Oppenheimer (2023)

There's a while already since I'm not going to cinema as often as I used to, but there are exceptions. "Oppenheimer" is one of these. Reasone: top 250 IMDb, Nolan and a feeling that it deserves a big screen viewing. TL;DR: I think its place in top 250 is justified, it's not Nolan's best - but it's probably among the top half, about the big screen.. I wouldn't call it a "must see", but it's true I didn't watch it in IMAX.

Who read my blog knows that I'm not really fond of biopics. Besides that, Oppenheimer's life is not the most offering subject movie-wise, despite his importance in the context of WW2 and his major contribution in the development of the first atomic bomb. That's why the best part of this production is to squeeze out a script that wouldn't probably be easy to top with anything else covering the same subject. The story builds up on three temporal lines, started simultaneously. The main one is the "classic" type, following the biography of the main character since his student years up to his involvement as a chief physicist in the Manhattan project and to the detonation of the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This timeline merges afterwards with a second one, probably less familiar, covering "the trial". In brief, after WW2, Oppenheimer's activity became much more politically oriented than scientifical, implicitly drawing enemies and culminating with a closed hearing meant to revoke his security credentials, but which discredited him publicly. A third timeline, suggestively nuanced in black and white follows the reversal of that episode, happened a couple of years afterwards, when the principal political adversary behind Oppenheimer's hearing gets his own "trial" when attempting to occupy a secretary of state position.

"Oppenheimer" has perfect screenplay construction. A review that I read before watching it was saying something about the long length it has, where the third hour, coming ofter the nuclear explosions, is dilluting the effect and the movie should stop before it. I believe that's precisely the third our that makes it worth watching it. Even if in its beginning we have some dialogues that are a bit supperficial, the ending is filled with much more fine and mature nuances, some of them quite deep. From aspects that relate to form, like using the first person plural - a natural thing for a researcher given the typical writing customs - in complete opposition with an attorney's perception that interprets that as a lack of responsibility, to the fundamental idea that is built as a warning: mix science with politics and the last will bury you. There are some details, which I believe are more evident for who had some experience in research, and in particular in technical research. There's a point when somebody working in this area will most certainly have some opinions or even get forced by circumstances like management or other collateral activities, to take a position concerning more.. "humane" matters than the scientific niche. However, who's getting drawn too much into this direction will involuntarily end up sacrificing the other, which in an optimistic scenario will at least cost time, but worse might make the person a lamb to slaughter in a political jungle (the case of the movie). There's rare the case when somebody manages to fight both fronts and keep the standards high - because a technical area has a dynamic that sometimes is hard to keep up to even without something else distracting you. Anyway, we got into a very particular niche :) so let's move back to the movie.

As a cinematic experience "Oppenheimer" is ok, but not impressive. We have some nice shots, but overall its camera work is not spectacular. I appreciated the reserve on using CGI - I think it's better like that, but on the other hand I'm convinced that cinematography could've been better. The sound, as the editing are typical for Nolan, meaning a bit too aggressive, at least for start. Nevertheless, towards its end the video editing fills the gaps you fill in the cinematography, the result being probably the best edited movie hour I've watched in the last two years. The jumping between timelines begins in adagio and gradually advances to a tense allegro, which in the last ten minutes builds up into a sensory impact explosion.

My casting opinions are typically subjective, so we can move quickly over - what's obvious is that both Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey Jr. will probably collect plenty of nominations in the upcoming awards season. I didn't talk at all above about the biggest star on the poster though... = the bomb :) This will generate a long boring philosophical paragraph. To summarize it, unfortunately, despite the setting being more than 50 years ago, the movie is very timely. As I was saying about "1917", or more recently about "Im Westen Nichts Neues", it should probably be included on a mandatory watching list for many heads of states. I'm not sure though how much would they understand it...

The conclusion: it's a long movie and it can get boring. As I got bored by "Mank", "The Iron Lady", "Mr. Turner" or other biopics over the years. It probably won't happen though if you have some interest in history or some minimal technical background. And the latter can make you a bit subjective ;)

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Gandhi (1982)

 

There aren't many titles I didn't see that would fit in the "epic movie" category, which were released in the sound era of the the cinema. It's not such a large set anyway. "Spartacus" might be an exception that I missed, although I might have seen it when I was too young to remember it. "Kundun" and "Gandhi" were two others. I always had my doubts about the first, which got more doubtful after "Silence" directed by the same Scorsese. For the second one, the three hours it spans made just too complicated to grant it the needed time. This week I finally decided to break it in pieces and remove it from my "to watch" list. 

