The Holdovers

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Alexander Payne

Starring Paul Giamatti, Dominic Sessa, Da'Vine Joy Randolph

Running time: 133 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  The Holdovers is good old-fashioned filmmaking, a holiday dramedy featuring a great cast with star Paul Giamatti and two relative unknowns.  There are plenty of chuckles and good feelings to be found as Giamatti's grouchy teacher gradually gives in to the influence of his fellow boarding school shut-ins.  Highly recommended for all adults (not sure why it's rated R, though).

As the holidays approach, the boys at Barton boarding school are filled with excitement - all, except for those who are unable to go home and must stay at school, like Angus (Sessa).  Only a skeleton staff remains to oversee the handful of students, including unlucky faculty representative Paul Hunham (Giamatti), an unpopular grouch who believes he is being punished by the school's director.  Hunham subjects Angus and the other boys to a regimented schedule, killing any remaining holiday cheer they cling to.  Over time, though, as Hunham, Angus, and the school's head cook, Mary (Randolph) get to know each other, a grudging respect builds as they try to make the best of their sour situations.

The Holdovers is an old-fashioned and solid, heartfelt holiday dramedy thanks to a cast with great performances and chemistry.  The story and style hark back to simpler, more earnest filmmaking days, focusing on the relationships of three people unhappily stuck together for the holidays.  This, along with the strong cast and effective script, allows for nice, wholesome sentiment throughout the film, with satisfying moments and mood changes throughout.  It's not all happily-ever-after but the holiday setting helps keep spirits up even in the difficult moments.  There is also plenty of good humor: maybe not belly laughs - the film is too gentle for those - but still effective thanks largely to the cast.  Those actors do a remarkable job, primarily the three leads.  They each get a certain amount of depth but the film doesn't strain itself trying to be too intricate or dissonant (again, this is old-fashioned).  Giamatti, long an excellent performer, is basically a perfect fit for the role of curmudgeonly faculty member - yet as believable as he is, he's never too off-putting and builds quite a bit of genuine sympathy for himself as the film goes on.  Sessa and Randolph, as the restless teen holdover and the wise head cook, respectively, both help Giamatti's Paul develop in crucial ways.  But they're far from just plot devices: they, too, each get well-drawn characters with both tragic family backstories as well as senses of humor rivaling Giamatti's.  The cast and strong, traditional filmmaking style make The Holdovers a great holiday treat, but it does have some weaker points that hold it back a bit.  The running time is a little excessive at two hours fifteen minutes; two hours, or even less, probably would have been plenty.  And for all the strengths of the movie's style, it also falls prey at times to its drawbacks via some stilted or awkward dialogue and events.  But I'm nitpicking: this is a very nice holiday film whose sentiment will stick with you for some time.

***

The Holdovers is just the kind of film I hope to see in theaters - but can't count on - this time of year.  It's far from a box office juggernaut, with a paltry $17 million so far, but it has received well-deserved (as I can now confirm) critical praise and awards buzz.  I particularly enjoyed its old-fashioned filmmaking; while I certainly don't want every movie to be like this, it was a nice change of pace.  Really, it would be so nice to simply see more high quality dramas, or dramedies, like this released in theaters throughout the year.  We'll see if some more pleasant surprises come to the theater soon.  A glance at the showtimes reveals very little else of interest to me, for now!  Check out The Holdovers if you're lucky enough to have it in a theater near you.

* By Focus Features - IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=74995266

Napoleon

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Ridley Scott

Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Vanessa Kirby

Running time: 157 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Napoleon is the latest film from Ridley Scott, a well-made epic starring Joaquin Phoenix that showcases the French general's massive if fleeting impact on European history.  Scott brings his blockbuster-scale talents to the movie's gripping, creative battle scenes, while Phoenix also shares quieter yet still intense scenes with Napoleon's wife, Josephine.  It's a little too sprawling to be an all-time great but it's still very entertaining and highly recommended for most adult audiences.

Napoleon tells the extraordinary tale of the rise and fall of the (in)famous French general and Emperor, from 1793 to 1821.  Napoleon (Phoenix) begins his journey near the end of the French Revolution as an army officer who rises through the ranks due to his success both repelling foreign intruders as well as suppressing further rebellions against France's new leaders.  As he is introduced to new groups of the wealthy, influential, and powerful in France, Napoleon meets Josephine (Kirby), with whom he immediately falls in love and eventually marries.  Napoleon's battlefield genius leads to both France's and his own power steadily increasing, but even he finds there are limits in life, from the most personal to the grandest scales.

