Oppenheimer - who's seeing it?

[ahalpert]

I'm super excited for Oppenheimer. I haven't liked Nolan's recent sci-fi stuff -- I thought Interstellar and Inception were convoluted and sleep-inducing. I didn't bother with Tenet. But I thought Dunkirk was a masterpiece. I watched it 4 or 5 times in the span of a week. I think having the historical narrative to ground him really helped. And it delivered a strong motivation for his penchant to weave parallel plot lines.

So, I feel like Oppenheimer could be really good. I try to avoid trailers of movies I already plan on watching but the glimpses of cinematography I've seen look stellar.

Who else is excited?

 

[drboffa]

I'm curious to see it, although I'm more than a little skeptical. I am not, by any stretch, a Nolan fan. I thought Interstellar was one of the worst sci-fi movies I've seen in recent memory—the first half is great, and then it just does a nose-dive for me. His Batman films are, in my view, among the most overrated movies of the 21st century.

That said, I also thought Dunkirk was a masterpiece. I've only seen it once but it really stuck with me.

I haven't bothered with Tenet, and Inception was fun but (for me) forgettable.

My concern with Oppenheimer is that it will turn a legitimately nuanced and fascinating story into bullshit, great-man hagiography (like Spielberg's Lincoln). The story of the atomic bomb—which is way more than just the story of Oppenheimer—is a great chance to look at questions like the hubris of scientists and the moral culpability of non-combatants, to name just a few. Even just looking at the mythos around Oppenheimer and the bomb's development is interesting—e.g., the famous story of him quoting from Hindu scripture on seeing the first atomic blast ("Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds") is probably bullshit. I forget the source, but I remember reading one account from the test site that said Oppenheimer, far from being somber or reflective at the Trinity success, was giddy with excitement.

So are we going to get Oppenheimer the sober, reflective scientist (which seems to be his version of himself after WWII)? Are we going to get the 1940's version of a tech-bro, plowing ahead despite knowing he is helping create an existential threat to humanity? Something else? Something in between?

Dunkirk was nuanced enough in its approach that I think there's hope, but the rest of Nolan's oeuvre does not make me optimistic. I'm sure Oppenheimer will look amazing and be competently directed. But whether it has any depth is an open question.

 

[Tom Roper]

I liked Inception, The Dark Knight, hated Tenet, don't remember anything about Interstellar except that I saw it. Dunkirk I liked a lot, but equally so Sam Mendes' 1917. I look forward to Oppenheimer.

 

[ahalpert]

I'm curious to see it, although I'm more than a little skeptical. I am not, by any stretch, a Nolan fan. I thought Interstellar was one of the worst sci-fi movies I've seen in recent memory—the first half is great, and then it just does a nose-dive for me. His Batman films are, in my view, among the most overrated movies of the 21st century.

Have you seen Memento? One of the most memorable and original film noirs out there.

Or the Prestige? Another masterpiece. Some of the best editing I've ever seen. Strong themes, great plot twists.

Batman Begins is a better than average superhero movie, but it's a superhero movie. I thought Dark Knight was great. Dark knight rises was so boring.

My concern with Oppenheimer is that it will turn a legitimately nuanced and fascinating story into bull****, great-man hagiography (like Spielberg's Lincoln). The story of the atomic bomb—which is way more than just the story of Oppenheimer—is a great chance to look at questions like the hubris of scientists and the moral culpability of non-combatants, to name just a few. Even just looking at the mythos around Oppenheimer and the bomb's development is interesting—e.g., the famous story of him quoting from Hindu scripture on seeing the first atomic blast ("Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds") is probably bull****. I forget the source, but I remember reading one account from the test site that said Oppenheimer, far from being somber or reflective at the Trinity success, was giddy with excitement.

So are we going to get Oppenheimer the sober, reflective scientist (which seems to be his version of himself after WWII)? Are we going to get the 1940's version of a tech-bro, plowing ahead despite knowing he is helping create an existential threat to humanity? Something else? Something in between?

Dunkirk was nuanced enough in its approach that I think there's hope, but the rest of Nolan's oeuvre does not make me optimistic. I'm sure Oppenheimer will look amazing and be competently directed. But whether it has any depth is an open question.

I've heard that Oppenheimer is essentially a horror movie and that audiences walk away in shock. I don't know if that's just marketing hype. But it certainly indicates that this is intended to be a dark, introspective film. I believe it's based on a specific biography. I don't know much about the story for the movie or much about Oppenheimer himself.

