I had no intention of seeing Barbie, but I saw one great review after another, and began to wonder if it would be an unexpected treasure like the Lego Movie. Reading on here has dumped me back in the "not going' camp.my youngest wants to see Elemental and Oppenheimer, so I'll try and fit them in, and she's off to see Barbie with her mates next week. Job done
Have seen two movies so far while in Dubrovnik… Mission Impossible 15-20 shorter edit would have enhanced it imho, as at 3 hours felt a bit long for a Part One of a movie. That said, stunts, action, story and acting was really good 8/10 and looking forward to seeing what happens next.
Barbie - different story. My 18 year old daughter loved it, the rest of us left scratching our heads as to how this movie has received so many positive reviews. Was too long at 2 hours and while I thought the first 10-15 minutes was ok by way of set up, I just thought any fizz went flat quickly and the story was basic and weaker than it could have been. 5/10 at most…!
My annual 'Am I living in a parallel universe?' cinema experience comes around, I thought Oppenheimer was really bad. Such muddled storytelling, no room for character development, horrible pacing made it feel like a trailer cut, some weirdly cartoonish characters, so much exposition dialogue and it's not as visually interesting as most of his films, aside from two very well done and powerful scenes. Cillian gives a very fine performance and no shade on the very talented supporting cast who I think are under-served (especially Flo Pugh and Emily Blunt.)
My annual 'Am I living in a parallel universe?' cinema experience comes around, I thought Oppenheimer was really bad. Such muddled storytelling, no room for character development, horrible pacing made it feel like a trailer cut, some weirdly cartoonish characters, so much exposition dialogue and it's not as visually interesting as most of his films, aside from two very well done and powerful scenes. Cillian gives a very fine performance and no shade on the very talented supporting cast who I think are under-served (especially Flo Pugh and Emily Blunt.)
lol it'd be great for him to have one film without any exposition at all in it. Dunkirk was probably the least egregious.
Must admit I watched Oppenheimer, was expecting a bit more from a great potential story, and cast, but hyped up too much and didn’t deliver imo, thought it was more a film for the luvvies, will probably win loads of awards.
Have read a few reviews saying it’s better 2nd time round, maybe I’m missing something in it.
Thought MI7 was garbage. Set Piece - TC staring into the middle distance looking unconvincingly mournful - Set piece - TC doing a stunt where the director (or TC) want you to know it’s TC doing a stunt. Drivel. And the whole two part thing only adds to the pomposity. Liked MI 4,5 and 6.
My annual 'Am I living in a parallel universe?' cinema experience comes around, I thought Oppenheimer was really bad. Such muddled storytelling, no room for character development, horrible pacing made it feel like a trailer cut, some weirdly cartoonish characters, so much exposition dialogue and it's not as visually interesting as most of his films, aside from two very well done and powerful scenes. Cillian gives a very fine performance and no shade on the very talented supporting cast who I think are under-served (especially Flo Pugh and Emily Blunt.)
I felt the same about his two Dark Knight films and perhaps also The Prestige. I'm a Nolan fan but always feel he's a great director who can make very very entertaining commercial films but they lack the depths, meaningfulness and precise look and analysis into life and people that some other directors' films have*. Watching a film of his can be a fascinating experience but except Inception (and maybe Insomnia too but I watched that one many years ago and I can't be sure) I've never had a feeling "I can SO relate to xxx" or "I'm deeply touched" for the characters or stories told in his films.
I have yet to watch this one (luckily it will be released here albeit with a month delay). Maybe it will change my impression a little bit. (Maybe not reading your review.😂)
*I've only recently realised my very top 1 favourite director is Martin Scorsese. I started to watch foreign films since I was very young so it took me almost 30 years to know what films I really admire. There's a sharp distinction between his work and Nolan's despite I like them both. Probably not fair to compare the two as they basically do different genres and are not of the same generation. But I can understand your complaints about Oppenheimer.
My annual 'Am I living in a parallel universe?' cinema experience comes around, I thought Oppenheimer was really bad. Such muddled storytelling, no room for character development, horrible pacing made it feel like a trailer cut, some weirdly cartoonish characters, so much exposition dialogue and it's not as visually interesting as most of his films, aside from two very well done and powerful scenes. Cillian gives a very fine performance and no shade on the very talented supporting cast who I think are under-served (especially Flo Pugh and Emily Blunt.)
I felt the same about his two Dark Knight films and perhaps also The Prestige. I'm a Nolan fan but always feel he's a great director who can make very very entertaining commercial films but they lack the depths, meaningfulness and precise look and analysis into life and people that some other directors' films have*. Watching a film of his can be a fascinating experience but except Inception (and maybe Insomnia too but I watched that one many years ago and I can't be sure) I've never had a feeling "I can SO relate to xxx" or "I'm deeply touched" for the characters or stories told in his films.