Napoleon is an intense and riveting historical epic with strong action and acting, but it's held back from greatness by a combination of too much scope with too little understanding.  The famed director Ridley Scott (Gladiator, Alien, etc.) showcases his talent for creating vivid, fascinating historical worlds, from the violent battles to the fancy dinners to the commoners on the street.  Unlike many historical epics, though, Napoleon has plenty of rougher-around-the-edges, if not outright uncouth moments, from bad manners to unexpected and/or informal language among the leaders and aristocrats to, well, several unshy sex scenes.  Along with providing a subtle, sly sense of humor sprinkled through the film, these moments highlight Napoleon's unusual position in places of power; he doesn't ever truly seem to belong.  Phoenix, who played the villain in Gladiator, is unsurprisingly great as the title lead.  He makes Napoleon just human and semi-sympathetic enough to want to follow, yet also brimming with ego, temper, and brutality that often bursts forth.  Kirby is also great as Josephine in a surprisingly large role.  She is both co- and independent with Napoleon, strong yet fragile and flawed, too.  There is a large cast of side characters, adding nice color to the film but little importance to the main characters.  Finally, there's also plenty of jaw-dropping action, befitting the story of one of history's greatest generals.  Three primary battles stand out, from a sneaky nighttime raid on a port city; to a virtuosic winter scene composed of a giant, horrifying trap; to Napoleon's grand fall at Waterloo.

Unfortunately, while Napoleon is good, even great, in many individual scenes, it could have been even more potent if it had better focus.  The movie takes place across roughly twenty-five years - which is a long time in an ordinary life, let alone one as busy as Napoleon's.  The running time is neither rushed nor drawn out - a bit past two-and-a-half hours - with about two-thirds devoted to his battles and political roles and the other third to Josephine and other personal scenes.  I have little problem with any of what does make it on screen, there are two concerning shortcomings.  First, there is just so much internal French politics and external foreign relations that are critical to Napoleon's life, yet so little time to explain it; even as a history major myself, I only knew the basic outlines.  Focusing more on one specific period in the larger story probably would have helped, a la Lincoln or Selma.  Second, while the Josephine relationship is interesting, there's not nearly enough on Napoleon's own background and character.  Quite simply, why did he do what he did?  Just because he could?  What motivated and drove him?  For me, there weren't good enough answers to these questions.

***

While Napoleon seems like a natural Oscar-buzz type movie, I'm not sure that it actually is a Best Picture contender among critics.  Still, it was fun to go see this kind of historical epic in the theater again.  I would hope that other filmmakers considering similar projects will take notes on its many strengths - while also making sure that they try to dig into their central characters as well as possible.  I'm not sure exactly what to expect at the theater in the next month or two.  There are relatively few big holiday blockbusters this year - at least, ones I'm interested in (no thanks, Wonka).  So hopefully theaters near me will bring in some interesting smaller ones, including those that hope to be up for awards soon.  Until next time!

* By https://www.apple.com/tv-pr/originals/napoleon/, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=74312765

The Marvels

 

Score:  B

Directed by Nia DaCosta

Starring Brie Larson, Iman Vellani, Teyonah Parris, Samuel L. Jackson

Running time: 105 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short: The Marvels is the latest chapter in the MCU superhero saga, both a sequel to Captain Marvel and also a cinematic introduction to Kamala Khan and Monica Rambeau (first seen on Disney+).  The plot may be hard to follow for the casual movie-goer, but it satisfyingly continues and/or resolves multiple threads from the broader superhero universe.  Still, it's good fun for anyone, thanks to great work from the cast and entertaining (but not overstuffed) action scenes.  Recommended for any superhero fans, and anyone else looking for a nice blockbuster.

When the powerful alien civilization known as the Kree hatches a new plot, three of Earth's superheroes - Carol Danvers (Larson), Kamala Khan (Vellani), and Monica Rambeau (Parris) - find themselves inexplicably switching places with each other.  Carol, aka Captain Marvel, has been in deep space on her ship conducting missions; Kamala, aka Ms. Marvel, has been struggling through high school in New Jersey; and Monica, no nickname, works with Nick Fury (Jackson) in a space station orbiting Earth.  The Kree leader, Dar-Benn, is trying to restore her devastated homeworld by any means necessary, and placing the entire universe in danger as a result.  Carol, Kamala, and Monica must therefore figure out a way to stop her before it's too late.

