OT: Movie Thread

[GordonHowe]

I thought Crowe's best work was in A Beautiful Mind. He's got range too.

He's good. I'm not certain how much "range" he has. And, like other good actors who are also movie stars, you never forget that you're watching Russell Crowe.

I liked him in A Beautiful Mind.

 

[smithformeragent]

Didn’t care for Barbie.

Seeing Oppenheimer tomorrow.

Still haven’t seen the new Mission: Impossible.
I may wait and stream it.
Still need to see Creed 3.

 

[Fenway]

How was it?

Excellent

 

[hrdpuk]

Didn’t care for Barbie.

Seeing Oppenheimer tomorrow.

Still haven’t seen the new Mission: Impossible.
I may wait and stream it.
Still need to see Creed 3.

Probably didn't get into the moment and dress in your snappiest pink outfit.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

He's good. I'm not certain how much "range" he has. And, like other good actors who are also movie stars, you never forget that you're watching Russell Crowe.

I liked him in A Beautiful Mind.

Come on, everyone knows his best work was in Mystery Alaska.

 

[smithformeragent]

Oppenheimer was very good.

Typical Nolan, which is high praise in and of itself.

 

[bb74]

I thought Oppenheimer presented an interesting take on the "great man" archetype thats been ubiquitous throughout all of American film history. Think Citizen Kane, The Godfather or There Will Be Blood. The more the men in those films thirst for and accumulate power and wealth, the more corrupt and depraved and robotic they become. Oppenheimer reaches the pinnacle of his field, but instead of pushing for never ending growth in it, pushing for the creation he helped steward into reality to more readily available for warfare. To be pushing for more powerful atomic bombs, or to his later misfortune, a hydrogen bomb. Instead, he speaks his conscience, whatever it may have been at that moment and of his guilt. In a sense, Nolan has taken a story about the 20th century and made it about the 21st- about a man without strong convictions or beliefs, who pushes the technological envelope to its breaking point and is forced to deal with the fall out by attempting to mitigate the completely foreseeable consequences of his creation after its too late. Essentially, Oppenheimer does the opposite of the characters in those other movies but the end result is the same. He he won, but at what cost?

I thought it was very engaging, quickest three hours I can remember in a theatre. What is with the music in these films though? So loud. The musical cues in All Quiet last year almost ruined the movie for me, and that was at home.

Haven't seen the movie yet but will, and am familiar with the biography and era. Hopefully the film didn't downplay the very unique nature of the war politics, beliefs, and reclusion of the scientific community at the time.

It's hard today to internalize the prospect of thousands upon thousands of additional soldiers and civilians dying daily vs. putting a stop to it with a show of force. 45 million deaths in WW2 and for most today that is an unfathomable number to comprehend. Orders of magnitude greater than Korea and Vietnam, nevermind Iraq and Afganistan despite how hard those wards hit home.

Basically every family in the modern world was going to lose one or more 2nd step removed family members at best. 6 years of bloodshed, utter destruction, lack of discernement between military and civilians (see Dresden and burning streets). Many were religious and it was as close to the apocalypse they could imagine.

You put rational scientists in a position to stop a war at the cost of 100 to "save" 1,000,000 where whole swaths of society that were their cultural, religious, moral references, were crumbling. You add a smidgen of ego to push the boundaries and recuse them to a bubble so they reinforce the focus on that one mission and you get this type of outcome. It was still a very rational albeit horrific outcome in a time when the horrors of war were barely equal to the warped notion of humanity and the value of human life after 40+ million deaths across all corners of the globe...

And for what... just a generation later .... to buy Japanese electronics, drive German cars, eat bad American fast food, and subsequently sellout global industry to Communist China. Just like in WW1 when the French sold chemicals to the Germans that they used to make mustard gas and the Germans sold metal to the French so they could produce artillery rounds.

It's tough to make a film where the "bad guys" aren't the true evil. I look forward to this one to see how far Nolan was able to take the story and if he was able to internalise the reality of 1944/45 or got caught up on a simplification and moralisation game. He is usually good at keeping a balance.

