Posts Tagged ‘movie review’

Movie Review: Oppenheimer

Monday, August 7th, 2023

Title: Oppenheimer
Director: Christopher Nolan
Writers: Christopher Nolan, Kai Bird, Martin Sherwin
Starring: Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Robert Downey Jr., Florence Pugh, Jason Clarke, Benny Safdie, Josh Hartnett, Alden Ehrenreich

I finally saw Oppenheimer, and if you have an interest in the subject, it’s well worth seeing. It’s a near-great film that’s great when it covers the atomic bomb project, and considerably less great when It Has Important Things To Say.

The movie covers much of the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy), director of the Los Alamos part of the project to build the atomic bomb. The movie has a non-linear format, using the framing device of two different hearings (on the renewal of Oppenheimer’s security clearance, and the cabinet confirmation hearing for Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.), who lured Oppenheimer to Princeton and oversaw the Atomic Energy Commission, and who is eventually revealed to be the film’s antagonist) interspersed with Oppenheimer’s life before and during the The Manhattan Project.

When the film is good, it’s flat out great. The scenes here tend to be small in scope, seldom more than a minute long, slowly building up Oppenheimer’s life, his love and study of physics, his dalliance with communism (he was a fellow-traveler who never joined the party, but did take a commie (Florence Pugh) as his first wife and an ex-commie (Emily Blunt) as his second), his dismay as a Jewish American at the rise of Nazism, and his involvement in the atomic bomb effort.

The brevity of the scenes is one of the film’s greatest strengths. Though mostly quiet and understated in themselves, they slowly build up a heady steam of narrative momentum. By the time they get to Los Alamos itself you’re absolutely riveted.

And it gets better. The scenes leading up to the Trinity detonation are a masterpiece of film editing, successfully ratcheting the tension higher and higher just by showing scenes of the elaborate preparations leading up to the blast, under-laid by Ludwig Göransson’s tense, violin-heavy score. I saw the film in IMAX, and I think I got my money’s worth out of that sequence alone.

But that headlong pace enfolds within it a problem: Things move so fast, that some scenes have a certain checkmark quality to them, so that you know exactly what’s coming. Gee, when commie girlfriend picks up a Sanskrit text, what do you want to bet that the passage he’s reading is “I am become death, destroyer of worlds?”

Please, no wagering.

But that’s a minor problem compared to the biggest flaw of Oppenheimer, which is what they chose to include as the main non-Trinity storyline. Why have the climax of your film feature the literal explosion of an atomic bomb when you can spend the rest of it on the pulse-pounding excitement of committee meetings?

To be fair to Nolan, this is obviously the film he wanted to make, and the film is called Oppenheimer rather than The Making of the Atomic Bomb. And the committee meeting scenes are as well-acted, well-directed and well-paced as you could reasonably ask of a big-budget, A-list Hollywood film. But the real reason they’re there is so the leftist screenwriters can Say Important Things.

Oppenheimer must feel massive guilt and remorse for having helped usher in the atomic age, because this is Approved Opinion. Leftists, even commies, must be shown in a positive light, because this is Approved Opinion. Likewise, McCarthyism must be shown to be Very Bad, so all the crimes of communism have to be kept offstage.

Indeed, an awful lot happens off-stage, including the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then again, Oppenheimer is the viewpoint character.

From my better-than-the-average-layman-understanding-at-how-an-atomic-bomb-works-but-hardly-an-expert vantage point, the historical accuracy for the film seems painstaking and effective. I understood why Klaus Fuchs was important when he was introduced, appreciated the Nixie tubes in the Trinity countdown, and figured out the guy with the bongos must have been Richard Feynman. Everything sure as hell looks accurate, and the New Mexico photography is gorgeous.

But with so much time spent on the commie and Strauss plots, and Oppenheimer having visions of particle physics (early) and atomic destruction (late), the rest of the film (the far more interesting part) feels a bit rushed. Plus the sheer smallness of the stakes that drive the frame-story/post-Trinity portion feels like a distinct anticlimax. Indeed, the primary subplot turns out to be (spoilers) Strauss secretly shiving Oppenheimer by getting his security clearance yanked for…his supporting export of radioactive isotopes to Norway? It’s like if during the climax of Kill Bill, you find out that the Bride’s entire motivation for her revenge spree was Bill never returning her DVD of Steel Magnolias.