The Marvels is a very entertaining superhero movie and a worthy next step on the Marvel Cinematic Universe's (MCU) famously interconnected path of films.  It's not among the franchise's top-tier films, but there's still lots of fun to be had for both Marvel fans and newcomers alike.  If you are a Marvel fan who has kept up with not only the movies but the Disney+ streaming series of the last few years, you'll get quite a bit more out of this (and feel a lot less confused).  The Marvels is not just a sequel to 2019's Captain Marvel, which introduced Carol Danvers, but it also continues plots and characters from Ms. Marvel, WandaVision, and Secret Invasion, not to mention including the multiverse again as a key part of the plot.  That might all sound exhausting, but I believe even "newbies" will enjoy this movie, if you just relax and not try to understand all the plot points.  All things considered, the script does an impressive job tying it all together in intriguing and (mostly) comprehensible ways - and in a very reasonable hour and forty-five minutes.  While I can get frustrated when plots like this veer too far from the superheroes themselves, the movie does a particularly nice job of integrating the fates of two alien races - the Kree and the Skrulls - who were deeply affected by events in Captain Marvel and Secret Invasion.  The tone of the movie, which is mostly fun and light-hearted, doesn't allow it to address them perfectly, but I give Marvel credit for continuing to pay close attention to the collateral effects and aftermath of superheroic events (see Captain America: Civil War, Avengers Endgame, and more).

Apart from the intricate plot, there is a lot of visual fun and humor here, too.  The primary theme, which is clear in several trailers/ads, is the superhero place-switching.  This provides both striking visuals and humor, particularly in the initial extended action sequence.  Wide-ranging - from a cramped, sterile space station to the Khan's increasingly-shredded living room - it has a frenetic pacing that keeps you glued to the screen and tests your ability to follow but is not overwhelming.  The final battle is also quite cool - not groundbreaking but also modest and brief enough to fully take in and enjoy.  There's also humor throughout; two elements in particular verge close to too silly - one involving a literal superhero musical scene and the other Captain Marvel's voraciously hungry cat - but both manage to hold it together.

Finally, the characters of The Marvels are worth discussing, as in any Marvel movie worth its salt.  Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel, played by Larson, is the lead, and I'd looked forward to a sequel giving her character more opportunity after 2019's original gave us disappointingly little.  We still get little on her background, and thus her motivation, unfortunately; I think the ship has sailed here.  But Larson still gives Carol a nice, distinctive personality that is fun to watch: Tony Stark's sarcastic intelligence, Steve Rogers' sense of duty and caring, yet with a vulnerability and imperfection that is needed considering her superpowers are so strong.  Vellani as Kamala is just as charismatic as she was on Ms. Marvel, even though she is sharing the lead here.  Her spunky cheer is just what the movie needed, and it's also great to see her immigrant Pakistani family continue to play a significant role.  Parris's Monica gets the short end, not really surprising considering she had just a small role on WandaVision before this.  There's not much to her character or personality, and is honestly most important for her relationship to Carol (who was best friends with her mom... long story!).  But the ending leaves opportunity for much more.  The main actors are the film's strongest point and their chemistry and team dynamics in particular were an interesting new version of what the Avengers introduced eleven years ago.

***

Usually, the movies I score a "B" get my shortest reviews - they are neither fantastic nor terrible, with all that allows me to write about.  The Marvels is, thankfully, not a boring good-enough but bland, unambitious movie.  It has some great strengths to it, but it's also weighed down by the combination of them all, along with being a little rough around the edges occasionally.  Still, it's the best addition to the MCU in 2023, what has been a down year (well, I haven't seen all of Loki season 2 yet, though the first episode left me a bit dazed and wary of continuing).  Critics and commentators have been quick to pounce, especially since The Marvels crashed at the box office with a (relatively) miserable $45 million opening weekend.  Sure, there is definitely some superhero fatigue; and following the show-stopping, biggest-movie-of-all-time Avengers finale in 2019, it's been impossible to match those previous heights.  But the new era, which started with streaming in the midst of the pandemic, has many strengths, too, just of a different kind.  I will most definitely be continuing to follow Marvel's stories, on both the big and small screens, for the foreseeable future.  For now, there will still hopefully be plenty of other good things to see at the theater in the coming months!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2023/marvels_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=73059469

