Oppenheimer.

Review #2050: Oppenheimer.

Cast: 

Cillian Murphy (J. Robert Oppenheimer), Emily Blunt (Katherine "Kitty" Oppenheimer), Matt Damon (Leslie Groves), Robert Downey Jr (Lewis Strauss), Florence Pugh (Jean Tatlock), Josh Hartnett (Ernest Lawrence), Casey Affleck (Boris Pash), Rami Malek (David Hill), Kenneth Branagh (Niels Bohr), Benny Safdie (Edward Teller), Dylan Arnold (Frank Oppenheimer), Gustaf Skarsgård (Hans Bethe), David Krumholtz (Isidor Isaac Rabi), Matthew Modine (Vannevar Bush), David Dastmalchian (William L. Borden), Tom Conti (Albert Einstein), Michael Angarano (Robert Serber), Jack Quaid (Richard Feynman), Josh Peck (Kenneth Bainbridge), Olivia Thirlby (Lilli Hornig), Dane DeHaan (Kenneth Nichols), Danny Deferrari (Enrico Fermi), Alden Ehrenreich (Senate aide), Jefferson Hall (Haakon Chevalier), and Jason Clarke (Roger Robb) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, and #1618 - Tenet)

Review: 

“I’m always pushing various things forward, but this is one where a lot of different planets aligned. Los Alamos, this place that will always live in history or infamy, was first a place where Oppenheimer and his brother loved to go camping. Suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, I’m looking at the most personal possible connection between a character and a massive change to the world that couldn’t be undone.” - Christopher Nolan

There is no way to state how damn good the film is besides saying it is a really great achievement that should be seen. Blah blah Barbie, you could see that any time in the next couple of weeks but consider Oppenheimer as early as one could possibly do. No really, see it as quickly as you can, the three-hour runtime is worth the time presented, and I am sure you will be rewarded by the experience that makes for a fascinating biopic. The story of J. Robert Oppenheimer has been argued to be one of a modern tragedy, and this film proves that very point by the time it even has built two-thirds of the scope required of three hours of breathtaking film. Lord do I wish it was easy to just say what I mean in less than a handful of paragraphs, but if one can say roughly over 900 words for a film involving humans and dolls, clearly one has to make sure to put in the hours to articulate the importance of watching a film (specifically Nolan, who wrote the screenplay) that took its inspiration from the 2005 biography of the famed Oppenheimer in American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin (incidentally, some of the subjects interviewed by Sherwin had been featured in The Day After Trinity, such as Haakon Chevalier). Oppenheimer is seen in various places besides Los Alamos in New Mexico, of course, such as his time as professor at thee University of California, Berkeley and his time spent after the war at the Institute for Advanced Study, while one other moment in history is seen under the cloud of Oppenheimer with the 1959 confirmation hearing of Lewis Strauss for the Secretary of Commerce, after having taken office via a recess appointment the previous year (the film obviously doesn't have time to mention everyone, but the scuttling of the confirmation had help from Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, whose disagreements with Strauss drove him to drive such an effort, complete with an ally in fellow Senator and committee member dealing with commerce in Gale W. McGee). You can thank the efforts of folks such as J. David Wargo and James Woods (both executive producers) for getting this film to the finish line, since plans for doing one based on the book had muddled for over a decade; the only film to feature Oppenheimer in a prominent role was Fat Man and Little Boy (as played by Dwight Shultz for a film released in 1989), which absolutely nobody remembers fondly, at least when compared to say, the 1980 BBC TV serial Oppenheimer, which had Sam Waterston as star. Nolan has stated the purpose of having scenes in black-and-white is meant to present an objective view of the story of Oppenheimer from the point of view of the one most seen in these scenes with Strauss.

