User reviews

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.

Didn't really know what the movie was about heading in, but even so the opening sequence was confusing and that feeling persists throughout as the narrative is somewhat chaotic, but this is the result of the movie being shown from a child's point of view. The movie seems like an authentic family experience, and for the most part I didn't really know what the purpose is or what it was leading to but still enjoyed it. A film that's massively elevated by the cast's performances.

The kids can get annoying at times as kids do but the movie let's you relate to them and feel their emotions. It has a few very uncomfortable scenes and has a constant piteous feel after the first act or so. We're just witnessing a family's life, so there's no actual story to it and narration feels off because life isn't always linear or follows a path. This will definitely put some people off.

The acting is superb, especially from the kids who're the lead roles and able to convey their emotion across; Anthony Hopkins and Anne Hathaway were amazing despite being only in supporting roles, felt like watching real people in real life not in a movie. Jessica Chastain was a surprise, she seemed off but I also think that's how her character was meant to be portrayed. It's just unfortunate such great performances had no story for them to hold together. The movie just feels like childhood memories to me all jumbled up.

It's not a movie for everyone and I hesitate to call it perfect nor recommend it but it is beautiful and the performances alone make this a worthy watch. The story wasn't much to behold, but I'll remember this for the heart rending feel it gave. I am still confused as to where the movie titled came from.

James Gray really can write psychologically and morally complex characters better than the vast majority of filmmakers working today. The central family portrayed in his latest film showcases this.

The people in Gray's 1980 New York are all remarkably flawed with objectionable traits and tendencies, yet they have tangible human qualities that make watching them a constantly riveting experience. They struggle to live and love and Gray gives them all little satisfying moments to grow.

As for the performances, they're equally awe-inspiring, especially Anne Hathaway and Anthony Hopkins. But the young boy, Banks Repeta, is also a standout and manages to carry most of the film on his own.

Plot-wise, however, the film is seriously lacking in momentum and substance. There really is no inviting incident nor is there even a real central conflict in the film; just small subplots that begin and sometimes come to an end over the course of the movie.

The lack of tangible pacing and progress makes the story's conclusion feel a bit hollow and empty, but the journey itself is packed with little rewarding moments and powerful scenes that make the overall experience a mostly satisfying one.

I love coming of age movies, but I just didn't care for this one at all. There was just nothing in this movie that I found particularly interesting or new, I know it was based on the directors life, but it just felt unnecessary. I definitely found this to be overrated considering the positive reviews it has gotten. I would be surprised if this is a major award contender like I thought it would be, because it was just so bleak and dull. It also doesn't help when the majority of the characters in the film are very unlikable. Lastly, one minor aspect that I was very frustrated with was the main kid being a Yankees fan, when it is mentioned multiple times that they live in Queens and are by Flushing. Reggie Jackson poster, yankee sticker in the bedroom and mentions of Ron Guidry... come on give the Mets some love. Waste of time.

If director Gray thinks Reagan mentioning Armageddon was traumatic, he ought to talk to those of us who lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis! Other than being scared by the suggestion of nuclear war rather than actually being on the brink of it, this film is lackluster and derivitive. Nothing original and nothing new to say, with pedestrian direction, and an uninspired script. This is a movie that thinks it has a lot to say but it just doesn't have anything interesting to say. It's hard to become invested in such silly, shallow, and self-absorbed characters. An excellent cast does the best they can but it all adds up to very little indeed.

Thia is the only idea that caught my attention in this film.

Being a thirteen or so young boy with a caring full family that loves you, and protects you, this is a privilege.

But no boy at that age is going to realise it despite all the trouble he seems to adore.

I actually hoped the film will focus on the idea of art at that time and originality, but apparently they had other plans.

I think the film discussed and focused at that period of time as a whole and its after effects on the new generation of young boys. Honestly, i didn't feel connected to the boy. I wasn't engaged.

Other than all that, the acting was very good and Sir Anthony Hopkins is always nice to see.

Armageddon Time (2022)

I don't understand why I didn't enjoy this film because normally I love these kinds of coming of age stories. Moreover, I watched this primarily for Anthony Hopkins' and as always, he delivered a terrific performance which should have sealed the deal and yet, it didn't. The director's intention is clearly there but when all the elements come together, the experience feels watered down as the film fails to have a clear focus.

Armageddon Time is a story a young boy who lives with his big family and that's about it. He is a mischievous and to some extent, an entitled brat who seems to only respect his grandfather. The movie tries to make us connect with the boy by showing various adventures and while some moments feel humorous and joyful, they barely make an impact. The sequences with the family are definitely the most enjoyable because of the great cast, particularly Anthony Hopkins who steals every scene he is in.