Killers of the Flower Moon

 

Score:  A

Directed by Martin Scorsese

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, Lily Gladstone

Running time: 206 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Killers of the Flower Moon is famed director Martin Scorsese's latest film, based on the best-selling and widely praised book.  Unfolding over a formidable 200+ minutes, Scorsese manages to keep audiences rapt throughout thanks to a brutal yet fascinating murderous plot and a set of phenomenal performances from standbys DiCaprio and De Niro and newcomer Gladstone.  It earns the awards hype - recommended for all adults, just beware there is plenty of bloodshed.

In 1919, World War I veteran Ernest (DiCaprio) moves to the Osage reservation in Oklahoma where his brother, Byron, and uncle Hale (De Niro) live.  The Osage have been surrounded by a large white community, thanks to the massive oil field discovered on their land; courts have required the Osage (deemed "incompetent") to work with white men to manage their oil revenue.  Ernest, in his job as a local driver, meets an Osage woman named Mollie, and they soon marry.  While they enjoy their lives together, alongside Mollie's family of sisters and others, a number of disturbing mysterious Osage deaths rock the community.  The riches of the land have driven some bad people to horrific crimes, and Ernest is soon forced to choose between the people he loves.

Killers of the Flower Moon is an excellent historical crime drama, superbly acted and plotted to keep you engaged throughout despite an unusually long running time.  The movie is not for the faint of heart, though: it does not shy away from white men's brutality against the Osage tribe.  Scorsese is not gratuitous, like Tarantino, in his images, but there is still plenty of cold-blooded violence and an omnipresent awareness of the despicable, often breathtaking, plots to deceive and loot the Osage.  Still, I did not find Killers to be an overwhelmingly dark movie - personally, I found it far more bearable than the much less violent Power of the Dog, for example.  It is very serious and realistic, but it is certainly no documentary (despite the historical roots) and even sprinkles in some much-needed humor here and there, usually based on Ernest's stupidity.  As riveting and hair-raising as the first three-quarters of the film is, the tone shifts gears for the final act as the wheels of justice finally - blessedly - kick in.  This part often trips up similar films; as cathartic as it is for the bad guys to get caught, it's too often done inartfully (as is the case in the recent streamer The Burial).  Here, the BOI (early version of FBI) does its job methodically and straightforward but it's in the same realistic, restrained tone as the rest of the film.

Bringing all of this to life is a tremendous cast, both the main characters as well as the supporting cast.  Leonardo DiCaprio turns in another great performance as Ernest, the lead, a white man who becomes closer to the Osage tribe than most.  He is technically a villain, yet so well developed and nuanced, thanks to both writing and acting, that he feels fully human and so at least somewhat sympathetic.  His love for his wife also feels real, and his agony over the conflicts this causes are some of the film's most poignant.  He is also a simple man, though occasional moments of cunning seem out of character; maybe that is realistic, too, though?  Robert De Niro, a frequent muse of Scorsese, also does typically great work, here a patriarch of not only his family but also the community.  I don't think it's too much a spoiler to reveal that he is the true villain of the movie responsible for virtually all the evil done (even if others carry it out).  That he ingratiates himself so effectively on the Osage tribe makes him all the more vile.  Lily Gladstone as Mollie is at least as good as those two superstars - but she does so through amazingly understated performance.  She has very little dialogue, yet communicates so much through her eyes and expressions; she is a perfect symbol of why many white men mistook indigenous people like her as simple "incompetents", yet she is so smart, strong, and capable.  One of the film's weaker points is its relative lack of development of her character, but Gladstone's acting still makes it a vital role.  Finally, I did not really mind the long running time of the movie, although it could certainly have been shorter.  Still, I can't blame Scorsese for keeping the length generous.

***

Killers of the Flower Moon was a great way to kick off the unofficial start of Oscar movie season.  Due to the writers' and actors' strikes (which have now ended, with both groups getting important wins!), the release schedule might be a bit different this year.  The Dune sequel was delayed to next year, among others.  Killers went against my concern for increasing length of some movies, but it at least earned the extended time.  Next up will be the latest Marvel superhero release titled, um, The Marvels - which will hopefully end the year on a high note for the MCU after both Ant-Man 3 and Guardians 3 were disappointments.  Be back soon!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2023/killers_of_the_flower_moon_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=74421048

Dumb Money

 

Score:  B+

Directed by Craig Gillespie

Starring Paul Dano, America Ferrera, Pete Davidson, Seth Rogen, Shailene Woodley, et. al.

