amadeus-10
Entrou em abr. de 1999
Bem-vindo(a) ao novo perfil
Nossas atualizações ainda estão em desenvolvimento. Embora a versão anterior do perfil não esteja mais acessível, estamos trabalhando ativamente em melhorias, e alguns dos recursos ausentes retornarão em breve! Fique atento ao retorno deles. Enquanto isso, Análise de Classificação ainda está disponível em nossos aplicativos iOS e Android, encontrados na página de perfil. Para visualizar suas Distribuições de Classificação por ano e gênero, consulte nossa nova Guia de ajuda.
Selos2
Para saber como ganhar selos, acesse página de ajuda de selos.
Avaliações7
Classificação de amadeus-10
It was excruciating to watch this. Probably among the worst 5 films I have ever seen. Right down there with Island of Desire (Linda Darnell and Tab Hunter. Luckily I saw it on a rented tape and was able to fast-forward through the really awful parts.
The Dr. Robert Oppenheimer character set forth by the director and screen writer is a desecration of the memory of one of the greatest intellects of the century. The film version Oppenheimer runs around and expostulates as frantically as Mickey Rooney scurrying about trying to get Judy Garland, Ann Rutherford, et al to put on that great musical in the old barn. Clearly the screenwriter never saw the TV interview of Oppenheimer by Ed Murrow.
The real Oppenheimer was a true polymath, literate in Sanscrit as well as being a a scientist who could hold his own with Bohr and Fermi. The Oppenheimer on the Murrow interview was a man with an intensely focused expression and riveting eyes, who carefully repeated each question posed by Murrow, as well as the possible variations, and answered them one by one, in one of the most impressive displays of sheer intellectuality I have ever witnessed. I can't imagine Oppy ever raising his voice and raving as he does in this flick.
There are many other major problems and here are a few:
1) We hardly hear about the greats who really made the Manhattan project go. Particularly Nils Bohr and Enrico Fermi. I believe there is a passing reference to an "Enrico" but we're not told who he is or what he does. Indeed, the Enrico of the film (who has a very brief appearance on camera is a somewhat buffoonish Italian stereoptype -- yet Enrico Fermi was probably one of the most brilliant physicists of the 20th century -- and arguably the real father of the atom bomb in that he produced the first sustained nuclear chain reaction. I'm surprised that the Fermi of the film was not shown doing an organ grinder routine with a monkey while singing "La Donna e Mobile." (Indeed there was a pet monkey in the film but he belonged to one of the other characters. Don't ask me what the monkey was doing in Los Alamos)
2) The science is pitiful. About the level of that shown in Frankenstein when the fiendish Dr. F. pulls the big switch on the mountaintop lab as the lighting flickers about and all the meter pointers move this way and that way.
3) Many of the expressions in the dialog were laughably anachronistic. They just didn't exist in the early 40s. (I know; I'm that old!)
4) The attempt to introduce women into the screenplay was pitiful and irrelevant. Oppie's relationships with women were really very peripheral to the real story of the Manhattan project. The good-hearted jeep driving nurse whose boy-friend got zapped by a radiation leak was unnecessary and probably didn't exist in real life.
5) A lot of movie time is spent over the agonizing of whether the bomb should be dropped (once the first demo at Alamagordo proved successful). The high level of emotional intensity on the part of the physicists is unconvincing.
6) The screenplay and direction stuck the very competent Paul Newman with a deadly character (Brig. Gen. Leslie Groves, the director of the Manhattan Project)who could not be rendered plausible even with Mr. Newman's ordinarily formidable talents. Groves comes across as a combination of a compleat (sic) ass and an avuncular bumbler. In reality he was a hard driving, rather mono-chromatic military man, who did the job he was asked to do.
This is a really bad film. It might make it as a cult film some day. who knows?
The Dr. Robert Oppenheimer character set forth by the director and screen writer is a desecration of the memory of one of the greatest intellects of the century. The film version Oppenheimer runs around and expostulates as frantically as Mickey Rooney scurrying about trying to get Judy Garland, Ann Rutherford, et al to put on that great musical in the old barn. Clearly the screenwriter never saw the TV interview of Oppenheimer by Ed Murrow.
The real Oppenheimer was a true polymath, literate in Sanscrit as well as being a a scientist who could hold his own with Bohr and Fermi. The Oppenheimer on the Murrow interview was a man with an intensely focused expression and riveting eyes, who carefully repeated each question posed by Murrow, as well as the possible variations, and answered them one by one, in one of the most impressive displays of sheer intellectuality I have ever witnessed. I can't imagine Oppy ever raising his voice and raving as he does in this flick.