 

[Banded Peak]

Haven't seen the movie yet but will, and am familiar with the biography and era. Hopefully the film didn't downplay the very unique nature of the war politics, beliefs, and reclusion of the scientific community at the time.

It's hard today to internalize the prospect of thousands upon thousands of additional soldiers and civilians dying daily vs. putting a stop to it with a show of force. 45 million deaths in WW2 and for most today that is an unfathomable number to comprehend. Orders of magnitude greater than Korea and Vietnam, nevermind Iraq and Afganistan despite how hard those wards hit home.

....
You put rational scientists in a position to stop a war at the cost of 100 to "save" 1,000,000 where whole swaths of society that were their cultural, religious, moral references, were crumbling. You add a smidgen of ego to push the boundaries and recuse them to a bubble so they reinforce the focus on that one mission and you get this type of outcome. It was still a very rational albeit horrific outcome in a time when the horrors of war were barely equal to the warped notion of humanity and the value of human life after 40+ million deaths across all corners of the globe...

...

It's tough to make a film where the "bad guys" aren't the true evil. I look forward to this one to see how far Nolan was able to take the story and if he was able to internalise the reality of 1944/45 or got caught up on a simplification and moralisation game. He is usually good at keeping a balance.

Not to quibble, but the second world war had at least 60 million deaths if not more than that (at least 20 million in the Soviet Union alone) and then millions and millions more who were homeless or displaced when it ended. It was the single most cataclysmic event in human history. On every front, it was like something from Dante's nightmares... its almost fitting that it ended with a bomb that reduced human beings to literal shadows.

The Manhattan Project was formed when the race for a nuclear weapon was between the western Allies and the Nazis. Until the German surrender in May 1945, Manhattan Project scientists were working under the goal of having a working nuclear bomb before Hitler did, but I'm not sure if a bomb to win the war and bring everyone home was ever the explicit goal. As late as March of 1945, the American government expected the Nazis to hold out until at least the end of the year. They obviously fell much sooner than that.

Following the German surrender, the allies turned their attention to Japan. After the fall of Okinawa in April, the Japanese government began to internally debate the conditions of surrender they would accept. Once set up on Okinawa, the Americans sent bombing raids onto the home islands- fire bombing raids over Tokyo killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and burned large swaths of the city. Made Dresden look like a fireworks show. These raids were actually initially deadlier than the atomic bombs. After the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Japanese remained steadfast in their desire to fight on until a more favorable peace to them could be obtained. What gets lost is that on the same morning the Nagasaki bomb was dropped, the Soviet Union invaded Japanese occupied Manchuria. A war weary American public accepted the government line that the few were sacrificed for the many but the war was essentially over with or without the bombs. Japan had no oil, no allies, their manufacturing sector had been crippled, their navy was basically sunk, their territorial gains had all but disappeared and they were staring down a famine with the country's supplies running dangerously low. Unlike the Nazis, the Japanese still had a choice at that point- and they desired to deal with Truman instead of Stalin. Would the war have ended without a full scale American invasion or without the use of nuclear weapons? These are unanswerable questions. But theres certainly enough there to make a debate of it, and have no fear, Nolan makes a debate of it. He presents all facets of the dropping of the bombs, and the reasons for doing so. To end the war decisively, to flex their muscles for the Soviets or simply because... as you said, these are people -scientists, army brass, politicians- with egos, and seeing what the thing they spent 2 billion 1945 dollars on actually did was probably part of it too. I thought Nolan evoked the time period and navigated the politics of the time pretty well, he lays it all out so you can draw your own conclusions. I've read criticisms it doesnt moralize enough. I think I'd prefer my films about a ethically murky event stay that way. I hope you enjoy the film as much I did.

 

[JoeIsAStud]

Not to quibble, but the second world war had at least 60 million deaths if not more than that (at least 20 million in the Soviet Union alone) and then millions and millions more who were homeless or displaced when it ended. It was the single most cataclysmic event in human history. On every front, it was like something from Dante's nightmares... its almost fitting that it ended with a bomb that reduced human beings to literal shadows.

