spinin

By now, it is pretty obvious that Christopher Nolan's films have a very distinct style, similar themes and ideas, and epic, twisty narratives. He is an auteur for sure, but also one of the messiest ones, in my opinion. This story of Oppenheimer, so brilliantly and absorbingly portrayed on-screen by Nolan, is also frustrating at times because of his tendency to go back to his trademarks: twists, over-dramatization, and a complex time-jumping storyline. If you mix a standard biopic, with all of the elements of narrative of The Dark Knight, Interstellar, or Tenet, this is what you get. It's certainly not a bad thing, but at times just unnecessary.

Here are the great things about this movie. The cinematography is stunning. The sound design is exciting and impactful. The story is fascinating - to make what feels like an action film about chemists and physicists is quite the achievement. It is absorbing right from the beginning and for the most part to the very end. It presents an account of history that I was not very familiar with and a complex portrait of Oppenheimer as a brilliant man, but also conflicted, and with glaring weaknesses, especially for women and in his naive beliefs and interpersonal relationships. It has the best performance by Cillian Murphy that I've seen as he disappears into the role. What struck me most was his voice, which is low and gruff and not like what I've heard before. There are great supporting performances from Josh Hartnett, Emily Blunt, Florence Pugh, and Benny Safdie. I was especially pleasantly surprised by Josh Hartnett's nice turn in the movie. The build-up all the way to the completion and detonation of the first atomic bomb is exciting. The affect it has throughout on Oppenheimer, his justifications for the Manhattan project, and the disturbing effect the use of the atomic bombs on Japan has on him is portrayed brilliantly. And all of the "action" is punched up a few levels by the great score.

Now here are the bad things. The main issue that I have with this movie is the striking parallels with other Nolan's films. Since he is an auteur, this is to be expected, but in an intense biopic, it kept taking me out of the movie. Essentially, while watching I just kept seeing characters from his other films. Oppenheimer is like Batman. Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.) is like Ducard or the Joker. Or perhaps they are the rivaling magicians from The Prestige. Kitty Oppenheimer and Jean Tatlock (Emily Blunt and Florence Pugh) are to Oppenheimer like the Scarlett Johansson and Rebecca Hall characters were to Christian Bale's character in The Prestige. Albert Einstein is the Nicola Tesla of Oppenheimer. And on and on this can be done with many of the individuals in the film and you can probably replace any one of these comparisons with so many of the other characters from Nolan's other films. Essentially it is the same conflicts, with the same non-surprising surprises and twists, and the same narrative resolutions as in all of Nolan's work. For a biopic that feels so absorbing and epic, this just took me out of the movie. It's like Nolan is showing both his power as a director in how he paints this story with broad and epic strokes and his inability to get over the same character arcs, which are starting to feel trivial at this point in his career. While Robert Downey Jr. Gives a very good performance in the movie, the entire storyline of who sabotaged who and how and why between Strauss and Oppenheimer feels dwarfed by the rest of the story. I felt as if though this was from another movie. It has some purpose behind it, but it's just not very interesting. Lesser characters come in (like Rami Malek's David Hill) and all of a sudden put a twist on the storyline as if though they were an ace up a sleeve all along. Does it have to feel so much like The Dark Knight or The Prestige? Does it have to add so much unnecessary exposition and revelation about character motives and behaviors, which really just feel like made-up conjecture or silly, overly dramatic rationalizations?

Now for some of the mixed stuff. Matt Damon gives a very Matt Damon performance as Leslie Groves, the supervising military officer overseeing Oppenheimer. He's solid, but a little distracting with how familiar his face and behavior is. Oppenheimer's political affiliations, or more like relationships with people of certain political affiliations, and the role they played in his difficulties and how they led to questions about his loyalty to the United States also feel like an area explored in the movie that is both interesting and somewhat out of place. It's another great side to the story, but doesn't always gel. So there is just so much stuff here that it feels like some of it could have been left out or tightened. It didn't have to be turned into Inception with layer upon layer upon layer. In particular because this is a biopic and turning it into Inception is excessive. I think Nolan could have stuck to his trademarks without over-indulging once again. And finally the quick editing that Nolan employs is on display here. It's like a movie with ADD. This adds to the excitement, but sometimes Nolan could hold a shot instead of trying to catch every detail by cutting every second. It has the effect of feeling rushed and sloppy.

So this is clearly an exciting and absorbing film. I don't know that there are that many fascinating biopics out there in terms of the energy with which the story is told. But at times it feels convoluted. The editing can be distracting as are Nolan's character and theme trademarks. Some parts just could have been left out or done differently. I'd be lying if I said that the parts with Robert Downey Jr. Didn't take me out of the movie. One of the characters summed it up best when responding to Strauss' assertion that Oppenheimer said something to Einstein to purposefully ruin Strauss' relationship with him: "They were probably talking about something more interesting." A very good, exciting, and epic film that strives for greatness, but doesn't quite reach it. Definitely worth watching for the many interesting avenues it explores. And it is quite brilliant if taken more out of context with Nolan's other work.

As a kid I was a big fan of He-Man. I owned many of the toys and played with them constantly. When this movie came out, I must have watched it dozens of times. Having caught it again recently and after watching it out of curiosity, I think it holds up quite well.