I'll try to discuss "Gandhi" in brief, and mainly from the cinematic perspective. Any movie has a story and a story has a morale, but especially when the story is a real one the comments made on the morale slip to easily beyond the border of the social, political, etc, and often forget about evaluating the movie as a movie. And this is a movie blog and I'll try to keep it that way. Even though in this case is quite hard because "Gandhi" is mainly a movie with a political message. But it's late anyway, and I'm not really in the mood for writing :) ...

Obviously "Gandhi" is a biography of Mahatma Gandhi, starting with the end, returning to the activity towards gaining rights for the Hindu minority in South Africa, passing over to the period of peaceful fight for the Indian independence and finishing again with the end. Which was a senseless assassination of an old man already on the dusk of his life, coming as a bitter irony after a series of almost suicidal fasts, a main weapon Gandhi used during his life to solve various conflicts.

I didn't watch all movies directed by Richard Attenborough, but out of what I watched I think "Gandhi" shows the most powerful influence of David Lean. If you wouldn't know the director, you probably could align the movie with "The Bridge on the River Kwai" or with "Lawrence of Arabia". That's both good and bad. 

On the positive side we have the attention to the details, the importance given to the actors (practically "Gandhi" made Ben Kingsley a star), the way to build a key scene, and an almost documentary-like flow that doesn't seem to lose anything. On the negative side we have the "lengths". Even if you see the movie in three parts as I did, and you'll notice these less, they are present. As in Lean's case there are moments where it just drags. Also on the negative, the sound is fine, but definitely not the best part of the movie, but this is somehow specific to the pre '90s period when the sound was much more discreet than now. However, this is a contributing factor to an aging feeling about the movie, aging that's not so obvious in other titles of the '80s such as Bertolucci's "The Last Emperor" (true, that's 5 years younger than "Gandhi").

"Gandhi" is still a movie to watch, even only for your general knowledge or for the pacifist message which would summarize to something like "there's no good & evil, just two sides that should come together", but I said I won't delve into comments, although this seems still valid at a global level during current times, unfortunately a bit hard to grasp both for the "good" side, as well as for the "evil" side, whichever these might be.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

The Old Man & the Gun (2018)

 

 "The Old Man & the Gun" is a slow and sad, short but long version of "Catch Me If You Can". Short summary: both are biopics centered on an atypical villain - in this one, a bank thief in his 70's, in the other a crook and check forger before turning 20. In a sense, I guess the impression the movie leaves you with after the end is somehow proportional with the depth of the character. But I won't lengthen this entry by also adding a summary for "Catch Me If You Can" (just google for Frank Abagnale). 

In "The Old Man & the Gun" we have Robert Redford as Forrest Tucker, a guy who spent his entire life behind bars, between escapes (counting more than 16) perfecting a technique of robbing a bank in the most polite manner. The legend (and the movie) says that he done that without firing a single shot. What we have in this film is a brief look over the last few freedom windows the guy enjoyed in his life.

What transpires from the main character demeanor, but mostly from the acting for the cop who follows him (Casey Affleck) is a state of chronic boredom that reflects in the whole movie. The more-or-less 90 minutes it has seem like two hours and a half. Even if the '80s feeling is quite authentic, the cast is full of known names, and here and there we have something that catches our attention, there's a debilitating slowness consistent throughout the the movie length, and the permanent sense of something missing + also knowing that we won't have a happy end here, but neither an unhappy one...

If I think better on it now, I guess "Catch Me If You Can" is not the best reference to compare with. More appropriate would be "The Mule", which I had on my blog a couple months ago. We find there pretty much all the context elements we have here: a nice old guy who's a criminal mastermind, an almost frustrated cop who gets obsessed with the case, a romance episode at the dusk of someone's life. The difference is in the way all these are connected. Even though we also have a slow development there too, and the ending is pretty much the same in terms of "happiness", you want to keep watching to see what happens, unlike here where you'd rather not.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Jersey Boys (2014)

I never thought I'll see the day when I'll write a review for a musical on my own will (= not being forced by some very important nomination), but.. here we are. How did that happen? Well: 1. I was looking for a "sleeping pill" a couple days ago, 2. I remembered that somebody told me once that the movie is good, 3. since a couple days ago, I didn't manage to watch anything else, and I doubt I'll have the time this weekend, therefore, this is the only option. Sorry, but I never liked the genre, so it's gonna be a brief entry, although I have to admit that "Jersey Boys" is decent in respect to the ratio of singing time/dramatic script.