The Manhattan Project was formed when the race for a nuclear weapon was between the western Allies and the Nazis. Until the German surrender in May 1945, Manhattan Project scientists were working under the goal of having a working nuclear bomb before Hitler did, but I'm not sure if a bomb to win the war and bring everyone home was ever the explicit goal. As late as March of 1945, the American government expected the Nazis to hold out until at least the end of the year. They obviously fell much sooner than that.

Following the German surrender, the allies turned their attention to Japan. After the fall of Okinawa in April, the Japanese government began to internally debate the conditions of surrender they would accept. Once set up on Okinawa, the Americans sent bombing raids onto the home islands- fire bombing raids over Tokyo killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and burned large swaths of the city. Made Dresden look like a fireworks show. These raids were actually initially deadlier than the atomic bombs. After the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Japanese remained steadfast in their desire to fight on until a more favorable peace to them could be obtained. What gets lost is that on the same morning the Nagasaki bomb was dropped, the Soviet Union invaded Japanese occupied Manchuria. A war weary American public accepted the government line that the few were sacrificed for the many but the war was essentially over with or without the bombs. Japan had no oil, no allies, their manufacturing sector had been crippled, their navy was basically sunk, their territorial gains had all but disappeared and they were staring down a famine with the country's supplies running dangerously low. Unlike the Nazis, the Japanese still had a choice at that point- and they desired to deal with Truman instead of Stalin. Would the war have ended without a full scale American invasion or without the use of nuclear weapons? These are unanswerable questions. But theres certainly enough there to make a debate of it, and have no fear, Nolan makes a debate of it. He presents all facets of the dropping of the bombs, and the reasons for doing so. To end the war decisively, to flex their muscles for the Soviets or simply because... as you said, these are people -scientists, army brass, politicians- with egos, and seeing what the thing they spent 2 billion 1945 dollars on actually did was probably part of it too. I thought Nolan evoked the time period and navigated the politics of the time pretty well, he lays it all out so you can draw your own conclusions. I've read criticisms it doesnt moralize enough. I think I'd prefer my films about a ethically murky event stay that way. I hope you enjoy the film as much I did.

The general estimates I have seen is that as grotesque as it may have been the atomic bombings likely saved millions of lives. American and Japanese, soldier and civilian

I guess given the conditions, maybe the Americans could have done a naval blockade of Japan, continued to use old school bombing and starved them out instead, but again that probably kills many more civilians than the bombs did.

 

[Seidenbergy]

Oppenheimer was very good.

Typical Nolan

So you can only hear half the dialog?

 

[EverettMike]

So you can only hear half the dialog?

It's fine. Tom Hardy's not in it.

 

[smithformeragent]

So you can only hear half the dialog?

It’s better compared to some of his previous work in that regard, but there are some issues still.

Definitely enjoyed it, but not something I’m in any rush to see again any time soon.

 

[Seidenbergy]

It's fine. Tom Hardy's not in it.

I gave up trying to understand 3/4 of the lines in tenet. Can't blame hardy for that one.

 

[EverettMike]

I gave up trying to understand 3/4 of the lines in tenet. Can't blame hardy for that one.

Tenet is not mean to be understood but rather experienced.

 

[EverettMike]

If you haven't seen it, Errol Morris' The Fog of War is a brilliant documentary that speaks to Robert McNamara in particular about his efforts as a war strategist. There's an incredible scene in it that outlines just how absurdly unnecessary dropping the nukes on Japan truly was. And at the conclusion of the scene McNamara admits that he and others involved in the decision deserved to be tried for war crimes. It's stunning.

I don't believe there was any moral ambiguity or an argument to be made that it ended up saving lives. It was cruelty.

Yeah, and Oppenheimer addresses the argument and its fallacies directly in the movie. They make the case that using the bomb will save lives both now and in the future, but later on an older Oppenheimer admits that they used it on an already defeated enemy. In fact, had the US waited just a few days Japan was very possibly going to surrender because the Soviets had joined the war against it.