Oppenheimer the man is presented in all of his epic qualities of contradiction of brilliance. He is the namesake for both a process and approximation in science (with collaboration with other scientists, naturally) that is also wracked in paradoxes that make the heart of the film. Pride really does come before the fall, especially for someone who was under constant surveillance by the FBI before and after the war. The man is presented as a man with qualities and flaws apparent to all of us, a man of brilliance, a man of guilt, a man of womanizers, a man fit to argue as one of great tragedy. There are so many performances in this film that one can't mention every single person that portray these figures (some of whom only appear for a time such as Gary Oldman as President Harry Truman or James Remar as Henry Stimson). It is easy to state however, that Murphy and Downey Jr rein in the best performances of the whole film, with each of their stories being told in such compelling detail. Murphy has the weight of the title role on his shoulders, but he handles it with such clear conviction that one sees him as Oppenheimer with perfect efficiency that makes it so one never sees an actor playing a man but just the man and all of his qualities thrust upon us, and it takes a most exceptional person to give the role justice with such persuasive power. We live in a world created by Oppenheimer's actions and we feel it firmly with his performance. Downey Jr is practically the mirror of Oppenheimer when it comes to how he handles being cast into the light of his own hearing. All great villains believe themselves to be in the right, ones who believe that power stays in the shadows because only amateurs chase the sun, and Downey Jr plays this with such devastating power that is conniving and breathtaking in the time he is on screen. His arrogance is breathtaking in the greatest of ways possible, one filled with pique that is accompanied in moments with Ehrenreich for fascinating interaction. Murphy and Downey Jr clearly deserve all the recognition they have gotten for this film already and I am sure they will endure in the years to come. Of course, the rest of the performers are magnificent as well in conveying the players to destruction necessary, mostly in the case of Damon and Blunt. The clash of hard-driving practicality in Damon clashes with the philosophical Murphy for such riveting tension and even more riveting in the respect you see between the two that comes out because of how effective it all is played out. Blunt and her own contradictions make for a worthy pairing with Murphy, one with razor-sharp timing and unwavering confidence that goes well when you consider how Murphy is presented with Pugh on the other side of feminine curiosity (which in of itself is useful to watch). You get the point about these performers, they are useful in all the ways that matter without distraction, which is bookended by Conti but also sees people such as Hartnett and Safdie shine too.

Nothing is more exhilarating than seeing Lewis Strauss not become a member of a cabinet. Nah, just kidding (fun fact: he was the first person not confirmed for a cabinet seat by the US Senate since 1925 - never let it be said that Movie Night does not try to deliver "education" beyond rambling), because the buildup to the Trinity test is one for the ages. The buildup to the bomb and the accompanying music by Ludwig Göransson is absolutely worth the price of admission, complete with the moment itself in its beautiful destructive quality (the film was done with minimal computer-generated imagery). Of course, other sequences such as expressing certain scientific aspects (remember that the real Oppenheimer made contributions to various theories such as black holes) is a reminder that seeing this film on the biggest screen possible really can be a rewarding time for all involved. The guilt is crushing in all of the ways that matter when it comes to the level of involvement one has in forming a bomb and seeing it go away from your hands or seeing the results of it. Of course, since the film includes the noted scene of President Truman mocking Oppenheimer of just who has "blood on their hands", the fascination will endure further in discussion of ethics and beyond. Far from just a biopic that goes from point A to point B, the film flourishes from the very get-go and never lets up in conveying the wonder that comes in seeing the Manhattan Project meet its destiny that intertwine with the destinies of both Oppenheimer and Strauss with their hearings. God do I love this film, and I can't say enough about just how brilliant it is or how devilishly well-timed it is to make the three hours pass by without a single complaint. It serves as both an informative feature of the time and also a warning to the danger that comes with living in a world that Nolan believes is one shaped by Oppenheimer, whether we like it or not.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

A Quiet Place Part II.

Review #1683: A Quiet Place Part II.

Cast: 

Emily Blunt (Evelyn Abbott), Cillian Murphy (Emmett), Millicent Simmonds (Regan Abbott), Noah Jupe (Marcus Abbott), Djimon Hounsou (Man On Island), John Krasinski (Lee Abbott), and Scoot McNairy (Marina Man) Directed by John Krasinski (#1073 - A Quiet Place)

Review: 

Honestly, I don't really think much about a sequel to a modern movie. Really, think about this for a second here from a guy who still likes to look upon what interesting movie can sit on the shelf for the next time being. I had to wonder just how weird that might seem from looking in my archives about the ratio of original to "adaptation" in the films I saw in the last big year for movies in the theater: 2019. That year saw 31 movies seen mostly in theater-form but ended up having just half that was actually based on original material. Ah but one really wants to think about the year before that with 2018, and that is how we get to A Quiet Place, which was one of the few original ideas to really sit on my "conventional" radar, and it might have actually been the best horror flick I saw that year (with a year for Hereditary and Halloween, the argument could be a tough one for each). It shouldn't be forgotten that the original script had been done by Bryan Woods and Scott Beck, for which John Krasinski (who had two comedy-dramas to his credit with Brief Interviews with Hideous Men (2009) and The Hollars (2016), incidentally) had read that script and found it appealing; he would end up enlisted by Paramount Pictures to re-write the script and direct the movie. A Quiet Place ended up as an interesting movie because it wasn't quite a gimmick movie that one might think of it (besides, there are quite a few movies that don't have much dialogue if one wants to spur their memory, such as All is Lost (2013)). Sure, the creatures are ones that rely on sound to stalk their prey (with a loud bustling modern world, good luck), but it was also a deep family movie. With the success of the film, rumblings for a sequel did not take too long to bubble to the surface, for which Krasinski would write and direct that had its premiere on March 8 of 2020 that was meant to be released into theaters twelve days after that, two years after the original release (the reason for this recap is mostly for my memory, but also because I can re-iterate my one pet peeve for any horror movie that is released in the spring. Simply put, get your horror priorities in the fall where it belongs, but 2020 has some stretching grounds). Fourteen months later, here we are with a sequel.

