with an over excess of sex, drugs, violence, and human bodily fluids doesn't mean you have a good film. This movie feels like it goes on forever and has endless character who serve no real purpose to progressing the story. At the core there is a decent plot but it falls apart and some of the scenes feel like they were written by a teenage boy imagining what his ideal "fantasy" would play out like. This movie will easily become a cult classic just for how vulgar it is.

I recently read a biography of silent film "It Girl" actress Clara Bow. Margot Robbie, looking more like a Grace Kelly from a few decades later rather than a Bow, plays a character highly inspired. From her blue collar New Jersey upbringing, to a father following her to Hollywood and making money off her image (even opening a restaurant based on one of her famous movies), a gambling addiction, to an off-color joke at a hoity toity part - these are all inspired by Bow and her life.

The film is great as a love letter to Bow, warts and all, played magnificently by Margot Robbie, and just to the magic film can have on its audience, transcending time. It visually details the difficult transition had on the film industry with the transition from silent films to talkies, showcasing actors, producers, and musical performers adjusting to it all. Brad Pitt gives a great performance as a Douglas Fairbanks like silent star edging toward irrelevancy, but newcomer Diego Calva really steals a large part of the movie with his powerful performance.

Great music from Justin Horiwitz (who reunited with his La La Land/Whiplash director Damien Chazelle) with excellent cinematography and performances. However, the film was a bit much at time. Consistently frantic (lots of characters melting down and screaming) and/or stressful with excesses abounding, it was a little much at times. Certain scenes (such as an elephant having explosive diarrhea on a man) would have been better not seen so graphically.

Solid film. 8/10.

It's 1926 Hollywood. The silent movie era is having a party of epic debauchery. Manny Torres (Diego Calva) is the 'Mexican' fixer servant doing all the dirty jobs. Jack Conrad (Brad Pitt) is the big movie star. Nellie LaRoy (Margot Robbie) is the flamboyant nobody who fakes it until she makes it. She makes it and then the silent era ends. Everybody works to master the new sound era.

This is not an appealing start. I don't know what's happening with every Oscar bait movie which insists on an overly broad comedic scene with bodily functions. The elephant is completely overboard. I wouldn't open with that scene. It's an indication of what's to come. This movie is desperately trying too hard.

I guess we're supposed to root for Margot Robbie, but I don't. I find her abrasive and not always appealing. She does find her tragic heartbreaks and that helps her character. This would work better if it concentrated more on Brad Pitt's character. He has some of best heart-felt scenes during his climax. Manny Torres is probably the other main character with a big character arc. I like the character, but the performance is too stoic. I need a different performance from him.

Besides Brad Pitt's character arc, I love the general premise of redoing "Singin' in the Rain". It's a great premise that needs a little foreshadowing and less outrageousness. It could be a simple modern day revival with admiring fans watching "Singin' in the Rain" to open this movie. Damien Chazelle is just trying too hard. It hits a few false notes and the whole enterprise stumbles. It always gets back up with some very compelling scenes. For example, the first sound shot is fun. I don't like how it ends. Damien keeps pushing the comedy one step too far. I do appreciate the overall premise and the ambition of the work.

My main takeaway when I left the theater this evening after watching this film, was that it was far too long and had probably one storyline too many to make this movie fly, but instead after the first act, it drags, and drags, and drags.

The funny thing is, the best moments of this film are within the first hour. The less cohesive and more chaotic the film was, the more exciting it felt. After that point though, the film falls apart, the plotlines stray and the film has maybe 50% of the crazy energy that the first third had. It attempts to try and regain that energy in the finale, but doesn't quite capture what came before it. It turns from debauchery to horror, and it didn't gel well for me. Felt like the tone contradicted itself from where it began.

The acting on the other hand is fantastic. Robbie and Pitt are electric, and the way Diego Calva can emote without saying anything is brilliant. I just wished the script and direction from La La Land writer/director Damien Chazelle was as good as the acting. Sometimes, the film felt like I was watching four films at the same time. Each of these plotlines could have had their own movies and seeing them all jumbled together here felt self indulgent and exhausting by the end of it. Only one of the storylines have any sort of ending that makes it feel justified in it's telling. Afterward, when the credits start to roll, you're just sat there with no feeling for what you just witnessed for a little over three hours.

Overall, I only recommend for people who don't mind the three hour runtime, but keep in mind that the films plot goes absolutely nowhere, and although it might be a fun trip at times, it is a rather pointless one.

2 talking pictures out of 5.