All that said, this is still an exceptionally good film, and even the ostensibly bad guys Have Their Reasons. Even hydrogen bomb father Edward Teller (Benny Safdie), who the writers must have been tempted to turn into a secondary villain, comes across as a smart, sympathetic figure. And history validates both his and Strauss’ view that America was right to move forward on the H-Bomb, as the Soviets were utterly untrustworthy as arms control treaty partners.

I expect Oscar nominations galore.

If you’re the kind of person that would watch a three hour movie on the making of the atomic bomb, this is the one to watch.

Movie Review: The Beast

Sunday, September 4th, 2022

As I did with Fury, here’s a review of another movie that follows a tank crew driving deep into enemy territory. But instead of an American Sherman driving deep into Germany in 1945, it’s a Soviet T-55 taking a wrong turn in Afghanistan in 1982.

Title: The Beast (AKA The Beast of War)
Director: Kevin Reynolds
Writer: William Mastrosimone
Starring: George Dzundza, Jason Patric, Steven Bauer, Stephen Baldwin, Don Harvey, Kabir Bedi, Erick Avari
IMDB entry

The movie starts with three Soviet tanks blowing the shit out of an Afghan village, taking down a minaret, slaughtering unarmed civilians and even poisoning a well. One mujaheddin who manages to score a Molotov cocktail kill against one of the tanks is then positioned and crushed to death under the tread of the tank commanded by the hard-ass/borderline insane Daskal. (The genocidal brutality of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan is well documented.)

Inside the tank, Jason Patric’s Konstantin play Mr. Christian to Daskal’s Bligh. He’s not a fan of the war, and doesn’t understand the contempt Daskal has for Afghan subordinate Samad (Erick Avari). “He’s doing his best he can, sir.” “That’s what worries me.”

Outside the tank, a posse of Afghans, carrying a lone RPG launcher and intent on Badal (revenge), pursues the tank, which has taken a fatal wrong turn into a long dead-end valley. The tank’s crew has to struggle not only against mechanical breakdowns (a busted radio, low fuel, overheating) and pursuing enemies who know the terrain better than them, but a brutal commander who seems willing to kill any of them to keep his tank moving. Eventually Daskal executes one and leaves another for dead, which turns out to be his undoing…

This is an excellent, taut war drama that delivers on the promise of its setup. Daskal may be insane, but he’s not stupid, and he knows how to use his tank against his enemies. Performances are universally good. Unlike Fury, The Beast eschews cliches and never drags, because it never stops for pithy speeches on how War Is Just No Damn Good, because it’s already shown you. It’s a very solid, small-cast film that runs a sprightly hour and forty seven minutes long, and is well worth tracking down on DVD or streaming.

Here’s the trailer, which is much lower quality than the movie:

Russian brutality is in the news again, with numerous reports of indiscriminate killing of civilians and wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure. But while the Russians have been demothballing old Soviet tanks to send to Ukraine, they haven’t become desperate enough to send T-55s to the front lines, assuming they still have any that are able to run…

Movie Review: United 93

Sunday, September 12th, 2021

United 93
Directed by Paul Greengrass
Written by Paul Greengrass
Starring David Alan Basche, Olivia Thirlby, Liza Colon-Zayas, J.J. Johnson, Gary Commock, Trish Gates

I finally saw United 93 for the first time yesterday. So let’s get this out of the way:

I didn’t see the movie when it came out in 2006 because “too soon,” and didn’t own the DVD when the 10 year anniversary rolled around. But the 20th anniversary fell on our usual movie night, so it was finally time.

And it was every bit as tense and nerve-wracking as I expected it to be.

United 93 covers, in low-key, docudrama fashion, the events of 9/11 from the viewpoints of passengers and crew on the doomed airliner, flight controllers on the ground, Strategic Air Command, and even the terrorists hijacking the plane. Except for the terrorists, no one understands what’s happening. First one, then another airliner stops answering air traffic control and turns their transponders off. Even after the first plane hits the World Trade Center off-screen, no one understands what’s going on. Rumors fly as different government functionaries (some playing themselves) try to get answers from different agencies for a situation none of them understand.

And the movie’s almost an hour in before the terrorists hijack United 93.

This is a great film. It’s also a harrowing, tension-filled one despite knowing the ending. There’s no sensationalism, no money shots, no moralizing, no foreshadowing, just an excellent ensemble cast playing ordinary people struggling understand what’s going on and make decisions on limited information.

United 93 is a better film than The Departed, which won the Oscar for Best Picture of 2006. (It was Martin Scorsese’s makeup Oscar for Goodfellas.) I would have to see The Lives of Others (which won for Best Foreign Language film the same year) again to determine which is better.

