ejmalek

About a week ago, I had the opportunity to watch "Dog Man" the film at a nearby movie theater. Ever since I heard about the adaptation, I wanted to watch it even though I've only read the first book in the series by Dav Pilkey. That graphic novel was so good that I put it on my best list years ago. So, how was the movie? It was fantastic because it captures the spirit of the series with its animation, performances, and pacing.

"Dog Man" is about the titular character - part dog, part human - and his adventures in fighting crime as a canine cop, especially those committed by his nemesis Petey the cat, and his relationship with Petey's clone Li'l Petey

The film version of "Dog Man" is not a faithful adaptation of the book of the same name. Instead, it combines plot points from several titles from the series. For example, the origin story of how Dog Man came to be stems from the first one. For another, Li'l Petey, who plays an important part in the flick, doesn't show up until the third book aptly titled A Tale of Two Kitties. I'm sure "Dog Man" fans will come up with more instances. Regardless, the movie is still fantastic.

For starters, the animation is great. It emulates the illustrations in the graphic novel to a tee. Now, it's common for an adaptation of that medium to retain the visuals found in the source material, but it's more than that. Animators have to understand what makes the visuals special, and the ones for the "Dog Man" movie absolutely did. One of the big strengths of the graphic novel was how everything looked like it was drawn by a seven- or eight-year-old from the characters to the buildings. The animators brought those two-dimensional drawings into a three-dimensional environment. I understand that it's hard to do, but they were able to pull it off beautifully because they retained the visual spirit of the graphic novel series.

Additionally, the performances were superb. Every actor feels like they are having the time of their lives while voicing the characters fans have come to love. Now, of course, I have to single out two performances. The obvious one is Pete Davidson, who voices Petey the cat. I don't know if Davidson was cast because he shares the same name as the foul feline, but he does a great job with the character. Davidson hit the obviously evil notes, yet what's more astounding is how he's able to play the emotional bits just as well. This is especially true when Petey the cat deals with abandonment issues after he clones himself. I couldn't believe that this is the same person who was briefly engaged to Ariana Grande and dated Kim Kardashian.

The best performance goes to Peter Hastings - who voices the titular character and his owner Officer Knight. Hastings gives Dog Man his optimism and sadness all through dog noises. What makes this even more remarkable is that Hastings directed the film and wrote the screenplay. It must have been hard to do all three, but he's able to pull it off with no problem.

Finally, the biggest strength of the flick is the pacing. At about 90 minutes, it moves pretty fast. The jokes fly by, so some movie goers might not catch them right away, because after one, it launches into another, but they will be rewarded with repeated viewings. My personal favorite gag is when Dog Man is searching for Li'l Petey, he encounters a bunch of stores, including an Indifferent Store which everybody who works there is apathetic. Another aspect of the pacing that I loved is how it's not afraid to slow down and have quiet moments. For example, there's a montage of Dog Man and Li'l Petey bonding in the former's house, and it's all framed with them playing the piano together. Not every kids' movie needs to have flashy and colorful images all the time. The best ones have deep emotional cores as well, and the "Dog Man" series has some, especially with the bond between Dog Man and Li'l Petey. I'm glad the film was able to balance the serious and the silly with its pacing.

The movie version of "Dog Man" is wonderful. It captures the spirit of the Dav Pilkey series in multiple ways. These include the animation that understands what made the illustrations stand out as well as the performances and pacing, which strikes a great balance between the silly and serious. I would recommend it to everybody regardless of age, especially to those who love the "Dog Man" graphic novel series and want to see an animated version of "RoboCop."

July 21st, 2023 will no doubt go down as one of the most important dates in cinema history. Not only were two of the most highly anticipated movies of the year released, but also they were critical and commercial successes. One was "Barbie," and the other was "Oppenheimer." The latter directed by Christopher Nolan is an effectively abstract and introspective look at the man who invented the atomic bomb.

"Oppenheimer" follows the career of theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer (played by Cillian Murphy). It focuses on his studies, direction of the Manhattan Project, and fall from grace due to the 1954 security hearing.

Because I run a book review website first and foremost, I have to point out that "Oppenheimer" is based on the 2005 biography "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer" by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. I haven't read the book, but with the popularity of the film being as powerful as an atomic bomb right now, I will get my hands on it to see if it captures the spirit of the biography. This would be especially true if the movie gets nominated for and wins Best Adapted Screenplay at next year's Oscars.

I have seen plenty of Christopher Nolan films over the years, both in the movie theater and at home. In fact, "Oppenheimer" was the fourth flick I've seen of his in the former. Seeing it on the big screen really enhanced the Nolan touch on the cinematography and the sound.