Incredible performances, several amazing scenes, but doesn't come together for me. Probably better after several viewings, which would be helpful to take in some more of the intricate symbolism and some more nuance that I definitely missed. However, this movie nails it's unique style as a Gruesome Fairy Tale of sorts. Sadly, I didn't feel Damien Chazelle's usual tension and emotion, even in his intense and unique ending. I'm really hoping I'll find whatever I missed in my next viewing, I really want to love it. Sorry for this compliment sandwich, this is coming straight off the top of my head.

Quentin Tarantino once said "hacks don't go that far." There are some filmmakers that have a creative confidence that delivers a film that many people will find repulsive, but some will find exhilarating because if it's creative audacity.

Yes this film is too long but there is so much talent and so much detail to admire in every frame of this film. Diego Calva has one scene where you feel so sorry for this man you wanna cry for him.

The moment when Brad Pitt is kissing a young woman before a perfect sunset and a butterfly lands on a shoulder is the moment that encapsulates exhilarating fun of filmmaking.

Babylon had some moments that were better than every other movie I've seen this year, they just needed to cut it down about 20 minutes. It's all about hollywood and the beauty of filmmaking and it gets a little too big for its britches in some places, leading to some unfortunate self-seriousness. The whole thing is apparently a tragic rewrite of Singin' in the Rain and the technical accomplishment on display in this film is astounding. The first hour is all-time great, truly, deeply moving as well as visually astounding. The question when walking out of the theater is whether the sublime moments outweigh the unnecessary length. It's crazy for some random guy to give notes to maybe the most successful 37-year-old director in history but (who cares) he needs a trusted editor who he'll let make some cuts. All the pieces of a classic are there, but unfortunately the fluff distracts. We need like a studio cut for this movie lol.

The movie is really vivid at times - peculiarly (or perhaps deliberately?), the more vivid the less rich the end result is: the glitter and madness of the backstage shines most brightly when they still film the black-and-white silent pictures. And so is the movie pace and coherency - it's a sharply cut but consistent narrative for roughly the first half of the movie, and then is starts leaping years ahead and the narrative loses much of its meaning and focus. The last part before the ending brings madness anew - but surprisingly a completely different kind, as if taken from another story for no particular reason: those few last characters add nothing to the fact that they were already mentioned, yet the scene goes on and on.

And then the whole message is unclear - from the beginning and the epilogue (and from a few dialogues in between), it seems as if it's an ode to The Cinema, something grand and timeless and "bigger than you and me" - but most of what happens inside is about greedy and soul-crushing and disposable nature of the whole showbiz, where nobody's a victim but everyone's trying to get what they want at any cost.

So it's a grand spectacle (half of the time) and a frenetic misanthropy (the other half). Perhaps still worth watching though.

Babylon is cinematic marvel that Damien Chazelle is a messy, dazzling epic masterpiece that film hasn't yet accepted or had before. Damien Chazelle has called Babylon: "A hate letter to Hollywood and a love letter to movies," but his messy, dazzling epic doesn't support that simplistic idea. Set in the early days of cinema, when talking pictures were a jaw-dropping phenomenon and Hollywood was still being created, Babylon suggests a deeper reality: the film industry's raw, self-destructive, narcissistic impulses and its glorious, magical results have always been opposite parts of the same whole. Chazelle's ambitions are huge. Babylon is full of remarkable set pieces with richly drawn characters, music, dancing, love and betrayal. The film's strengths more than make up for its serious flaws, including too many endings and a wrong-headed reliance on Singin' in the Rain as a touchstone. But if Babylon makes you groan occasionally, there are many more times long, exhilarating stretches that are mesmerising. In one of the film's multiple endings, which leaps ahead to 1952, a major character sits in a cinema tearfully watching Singin' in the Rain. That enamoured-of-movies scene hasn't been fresh since Sullivan's Travels in 1941, not to mention Cinema Paradiso in 1988 and this year's Empire of Light. The fact that the scene can be viewed as a homage to all those films doesn't make it less cliched. And a montage of other movies through history is a bravura but needless coda. At its best, Chazelle's film is a cinematic marvel, evidence enough that movies are magical, as it sweeps us into the beautiful, terrible world we recognise as Hollywood even now. The cast up and down Babylon is amazing and almost eerily in sync with my own tastes. Actors I deeply love, like Taylor Nichols and Ethan Suplee, show up oh-so-briefly as if casting director Francine Maisler had thumbed through my own mental rolodex and said to herself "ah, here's another face Sonny would like to see." This is, perhaps, another reason I found myself drawn in by Babylon's excess: I just liked spending time with almost everyone up on that big, beautiful screen, I fell in love with the cast and the story. Believing Babylon to be over, thus missing the last few of its 189 minutes. This was itself a fitting, almost serendipitous, way to end the movie. Audiences come and go; they are as ephemeral and ever-changing as the names on the marquee. The darkened theater filled with flickering light? That's eternal, everlasting, deathless. The actors and the audiences alike come and go, but the show goes on forever.

