schlomo-jones
Iscritto in data gen 2011
Ti diamo il benvenuto nel nuovo profilo
I nostri aggiornamenti sono ancora in fase di sviluppo. Sebbene la versione precedente del profilo non sia più accessibile, stiamo lavorando attivamente ai miglioramenti e alcune delle funzionalità mancanti torneranno presto! Non perderti il loro ritorno. Nel frattempo, l’analisi delle valutazioni è ancora disponibile sulle nostre app iOS e Android, che si trovano nella pagina del profilo. Per visualizzare la tua distribuzione delle valutazioni per anno e genere, fai riferimento alla nostra nuova Guida di aiuto.
Distintivi2
Per sapere come ottenere i badge, vai a pagina di aiuto per i badge.
Valutazioni45
Valutazione di schlomo-jones
Recensioni30
Valutazione di schlomo-jones
I was excited to see this film, but ended up feeling really disappointed. The overall structure is a convoluted mess. Nolan jumps around in the timeline with his narrative style, which was suited for Interstellar or Inception, but just makes a mess of story in a biopic about the father of the atomic bomb.
Firstly, Is it worth seeing? Yes, but there's no reason to rush to the theater and watch in on the big screen. It's mostly a dialogue-driven film, and the big "boom" scene isn't impressive. It looks like they just blew up a big stack of dynamite and filmed it. Obviously they couldn't blow up a real nuke just to make a movie, and maybe CGI didn't look good. Either way, the bomb test scene, when it finally gets there, despite seeing it in IMAX, with booming speakers, was underwhelming.
Much of the film focuses on the personality of J. Robert Oppenheimer as a flawed person, neither martyr nor warmonger. Cillian Murphy's portrayal is fantastic. However, the plot focuses heavily on the McCarthy-era interrogation he faced where he lost his security clearance, and was subsequently removed from the Atomic Energy Commission. Of course we also see the development of the atomic bomb, and various snippets of Oppenheimer the "fellow traveler" (those who were sympathetic to communist and left wing causes but never joined the party), Oppenheimer the womanizer who cheats on his wife, Oppenheimer the clumsy student who isn't as smart as his peers, and finally Oppenheimer the charismatic leader and of some of the most brilliant minds in the world working on the atomic bomb.
The follow up to this is all having to do with a more obscure figure in history, named Lewis Strauss, potrayed by Robert Downey, jr. This is where the plot gets lost. Without knowing all the details of Strauss's involvement ahead of time, the whole witch-hunt trial was confusing and convoluted. This part of the story dragged on forever.
Now, regarding the historical accuracy, there are lot of famous figures represented in this movie. It's true that Oppenheimer knew all these people, and all these world-famous physicists who, during this strange time in history, were as world reknown as rock stars and entrepreneurs are today. However, they barely say much, they just appear to have a few words while they point Oppenheimer to different people.
I also found it odd that Nolan decided to include Einstein, but no mention of how he too was considered a fellow traveler and had more communist affiliations than Oppenheimer, and was briefly subject to some red scare vitriol.
I also really questioned the historical accuracy of the whole thing in a particular scene where Oppenheimer is having a tryst with a communist portrayed by Florence Pugh. They start talking about Marx's Capital, how she's read all three volumes. He says "possession is theft" and she corrects him "property is theft" as supposedly a famous quote from the book. MASSIVE FACEPALM moment.
Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about leftist history or Marx, would know that "Property is Theft" is a famous slogan from Pierre Joseph-Proudhon, an anarchist who Karl Marx once was friends with, but who he heavily criticized and basically tore apart in subsequent essay. Ever since the collapse of the first international, anarchists and Marxists have not seen eye to eye. No Marxist, let alone a CPUSA member in the 1930's, would be misquoting Marx with Proudhon. This was either a glaring oversight, OR deliberate trolling on the part of Nolan. I'm not sure.
Either way, it brings into question the accuracy and the underlying message of the rest of the film. Nolan has included a lot of counter-revolutionary themes in his Dark Knight trilogy, and even hinted at being a closet Tory, so I don't trust him to portray Oppeheimer's saga accurately. I found a lot of similar issues with Aaron Sorkin's dreadful Lucille Ball biopoc. The idea of both films seems to be to "rescue" the legacy of these iconic figures by exorcising their communist flirtations as naïve youthful indiscretions. All the while ignoring the reasons why communism was so en vogue in the first half of the 20th century.
There are a lot of other issues that I could talk about how general Leslie Groves, portrayed by Matt Damon, was made to look like a an gruff but affable ally and good friend of Oppenheimer. By some accounts, they were much more at odds with each other, and some even suspected Groves of being a fascist (people sometimes forget, with all the focus on communist witch hunts, how many fascists and Nazis were in the US at the same time, even in positions of power of prominence). Of course Groves pushed through Oppenheimers security clearance, not because he liked him, or even trusted him, but because he knew that he was their only chance of developing the a-bomb and beggars couldn't afford to play purity politics.
Wait til this movie hits streaming to see it, and definitely read some books. Don't take these biopics at face value as real history.
Firstly, Is it worth seeing? Yes, but there's no reason to rush to the theater and watch in on the big screen. It's mostly a dialogue-driven film, and the big "boom" scene isn't impressive. It looks like they just blew up a big stack of dynamite and filmed it. Obviously they couldn't blow up a real nuke just to make a movie, and maybe CGI didn't look good. Either way, the bomb test scene, when it finally gets there, despite seeing it in IMAX, with booming speakers, was underwhelming.
