The Movie Reel

[Jelenafan]

If you have access to TCM, tonight at 10:15 PM (Eastern) they’re airing a documentary called “What She Said: The Art of Pauline Kael” from 2018. I’ve never seen it, but have read nearly every word she ever published, so I’m looking forward to it. I can’t think of a more impactful and often controversial film critic than Kael.

Still remember as a kid reading one of her first review compilations” I lost it at the movies” and it blew me away. Nobody wrote about film like Pauline, biting wit on films she detested and crazy love letters on films she liked, such an immediacy to her writing.

 

[Jelenafan]

Just saw Wes Anderson's latest movie "Asteroid City". Plot: A group of eclectic people converge in the desert for a youth science fair and have an extraterrestrial contact experience. That is the narrative for a play that a theatre company of actors are performing, so the characters in the films are actors in the play who at times break through the 3rd wall. So sometimes you are seeing the play, and sometimes you are seeing the actors outside the play. However the play is portrayed like a movie, LOL. Got it?

The thing about WA movies is that I really can't refute what many dislike about them, yes, they are excessively mannered, stylized, too "precious", too smugly knowing, plots too slight, etc, but I've enjoyed through the years his quirky style and how his movies are different and original. I accept that with him style trumps quite alot in his movies.

There are some interesting character bits, his usual repertory of actors (Tilda Swinton, Adrien Brody, William Dafoe, Bill Murray, Rupert Friend, etc) and Tom Hanks & Scarlet Johansson come out in this movie. So if you like his type of film, will probably enjoy it.

 

[Kieran]

Just saw Wes Anderson's latest movie "Asteroid City". Plot: A group of eclectic people converge in the desert for a youth science fair and have an extraterrestrial contact experience. That is the narrative for a play that a theatre company of actors are performing, so the characters in the films are actors in the play who at times break through the 3rd wall. So sometimes you are seeing the play, and sometimes you are seeing the actors outside the play. However the play is portrayed like a movie, LOL. Got it?

The thing about WA movies is that I really can't refute what many dislike about them, yes, they are excessively mannered, stylized, too "precious", too smugly knowing, plots too slight, etc, but I've enjoyed through the years his quirky style and how his movies are different and original. I accept that with him style trumps quite alot in his movies.

There are some interesting character bits, his usual repertory of actors (Tilda Swinton, Adrien Brody, William Dafoe, Bill Murray, Rupert Friend, etc) and Tom Hanks & Scarlet Johansson come out in this movie. So if you like his type of film, will probably enjoy it.

Interesting. I like his films so I’ll see this one. Have yet to watch French Dispatch so I have a couple of treats in store. You’re right about his films, they get criticised for those reasons, but they’re fairly unique and distinctive, and he’s got a great visual cinematic imagination, so I always find it worth my while watching them..

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Has anyone seen the film Opphenheimer yet? I am going tomorrow, I am a big Christopher Nolan fan, ( loved Inception) it has a great cast , it is a long film over 3 hours, which I can fully understand, Nolan always likes to explore personal life of his main character's, Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer was chosen by the US government to oversea the construction and testing of the world's first nuclear weapons.Quite frankly there havent been many movies this year, that has made me want to actually go to a movie theatre, though this film has, also I have the time to go and experience it on the big screen.

 

[Moxie]

Has anyone seen the film Opphenheimer yet? I am going tomorrow, I am a big Christopher Nolan fan, ( loved Inception) it has a great cast , it is a long film over 3 hours, which I can fully understand, Nolan always likes to explore personal life of his main character's, Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer was chosen by the US government to oversea the construction and testing of the world's first nuclear weapons.Quite frankly there havent been many movies this year, that has made me want to actually go to a movie theatre, though this film has, also I have the time to go and experience it on the big screen.

They've been running lots of ads for it. Will be curious to hear what you think. It doesn't open here for a few days.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Oppenheimer, directed by Christopher Nolan.

Christopher Nolan explores one of the most important events in human history in a thoughtful provoking and compelling fashion, respective of the past as it is of the future. It is a long film, though to me it was a 3 hour experience, which had my attention to the end.This film will be very hard to beat as the best film of 2023. A Christopher Nolan Masterpiece.Quite frankly it is impossible to take it all, in just one sitting. A Must See Film of 2023!

 

[Kieran]

Oppenheimer, directed by Christopher Nolan.

Christopher Nolan explores one of the most important events in human history in a thoughtful provoking and compelling fashion, respective of the past as it is of the future. It is a long film, though to me it was a 3 hour experience, which had my attention to the end.This film will be very hard to beat as the best film of 2023. A Christopher Nolan Masterpiece.Quite frankly it is impossible to take it all, in just one sitting. A Must See Film of 2023!

It’s one I can’t wait for. Hoping to watch it on an iMax screen. Mission Impossible is the other I want to watch on the biggest screen in Christendom!

People have been walking out of Oppenheimer traumatised, so that’s a recommendation in itself..

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

It’s one I can’t wait for. Hoping to watch it on an iMax screen. Mission Impossible is the other I want to watch on the biggest screen in Christendom!