There are many other major problems and here are a few:
1) We hardly hear about the greats who really made the Manhattan project go. Particularly Nils Bohr and Enrico Fermi. I believe there is a passing reference to an "Enrico" but we're not told who he is or what he does. Indeed, the Enrico of the film (who has a very brief appearance on camera is a somewhat buffoonish Italian stereoptype -- yet Enrico Fermi was probably one of the most brilliant physicists of the 20th century -- and arguably the real father of the atom bomb in that he produced the first sustained nuclear chain reaction. I'm surprised that the Fermi of the film was not shown doing an organ grinder routine with a monkey while singing "La Donna e Mobile." (Indeed there was a pet monkey in the film but he belonged to one of the other characters. Don't ask me what the monkey was doing in Los Alamos)
2) The science is pitiful. About the level of that shown in Frankenstein when the fiendish Dr. F. pulls the big switch on the mountaintop lab as the lighting flickers about and all the meter pointers move this way and that way.
3) Many of the expressions in the dialog were laughably anachronistic. They just didn't exist in the early 40s. (I know; I'm that old!)
4) The attempt to introduce women into the screenplay was pitiful and irrelevant. Oppie's relationships with women were really very peripheral to the real story of the Manhattan project. The good-hearted jeep driving nurse whose boy-friend got zapped by a radiation leak was unnecessary and probably didn't exist in real life.
5) A lot of movie time is spent over the agonizing of whether the bomb should be dropped (once the first demo at Alamagordo proved successful). The high level of emotional intensity on the part of the physicists is unconvincing.
6) The screenplay and direction stuck the very competent Paul Newman with a deadly character (Brig. Gen. Leslie Groves, the director of the Manhattan Project)who could not be rendered plausible even with Mr. Newman's ordinarily formidable talents. Groves comes across as a combination of a compleat (sic) ass and an avuncular bumbler. In reality he was a hard driving, rather mono-chromatic military man, who did the job he was asked to do.
This is a really bad film. It might make it as a cult film some day. who knows?
It was excruciating to watch this. Probably among the worst 5 films I have ever seen. Right down there with Island of Desire (Linda Darnell and Tab Hunter). Luckily I saw it on a rented tape and was able to fast-forward through the really awful parts.
The Dr. Robert Oppenheimer character set forth by the director and screen writer is a desecration of the memory of one of the greatest intellects of the 20th century. The film version Oppenheimer runs around and expostulates as frantically as Micky Rooney scurrying about trying to get Judy Garland, Ann Rutherford, et al to put on that great musical in the old barn. Clearly the screenwriter never saw the TV interview of Oppenheimer by Ed Murrow.
The real Oppenheimer was a true polymath, literate in Sanscrit as well as being a a scientist who could hold his own with Nils Bohr and Enrico Fermi. The Oppenheimer on the Murrow interview was a man with an intensely focused expression and riveting eyes, who carefully repeated each question posed by Murrow, as well as the possible variations, and answered them, unemotionally, one by one, in one of the most impressive displays of sheer intellectuality I have ever witnessed. I can't imagine Oppy ever raising his voice and raving as he does in this flick.
There are many other major problems and here are a few:
1) We hardly hear about the greats who really made the Manhattan project go. Particularly Nils Bohr and Enrico Fermi. I believe there is a passing reference to an "Enrico" but we're not told who he is or what he does. Indeed, the Enrico of the film (who has a very brief appearance on camera) is a somewhat buffoonish Italian stereotype -- yet Enrico Fermi was probably one of the most brilliant physicists of the 20th century -- and arguably the real father of the atom bomb in that he produced the first sustained nuclear chain reaction. I'm surprised that the Fermi of the film was not shown doing an organ grinder routine with a monkey while singing "La Donna e Mobile." (Indeed there was a pet monkey in the film but he belonged to one of the other characters. Don't ask me what the monkey was doing in Los Alamos)
2) The science is pitiful. About the level of that shown in Frankenstein when the fiendish Dr. F. pulls the big switch on the mountaintop lab as the lighting flickers about and all the meter pointers move this way and that way. No mention of the problems of isotope separation and what went on at Oak Ridge, Tenn. and Hanford, Wash.
3) Many of the expressions in the dialog were laughably anachronistic. They just didn't exist in the early 40s. (I know; I'm that old!)