For those who don't know, Nolan has red-green color blindness. As a result, he can't see those particular colors. This explains why his films tend to be blue and yellow heavy. In "Oppenheimer," those hues are prominent along with orange during the atomic bomb sequences as well as brown, tan, and white. On top of that, parts of the movie are shot in black and white to represent the stark reality of Oppenheimer's situation when Lewis Strauss (played by Robert Downey Jr.) is in the Senate hearings for his confirmation as Secretary of Commerce in the Eisenhower administration, and he is asked about the former's communist ties. The events that take place prior are in color to show how layered the famous physicist and the events leading up to the atomic bomb were. Nolan did this deliberately to demonstrate objective and subjective perspectives, and this is all done well. The switches between black-and-white and color also help to keep viewers interested in the three-hour movie.

Another Nolanism is the sound. Usually, that tends to be prominent in his flicks, especially to accentuate certain scenes. However, depending on the movie theater, that sound can be abrasive. I remember watching his last historical drama "Dunkirk" and getting very angry because the bomb sound effect was very loud and repetitive. Granted, they were necessary because it was about the famous British retreat during World War II, and ticking noise used indicated that something was going to happen. With "Oppenheimer," the sound is better mixed, yet prominent when it needs to be. For example, during important scenes, the string-based score composed by Ludwig Göransson swells up, but the dialogue is not drowned out. Also, sound effects are more varied. Some include noises for uranium detection and the sound of silence followed by several powerful explosions when the Trinity Test takes place.

Nolan's screenplay is just as abstract as the aspects previously discussed. The film has a non-linear structure with the framework being Strauss's Senate confirmation hearings. While the jumps can be weird at times, this is well executed. When the aforementioned hearing asks Strauss about a specific thing, the movie would then show the kangaroo court inquiring about something similar to Oppenheimer, and then displaying the events and how they unfold through the latter's eyes. The screenplay is also layered in how it portrays the titular character. While Oppenheimer is seen as a hero to many, his left-leaning views threatened to ruin his career during the height of the Red Scare in the 1950s. In addition, while he can be charming, he was a womanizer despite being married to his wife Kitty (played by Emily Blunt), and he tried to poison his physics teacher while at Cambridge.

Finally, there's a running theme about consequences. It demonstrates how various characters either don't fully realize them, or they don't want to think about them. This makes sense. After all, dropping the atomic bomb is part of one of the most famous philosophical questions ever. When the people involved in the Manhattan Project celebrate the atomic bombs dropping in Japan, Oppenheimer gives a speech about this achievement. During said speech, he envisions one woman experiencing the initial effects of the explosion with her skin getting peeled off. He clearly looks shaken up, but in the end, he decides to brush that off and fully embrace the celebration. This helps to explain why the film omits the Japanese perspective. Oppenheimer is not a bad person for not taking that into account. It's that if he starts to think about that, it becomes too much for him. He even talks about having blood on his hands during a tense scene with President Harry Truman (played by Gary Oldman). At the same time, that doesn't make it any better, and the movie is aware of that.

Lastly, I have to talk about the performances. Many act well in the flick, but viewers will ultimately remember two of them: Robert Downey Jr. And Cillian Murphy. Downey plays Lewis Strauss, who was the head of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission that Oppenheimer was a part of. He plays the character with intelligence and spite. The latter comes out during the scenes between Strauss and Oppenheimer after it was revealed that the Soviet Union got their hands on the hydrogen bomb. Through Downey's performance, Strauss is also petty, especially once it's revealed how he was involved in the kangaroo court that questioned Oppenheimer when his security clearance got revoked. Downey is the perfect actor to play Strauss because he spent years playing Ironman - a superhero who can be just as selfish and vengeful as well.

And then, there's Murphy who plays the title character. He brings charm and thoughtfulness to Oppenheimer that makes viewers want to root for him, while acknowledging that he was no angel. The camera loves to do close-ups on Murphy's boney and pondering face. This is especially true with the final shot of the film. And it has every right to; the guy resembles the real-life Oppenheimer. Speaking of his face, Murphy has one that allows him to play characters of any age and still make them believable. In the flick, he plays Oppenheimer in his 20s to his 50s, and all of that was effectively accomplished with different hair styles and body languages. When the character is at Cambridge, he is agitated and impulsive through Murphy's performance. As he ages, his body language becomes more confident and relaxed yet with some anxiety. I wouldn't be shocked in the slightest if the actor gets nominated and wins for Best Actor at next year's Oscars.

In summary, "Oppenheimer" is a thoughtful and abstract movie about the theoretical physicist who invented the atomic bomb. The choices that Nolan, Downey, and Murphy make certainly enhance the story of J. Robert Oppenheimer. I would recommend this to those who love historical dramas, especially the ones that are based on nonfiction books, learning about World War II, and stories involving the atomic bombs. Along with "Barbie," this flick deserves all the praise and hype it got.