Reality blows. We want something more. We want a "new high" or something to chase. This movie is built around escapism. The same escapism that draws people to watching movies, draws people into making movies. That same escapism starts to flee when we are no longer "entertained." We then want something more!

This movie is built around the never ending chase for "more" in life only to make us ask if it even matters. It's fairly existential underneath it all. It begs the question of when entertainment becomes evil. When we lose site of humans and see them only as objects for our entertainment.

There is graphic content that people will cling to and badmouth the movie over but if you are someone who loves independent cinema, this has the flavor of an independent film with a massive budget. I'm grateful it got made but there is no way this will do well in the box office. It has "cult classic" written all over it years from now.

The film starts on the wheel caps. We quickly get to the massive party that the film trailers promised us. And it's masterfully shot, with long takes, masterfully paired music, and explosive character intros. The first discussion between the two main characters funnily reveals the absurdity of the 1930´s Hollywood. But then the movie never recovers to such heights, save perhaps for the sunset-chasing sequence, and the scary underground party moment (amazing bit by Tobey Maguire). The story is weak, the characters are poorly developed (even the main ones), as a spectator you feel like you're hovering above the ensemble cast without ever meeting them. Each character is struggling and fighting against prejudice in its own way (being a woman, being black, being an immigrant, becoming obsolete) but the depiction of those struggles feel botched and cliché. And we never believe in the love story between Manny and Nelly. Once or the twice does the dialogue elicit a laugh, but given the material this could have been way more fun. Finally the ending stretches on forever - by this point we get that it's an ode to cinema itself but the director drives his point so heavy-handedly that he undermines his own argument. A completely useless retrospective of movies from the next 100 years (we're even served excerpt from the Matrix and Avatar) is inserted towards the end - at which point we felt it was over and ready to leave. But no, there's another 5min of the main character crying and flashbacks to the main party. Almost to remind us why we came to watch this in the first place: because we got tricked by some dishonest movie trailers. Oh hollywood, always so full of contradictions...

1. It is a hig-enrgy assault on the senses. There is always something happening visually, loud music or loud screaming or loud animals aor something happening. It is over-the-top, bombastic and rarely boring.

The problem? Rollercoasters are fun, but they are fun because they last about five minutes. Would you want to ride a rollercoaster for an hour or two hours....no you would not. And that is the problem with this movie. It is throwing so much at you and it does not let up long enough for you to digest the last scene. If there was a cohesive story, I missed it. If there was character development, it got lost with the direction and editing.

If you are just looking for soemthing to watch and get lost in, then this works. Otherwise it is less of a movie and more of a collection of wild scenes with famous actors just slammed together.

I love the cinema! Babylon is a spectacular epic film, truly a masterpiece. I think this movie deserves the Oscar for best picture of the year. It is a remarkable story following several characters living the dream and the starlight of Hollywood. Chazelle has created a movie that is a love letter to Hollywood not because of depraved parties or preventing talented minorities from becoming stars but from reflecting how far Hollywood has become.

I was amazed by the Oscar-worthy performances from Margot Robbie. She is fantastic and deserves a nomination. Brad Pitt is excellent as well, and the newcomer Mexican actor Diego Calva wow, perfectly carried the whole movie; he had great chemistry with Robbie. Jean Smart was fantastic, specifically the cameo with Brad Pitt, and Tobey Maguire was hilarious. Three hours of such a spectacle from beginning to end. I loved the cinematography, and the musical score is out of this world. You feel you want to dance and sing. The story was great and nostalgic. Come on, people, I can see it was harsh for some prunes not to like the movie because of the sex and drug content, but it is far from being the objective.

I loved the cameos of the movie sets that show the evolution from silent to talkies. If you love movies as much as I do, you will love Babylon, and finally, I want to tell you that the ending is epic; I don't want to spoil telling you about it. Please, see it on the big screen.

Please do not read the low ratings of critics; they are full of it!

Far too long, for the reward that it withholds, although it's fearless and adventurous, quite daring and quite bold, overflowing with depravity, full of wicked immorality, indulgence and degeneracy, quite an orgy that unfolds.

The Roaring Twenties, and roaring doesn't quite capture the excesses presented here with a film that paints quite a colourful picture of the world of silent movies and their transition to the planet of sound. Margot Robbie smashes it out of the park, as well as producing voluminous amounts of vomit, however, take away the spectacle, and you're left with an often told tale you've seen many times before, and an eager anticipation to watch Singin' in the Rain for the nth time, a revisit your unlikely to make quite as often with this, as once is more than enough.