FlixChatter Review: PILGRIMAGE (2017)

Ruth on Flixchatter, a blog I very much enjoy and have been following for a while, has reviewed Pilgrimage. Ruth is an advocate for independent film (she is just now finishing making her own first short film called Hearts Want, info on Facebook if you’re curious: https://www.facebook.com/heartswantfilm/) and she liked “Pilgrimage”.

Of Richard Armitage as Raymond de Merville she says: “Armitage is good but I feel like he’s basically reprising his role as Guy of Gisborne in BBC Robin Hood, though his French is rather impressive.”

Have a read if you like and check out her “Hearts Want” Facebook page too. I helped crowdfund that movie. 🙂

FlixChatter Film Blog

It’s been ages since I’ve got time to write a review, but I knew I had to write one for this after I saw it last weekend.

I’ve mentioned PILGRIMAGE all the way back in January 2016. It’s been a long time coming but I’m glad I got to see it on the big screen (though it’s a shame it’s only playing in a single theatre in Twin Cities suburbs with odd screen times!)

In 13th century Ireland, a group of monks must escort a sacred relic across an Irish landscape fraught with peril.

The premise is simple, but it’s packs a punch in terms of its thought-provoking story and the unrelenting violence these monks face along the journey. It opens with a horrific stoning of Saint Matthias, the apostle chosen to replace Judas Iscariot following his betrayal. The barren landscape of Ireland, an island on the edge of the…

View original post 565 more words

19 thoughts on “FlixChatter Review: PILGRIMAGE (2017)

  1. I saw her review of Pilgrimage, too, and though I was happy that she reviewed the film favourably, I was not so sure about her comparison with Guy of Gisborne. True, two 12th century knights – Norman/half-French to boot. But when compared with Raymond, Guy is a pussycat. Or one could say that there was more variation in Guy than in Raymond. After all Guy did have shades of good as well as evil. Raymond not so much – he’s the clear-cut villain of the piece. Mind you, RA put some nuance in the evil antagonist, too. But if anything, I’d probably compare the portrayal of Raymond to the menace RA put on for the Red Dragon.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. But see, we, as students of The Armitage, might see the differences and are more aware of other roles. To a less, erm, interested party I can see where she’s coming from… It’s one of the reasons why I like reading reviews of bloggers outside of the Armitage Army, to see how they view our crush in context of his latest film.
      I have to say, she sounds more positive as a whole about the film than I was, but not quite as positive about Armitage as I am. Ah, my fangril bias. 🙂

      Like

      1. You are right, of course. Plus, I probably have a certain level of APM going at any one time. It is interesting indeed to get outsiders’ views on our favourite subject.
        Agree with you that overall she reviewed the film more positively than I would have…

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Mush for a brain today… what is APM again? Oh… just got it, Armitage Protection Mode, right? You must be something of a general in this army by now, you have every right to APM! My first thought as well was “Gisborne, really?” And then the next moment I had to grin, “I think I get it”. ☺

          Like

  2. Servetus

    I would say that the interesting thing about Raymond de Merville is that he’s emphatically and rather obviously not much like Guy of Gisborne. He doesn’t have a light side, he doesn’t have a(n unrequited) love interest, he’s deadly rather than being almost incompetent with a weapon, he’s emphatically unreligious, he has a present lineage and a familial context as opposed to a shaky clientele upstream, he drives action instead of responding to it, he’s not being portrayed as a sex symbol on any level. Of course, we have spent more time watching Guy as fans. Reading this review made understand better why Armitage might want to avoid reprising a particular kind of role, though. If all casual watchers — most of the audience — would see every time I played a medieval knight was Guy of Gisborne, I’d avoid picking those roles, too.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yeah, I agree, Gisborne is different and his character was developed over 3 series, so there’s much more there as well. Still, I do get the scowling medieval baddie comparison.
      ITA on the casual watchers thing and maybe wanted to avoid being typecast thing.