However, the whole experience feels like a half measure because the director was scared to show anything truly emotional or powerful. It's as if he couldn't decide whether to portray a tender relationship between a the boy and his grandfather, give an audience a lesson on morality or demonstrate the importance of achieving success in life. As a result, the movie falls flat and ends without leaving any sort of impression, inspiration or emotional aftertaste.

Movieswithoutshmovies on Instagram for honest movie and TV Show reviews.

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!

Armageddon Time is a strange one. I enjoyed it, it has a lot to say and says it well for the most part, but it felt like something was missing.

Firstly it's worth saying the film is full of great performances, particularly Banks Repeta in the lead role. It takes a little warming up to, but he is clearly going for something very specific in his characterisation of Paul and it really does work. The supporting cast of Hopkins, Strong, and Hathaway are all very watchable, especially Hopkins who brings a great warmth to the whole piece.

The story is where things get a bit mixed. As a coming of age story it touched on some interesting themes and had some poignant points to make about race, family, and 80s America. However as an overall story it missed the mark for me. The narrative arc left a bit to be desired and I sometimes felt a bit of a disconnect from the characters and the story.

The result is a mixed film that certainly has its moments, but fails to fully draw you in and connect you with its characters.

The title doesn't relate to the story at all. Typical young boy growing up and having challenges at school. So he wanted to be an artist and what kid actually wanted to be what his father wanted him to be? The depiction of parents all too disengaged with the kid's situation is not very exciting or novel. There might have been a story in this somewhere but it ended abruptly (I guess that the money ran out and the camerman just quit when the film ran out.

While Anthony Hopkins does well playing the grandfather, there's not much in the rest to get excited about. Again, there might have been a story but the movie stopped before the story got going. I have seen much better movies about a youngster growing up. This one doesn't merit the time spent to watch it.

Director James Gray recreates his childhood in Queens in 1980, growing up in a modest Jewish family and witnessing upheavals in his own life, including a dicey friendship with a kid from the other side of town and the trouble it brings. Among his family, he is closest with his aging, but inspiring grandfather who urges him to become his best self. His parents and older brother, on the other hand, are aloof and ossified, not on his wavelength at all.

Any kid who grew up in New York City in the late 20th Century will find this engaging, fascinating and evocative. Other viewers might find this film meandering. It's a touching slice of life and an old school story about a young man who sees and understands the adversity that other kids less fortunate than him have to go through. Although this film's title turns out to be an esoteric reference to political rhetoric used at the dawn of the Reagan years, in itself it conveys little about what the real story is about. The Presidential election provides an historical backdrop, but the liberal family's political angst is more a nostalgic detail rather than a central storyline.

Performances overall are quite good, with Anthony Hopkins doing the heavy lifting as the sage grandfather who is the backbone of the family. Banks Repeta is compelling as the protagonist. Jaylin Webb is likeable as a black kid trying to navigate an America that has just begun to integrate. Anne Hathaway makes an impression as the fiercely overbearing mother. Jeremy Strong is solid as the boy's working class father, although his character is disappointingly one-dimensional. Jessica Chastain is utilized in little better than a cameo appearance.

Some voiced criticisms deserve a response. The notion that this film has no plot and no ending is a pretty clear misreading; I would hope that those who have watched were at least paying attention. Reviewers who have political grievances against this film have missed the point entirely. But for those who like an old school depiction of adolescent turmoil and budding social awareness, this film is grandly recommended.

"Armageddon Time" is a coming of age story, much like the Baltimore films from Barry Levinson. But this one is set later (in the early 1980s) and the characters are not as likable nor relatable...at least not for me.

Paul (Banks Repeta) is a 6th grader who starts the school year off by ticking off his idiot teacher. And, through the course of the film, the boy has a variety of adventures. Sometimes, he's in trouble or doing some goofy or seriously maladjusted things. Other times, he seems like a nice, normal kid. His relationship with a kid in school and his grandfather help shape him.

The Levinson films are bathed in sentimentality and feature characters you really like. "Armageddon Time" lacks the same sentimentality and the boy who is the main character is not exactly easy to like. However, the acting IS good...with an amazing performance by Repeta...and very good supporting performances by Jaylin Webb and Anthony Hopkins. The story didn't connect with me, though I really liked the acting by the two kids...it was really spot on and shows good acting and direction. A decent time-passer that could have been better.

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.

Disappointed with this dreary and mundane attempt at a coming of age tale.

Perhaps the director should gave been beaten much much more as a child.