I have yet to watch this one (luckily it will be released here albeit with a month delay). Maybe it will change my impression a little bit. (Maybe not reading your review.😂)
*I've only recently realised my very top 1 favourite director is Martin Scorsese. I started to watch foreign films since I was very young so it took me almost 30 years to know what films I really admire. There's a sharp distinction between his work and Nolan's despite I like them both. Probably not fair to compare the two as they basically do different genres and are not of the same generation. But I can understand your complaints about Oppenheimer.
I think you've hit the nail on the head in that Nolan is really great with technical filmmaking and set pieces (kind of like James Cameron) but isn't really a good character director in the way that Scorsese certainly is. I think Oppenheimer really needed someone who can pull off character and narrative on a big scale. In the hands of a Scorsese or a Spielberg I think it would have been a more engaging film. But the reviews are great from both critics and audience, and my specialism in film is mainly watching unwatchable disasterpieces (https://letterboxd.com/thisisdrew/list/the-most-controversial-films-on-letterboxd/) so I would urge anyone to go and see it and make up their own minds. I'm certainly glad that it (and Barbie) have done so well at the box office.
OPPENHEIMER Went with my youngest daughter last night. She came along on the back of the trailer which I had a feeling probably wasn't to representative of the film. It turned out I was right, but she loved it anyway and so did I. Downpoints, certainly include that when there were quite a lot of new locations, especially at the start, some labels to let you know where ther action was taking place would have been a help (and to be honest, there were that many characters that labelling the people in the style of a playstation video game would have made things clearer). I didn't find it overlong - it was well paced and though the tendency to jump back and forth on the timeline made it tough to begin with, it settled down as you grew into the story. I was happy enough that the film didn't include stock film of the bomb being dropped on Hiroshima, or the consequences - nice touch. So overall very impressed - one of the best films I've seen this year, and I hope it gets some Oscars (Cillian Murphy for starters). I won't need to see it again for a while, though I'm looking forward to watching it in English next time.
My annual 'Am I living in a parallel universe?' cinema experience comes around, I thought Oppenheimer was really bad. Such muddled storytelling, no room for character development, horrible pacing made it feel like a trailer cut, some weirdly cartoonish characters, so much exposition dialogue and it's not as visually interesting as most of his films, aside from two very well done and powerful scenes. Cillian gives a very fine performance and no shade on the very talented supporting cast who I think are under-served (especially Flo Pugh and Emily Blunt.)
I felt the same about his two Dark Knight films and perhaps also The Prestige. I'm a Nolan fan but always feel he's a great director who can make very very entertaining commercial films but they lack the depths, meaningfulness and precise look and analysis into life and people that some other directors' films have*. Watching a film of his can be a fascinating experience but except Inception (and maybe Insomnia too but I watched that one many years ago and I can't be sure) I've never had a feeling "I can SO relate to xxx" or "I'm deeply touched" for the characters or stories told in his films.
I have yet to watch this one (luckily it will be released here albeit with a month delay). Maybe it will change my impression a little bit. (Maybe not reading your review.😂)
*I've only recently realised my very top 1 favourite director is Martin Scorsese. I started to watch foreign films since I was very young so it took me almost 30 years to know what films I really admire. There's a sharp distinction between his work and Nolan's despite I like them both. Probably not fair to compare the two as they basically do different genres and are not of the same generation. But I can understand your complaints about Oppenheimer.
I think you've hit the nail on the head in that Nolan is really great with technical filmmaking and set pieces (kind of like James Cameron) but isn't really a good character director in the way that Scorsese certainly is. I think Oppenheimer really needed someone who can pull off character and narrative on a big scale. In the hands of a Scorsese or a Spielberg I think it would have been a more engaging film. But the reviews are great from both critics and audience, and my specialism in film is mainly watching unwatchable disasterpieces (https://letterboxd.com/thisisdrew/list/the-most-controversial-films-on-letterboxd/) so I would urge anyone to go and see it and make up their own minds. I'm certainly glad that it (and Barbie) have done so well at the box office.
Ah the Letterboxd website... I forgot about it. I've been a member on a similar Chinese website for 16 years and have rated about 1300 films and TV shows on there so far. Someone on there introduced me to Letterboxd a couple of years ago but I never got around to it. Thank you for bringing it up. I'm going to try it.😄
Mission impossible 7. No positive words except to say got me out and did a friend a favour seeing this. What an utter insult to the cinema going public.