Did I mention my surprise about a sequel? Honestly, does every horror movie need a follow-up movie? I remember the ending of the first movie just fine, one that had a character with a weapon ready to aim at the creature, having figured out what one figures out in a time of silence and hearing aids. It might be a good omen or a mild harbinger that the opening scene involves a brief glimpse into what the world was before the noise-monsters came, and Krasinski certainly does well with setting the stage for what was and what is to come within the family angle and the key addition of Murphy to the cast. It reminds me of the dubious question one has when it comes to seeing it in a big theater or not, in that a movie depending on folks getting away unheard is best seen in a big screen but without paying too much attention to too much crowd noise (such as...popcorn?). But hey, one can watch movies with subtitles from around the world, so why stop now? I think most of this paragraph is trying to hide the easiest point: it just isn't as good as the first film. It is not so much that it isn't scarier than before, or even so much because the acting isn't as good, because on a technical level it works pretty good. But really, think hard about this: it has the same problem in rhythm of continuation that seems comparable to Halloween II (1981). Roll with me on this for a moment. Both movies take off right from where the last one ended with the bare hint of a follow-up, and both find themselves with a narrative that splits the characters up, and both probably try to one-up the level of terror from before a bit too much (sure, one movie has a needle jabbed into a sensitive spot, but this movie has someone get their foot into a bear trap, so am I really pulling your goat too much?). Ah, but here's the problem: At least Halloween II didn't feel like it was begging for more at the end, and it seemed to have more stakes involved with its climax for the characters left at the end (I doubt that A Quiet Place will turn into a movieblob of a franchise like Halloween, but apparently a spin-off is in development). Weird twists may reign true with the older movie, but at least I appreciate its schlock factor more so than a movie that could be thought of as half-hearted with actually being a sequel. With a run-time of 97 minutes, one can wonder exactly how A Quiet Place Part II will do with the passage of time, or at least when considered in the context of the wait that befell it when really the best way to describe it is just "okay". It's an okay movie, filled with a decent cast and some level of terror within the idea of monsters that will just charge and destroy your world like that...and maybe there is still some room for folks to eke out a living. But hey, let's start with the cast and go from there. Murphy certainly plays it exactly to the bone for what is needed in a bleary movie that hints at cynicism, and it is refreshing to see him there and be paired with Simmons. In that regard, Simmons continues well with her performance (done mostly in American Sign Language, as one remembers from before), which serves for a fairly useful time, showing a bit more maturity that is expected - the dynamic between them is almost engaging enough to carry the film. Alas, one doesn't find as much engaging balance on the other side, because Blunt manages an okay performance that can't quite react to the terror as well this time around. Let me put it this way: monsters seem to lose a bit of their effectiveness the more you see them in a sequel, so one has to find a way to make the stakes and drama count, or they will end up seeming as concerned as being in Jaws 2 (1978). Jupe's best scene involves him having a visceral scream after being bear-trapped, really. Hounsou and McNairy make momentary impressions on the coin of societies made after the disaster that relates to water (get it, because the creatures not only are blind but can't swim). They are okay, but inevitability always seems to strike at the points you think will happen but not as many times as possible. Think about it: each movie has six actors (Krasinski is technically seven, but can you count a flashback?), and this doesn't even count the baby (don't get me started on babies in horror movies). I feel that the first film did a better job in handling the bleakness of trying to hold together as a family in a nightmare better than a film that doesn't do much with the idea of trying to expand beyond that, and the climax only seems to serve as a hard nudge for another movie (sure, it closes the narratives similarly, but...), and in general I feel that the movie only has moved narrowly in trying to maintain the scares of creatures that rely on you not talking. It might not fall into the realm of gimmick-making, that is for sure. Inevitability is a tough thing to accept, but the film ultimately proves that it can be okay to be average enough if the attention is built enough to hold it for the masses, for better or worse. If you really want to know what happens when you pull the covers all the way through the bed for the monster, you could do okay here, but just don't be disappointed at where that goes from there.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Dunkirk (2017).

Review #980: Dunkirk.