One it would have taught him respect for his amazingly indulgent family, and

Two it would have spared this blissfully unaware story.

When I saw all the television advertisements for this I kind of wondered how bad it might be.

Judging from it appallingly low box office results might also have spared me the two hours.

No idea what the Trump family cameos were meant to represent other than confirming a bad President came from a bad family. Duh!!!

Only giving it a kind 6 out of respect to the actors.

Don't waste your time.

I was of the same approximate age during the same era as the protagonist's story is told. So I can firsthand say I was very impressed on how the narrative developed throughout with superb realism.

One of the most important things I had noticed which makes this highly unique to similar coming of age stories is there is no prepubescent sexual angst. Which is more common than not. It was refreshing actually. There are undertones of racism in 1980s in Queens, NY which is expected. The film was not focused on that primarily. Instead it was more weaving an account of a young boy's differences with his parents and their customs.

Anthony Hopkins was delightful as the boy's grandfather and mentor. The young actor Banks Repeta who played the main was exceptionally good. All and all a delightful change to the repetitive coming of age stories we see more than not.

That was a pleasant surprise

I really enjoyed this one. It's a small picture with a big message. Armageddon Time was an honest movie, sometimes painfully honest about how the world works and how unfair it is and kind of sad how young the children in the movie had to learn that lesson.

If feels like a very personal coming of age story about a boy at the start of the 80s, an artist at heart trying to find himself, living under a roof with a family that does not fully understand him, except his grandfather played by Sir Anthony Hopkins, and he meets a friend who gets him, but the cultural divides of Queens over 40 years ago will test that bromance.

Armageddon time hits hard with the life lesson that would upset some and sadden others yet despite this it was an absolutely amazing film to see with an amazing cast of characters.

Thumbs up!

IN A NUTSHELL: The movie is a deeply personal coming-of-age story about the strength of family and the generational pursuit of the American Dream.

The film was written and directed by James Gray. One of the shenanigans the two boys come up with in the story came from something he and his childhood friend did. This is his first digitally-shot movie, receiving a 7-minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival in 2022.

THINGS I LIKED: The fantastic cast includes Academy Award winners Sir Anthony Hopkins, Anne Hathaway, and Jessica Chastain. We also get to see 4-time Tony Award nominee Tovah Feldshuh. For me, the standout performance was Anne Hathaway. Her character was complex and she portrayed it all with a New York accent and conflicted flair.

The young actor who plays Paul Graff, Banks Repeta, does a great job. Jaylin Webb also gives a good performance as Paul's best friend.

The movie gets its title from the song by the Clash. There is a scene where we see President Ronald Reagan talking about the end of the world. That's another reason why the movie got its title "Armageddon." We get to visit the Guggenheim Museum in the movie, as well as see other New York City sites.

It's impossible to say anything negative about a movie that features Sir Anthony Hopkins. He's fantastic as always. Unfortunately, he's not in the movie as much as most of us would like.

The film offers an excellent illustration of several issues in society.

THINGS I DIDN'T LIKE: The protagonist is a bratty kid, making it difficult to root for him. He creates his own problems.

It's a slow burn that meanders.

The movie kind of ends abruptly and ambiguously.

TIPS FOR PARENTS: Kids will be completely bored.

There's talk of war in Europe.

Two boys in middle school are disrespectful and get into trouble.

Profanity, including F-bombs, mostly spoken by kids Racism is portrayed Kids smoke a joint The "N" word is used once The parents fight a lot A boy hears his parents talk about how he has no potential and is "slow" A family member dies and we see people at a funeral.

!

James Gray explores opportunity and the immigrant experience in USA, bringing echoes of his earlier work "Little Odessa." Ronald Reagan says in a TV clip: "Do you ever feel that we might be the generation that sees Armageddon?" and we are thrown into the 80s and its dynamics of cruelty and compassion. Strong, so far away from his "Succession" chracter, is brilliant here too.

The film attempts to show the pressures on children growing up and trying to understand the ethnic, religious and socio-economic complexities around them. To its credit, the film depicts three generations of a Jewish family in Queens, NY quite unromantically, unlike what one might usually see. Beyond the standard sarcasm and quibbling, there is serious dysfunction and hypocrisy.

The film has an air of autobiography about it, mainly because it's largely stuck in the mundanity and minutiae of family life. But it's that kind of hyper-realism that essentially drags the film down. The confusion of influences working to cross purposes on a young boy is clearly presented, but yet never really draws in the audience. And the main character is so un-compelling (seemingly an artistic choice, as to not make the story too saccharin), that the viewer has no vested interested in his story. Yes, doing the right thing is hard, and we hope the character will grow to understand the importance of his grandfather's final advice. But ultimately, the film doesn't earn the sentiment it seeks.