I enjoyed both Oppenheimer and Barbie. The thing with recent Nolan films is imo you have to absorb them in the same way you take in music. Get in tune with the rhythm and let it into your subconscious. I know that sounds pretentious. They are hard for me to get into if i just skim the surface of the visuals.
I know some men have issues with Barbie but for me it had important messages about society conditioning both men and women to conform to stereotypes, and it was fun.
I enjoyed Oppenheimer despite being mistaken for a silver screener at the cinema bar beforehand. It's an intense film, and a bit of a who's who of actors. Murphy is excellent as is Robert Downey jr. I got deja vu seeing Tom Conti play Einstein - wonder if he's done that before. I did find it slightly heavy going for a while after the Los Alamos section had concluded, but for a three hour film the time passed quickly enough. I think it would benefit from trimming by half an hour though.
I know some men have issues with Barbie but for me it had important messages about society conditioning both men and women to conform to stereotypes, and it was fun.
There are parts of Oppenheimer that feel like the best blockbuster filmmaking of all time. It's such a visceral experience on an IMAX screen with the sound dialled up, and yet it's built on a complex plot that is pretty well delivered, certainly by Nolan's standards of plot-heavy dialogue.
At least until, as IdleHans said, the post-Alamos bit takes over. For much of that hour or so I thought we were in the endgame, and yet if never seemed to end. I was bemused by who was doing what for much of it. When I realised there were a few sort-of twists to be revealed I was more surprised that I was watching that kind of movie than the actual reveals.
I also think - and I remember saying this about Interstellar - there are times when Nolan's crescendo editing turns pretty run-of-the-mill moments into something they're not, or maybe don't quite deserve to be.
It's still a magnificent film and I look forward to watching it again - ironically on a small screen where I can turn the sound down a bit and protect my tinnitus, and maybe press pause to cross-reference wikipedia from time to time!
Watched oppenheimer the other night in leic square odeon in 70mm. I enjoyed it, certainly not one of nolan's worst (which is interstellar) but i wouldn't quite put it up with dunkirk. Thought the pacing was a little off and the film kind of ran out of steam 2/3rds or 3/4s of the way through and then established itself as a different kind of film. I feel like if the test explosion was put at the end of the film it would've given the film the right kind of momentum all the way through. Murphy is absolutely outstanding and i think fully deserves the oscar nod he's sure to get. Special shout to Gary Oldman who was really good as president truman - was a great moment and to be honest brilliantly exposed oppenheimer for how self obsessed he was being. 7.5/10 for me and certainly worth seeing.
It'll be interesting to compare the Nolan version of Oppenheimer, which I thought was overblown, too tricksy, and far short of the masterpiece that some have hailed it, with the 1980 BBC seven part series which starts being reshown on BBC 4 on Saturday. I seem to remember that Sam Waterston's performance as Oppy was excellent,
It actually seemed to expose the flaws in both extreme feminist behaviour and toxic masculine behaviour.
Personally it felt like they were pushing that Extreme Feminism and Toxic Masculinity will never be in balance. In reality you need feminine and masculine traits in society to work.
I don't think it was anti Masculine, I don't think it was pro Feminism, more an argument in favour of balance. Being yourself not stereotypical.
At least that was my take. Maybe I chose to ignore the other messages - being a man.
Ms AA and I saw Barbie last night. Both thought it was one of the worst films we’d ever seen. Very little humour, worthy political points laid on with a trowel, a complete waste of talent and money.
Saw a group of girls/ladies dressed up as Barbie dolls in a pub last night en-route to the cinema....is it a thing to dress up when going to see the film?
Ms AA and I saw Barbie last night. Both thought it was one of the worst films we’d ever seen. Very little humour, worthy political points laid on with a trowel, a complete waste of talent and money.
Saw a group of girls/ladies dressed up as Barbie dolls in a pub last night en-route to the cinema....is it a thing to dress up when going to see the film?
Last films I remember for that were the Star Wars prequels.
It's weird, you wouldn't go dressed to Jurassic Park dressed as a T-Rex.
Plus it's dark so no one can really tell as soon as the film starts.
Watched oppenheimer the other night in leic square odeon in 70mm. I enjoyed it, certainly not one of nolan's worst (which is interstellar) but i wouldn't quite put it up with dunkirk. Thought the pacing was a little off and the film kind of ran out of steam 2/3rds or 3/4s of the way through and then established itself as a different kind of film. I feel like if the test explosion was put at the end of the film it would've given the film the right kind of momentum all the way through. Murphy is absolutely outstanding and i think fully deserves the oscar nod he's sure to get. Special shout to Gary Oldman who was really good as president truman - was a great moment and to be honest brilliantly exposed oppenheimer for how self obsessed he was being. 7.5/10 for me and certainly worth seeing.