Dunkirk was pretty dark although it did portray instances of pure heroism. Nolan is clearly a thoughtful man and I'm hoping he will achieve a Kubrickian level of philosophical insight. We'll find out soon. If i make it to the theater for it, it will be my first theatrical film experience since the Force Awakens disappointed me.

 

[drboffa]

I've seen Memento and The Prestige, although both only once and many years ago. They're well crafted movies, and they left an impression on me at the time, but they're not films I feel a need to revisit.

I'll even admit to enjoying the first Nolan Batman movie when I saw it in the theaters, but it's only lost standing in my estimation since then. Some is probably due to my changing tastes, some to subsequent Batman films being not to my liking, some to politics (The Dark Knight Rises is so heavy handed in its pro-capitalist, anti-democratic themes it's cringe-inducing), and some to realizing Nolan is pulling from directors who are, in my view, far superior (e.g., Michael Mann).

Dunkirk surprised me in that it didn't seem to be overly about individual heroism. Maybe the boat storyline was, but overall it felt like a portrayal of just trying to stay alive in the stupidity that is war. I have little patience for war films these days (aside from something like Paths of Glory), but Dunkirk worked for me. Maybe it's gimmicky for some people (or just confusing), but I loved

Spoiler: mild spoiler

the use of three disparate timelines.

 

[Doug Jensen]

Memento is the only Nolan film that I'd give a thumbs up to. All the rest are not my cup of tea for one reason or another. I have no interest in watching super hero movies, which are basically cartoons for adults. Interstellar, Tenet, and Inception are just convoluted messes that tried to say something important but didn't.. I thought Dunkirk felt like an overly produced video game and boring as hell. As far as war movies go, it wouldn't even crack my top 500. I always go into a Nolan movie wanting to like it, but they just misfire every time. The sum is less than the parts, is how I would describe them.

I also see a lot of Matt Damon in the trailers. Strike two.

But, yeah, I'll take a chance on Oppenheimer just for the Hans Zimmer soundtrack. Heck, I even suffered through Dune for the Zimmer soundtrack.

BTW, I spent two days at Los Alamos in May and the museum there is absolutely fantastic. I doubt a Hollywood movie is going to top that experience. I highly recommend it. Also, if you're into this type of subject matter, the Musuem of Nuclear Science in ABQ, the Atomic Museum in Vegas, and the museum at White Sands should be on your bucket list. They are all excellent, and far more entertaining and educational than most movies on those topics could ever be.

 

[ahalpert]

I've seen Memento and The Prestige, although both only once and many years ago. They're well crafted movies, and they left an impression on me at the time, but they're not films I feel a need to revisit.

I think that Memento holds a dearer place in my heart than the Prestige. But they both have the trademark Nolan complexity and precision. You see too many movies that are supposed to be clever but don't really add up and just present a veneer of intricacy. Nolan is the real deal. My understanding is that Interstellar and Inception work out in terms of the relative timelines and underlying science and story logic. It's just that they don't earn my emotional investment enough to want to figure it out. Seems a bit like James Joyce or, to a lesser extent, Quentin Tarantino getting too involved in the trade craft of their work and losing their heart later in their careers.

(The Dark Knight Rises is so heavy handed in its pro-capitalist, anti-democratic themes it's cringe-inducing), and some to realizing Nolan is pulling from directors who are, in my view, far superior (e.g., Michael Mann).

I dont think i even remember Dark Knight Rises enough to critique it. Isn't Michael Mann a bit more of a straight action/thriller director? Haven't seen all of his stuff. I didn't like Public Enemies. Blackhat and Miami Vice didn't make much impact on me. I loved Collateral. I think Heat is overrated although who doesn't love seeing Pacino and DeNiro together.

Dunkirk surprised me in that it didn't seem to be overly about individual heroism. Maybe the boat storyline was, but overall it felt like a portrayal of just trying to stay alive in the stupidity that is war. I have little patience for war films these days (aside from something like Paths of Glory), but Dunkirk worked for me. Maybe it's gimmicky for some people (or just confusing), but I loved

Spoiler: mild spoiler

the use of three disparate timelines.

Spoiler: Dunkirk discussion

yes, generally Dunkirk was a war is hell, survivors harbor dark secrets type movie. But there was Tom Hardy the heroic pilot plus the civilian boats heroism. And the emotional reading of the famous Churchill speech at the end.