And you should really see both.

Movie Review: The Bridge on the River Kwai

Sunday, May 30th, 2021

The Bridge on the River Kwai
Directed by: David Lean
Written by: Pierre Boulle (novel), Carl Foreman and Michael Wilson (screenplay)
Starring: Alec Guinness, William Holden, Jack Hawkins, Sessue Hayakawa, James Donald

I usually save movie reviews for my other blog, but this fits in thematically with Memorial Day (and also with a cross blog debate on the best war movies), so here we go.

Set in a Japanese prisoner of war camp in Burma during World War II, it follows a battle of wills between Japanese camp commander Colonel Saito (Sessue Hayakawa), who must use prisoner labor to build the titular railway bridge, and newly arrived British Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness), the stiff upper lip, by-the-book commander to end all stiff upper lip, by-the-book commanders. Saito needs his bridge built by mid-May or he’ll have to commit suicide. Nicholson insists that he will only cooperate if the entire operation is done by the book (with him commanding his troops and officers exempt from manual labor, as per the Geneva convention).

The battle of wills between the two men makes up the core of the first half of the movie. Saito theoretically holds all the cards, but Nicholson will not give an inch. Saito threatens to machine gun the allied officers for disobeying, leaves them standing to fry in the sun all day, then confines them to a punishment hut and Nicholson to a hot box for days on end, all to no avail. Meanwhile, bridge construction falls further and further behind schedule.

Saito eventually has Nicholson pulled from the hot box, barely able to walk, on the raw edge of consciousness, and plies him with food and scotch, only to have Nicholson refuse him yet again.

In the end, both men get their demands, and all it costs them is everything. Saito gets a much better bridge built, but is absolutely emasculated in the process. There’s a dinner party where Nicholson tells Saito the Japanese have done everything wrong and the bridge must be rebuilt in a new location, in the process getting all his demands met and subtly demonstrating that he, not Saito, is the one calling the shots.

There is a secondary plot that follows William Holden as American officer Shears, who manages to escape the camp, and then is recruited by British Major Warden (Jack Hawkins) to help a commando squad travel across the jungle to blow up the bridge. That part of the movie is solid as well, and is what drives the film’s climax.

One surprise is just how funny The Bridge on the River Kwai is, in a very low-key, black comedy way. Saito’s blank-eyed helplessness in the face of his ongoing humiliation is a constant source of amusement, and many of the meetings between Nicholson and Saito are darkly hilarious. Supposedly Lean didn’t want Guinness’ portrayal to have that comic edge, but in many ways it really makes the movie.

Guinness gives an Oscar-winning performance for the ages as Nicholson, a stubborn, decent, blinkered officer who does the wrong thing (aiding an enemy’s war effort) for all the right reasons. He’s a tragic figure who’s more right than wrong, successfully standing up for his men but trapped by his own adherence to regulation. Hayakawa isn’t nearly on that level (there were probably a dozen Japanese actors who could have turned in a more nuanced performance at the time), but he’s good enough. Holden and Hawkins turn in solid performances, and the rest of the cast is filled with great British character actors.

It’s a war film with barely any combat, a two-and-a-half hour film that never seems to drag, and remains not only a great war film, but a great film period, winner of seven Oscars, including Best Director, Best Screenplay and Best Picture, and currently sits at 167 on the IMDB Top 250 list.

Back in the dim mists of time, I also read the Pierre Boulle novel the film was based on, and it’s worth reading on its own. One bit left out was that one of the commandos was a former bridge engineer who had redesigned a single truss over and over again until he had reduced the amount of steel used by half, which gave him ample motivation to want to blow up a bridge….

Movie Review: Fury

Sunday, April 26th, 2020

Yesterday’s post featured Sherman tanks facing Panzers on the Golan Heights in 1967, so let’s do a review of a movie about a Sherman tank crew late in World War II to make it an All Sherman Tank Weekend, because why the hell not? (Plus it’s a chance not to talk about the Wuhan coronavirus, China or the lockdown.)