Much of the film focuses on the personality of J. Robert Oppenheimer as a flawed person, neither martyr nor warmonger. Cillian Murphy's portrayal is fantastic. However, the plot focuses heavily on the McCarthy-era interrogation he faced where he lost his security clearance, and was subsequently removed from the Atomic Energy Commission. Of course we also see the development of the atomic bomb, and various snippets of Oppenheimer the "fellow traveler" (those who were sympathetic to communist and left wing causes but never joined the party), Oppenheimer the womanizer who cheats on his wife, Oppenheimer the clumsy student who isn't as smart as his peers, and finally Oppenheimer the charismatic leader and of some of the most brilliant minds in the world working on the atomic bomb.
The follow up to this is all having to do with a more obscure figure in history, named Lewis Strauss, potrayed by Robert Downey, jr. This is where the plot gets lost. Without knowing all the details of Strauss's involvement ahead of time, the whole witch-hunt trial was confusing and convoluted. This part of the story dragged on forever.
Now, regarding the historical accuracy, there are lot of famous figures represented in this movie. It's true that Oppenheimer knew all these people, and all these world-famous physicists who, during this strange time in history, were as world reknown as rock stars and entrepreneurs are today. However, they barely say much, they just appear to have a few words while they point Oppenheimer to different people.
I also found it odd that Nolan decided to include Einstein, but no mention of how he too was considered a fellow traveler and had more communist affiliations than Oppenheimer, and was briefly subject to some red scare vitriol.
I also really questioned the historical accuracy of the whole thing in a particular scene where Oppenheimer is having a tryst with a communist portrayed by Florence Pugh. They start talking about Marx's Capital, how she's read all three volumes. He says "possession is theft" and she corrects him "property is theft" as supposedly a famous quote from the book. MASSIVE FACEPALM moment.
Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about leftist history or Marx, would know that "Property is Theft" is a famous slogan from Pierre Joseph-Proudhon, an anarchist who Karl Marx once was friends with, but who he heavily criticized and basically tore apart in subsequent essay. Ever since the collapse of the first international, anarchists and Marxists have not seen eye to eye. No Marxist, let alone a CPUSA member in the 1930's, would be misquoting Marx with Proudhon. This was either a glaring oversight, OR deliberate trolling on the part of Nolan. I'm not sure.
Either way, it brings into question the accuracy and the underlying message of the rest of the film. Nolan has included a lot of counter-revolutionary themes in his Dark Knight trilogy, and even hinted at being a closet Tory, so I don't trust him to portray Oppeheimer's saga accurately. I found a lot of similar issues with Aaron Sorkin's dreadful Lucille Ball biopoc. The idea of both films seems to be to "rescue" the legacy of these iconic figures by exorcising their communist flirtations as naïve youthful indiscretions. All the while ignoring the reasons why communism was so en vogue in the first half of the 20th century.
There are a lot of other issues that I could talk about how general Leslie Groves, portrayed by Matt Damon, was made to look like a an gruff but affable ally and good friend of Oppenheimer. By some accounts, they were much more at odds with each other, and some even suspected Groves of being a fascist (people sometimes forget, with all the focus on communist witch hunts, how many fascists and Nazis were in the US at the same time, even in positions of power of prominence). Of course Groves pushed through Oppenheimers security clearance, not because he liked him, or even trusted him, but because he knew that he was their only chance of developing the a-bomb and beggars couldn't afford to play purity politics.
Wait til this movie hits streaming to see it, and definitely read some books. Don't take these biopics at face value as real history.
Firstly, the effects were fantastics. The lions look very real and at first I wasn't sure if I was watching CGI or really well-tamed real lions.
Idris Elba plays a doctor, Dr. Nate Samuels from America who takes his daughters on a trip to Africa. The introduction isn't that important though, as most of this movie revovles around Dr. Samuels trying to prevent his daughters and him from being unalived by a man-killing lion that has gone on a rampage.
When the lion first appers, it's scary. Every single person in the theater jumped out of their seats. However, as the story continues, Dr. Samuels ability to continually evade detection, survive multiple direct mauling attempts by kicking and punching the massive lion, really reduces the scariness of it. Oh did I forget to mention Samuels has zero wilderness survival training, martial skills, knows nothing about lions, and is basically a tourist in a foreign land and doesn't know the terrirtory? This is important, because the same lion manages to easily tear apart villagers , multiple professional lion hunters armed with automatic rifles, and his friend the lion expert in mere seconds. But the same super deadly lion magically turns into a blind, deaf, clumsy oaf when trying to attack Samuels.
Is it worth watching? I can't say I didn't enjoy it, but I feel like it could have been so much better if they didn't cover Dr. Samuels and his children with such over-the-top plot armor.
Idris Elba plays a doctor, Dr. Nate Samuels from America who takes his daughters on a trip to Africa. The introduction isn't that important though, as most of this movie revovles around Dr. Samuels trying to prevent his daughters and him from being unalived by a man-killing lion that has gone on a rampage.
When the lion first appers, it's scary. Every single person in the theater jumped out of their seats. However, as the story continues, Dr. Samuels ability to continually evade detection, survive multiple direct mauling attempts by kicking and punching the massive lion, really reduces the scariness of it. Oh did I forget to mention Samuels has zero wilderness survival training, martial skills, knows nothing about lions, and is basically a tourist in a foreign land and doesn't know the terrirtory? This is important, because the same lion manages to easily tear apart villagers , multiple professional lion hunters armed with automatic rifles, and his friend the lion expert in mere seconds. But the same super deadly lion magically turns into a blind, deaf, clumsy oaf when trying to attack Samuels.
Is it worth watching? I can't say I didn't enjoy it, but I feel like it could have been so much better if they didn't cover Dr. Samuels and his children with such over-the-top plot armor.