Don't think Nolan was the ideal director for this subject matter. The film didn't measure up to the hype for me.
Comments
Barbie and Elemental.
They loved both of them and that's all that matters. I wouldn't have gone on my own or with my missus, as that would have been weird.
Reading on here has dumped me back in the "not going' camp.my youngest wants to see Elemental and Oppenheimer, so I'll try and fit them in, and she's off to see Barbie with her mates next week.
Job done
Barbie - different story. My 18 year old daughter loved it, the rest of us left scratching our heads as to how this movie has received so many positive reviews. Was too long at 2 hours and while I thought the first 10-15 minutes was ok by way of set up, I just thought any fizz went flat quickly and the story was basic and weaker than it could have been. 5/10 at most…!
Have read a few reviews saying it’s better 2nd time round, maybe I’m missing something in it.
Drivel. And the whole two part thing only adds to the pomposity.
Liked MI 4,5 and 6.
7…meh.
I have yet to watch this one (luckily it will be released here albeit with a month delay). Maybe it will change my impression a little bit. (Maybe not reading your review.😂)
*I've only recently realised my very top 1 favourite director is Martin Scorsese. I started to watch foreign films since I was very young so it took me almost 30 years to know what films I really admire. There's a sharp distinction between his work and Nolan's despite I like them both. Probably not fair to compare the two as they basically do different genres and are not of the same generation. But I can understand your complaints about Oppenheimer.
Went with my youngest daughter last night. She came along on the back of the trailer which I had a feeling probably wasn't to representative of the film. It turned out I was right, but she loved it anyway and so did I.
Downpoints, certainly include that when there were quite a lot of new locations, especially at the start, some labels to let you know where ther action was taking place would have been a help (and to be honest, there were that many characters that labelling the people in the style of a playstation video game would have made things clearer). I didn't find it overlong - it was well paced and though the tendency to jump back and forth on the timeline made it tough to begin with, it settled down as you grew into the story. I was happy enough that the film didn't include stock film of the bomb being dropped on Hiroshima, or the consequences - nice touch.
So overall very impressed - one of the best films I've seen this year, and I hope it gets some Oscars (Cillian Murphy for starters). I won't need to see it again for a while, though I'm looking forward to watching it in English next time.
The thing with recent Nolan films is imo you have to absorb them in the same way you take in music. Get in tune with the rhythm and let it into your subconscious. I know that sounds pretentious. They are hard for me to get into if i just skim the surface of the visuals.
I know some men have issues with Barbie but for me it had important messages about society conditioning both men and women to conform to stereotypes, and it was fun.
It's an intense film, and a bit of a who's who of actors. Murphy is excellent as is Robert Downey jr. I got deja vu seeing Tom Conti play Einstein - wonder if he's done that before.
I did find it slightly heavy going for a while after the Los Alamos section had concluded, but for a three hour film the time passed quickly enough. I think it would benefit from trimming by half an hour though.
Legolas, Ginger Spice , and a bit of car driving, what more could a guy ask for.
At least until, as IdleHans said, the post-Alamos bit takes over. For much of that hour or so I thought we were in the endgame, and yet if never seemed to end. I was bemused by who was doing what for much of it. When I realised there were a few sort-of twists to be revealed I was more surprised that I was watching that kind of movie than the actual reveals.
I also think - and I remember saying this about Interstellar - there are times when Nolan's crescendo editing turns pretty run-of-the-mill moments into something they're not, or maybe don't quite deserve to be.
It's still a magnificent film and I look forward to watching it again - ironically on a small screen where I can turn the sound down a bit and protect my tinnitus, and maybe press pause to cross-reference wikipedia from time to time!
Containing Jason Statham, and some very large fish.
You can’t take this film too seriously , I don’t think it takes itself too seriously.
Its so far fetched, not overtly squeamish, bit of a laugh, if you want to take your brain out for a couple of hours.
It actually seemed to expose the flaws in both extreme feminist behaviour and toxic masculine behaviour.
Personally it felt like they were pushing that Extreme Feminism and Toxic Masculinity will never be in balance. In reality you need feminine and masculine traits in society to work.
I don't think it was anti Masculine, I don't think it was pro Feminism, more an argument in favour of balance. Being yourself not stereotypical.
At least that was my take. Maybe I chose to ignore the other messages - being a man.
It's weird, you wouldn't go dressed to Jurassic Park dressed as a T-Rex.
Plus it's dark so no one can really tell as soon as the film starts.
Utter batshit
But Statham and fuck off big sharks
Kinda guilty pleasure