Title: Fury
Director: David Ayer
Writer: David Ayer
Starring: Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf, Logan Lerman, Michael Pena, Jon Bernthal
IMDB entry

Fury is the story of the crew of a M4A2 Sherman tank crew driving deep into Germany in April of 1945. It starts with the aftermath of a battle where where the crew had to haul a dead crewmate out and every other American tank but the titular Fury was wiped out. Soon tank commander ‘Wardaddy’ Collier (Brad Pitt) welcomes green recruit Norm (Logan Lerman) as their new assistant driver/machinegunner. They’re sent with a new platoon of tanks to rescue a trapped unit and the lead tank is promptly taken out by a panzerfaust. Fury leads an assault on a German antitank unit in a treeline, then participates in taking a large German town, where the tank crew spends some occasionally tense R & R with two German fraulieins before moving out to help defend a key crossroads. On the way, all the tanks in the platoon but Fury are destroyed in an encounter with a Tiger tank. The last 45 minutes or so of the film depict Fury’s crew, one tread taken out by a mine, defending the crossroads against an SS company.

Fury succeeds when it focuses on being a World War II tank film, and loses momentum when tries to Make Serious Statements About The Human Condition And How War Is Hell.

The scenes that work best are the everyday lives of the crew. They used real Shermans in the film, and the scenes inside the tank have the convincing claustrophobia of a real tank interior. (Though they vastly understate how noisy a tank interior is; some of that is inevitable, as no audience would want to watch an entire tank movie with the noise as loud as an actual tank, but the nosiebed here should have been louder to at least give a hint of the real thing.) The battle scenes are gripping, and the attention to detail pretty good; I especially liked the improvised log armor on the sides, and the use of different types of main gun ammunition for different purposes, including laying down smoke just like in the instructional videos.

A video tour of the interior of a Sherman (with some clips from the movie) is here:

Ignore the guy in the knight’s helmet.

On the other hand, no World War II unit used that many tracer rounds in daylight, and they didn’t look like lasers.

It’s the Deep Meaning Of It All Scenes that drag the movie down. Norm fails to machine-gun teenage German troops with the panzerfausts, with Dire Consequences. Collier forces Norm to shoot a German prisoner to Prove His Loyalty. A burning soldier shoots himself in the head. Another falls on a live grenade. After Norm makes out with a hot frauliein, want to guess who gets killed in a random artillery barrage?

No cliche will be left behind.

Despite that, the acting is very good. Pitt is fine as Hardened Stoic Leader Who Will Get His Men Through. Lerman is good in the green ostensible-viewpoint character role. Michael Pena (Luis in the Ant Man films) is solid as driver (and semi-comic relief) Gordo. Jon Berenthal does fine in the thankless “rude redneck with bad hygiene” role of gun-loader Coon-Ass.

Weirdly enough, the actor who comes out best is Shia LaBeouf as gunner Boyd “Bible” Swan. He brings a quiet, understated dignity to a role as a devout Christian, and “quiet,” “understated” and “dignity” are adjectives that seldom accrue to LaBeouf in any aspect of his life, and whose acting usually tops out at “only mildly annoying.” Jason Isaacs is also excellent in a supporting role as a gritty, unsentimental, matter-of-fact Captain.

Fury is worth watching, but it really could have been about 45 minutes shorter. The best war movies tend to be those that focus on soldiers just trying to do The Task At Hand (Das Boot being the classic example) and not worrying about making Deep Meaningful Statements.

6/10

Also, Hollywood needs to make more movies about tanks.

Here’s the trailer:

John Simon, RIP

Wednesday, November 27th, 2019

Via Dwight comes word that movie and theater critic John Simon has died.

I found Simon an extremely valuable movie critic for National Review, because he seemed to hate 90+% of all movies. That meant you couldn’t take a negative review by him as gospel. However, on the rare occasions he raved about a film, you knew it was worth watching. Two films that I remember seeing based almost entirely on Simon raves were the original Japanese version of Shall We Dance and Donnie Brasco, both worthy of your attention.

Today there’s no one who fills their niche. Sure, there are SJW critics who are always wrong, but their wrongness doesn’t always translate into hating all great films in a way you can trust…

P. J. O’Rourke on the Atlas Shrugged Movie

Tuesday, April 19th, 2011

Some people have asked me if I’ll be reviewing the Atlas Shrugged movie, since one of my gigs is reviewing science fiction movies, and Ayn Rand’s original novel certainly qualifies as science fiction. (I’m also familiar enough with the novel to craft this parody of it.) But I thought it would be nearly impossible to do justice to the source material in movie form; a TV miniseries would probably be more appropriate to fit that sprawling, didactic story.

So I’m glad the inimitable P.J. O’Rourke has saved me the trouble. He’s seems to have done a good job of dissecting the movie’s flaws (and advanced word has been very negative just on the story-telling and movie pacing fronts) without rejecting the underlying message.