I gotta hand it to you, man. You're one of the best I've seen at stubbornly maintaining that you actually hit a home run after swinging at and missing strike three. You're not quite on Donald Trump's level, but you're close. It's an accomplishment of sorts.
Regardless of your specific views on that specific movie, strange’s point is a valid one. What do we mean by “movies today”? Just American movies? Just blockbusters? Or just big studio movies? If we mean all movies, I doubt there is almost any year in the last 50 that didn’t produce some big time sellout films as well as some seriously excellent cinema. And many of us individuals will clearly often prefer the former to the latter.
EEOAO was a great movie but I'll grant you it wasnt everyone's cup of tea. The storyline was too whacky for some – Chinese immigrant stumbles upon the multiverse during a stressful IRS audit– but outside the wackiness it is a straightforward movie about family, regret, life's struggles with good acting and emotional depth.
It was like a lot of Oscar winning movies where I see it once and am like "that was perfectly fine" and never watch it again or have any desire too.
Mainstream cultural movies. Movies everyone in America (who generally likes movies) is talking about. I would say all major blockbusters fall in this category but not all films that fall in this category are major blockbusters.
They honestly could've ended it at the bomb, but I enjoyed it the full length. I seem to be in the minority on that end though.
Oppenheimer was a short 3 hour movie. Not too long given the subject matter. I don’t think it could have ended at the bomb. The rest of the movie was just as important to the man that the movie Oppenheimer was about - it was devastating to him and his family for decades. Only if the movie was titled “The Bomb” could it have ended without all the devastating aftermath that was heaped on America’s hero and premier intellect. It broke him. And yes, I loved the movie.
As for the last act, I suppose you have to decide if mining a sham hearing has any sort of dramatic potential. It did actually allow Emily Blunt to do something other than to be a drunk housewife, and also to have one of the worst sex scenes ever put into a movie. There are a few things about the movie that to me are 'dumb guy's idea of a smart movie' things, but ultimately I think its one of my favorite movies of the year for sure.
Agree completely. It was a great movie. I realized that a big part of it dealt was his subsequent political defenestration, but I didn't realize it is arguably more the center point of the movie than the development of the bomb, although the two are obviously completely intertwined
It really did give Emily blunt something to do. That said, that was a pretty powerful performance. I did not see her show that type of range previously. Everything before was either Mary Poppins or an attempt to be an action hero, at least that I saw.. very powerful performance. And the sex scene in that context was weird, but he's trying to show what's going on inside people's heads. I thought it worked but it was weird
I thought it was a little dumb and when some people's first reaction is to laugh as what happened when I saw it, I'm not sure it works. But Nolan and subtlety are like vinegar and water. Emily Blunt shooting daggers with her eyes pretty much is all you need there, but its a minor complaint.
Oh well. I thought she was bit more subtle and less comical. Maybe it was the Tampa Theatre audience, which is mainly 70+ liberals. We are always on the young side in that audience. But I thought it showed range, especially given that she was playing an alcoholic. And only could be weird with his devices, but I think he creates a fairly consistent and strong emotional arc. I'm somewhat biased because my daughter is a big fan of his. I wouldn't accuse him of subtlety, and I hate the valorization of the auteur, but I do think he pulls it off
I haven’t yet seen Oppenheimer or know if I’m think about range specifically, but I thought Blunt was excellent in Sicario. This is why it’s such a punch in the face when the final act of that film shows the whole focus on Blunt was a red herring in a film destined to descend into a mindless action film.
I have not seen that in years but I recall thinking she did a good job there. And while it's on an action hero, it was more of the "tough broad" persona what she seems to have been cultivating. I thought the performance in Oppenheimer was of a completely different persona that I had not seen her act before.
I think Emily has down the “strong but vulnerable” heroine archetype (Quiet Place, Edge of Tomorrow, Sicario). Characters are strong but also very human. Unlike Sigourney Weaver and Jennifer Lawerance who were just action women in Aliens and Hunger Games - both good series.