Cast: 
Fionn Whitehead (Tommy), Tom Glynn-Carney (Peter), Jack Lowden (Collins), Harry Styles (Alex), Aneurin Barnard (Gibson), James D'Arcy (Colonel Winnant), Barry Keoghan (George), Kenneth Branagh (Commander Bolton), Cillian Murphy (Shivering Soldier), Mark Rylance (Mr. Dawson), and Tom Hardy (Farrier) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, and #062 - Batman Begins)

Review: 
I must admit, I did not know how long this film was going to be, in part because I had figured that a war film like this would be roughly two hours (or more), but as it turns out the film manages to run for 106 minutes; in any case, the movie (as stated by Nolan himself) is more of a suspense film than a war movie, but this is still a finely tuned film that achieves most (if not all of its goals). It shines especially on a technical level, from its structure to its editing to its cinematography, with the film having a great look and feel to it. The battles (along with the sequences in the water) are executed well as one would expect. It isn't a film that tries to show the horrors of war, but it does manage to have a lot of tension through the facial expressions of the characters along with sounds (such a ticking noise). The cast do a fine job, with the narratives each having something interesting to watch (aside from the tension that never lets up); Whitehead and the others within his narrative don't give any sort of great performance, but they are watchable enough to where one cares about their survival without having the film being about them (after all, we don't know any of the character's full name), and it works in delivering thrills in that regard; Rylance, Branagh and Murphy are fine standouts, delivering their roles with fine authority in the amount of time they have on screen. There is never a moment where you are taken out of the experience, it is an unrelenting film that approaches its subject matter with class and dignity (with the effects looking good as well). The best thing I can say about the film is that it is well executed in its vision by Nolan that surely will be up for some awards on a technical basis later in the year. It isn't a perfect film, but it is definitely a fine experience that is worth watching at least once.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Red Eye.

Review #633: Red Eye.

Cast
Rachel McAdams (Lisa Reisert), Cillian Murphy (Jackson Rippner), Brian Cox (Joe Reisert), Jayma Mays (Cynthia), and Jack Scalia (Charles Keefe) Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street and #558 - Scream)

Review
What we have here is a simple premise with a simple setting with a limited amount of cast members that manages to be a pretty good thriller. Murphy makes for a cold but effective villain, he looks the part and he certainly does a good job in being the villain without overacting it up too much, he's calm, but he is at least imposing and that helps, and his interactions with McAdams start nicely but slowly get more chilling. Speaking of that, the small cast do interact fine with each other, it's always nice to see Brian Cox, even in a supporting role, he doesn't have much to do, but still. The movie runs pretty short (85 minutes), which I guess makes it easily accessible to watch, the movie goes pretty quickly, but it is at least entertaining, and the action is passable. The movie relies on suspense and while it may not be a great thriller, it at least a competent one, and it's a good way to spend a hour and a half, and you take my word for it. Probably.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Batman Begins.

Review #062: Batman Begins.

Cast
Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Michael Caine (Alfred Pennyworth), Liam Neeson (Henri Ducard/Ra's al Ghul), Katie Holmes (Rachel Dawes), Gary Oldman (Jim Gordon), Cillian Murphy (Dr. Jonathan Crane), Tom Wilkinson (Carmine Falcone), Rutger Hauer (Earle), Ken Watanabe (decoy Ra's Al Ghul), Mark Boone Junior (Flass), Linus Roache (Thomas Wayne), and Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight and #055 - Inception)

Review
I find that this film is pretty good, for the most part. It successfully reboots the franchise (which died after the 1997 bomb Batman and Robin) with an origin story that reintroduces people to him, and sets the ball in motion for the sequel. I felt the acting was good, but there were some little gripes. For one, I found the coveted "throat voice" of Christian Bale very, very unconvincing (what's next, Superman having the voice to disguise himself? It would be better then his glasses trick...). I also felt the action was jumbled, so you couldn't really tell what was going on. Scarecrow actually doesn't get a lot of screen time, and he's taken down so easily. And my final little gripe is how the Tumbler looks so...ugly. Is this the Batmobile, or a tank? Look I know there's a scene that says its a tank, but how is this a "mobile"? But nonetheless, the film is good, for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Inception.

Review #055: Inception.

Cast
Leonardo DiCaprio (Dom Cobb), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Arthur), Ellen Page (Ariadne), Tom Hardy (Eames), Ken Watanabe (Mr. Saito), Dileep Rao (Yusuf), Cillian Murphy (Robert Fischer), Tom Berenger (Peter Browning), Marion Cotillard (Mal Cobb), Pete Postlethwaite (Maurice Fischer), and Michael Caine (Professor Stephen Miles) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight)

Review
The film is...Weird. It's creative yes, but I just couldn't get into it enough. I felt the film wanted to bore me so I literally could dream. At roughly two-and-a-half hours long, it's difficult to watch all of it. I give marks for solid acting and good action though.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.