In my ignorance I didn't hear until watching this movie of "The Four Seasons" or of Frankie Valli - who are the main theme here, because what we have is actually more of a biopic than a musical. Even though I heard before "Can't Take My Eyes Off You", I never knew exactly who sings it (in my defense, at how many covers it has...). Well, I found out now who wrote it and performed it for the first time. So, what we have in the movie is the period of assembling the band and getting their name known, a name that gives you more results on Vivaldi if you YouTube search it. We also have a short bio of the band members, who, as the title says, started their rise in New Jersey.

The movie is fine as a mixture - it brings together a bit of comedy, a bit of action, a bit of drama - Clint Eastwood (directing here) actually does a pretty good job I'd say for what he's supposed to put on screen. The script has some nice touches, such as getting you out for a bit from the standard model and giving you from time to time a first person interaction with the band members who are giving you some personal feedback on their life story. Unfortunately, besides finding here the familiar tune above, there's nothing that impressed me much in the bunch of '60s pop-rock songs that brought fame to the band during those years. And again, unfortunately, even in a musical biopic there's quite a bit of singing. So.. after all it's just a matter of taste ;)

Rating: 3 out of 5

Dark Waters (2019)

I was switching TV channels last days, and on some I've run into "World War Z", on another into "I Am Legend", so if you don't get enough apocalypse from the news, you have a fair share of choices... I still say it's better to not look for an appropriate episode from TWD. On the other hand I've never been too much into comedies, which would probably be a more appropriate subject for cutting some tension off during these times, so sorry about that. And I also didn't have much time and options to choose from this week - so I've ended up with something very close to a documentary = "Dark Waters".

As an intro, I have to confess that despite catching lots of non-essential info to make me prepared for pretty much any trivia quiz, I didn't hear about the Teflon case. Or to not make everybody throw their cooking pans out the window, it's more precisely about a chemical named PFOA used in Teflon fabrication up to 2013 and which apparently was present in the final product only in very small quantity. At least that's what a very quick online search reveals, because the movie doesn't provide a clear conclusion on that. But still, what's this PFOA and what's in the movie?...

"Dark Waters" is a biopic, following the activity of a lawyer, Rob Billott, from 1998 until 2015. The guy was the employee of a law firm specialized in defending corporations, and one day got a visit from an angry farmer who had a problem with his cows. Precisely, no place left to bury them. The cause: the contaminated water in a nearby river. And like that, Rob Billott, step by step, ends up discovering something called PFOA - as mentioned above, a compound used in fabricating Teflon by DuPont - one of the largest companies in the chemical industry worldwide. Which company found a place to dump their toxic waste exactly near the farmer's land. The situation aggravates when it's discovered that also the drinking water in the area is contaminated, and further gets worse when it's found that company employees involved in the production process have cancer. And like that we're getting to a real legal war between Billott vs DuPont. Who wins? Let's not spoil it :)

Even though I'm neither much into documentaries, I have to admit that the main positive part of "Dark Waters" is its documentary trait. Obviously, you shouldn't expect something like a legal thriller by John Grisham. And probably that's the reason for the less positive part. Not that it isn't like a John Grisham based movie, but that it tries to much to be. I found some parts to be overly dramatized. In any case, the story deserves watching for your general knowledge + I added Teflon & PFOA info to my data bank :)

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

First Man (2018)

I never believed the conspiracy theories on fake Moon landing, but after "First Man" I'm almost starting to have doubts on that :) I'm mean, I know...