Running time: 104 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Dumb Money brings the stranger-than-fiction GameStop stock saga to the big screen with an impressive cast of Hollywood faces.  Recalling events barely three years old, the movie focuses on its large and wide-ranging cast along with some stylish presentation (internet memes galore) for good measure.  Opinions can and will vary on the success - and desirability - of the real life outcomes, but check it out for some thoughtful entertainment.

Keith (Dano) is struggling along with his wife and baby through the pandemic like the rest of the world in 2020.  His main escape from the daily challenges is his interest in the stock market and posting videos about it on an internet forum, Reddit.  Although an old friend, who has investing experience, thinks he's crazy, Keith devotes his family's life savings into GameStop, a stock that he feels is undervalued.  It is also one that several big hedge funds are betting will soon fail, and if it does, their "short squeeze" will further enrich them.  A confluence of events in the wild world of 2020, however, results in GameStop stock surging, with Keith - internet name "Roaring Kitty" - leading the charge.

Dumb Money is an entertaining dramatization of the fascinating and recent real-life "meme stock" phenomenon.  It doesn't dive too deeply into the complex human and technical issues, but it doesn't really have to - they jump off the screen at you, and the filmmakers turn a fairly online-heavy story into a stylish one.  Dealing with complex financial systems and highly idiosyncratic online cultures, Dumb Money had quite a challenge in making a watchable drama.  Fortunately, a large cast of talented actors help bring it to life.  Paul Dano is a natural choice as the lead, one of Hollywood's more "ordinary" looking faces and easy to believe as, well, a dork.  He is superhero-like in a way, with his family role as husband, father, and dull day job while his alter ego as "Roaring Kitty", a leader of like-minded internet and stock addicts, is far different.  While Dano shows a few moments of embracing his sudden fame and power, he's mostly pretty unassuming and mild-mannered - a good choice that feels much more genuine than if he was completely transformed by the end.  It also helps that Dano has plenty of help; the standouts to me were Pete Davidson as his jovial bum of a brother and Rogen's ruthless but very human hedge funder.  Both are quite funny but also provide some of the film's strongest dramatic moments.  Offerman, Ron from Parks & Rec, is of course a welcome face in a small role, and Marvel's Stan shows a new side as Robinhood's CEO - at times a goofy bungler and at others an evil schemer (one of the film's more cartoonish parts but not overboard). Then there are several everyday people who get in on the GameStop stock ride, including Ferrera in the put-upon working woman role she always excels at, and Ramos (In the Heights), who still really rubs me the wrong way; he just feels like that asshole you knew from high school - maybe it's just me, though.

Dumb Money, beyond its cast, does a good job of showing the stock roller coaster ride, even if still proves difficult to sustain effectively throughout.  The filmmakers pulled quite a bit of original video content that was produced during the GameStock surge, largely edited videos portraying the Robinhood "good guys" taking on the hedge fund "bad guys".  A contemporary hip-hop soundtrack also helps set the mood (though I found a lot of it distasteful, IMO).  This styling helps recreate the 2020-21 environment of these events, so while the repeated drama of "oh wow, look how high the stock is now!" grows old, the movie sustains momentum well, helped by its good cast.  It's impossible - well, at least for me - not to also get sucked into the real life issues involved in the story.  The movie portrays Keith and his kindred spirits as the good guys, and ultimately shows them as being successful, even if it's hazy on the details (and the final results, of course, are yet to be determined).  I sympathize with this, at least to the extent that I believe everyone should be able to lead a secure and relatively comfortable life no matter their occupation; no one should have to take wild gambles simply to dig out of (responsible) debt or to afford housing.  But the GameStop model for the little guy to succeed is a terrible one; Ferrera's nurse friend adroitly explains why, but the movie doesn't show any of the probably numerous individuals who lost a lot in the end.  What the world needs (pardon the brief soapbox) is not high risk-reward hero's adventures but boring old government regulation to ensure, to the extent possible, that the economy works for everyone - and when the economy still falls short, to make the lucky few who strike it rich pay back to society to support the many unlucky.  You don't have to agree with me on all this to find that the movie provides a great opportunity to consider duller yet urgent issues underneath the surface of all the excitement.