I've seen people say Oppenheimer ignores a lot of this and those people are either lying or fell asleep, because the movie tackles the hardest questions and debates head on while absolutely presenting the case for why the bombings were morally reprehensible.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Yeah, and Oppenheimer addresses the argument and its fallacies directly in the movie. They make the case that using the bomb will save lives both now and in the future, but later on an older Oppenheimer admits that they used it on an already defeated enemy. In fact, had the US waited just a few days Japan was very possibly going to surrender because the Soviets had joined the war against it.

I've seen people say Oppenheimer ignores a lot of this and those people are either lying or fell asleep, because the movie tackles the hardest questions and debates head on while absolutely presenting the case for why the bombings were morally reprehensible.

Yup. Bang on.

I wonder if it got lost for some in the Strauss/Oppenheimer anti-communist dramatic focus, as it is treated similarly to a "he was the bad guy all along twist" thriller trope.

I still don't know how one can come to ambiguous conclusion however. The crowd scene alone which was more deafening than any of the bombs should have made the film's position glaringly obvious.

 

[Gee Wally]

Im looking forward to seeing it. Got tix for this Saturday. My 2 sons, their GF’s and the Bride.
Should be a good time getting together.

 

[Mainehockey33]

Im looking forward to seeing it. Got tix for this Saturday. My 2 sons, their GF’s and the Bride.
Should be a good time getting together.

Me too, I’ll probably go tomorrow. Haven’t really heard a negative review. Kinda sucks not being able to see it in the best version but Providence is a long drive from Central Maine. I think the Omni Theater in Boston shows the 70mm version too but it’s sold out.

It’s the first time I’ve heard of this 70mm format that extends the picture vertically. Is that going to be the new norm for movies going forward or just a gimmick?

 

[Mainehockey33]

Oppenheimer was great. Surprised no one has mentioned the cameo. Pretty unexpected to say the least lol

 

[smithformeragent]

Oppenheimer was great. Surprised no one has mentioned the cameo. Pretty unexpected to say the least lol

Spoiler

Assuming you mean Gary Oldman as Truman

That was great.

Spoiler

Dropping JFK’s name at the end was funny too. Similar to what he did with Joker at the end of Batman Begins and the Robin reveal at the end of TDKR.

 

[Mainehockey33]

Spoiler

Assuming you mean Gary Oldman as Truman

That was great.

Spoiler

Dropping JFK’s name at the end was funny too. Similar to what he did with Joker at the end of Batman Begins and the Robin reveal at the end of TDKR.

Nope, there’s another cameo in there that I’m thinking of. I want to see if anyone else caught it before I give it away.

Yeah I liked that name drop at the end. Definitely teased a sequel there haha.

 

[KnightofBoston]

Oppenheimer was an absolutely fantastic movie

10/10

Any criticisms of that movie fall into the “looking for issues” category at that point

Gonna see Barbie soon probably this weekend and I’d like to see MI7 but the wife isn’t a Cruise fan so I’ll have to figure out when the other adults in my life are free

 

[JoeIsAStud]

Oppenheimer was an absolutely fantastic movie

10/10

Any criticisms of that movie fall into the “looking for issues” category at that point

Gonna see Barbie soon probably this weekend and I’d like to see MI7 but the wife isn’t a Cruise fan so I’ll have to figure out when the other adults in my life are free

MI7 is absolutely spectacular. Just so much fun, and exciting.

 

[KnightofBoston]

MI7 is absolutely spectacular. Just so much fun, and exciting.

Yea man I’m pumped, I really loved Fallout. I wish my wife would get over the cruise hate because they’re smart and thrilling movies that she would dig the movies independent of that, but she also isn’t an action movie fan per se so I gotta rally some other 30 something dudes busy with life to go see it lol

 

[KnightofBoston]

Nope, there’s another cameo in there that I’m thinking of. I want to see if anyone else caught it before I give it away.

Yeah I liked that name drop at the end. Definitely teased a sequel there haha.

Well if you’re not talking the one he kept a secret in Oldman or the one no one would j ie unless told (his daughter) then you’re now getting into lots and lots of roles that I’m unsure if I’d even call it a cameo

There was Casey Affleck but he shows up again so unsure if thag constitutes a cameo, the quaid kid from the Boys is in a few scenes, josh peck is in it, one of the safdie bro’s…but they all play roles that are beyond cameos