I'm not really into biopics, the one here being dedicated to Neil Armstrong, but I have to admit it's interesting as a documentary. Although it puts a bit too much weight on problems, and too less on solutions. That's the reason for what I was saying above. Considering the density of mishaps, with or without lucky ending, starting with the first scene, you might almost believe that what you've seen in "The Martian" might have more chances to succeed than the first Moon landing. If we add to that a consistent part of the movie that's centered on the dramas in Armstrong's private life, a lost child, colleagues frequently dying in accidents... Although, somehow, strangely enough this might explain the successful career at NASA = 1) you escape in your work, 2) karma compensates there.

I don't know how was Armstrong as a person, but Ryan Gosling offers a sort of "driver" in space here = maybe a bit too dry/bland. If I should pick somebody for the acting here, it would probably be Claire Foy as the wife. Moving to the technicalities, the camera work varies from excellent framing (pretty much everything that's about flights in outer space) to poorly shot scenes. Maybe it's a matter of taste, but I'll never understand a mix of close-ups and kinetic camera which I think it's excessive in "First Man" (steadicam was invented for a reason... ironically not far from the timeline of the movie). Leaving all these aside, "First Man" is not as boring as some reviews say, but it's neither "A Beautiful Mind", meaning that you shouldn't expect something very engaging. It's ok, the message of make the impossible possible is there but it's quiet, so I'd say the movie has actually some calming potential if your days are too stressful...

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Molly's Game (2017)

"Molly's Game" is the best biopic I've seen in a while. I guess it's a bit better than "American Made", and before that I don't really remember something I could compare it with. I don't know if it's just the story, but the way the movie's written = the script, definitely has its merit.

The movie's based on a book with the same name + a long subtitle: "The True Story of the 26-Year-Old Woman Behind the Most Exclusive, High-Stakes Underground Poker Game in the World", which actually concisely describes what we have here. Molly Bloom misses a career in ski after an unfortunate accident stealing her the chance of entering the Olympic team and somehow lands a job as a secretary for somebody in the L.A. high society. The guy organizes poker nights with other guys in the even higher society of L.A., or better said delegates this task to Molly, who for start finds in this another income source from the received tips. And so, all this leads to a successful entrepreneurship example = she takes all on her own at some point, even makes it fully legal, the sums move up and everything seems to go well. Until it doesn't, but as usual I'd rather not give out more than the trailer does...

As any biopic, to get its catchy factor, the story is maybe slightly adjusted here and there, but in any case is one with plenty of movie potential. The construction of the script makes it obvious that it takes the side of the main character, so, to be a bit mean, off-topic you can still probably ask yourself if the portrayed young lady really had so much integrity as it's shown. But that doesn't matter that much. For my concern, the movie could be very well pure fiction - what I've watched was a life drama with thriller accents and a happy-end that I liked. Maybe I'm a bit subjective about the character (keeping some reserve on it :) there's a reason for characterizing her at some point in the movie as the perfect type of "woman to fall in love with"), but more than this the movie has something motivational in it from beginning till the end, which might be discreet (= more or less between the lines) but that's exactly what makes it more real.

Rating: 4 out of 5

American Made (2017)

"The man who always delivers" (or something like that) keeps repeating in various lines of "American Made". And I guess it's somehow also a reason why the story seemed depressing in the end, but I wouldn't elaborate on that here... Barry Seal was a real character, an airline pilot who in the beginning of the '80s ended up working for both CIA and Medellin cartel trafficking weapons and drugs respectively. What we have in the movie is a slightly romanticized version of the real deal, but catchy enough to make lose an extra 5-10 minutes to quickly parse the Wikipedia article and a couple of external links for finding more (= where the conclusion of "romanticized" came from actually). Spoiler alert: don't do this before watching the movie! In brief, what we see here is how our main character advances from a TWA pilot position to owning a local airport and a little airplanes fleet for keeping his business running. Which business makes enough money to draw the attention simultaneously of FBI, DEA, ATF and the state police. But you'll get more details in the movie... where I must say that details count a lot. From the tiny different threads of an almost incredible story, the style of delivering it which emphasizes clearly the idea of keeping your sense of humor in the worst situations, up to technical details as the pale-yellow filters that sort of bring a documentary tint to the camera work. All these keep somehow a generally relaxed feeling - I can't think on anything else than "Wolf on the Wall Street" now as comparison, which might not be the best. All in all the way the story unrolls is quite enjoyable to watch. And still, the ending comes a bit like a cold shower that makes you think... does it really worth to always deliver?...

Rating: 4 out of 5