I loved the multiple timelines because they all converged on the moment of Hardy saving them from the planes and the civilians rescuing the soldier from the water. This climax was made all the more impactful from having seen the lead-up for everyone. For the soldier, it was a week. For the boat, a day. The plane, an hour.

And just in general, the movie got my blood pumping in a way that is more and more rare for me. When Hardy's plane ran out of fuel and his engine went quiet, it was almost a spiritual experience. The silence of the soundtrack. The pitiable looks from the soldiers watching below. I also thought he was going to crash and burn then.

Then there was the moment when the soldiers surface. The main character is rescued by the civilian boat but another character surfaces to his death in a burning oil slick. And you didn’t know what's going to happen for either one.

I just generally had a feeling of doom throughout, of being trapped. It was very effective and my memories of it are very visceral.

On some level, I expect Oppenheimer will be less colored by the patriotism a Brit has remembering Dunkirk, so I'm hoping it's even more cynical. (Of course, Nolan has to profit from an American audience so maybe not.)

Paths of Glory is actually one of the few Kubrick films I haven't seen. My wife just watched Born on the Fourth of July and was very affected by it, on the subject of war movies.

 

[ahalpert]

.. I thought Dunkirk felt like an overly produced video game and boring as hell. As far as war movies go, it wouldn't even crack my top 500.

Wow, there are 500 war movies that are better than Dunkirk? That can't be!

I also see a lot of Matt Damon in the trailers. Strike two.

Yeah i think Matt Damon is highly overrated. But my wife likes to remind me about Talented Mr Ripley and the Rainmaker. I'd say the Bourne movies as well. Hopefully his part isn't that big...

BTW, I spent two days at Los Alamos in May and the museum there is absolutely fantastic. I doubt a Hollywood movie is going to top that experience. I highly recommend it. Also, if you're into this type of subject matter, the Musuem of Nuclear Science in ABQ, the Atomic Museum in Vegas, and the museum at White Sands should be on your bucket list. They are all excellent, and far more entertaining and educational than most movies on those topics could ever be.

Sounds like you're a Bomb buff.

I suppose it's worth mentioning in this context that we may never get a better A-bomb movie than Dr. Strangelove. Supposedly, Strangelove started as a straight thriller but Kubrick determined that the reality of our situation was so absurd that only satire would do it justice.

"World targets in megadeaths"

 

[Doug Jensen]

I love Dr. Strangelove, but If you want another good A-bomb movie, check out Fail Safe. Henry Fonda at his best.
If you haven't seen Paths of Glory, you are in for a treat.

As for Michael Mann, he's one of my favorite directors. Sure, he's got some misfires like Miami Vice and Public Enemies, but be sure to check out Thief, Last of the Mohicans, and The Jericho Mile (TV movie). I also suggest you re-watch Heat. I didn't appreciate it at first either, but it is a masterpiece. I consider it to be a sequel to Thief, which would be on my top 20 list if I had such a list.

 

[Doug Jensen]

Wow, there are 500 war movies that are better than Dunkirk? That can't be!
]

Oh it be.
I can't name all 499 war movies that are better than Dunkirk, but here is my personal top 20.

Band of Brothers (the series)
The Thin Red Line
The Hunt for Red October
Patton
Lawrence of Arabia
Bridge on the River Kwai
Saving Private Ryan
Last of the Mochicans
Apocalypse Now Redux
Braveheart
Platoon
Letters from Iwo Jima
Flags of our Fathers
Paths of Glory
A Bridge Too Far
The Great Escape
Stalag 17
The Big Red One
Deer Hunter (if you consider it a war film)
The Best Years of Our Lives (if you consider it a war film)

 

[drboffa]

I'll second Doug in saying that Mann's Heat is well worth a rewatch, as are the other films he mentioned. Thief in particular is worth checking out—it's like a distilled version of Heat done by a young Mann just as he's figuring out his craft.

Unlike Doug, I am an ardent Miami Vice supporter. It's not a film for everyone, but I think it's a brilliant masterpiece, if a flawed one. It's also an example of Mann using digital cinema cameras and really leaning into their strengths and weaknesses, rather than simply trying to make them look like film.

I'd also suggest The Insider and Collateral by Mann. The latter is another example of him leaning into digital cinema, and features Tom Cruise and Jaime Foxx both playing against type.

 

[Tom Roper]

I would add We Were Soldiers to my war movie list. Patton at the top and include Midway 1976, 12 O'Clock High, Otto Preminger's In Harms Way. Sam Mendes 1917 was especially good.