***

Dumb Money, while not quite an Oscar-contender-level drama, was still a nice way to start off the fall movie season.  I'm often leery of seeing movies or TV shows about recent events or famous people, but this one didn't seem as exploitative or simply lazy as many others do - and I was right!  At the moment, despite its star-packed cast, it's made only about $12 million; that might be partly due to not being in as many theaters as others.  At the moment, most theaters seem to be offering 13,415 horror movies, Paw Patrol, and Taylor Swift.  Ugh.  So if you do find Dumb Money playing at a theater near you, I recommend you go see it!  Until next time, which will hopefully hold another pleasant surprise.

* By Sony Pictures Releasing - IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=74449492

A Haunting in Venice

 

Score:  B

Directed by Kenneth Branaugh

Starring Kenneth Branaugh, Tina Fey, Michelle Yeoh, Kelly Reilly, et. al.

Running time: 103 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  A Haunting in Venice, a third adaptation of Agatha Christie's Poirot mysteries by director/actor Kenneth Branaugh, is a pleasant early fall entertainment.  While not a great, memorable movie, it's nevertheless rock-solid, a close match in quality to the first Murder on Orient Express.  Poirot continues to be a dependable good guy in this unashamedly traditional franchise.

Hercule Poirot (Branaugh) has decided to leave his famed investigative work behind and hide away in Italy in retirement.  However, one day an old frenemy appears, writer Ariadne Oliver (Fey), who tempts Poirot to join her in attending a seance for a wealthy single woman's dead young daughter.  Poirot is quickly able to discern the medium's (Yeoh) tricks, but soon one of the participants turns up dead.  Trapped in the building that night by a fierce storm, Poirot is determined to get to the bottom of the situation quickly - before anyone else ends up haunting the doomed home.

A Haunting in Venice is a fine, well-made film, providing light fall entertainment that's not super ambitious yet also performs its role as a traditional mystery quite well.  This is Branaugh's third adaptation of Agatha Christie's Poirot stories, and like the others, the plot and characters do have quite a different feel to them compared to contemporary equivalents.  Earnest might not quite be accurate, with all the inevitable twists and relative complexity to the characters and relationships; still, it's a welcome change of tone (IMO) from the cynicism, self-awareness and sheer darkness that many of today's new stories bring.  The atmosphere and various moods are fairly restrained - it's more of a mental exercise than an emotional one.  But there is a light Halloween-y feel to it, with creepy moments but certainly well short of a horror.  There's also some good humor sprinkled in, usually having to do with Poirot's electicisms.  I would say this is about as good as the first Branaugh-Poirot movie (though also nicely distinct from it), thanks in large part to a renewed focus on the lead character.  He's an interesting, and ultimately good, character, fighting for justice by using his wits.  There's precious little moralizing, as there are quite a few shades of gray, but where there is right and wrong, it springs straight from the facts.  I do wish Fey had been given a little more to do, but maybe too little is better than too much in this case.  Ultimately, it's a film that's unlikely to stick with you for a long time but it's also a very pleasant diversion for a wide array of audiences.

***

Although they aren't among the very best films ever, I've enjoyed Branaugh's Poirot mysteries and was glad that another one came out this fall to provide something worth seeing during what's usually a miserable month at the theaters (unless you like horror... yuck!).  I was a bit nervous about this one, though, because the second movie was nowhere near as good as the first.  It strayed from Poirot himself, who was mostly reduced to an observer of a rotten cast of wealthy assholes.  I'd be happy to see a few more of these from Branaugh, provided that they are more like his first and third films.  Now that it's just about October, we should be getting some Oscar contenders as well as blockbuster-level entertainment (can't wait for The Marvels).  Hopefully the next theater trip will be soon - until next time!

* By 20th Century Studios - Disney Media Kits, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=73652505

Oppenheimer

 

Score:  B+

Directed by Christopher Nolan

Starring Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Robert Downey, Jr.