      Like

  3. Servetus

    That’s now the third report I’ve heard of “very obscure theater at odd times”. I wonder if they’re trying for eligibility for some smaller indie awards that require theater showings? Otherwise this doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. squirrel.0072

    Je me propose POUR LUI DONNER DES COURS DE PRONONCIATION EN LANGUE française, en échange il pourrait m’aider en langue anglaise…Son ton est trop appliqué trop scolaire non spontané , sans pour autant faire oublier ses origines..

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I was wondering what a native French person would think of the accent. I knew it didn’t quite sound like native French but I thought it sounded better than his German. 😉
      An English-French teaching trade-off sounds good! You do that and I’ll come and teach him better German (my German has a little bit of an accent but is better than his). 🙂

      Like

      1. squirrel.0072

        There is no blatant blunder of pronunciation, except perhaps some errors of intonation: it should go down at the end of non-interrogative sentence. But it is above all a lack of natural, too slow, an impression of artificial. It seems to me to hear a bizarre voice reconstituted by a device of synthesis vocal 🙂
        “Zwe’pt qkh’at zouing’k glup” I have fun inventing onomatopoeias, but I confess I do not have to give lessons because I am far from being very gifted in oral or written English … ( An article about “bog bodies” in English hard madness, what am I doing, when this afternoon is a beautiful sunny Sunday?)

        Like

  5. Hi Esther! Thanks for the reblog. I knew somehow the Armitage Army would take issue with my um, less-than-stellar review of Richard 😉 I do think he’s good and he can play an intense evil guy like nobody’s business, so I guess the conflicted Guy is nowhere near as terrible a person. I am impressed by his French though, esp against a native like Stanley Weber. But overall, in terms of performance, I’m much more impressed by the trio of Holland, Bernthal and Weber.

    Like

    1. Servetus

      Lots of us didn’t like this film and didn’t like the role (I am in this group) and some of us (although I’m not in this group) didn’t like the performance. What I’m disagreeing with is not your opinion of Armitage’s performance — you’re entitled to think whatever you like. I’m criticizing the superficial analogy between Guy and Raymond. Not all disagreement with your review as it concerns Armitage reflects partisanship.

      Like

        1. Servetus

          No. We offered a reasoned response to your review with data that pointed out aspects of the question you hadn’t considered, and instead of saying, oh, you’re right, maybe there are other perspectives on this question I didn’t consider, you wrote us off as fangirls. The response to actual information in discussion is typically to consider the information, not write off the source. I’ll stop now as I know Esther doesn’t like drama. I’d be happy to take this up with you elsewhere, though.

          Like

          1. Oh dear, I didn’t think this would get into drama territory! Yeah, not a fan of that. Heated to and fro isn’t good for my sanity… As a peacemaker (concluded after many personality tests) let me argue that I don’t think Ruth meant to disparage us as just fangirls, although I do see how it could be taken that way.
            Anyway, yeah, this goes beyond what this post was about, so if you’d both like to hash it out elsewhere, that would be fine.

            Like

    2. Welcome!

      Oh, the Armitage Army had a varied response but comparison to Guy of Gisborne wasn’t one of them, which I found an interesting take from you.😊 I wouldn’t say that everyone took issue (I know I didn’t and I guess I can be seen as part of the Army as well) but I guess those with intimate knowledge of the Armitage career mostly didn’t quite see the comparison. That you did see it is perfectly valid from your point of view. And the French accent: while his French was largely praised, I even know of a French fan who found him not fluid enough. So, there you go, Armitage Army has as many opinions as there are ‘members’. 😊

      For me, personally, it’s OK if someone doesn’t love Richard’s performance, as long as I do. 😊

      For me, besides Armitage who always has my particular notice, Bernthal and Weber were the standouts. And as a whole I think you liked the film far more than I did. I left the movie with a feeling of ‘what is even the point of this movie’?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.