I watched Interstellar last night, very long but it was good. Gravity was one of the best space movies I've enjoyed.

For the best of Henry Fonda, as the wicked villain in Once Upon a Time in the West.

 

[Doug Jensen]

For the best of Henry Fonda, as the wicked villain in Once Upon a Time in the West.

Yeah, he's scary in that. His eyes look crazy. Best western villain of all time.

 

[Tom Roper]

Yeah, he's scary in that. His eyes look crazy. Best western villain of all time.

I think so too. Karl Malden was pretty memorable in Nevada Smith and the tribal Indian in The Searchers pretty scary too. But definitely Henry Fonda, in black. One of the all time great endings, of course all the Sergio Leone spaghetti westerns had this, as well High Noon and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and the lesser known but dramatic ending to Hombre.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Tenet had one of the worst audio mixes of any movie I've seen and I almost walked out of it.

 

[Doug Bee]

Both versions of All Quiet On The Western Front.

Come and See

Das Boot

Thin Red Line

Gallipoli

Saving Private Ryan

T34

The Wolfs Call

I also liked Dunkirk

 

[ahalpert]

Oh it be.
I can't name all 499 war movies that are better than Dunkirk, but here is my personal top 20.

Band of Brothers (the series)
The Thin Red Line
The Hunt for Red October
Patton
Lawrence of Arabia
Bridge on the River Kwai
Saving Private Ryan
Last of the Mochicans
Apocalypse Now Redux
Braveheart
Platoon
Letters from Iwo Jima
Flags of our Fathers
Paths of Glory
A Bridge Too Far
The Great Escape
Stalag 17
The Big Red One
Deer Hunter (if you consider it a war film)
The Best Years of Our Lives (if you consider it a war film)

Do we consider Casablanca to be a war film?

Tangent - I've been listening to mostly music from the '40s for the past couple months and it strikes me that very little of it mentions the war or the military. (My tunes are supplied by YouTube Music algorithm, not a comprehensive search on my part.) In fact, off the top of my head the only such tune I can think of is Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy. In contrast, there are a ton of songs I know from the '60s/'70s about Vietnam. Do people agree that music in the '40s avoided the war or is it just a coincidence of what I've been hearing?

 

[ahalpert]

I'll second Doug in saying that Mann's Heat is well worth a rewatch, as are the other films he mentioned. Thief in particular is worth checking out—it's like a distilled version of Heat done by a young Mann just as he's figuring out his craft.

Unlike Doug, I am an ardent Miami Vice supporter. It's not a film for everyone, but I think it's a brilliant masterpiece, if a flawed one. It's also an example of Mann using digital cinema cameras and really leaning into their strengths and weaknesses, rather than simply trying to make them look like film.

I'd also suggest The Insider and Collateral by Mann. The latter is another example of him leaning into digital cinema, and features Tom Cruise and Jaime Foxx both playing against type.

I loved Collateral, saw it a couple times. I especially liked...

Spoiler: collateral details

the fight scene in the night club, whose soundtrack I can always remember when I think of the scene. And the line at the end, "I DO THIS FOR A LIVING!"

And the cinematography was great. But I think Collateral is kind of a nice thriller and character study. I wouldn't say it's the type of movie that gives me a lot to think about.

For example, the Prestige was also a character study but explored how people destroy their own lives in the pursuit of perfecting their craft; and I felt that the theme is generalizable and insightful.

Interstellar was a mess for me. I'd compare it to Gravity, which I thought was so much clearer, expertly executed and riveting. And I thought Gravity used the metaphor of Newton's Third Law in a much more subtle and classy way than Interstellar did.

But still, Gravity didn't give me much to think about and just felt like a tale of the indomitable human spirit. Pretty far from Kubrick-level thematic complexity.

 

[ahalpert]

Tenet had one of the worst audio mixes of any movie I've seen and I almost walked out of it.

Maybe it was a problem at the theater itself?

 

[Doug Jensen]

Do we consider Casablanca to be a war film?

I consider it to be one of the best movies of all time, but it is not a war movie. Just because a movie is set against the backdrop of war doesn't make ti a war movie. In my own list, I don't think Deer Hunter and Best Years of Our Lives qualify, either. Neither does Fail Safe, Dr. Strangelove, On the Beach, Hope and Glory, English Patient, Dances with Wolves, Gone with the Wind, Coming Home, Mister Roberts, etc.

How would you classify Crimson Tide? Isn't really about a test of wills between two men and the rule of law, rather than a war movie? There really is no enemy outside the sub.