Running time: 180 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Oppenheimer is star director Christopher Nolan's latest, a historical epic about the development of the a-bomb.  It's the darker half of this summer's "Barbenheimer" phenomenon and is well worth (if you didn't already) a visit to the theater.  Nolan emphasizes a rapidly moving story across multiple time periods in place of his more typical sci-fi flair.  The final act is unfortunately a misfire, but what leads up to it is quite good.

At a time of building tension in the world and the rise of the murderous Nazi regime in Germany, a startling scientific discovery is made in 1938: nuclear fission.  J. Robert Oppenheimer (Murphy), working as a theoretical physicist at universities in California, immediately realizes the significance not just to his own field but also for the terrible possible consequences it could have in war.  The Army recruits Oppenheimer to develop a program to weaponize the new science - desperate to do so before the Nazis, who are believed to be ahead of the Americans due to their formidable physics establishment.  Oppenheimer works quickly, driven by both scientific curiosity and horror at the consequences of the Nazis winning this "race".  But another game is being played under the surface as American politicians grow suspicious of their fragile alliance with the Soviets and potential influences on the scientists.

Oppenheimer is a typically high-quality movie from director Christopher Nolan; it's stylishly made and entertaining, though it is held back from Nolan's top tier by an unnecessary and poorly done final act.  Many of Nolan's movies are sci-fi or at least have a strong emphasis on the visual elements (e.g., Dunkirk).  This movie does have some creative - and a few spectacular - images as well, from Oppenheimer's imagining of stars and molecular processes to the humongous fire of the Trinity test to haunting hallucinations in the aftermath of the bomb's use on Japan.  But these are relatively scarce, with Nolan instead focusing on a fast-edit style that bounces among several different time periods - chiefly, the Manhattan project (1942-45), a security hearing on Oppenheimer (1954) and a Presidential cabinet vote (1959), though there are also scenes showing Oppenheimer's rise from 1926 until the fateful a-bomb project.  This fast-edit style mostly works well: it keeps the pace moving briskly despite the large time span and character spread, and focuses each mini-scene on the most essential dialogue (sometimes just a word or two), details, and images.  There are also cues that help the audience place scenes within the overall puzzle - film quality (including black & white), recurring sets, etc.  The ultimate outcome is obvious to all, yet Nolan still wrings plenty of intrigue from the process, and spends enough time on the physical details of that first test bomb and its preparation to make it feel chillingly real.

Unfortunately, the film lingers on far too long after the first atomic bomb explodes.  Some type of resolution was necessary and appropriate, of course, but the race to get to a successful test of the a-bomb was by far the highest-stakes and most compelling part of the movie.  Instead of leaving it as the film's pinnacle, Nolan extends the film another thirty to forty-five minutes to dwell on Oppenheimer's post-Manhattan advocacy and his political fate.  Even if you didn't know before, it's pretty obvious what is going to happen - and as opposed to the race to develop the a-bomb, is far less consequential or, frankly, interesting.  To make matters worse, Nolan loses his subtle touch and turns the messy political fight into a literally black and white struggle.  Robert Downey, Jr. plays the "villain" here and early in the film he is quite good - but the character becomes far less interesting as his diabolical (but also kind of pathetic, when you think about it) plot unspools.  There are good performances throughout the film, where you'll find a huge number of stars or at least familiar faces in small roles.  Oppenheimer himself is played well by Murphy, an engaging presence, but he remains difficult to decipher, partly because his behavior is wide-ranging.  Matt Damon gives the best performance I've seen from him in a long time as Oppenheimer's supervising Army General, an earnest figure with a nicely dry sense of humor.  There's just not enough time for anyone else to stand out; this three-hour movie feels the same way, packed with lots of good things but ultimately didn't know where to stop.

***

Oppenheimer is a good film that I'm glad I got to see in the theater, despite doing so almost two months after it was released.  Nolan is one of my favorite directors, and while this one falls a little short of my high expectations for him, it still has plenty going for it and was especially good to see in a theater.  It also confirms that Nolan can succeed outside the sci-fi genre; Dunkirk already did that - it's my favorite war movie of all time - but Oppenheimer shows that it wasn't just a fluke.  But please, Nolan: be careful not to lose control like you did a bit with the ending of this movie!  Hopefully there will be some interesting movies coming up this fall - longer term, I'm growing more concerned about the extended writers and actors strikes, but I'm also all for them getting the full compensation they deserve, and waiting until that happens.  Until next time, hopefully soon!

* By Universal Pictures Publicity, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71354716