4) The attempt to introduce women into the screenplay was pitiful and irrelevant. Oppie's relationships with women were really very peripheral to the real story of the Manhattan project. The good-hearted jeep driving nurse whose boy-friend (the one with the pet monkey) got zapped by a radiation leak was unnecessary and probably didn't exist in real life.
5) A lot of movie time is spent over the agonizing of whether the bomb should be dropped (once the first demo at Alamagordo proved successful). The high level of emotional intensity on the part of the physicists is unconvincing.
6) The screenplay and direction stuck the very competent Paul Newman with a deadly character (Brig. Gen. Leslie Groves, the director of the Manhattan Project)who could not be rendered plausible even by Mr. Newman's ordinarily formidable talents. Groves comes across as a combination of a compleat (sic) ass and an avuncular bumbler. In reality he was a hard driving, rather mono-chromatic military man, who did the job he was asked to do.
This is a really bad film. It might make it as a cult film some day. who knows?
The Dr. Robert Oppenheimer character set forth by the director and screen writer is a desecration of the memory of one of the greatest intellects of the 20th century. The film version Oppenheimer runs around and expostulates as frantically as Micky Rooney scurrying about trying to get Judy Garland, Ann Rutherford, et al to put on that great musical in the old barn. Clearly the screenwriter never saw the TV interview of Oppenheimer by Ed Murrow.
The real Oppenheimer was a true polymath, literate in Sanscrit as well as being a a scientist who could hold his own with Nils Bohr and Enrico Fermi. The Oppenheimer on the Murrow interview was a man with an intensely focused expression and riveting eyes, who carefully repeated each question posed by Murrow, as well as the possible variations, and answered them, unemotionally, one by one, in one of the most impressive displays of sheer intellectuality I have ever witnessed. I can't imagine Oppy ever raising his voice and raving as he does in this flick.
There are many other major problems and here are a few:
1) We hardly hear about the greats who really made the Manhattan project go. Particularly Nils Bohr and Enrico Fermi. I believe there is a passing reference to an "Enrico" but we're not told who he is or what he does. Indeed, the Enrico of the film (who has a very brief appearance on camera) is a somewhat buffoonish Italian stereotype -- yet Enrico Fermi was probably one of the most brilliant physicists of the 20th century -- and arguably the real father of the atom bomb in that he produced the first sustained nuclear chain reaction. I'm surprised that the Fermi of the film was not shown doing an organ grinder routine with a monkey while singing "La Donna e Mobile." (Indeed there was a pet monkey in the film but he belonged to one of the other characters. Don't ask me what the monkey was doing in Los Alamos)
2) The science is pitiful. About the level of that shown in Frankenstein when the fiendish Dr. F. pulls the big switch on the mountaintop lab as the lighting flickers about and all the meter pointers move this way and that way. No mention of the problems of isotope separation and what went on at Oak Ridge, Tenn. and Hanford, Wash.
3) Many of the expressions in the dialog were laughably anachronistic. They just didn't exist in the early 40s. (I know; I'm that old!)
4) The attempt to introduce women into the screenplay was pitiful and irrelevant. Oppie's relationships with women were really very peripheral to the real story of the Manhattan project. The good-hearted jeep driving nurse whose boy-friend (the one with the pet monkey) got zapped by a radiation leak was unnecessary and probably didn't exist in real life.
5) A lot of movie time is spent over the agonizing of whether the bomb should be dropped (once the first demo at Alamagordo proved successful). The high level of emotional intensity on the part of the physicists is unconvincing.
6) The screenplay and direction stuck the very competent Paul Newman with a deadly character (Brig. Gen. Leslie Groves, the director of the Manhattan Project)who could not be rendered plausible even by Mr. Newman's ordinarily formidable talents. Groves comes across as a combination of a compleat (sic) ass and an avuncular bumbler. In reality he was a hard driving, rather mono-chromatic military man, who did the job he was asked to do.
This is a really bad film. It might make it as a cult film some day. who knows?
I first saw this film in 1933 when I was 7 years old. My 20 year old aunt, who was also my nanny, used to drag me to these things (also took me to equally horrifying Trader Horn and King Kong) instead of taking me to the playground. Even after 67 years, I remembered the scene when someone was lashing the rebellious half-animals.
I checked it out from my video store last year for a re-run. Absolutely magnificent Laughton. Still scary.
I checked it out from my video store last year for a re-run. Absolutely magnificent Laughton. Still scary.