Watching the trailer left me confused as to the point of the movie, after having watched the movie I now understand why... At no point did this film reflect anything remotely resembling a coherent story, it was a vague artsy attempt at an emotional tale, and relying far too much on the acting of Anthony Hopkins to prop it up. This is the movie of a first year cinema student trying to make their mark on the world, while failing to add any plot, charisma, or really any substance, leaving you with a perplexing angsty childhood narrative.

I have seen more characterisation in Taylor Swifts breakup lyrics, and more plot on the comic strip on the back of my child's cereal box then was in this movie.

Trust me whatever fulfilment you seek in this movie, you will be sadly left with a sour taste in your mouth, and perhaps a high score on Candy Crush as literally any distraction has more entertainment value then this masquerade.

In "Armageddon Time," people keep trying to wake up 11-year-old Paul Graff (a sensitive performance by Michael Banks Repeta). Paul is a slight, dreamy sixth grader in 1980 Queens, New York. Over the span of two months, from the first day of school until the family watches the returns of the Presidential election in November, we repeatedly see Paul in a deep sleep as various family members try to get him out of bed. His father, Irving (Jeremy Strong), dances in Paul's bedroom. His older brother Ted (Ryan Sell), jumps on his chest. His mother (Anne Hathaway) tells him to get ready for school. The sincerity and good intentions of the movie are palpable, as are its ambitions in bringing in the election of Ronald Reagan and the future prospect of Donald Trump as connected to the difficulties faced by Johnny and the challenges of being a mensch. The film creates a vivid and evocative sense of its time and place and many scenes, especially those with Repeta and Hopkins, are touching. Hathaway as the mother is affectionate, amused, and sometimes indulgent with Paul. The shift as she defends him to the principal and then once they are out of his office, when she can say what she really thinks, is one of the movie's best scenes. And she is deeply affecting when it is clear to us, if not to Paul, that she has had some very sad news. Most troubling is the script's failure to give us a fully realized, authentic character for Johnny. The movie is in large part an apology to Johnny and to all of the other kids like him who were not adequately cared for at home and who were constantly mistreated by all of the people and structures that should have been supporting them. It is heartbreaking to see Johnny insulted by his teacher and by older Black kids who scoff at him for dreaming of working for NASA. Why wouldn't he want to get as far away from this planet as he could? Webb is an affecting young performer, and he says a lot just with his eyes. His face lights up in those few moments when Johnny has a sense of hope and connection. But Johnny's character is underwritten, a collection of attributes more than a personality. He is not given the same interiority we see in other characters and that feels like just another way of letting him down.

An interesting film to follow, but still disappointing. I loved James Gray's last film - Ad Astra - and therefore, quite naturally, I was curious about this work. I knew it was going to be something very different, but I also know the affection we all have for our childhood and adolescence.

Armageddon Time starts well. Gray doesn't try to sanctify his family. The portrait he gives us of some of the people closest to him is raw and realistic, which does not always give us a good picture of those people, even considering the temporal differences. The relationship between little Paul (Banks Repeta) and his grandfather (Anthony Hopkins) is one of the highlights of the film, although it could have gone further. The same can be said of Paul's friendship with Johnny (Jaylin). These dynamics are interesting, but the film has a lot of trouble letting go of its moorings.

It's a story that seems to want to grow and seems to have a lot to say (racism, generational trauma, the privilege of many, classism, adolescence, family relationships, the artist within us ...) but in the end, it doesn't go very deep in anything. It's a shame, but it's one of the problems of very personal projects - and this one feels like it is for Gray.

Small episodes can mean a lot to one person but are they cinematic enough to captivate an audience? This film somehow captivates us with its charm and good acting but unfortunately, it is a bit of a hostage to its own ambitions and limitations.

After reading another negative review here I can't add much to it but this movie 1) full of tropes that did not even carry the story along AND the acting was wooden and the dialogue was strained, it was like watching an elementary school play where the players had never acted a role on stage before and were delivering their lines from a piece of paper or a teleprompter and that wouldn't matter because the script , the writing, is so bad , predictable and cliched. My partner turned to me , about 60 minutes in , and asked what I thought and I was so relieved when she said she was bored and was happy to leave. I have not walked out on a movie since I don't know when and have not rated a movie this low in some time. Anne Hathaway, Anthony Hopkins , both with acceptable performances but don't be fooled , I doubt even they would sit through this movie without walking out.