The story pretty much jumps right in, as in if you've seen Star Wars, any comic book movies, or are familiar with the original Masters of the Universe cartoon and toy line, you're supposed to be able to just get right into it and accept it. In the movie Skeletor (Frank Langella) gets his hands on a cosmic key, which can allow him to open portals and travel to other worlds. The inventor of the key, a little "goblin" named Gwildor, has also created another one. He partners with He-Man (Dolph Lundgren) and in an attempt to evade Skeletor, he opens up a portal to earth. He-Man and his team escape and eventually partner up with some humans, including a girl played by Courtney Cox, that stumble onto the key. A battle to protect the earthlings and to defend themselves against Skeletor and his army then ensues.

So the movie is cheesy for sure. Many of the gladiator-like costumes are not very impressive. The storyline is very basic and the script is also very unremarkable, with most characters being very one-dimensional. There's also not many surprises as you can pretty much tell how this movie will go.

However, there are quite a few good things about the movie, especially given its low budget. For starters, the performances are quite good with the actors really buying into the story. Dolph Lundgren does a fine job as He-Man, even if he is a bit of a bore. Frank Langella is exceptional as Skeletor. He delivers the perfect balance of villany and humor. His mask could have been better, though. And Gwildor is a very amusing character with a great costume and with Bill Barty giving probably the second best performance in the movie. The special effects also hold up well. While there are no amazing spaceships, unique worlds, or elaborate space battles, the ground battles and shoot outs look as good as they did in Star Wars (even if this movie came out several years after). And although the costumes are unremarkable for the most-part, the make-up for the more alien-like creatures is terrific. The look and art and set design in the movie is also cool as it has its own unique atmosphere and interesting looking locations, sets, and lairs. Finally, the storyline is basic, but the travel with the use of the keys is an intriguing plot idea. This has been done countless times in movies like Back to the Future or in the Marvel movies (see Thor or The Avengers) since, and is very effective here. As is the interplay between earth people and He-Man's world.

So the movie is cheesy, but it is nowhere near MST3000 bad. It is actually executed quite well given how basic it is. The ideas that it has are actually effective enough even if they have had more of an impact in other movies. It has a good spirit and with an open mindset, Masters of the Universe can even be enjoyable. So it gets an extra point or two for good-natured fun.

The tension between two competing corporate marketing stars at an agency grows after one of them (Rachel McAdams) takes the other's (Noomi Rapace) successful idea and passes it off as her own. She then proceeds to take every opportunity to further embarrass her rival in an attempt to eliminate her. That is, until her rival begins plotting a revenge.

Critics and maybe even De Palma fans will say that this is "lesser" De Palma or that he is no longer at the height of his powers. To me, he has always been like this. He is "lesser" Hitchcock, "lesser" subtlety, and a "lesser" final product than the potential of what the film could have been. That's just who he is and what his films are and what they have always been to me, whether you look at his movies from the 80s or the 2000s. Not much has really changed. It's still the same pot-boiler thrillers, the same style that ranges from cringe-worthy to absorbing and awe-inspiring, and the same shocking, nonsensical, or even laughable plot developments. It's just a matter of whether you buy into it or not; whether you are a fan of it or not; and whether you are able to suspend your disbelief or whether he is successful enough to have you suspend your disbelief.

I'm a fan of his Body Double, Dressed to Kill, Casualties of War and especially Femme Fatale. They are all rip-offs of better films and yet very uniquely his: stylish and surreal. The first 1/3 of Passion is great. It features exceptional cinematography, sexy music, and strong performances from the two leads. It is kind of a joy to watch someone tell a story and execute a film like a designer artist. I felt the same way about Femme Fatale when I first saw it and Passion shares a lot of visual and tonal similarities with it. The second third of the film drags on a bit as the petty behavior of the McAdams character is just on repeat as she undermines people over and over. But it does build up the idea that anyone would want to or could take revenge against her. The final third is good enough as there are multiple twists, some quite ridiculous, and it all resolves like a De Palma film. Like lesser Hitchcock. But to be fair, De Palma has earned the right to be called an auteur and to be associated with this type of a thriller.

In lesser hands, this could have been an annoying teen-slasher movie, but De Palma does elevate it to a classier, sexier, more stylish level. He also has ridiculous moments that make you do a double-take in disbelief at his miscalculations. He has at least three dream sequences, where you see something happen, and then the character wakes up and you realize you were being fooled because it was just a dream. In fact, at one point he has them back to back within a few minutes of one another. You don't need this type of cheap trickery three times in a movie. And then it seems that some of those may not have even been dreams, undoing the whole point of the "it was just a dream" gimmick.

I found this movie enjoyable, even with the silly stuff. It's got style and great performances. And even the ridiculous stuff has some purpose behind it. De Palma doesn't seem to be dialing it in. After the main crime in the movie happens, it keeps you guessing. There are enough red herrings in the story and plot developments that even if your suspicions are right, you may still find yourself second guessing or needing to see how it all resolves. Like most De Palma films, it leaves me with a sense of disappointment at the end, but not feeling disappointed as I'm watching it.