People have been walking out of Oppenheimer traumatised, so that’s a recommendation in itself..

It is a must see film Kieran I am a big fan of Chistoper Nolan, he didnt disappoint,yes it does need to see it on a big screen, to get it's full impact

 

[Kieran]

I must say, Steven Spielberg did a great job with West Side Story. To me, it’s a brilliant film at many levels, but I always get caught up hoping I can skip the tragedy in it, and I never can. Not in the original, and not in this one. It’s an emotional wallop in the belly. I’m so sappy, I think the catchy great song America is an emotionally tragic song, so much hope and fear - and fearlessness - and youth and brilliant dancing - and music - all in one great song. I get torn up by that song.

I watched many scenes in this film over and over. I’d forgotten how many great songs it had!

It also makes me think of the great work a director can do in his later days. Quentin Tarantino is always threatening to retire after his next film, but I hope he doesn’t. He’s a huge presence in film, but has he made any film that truly moves you - and deeply? Yet he might do that if he stays at it long enough..

 

[Jelenafan]

It’s one I can’t wait for. Hoping to watch it on an iMax screen. Mission Impossible is the other I want to watch on the biggest screen in Christendom!

People have been walking out of Oppenheimer traumatised, so that’s a recommendation in itself..

Mission Impossible is an action flick in the best sense of the term, visceral & adrenaline pumping all the way.

Kieran, you will love that alotof the action takes place in Rome & Venice, and the one in Venice my wife said, “what a beautiful gorgeous background for a fight to the death.” LOL

The last set piece in the Austrian Alps is classic “more is more” , a careening out of control train with people fighting in and ontop of the train with a loming bridge rigged with explosives AND detachable cars …

 

[Kieran]

Mission Impossible is an action flick in the best sense of the term, visceral & adrenaline pumping all the way.

Kieran, you will love that alotof the action takes place in Rome & Venice, and the one in Venice my wife said, “what a beautiful gorgeous background for a fight to the death.” LOL

The last set piece in the Austrian Alps is classic “more is more” , a careening out of control train with people fighting in and ontop of the train with a loming bridge rigged with explosives AND detachable cars …

You know, I missed the boat to see that on an IMAX screen, and now that Oppenheimer is out, and Barbie too! - both of them are on the IMAX and Mission Impossible is demoted to the normal screen.

I’m going next week, I think. Can’t wait for it. Tom Cruise is great, I thought Top Gun Maverick was an almost miraculous film, a sequel 40 years or so later, it was just brilliant!

 

[Moxie]

I must say, Steven Spielberg did a great job with West Side Story. To me, it’s a brilliant film at many levels, but I always get caught up hoping I can skip the tragedy in it, and I never can. Not in the original, and not in this one. It’s an emotional wallop in the belly. I’m so sappy, I think the catchy great song America is an emotionally tragic song, so much hope and fear - and fearlessness - and youth and brilliant dancing - and music - all in one great song. I get torn up by that song.

I watched many scenes in this film over and over. I’d forgotten how many great songs it had!

You know, I'd forgotten that a Spielberg directed that, which might be a good thing. (In that, he didn't especially make a "Spielberg" film out of it. And don't get me wrong...I love him.) I think he did a great job updating that film, and, frankly, it needed it. At the risk of heresy, I never quite loved the original. I could argue that the remake is better. But, you're right...the songs (and all the music, and dancing) have always been amazing.

It also makes me think of the great work a director can do in his later days. Quentin Tarantino is always threatening to retire after his next film, but I hope he doesn’t. He’s a huge presence in film, but has he made any film that truly moves you - and deeply? Yet he might do that if he stays at it long enough..

I looked him up, and he's directing a film called The Movie Critic, set in the 70s, but that's all I know. I still think his most "human" film was Jackie Brown. Django Unchained inspires a lot of real emotion, but it's on sort of an epic scale. I don't see Tarantino as a director who's interested in delving deeply into human emotions. I thought after "Jackie Brown" (1997) that he might explore more nuanced stories, but that doesn't seem to be of much interest to him. It not especially a criticism. I think he's a talented filmmaker and storyteller, and I see all of his films...and enjoy them. I often think of Pedro Almodóvar, when I think of him, in the sense that I didn't expect either to necessarily grow beyond their early stylish tendencies. Almodóvar surprised me by deepening his work into something very humane and universal, while still retaining his style. I just don't think that Tarantino has the same depths. But who knows, if he stays at it long enough.

 

[Jelenafan]

You know, I'd forgotten that a Spielberg directed that, which might be a good thing. (In that, he didn't especially make a "Spielberg" film out of it. And don't get me wrong...I love him.) I think he did a great job updating that film, and, frankly, it needed it. At the risk of heresy, I never quite loved the original. I could argue that the remake is better. But, you're right...the songs (and all the music, and dancing) have always been amazing.

I looked him up, and he's directing a film called The Movie Critic, set in the 70s, but that's all I know. I still think his most "human" film was Jackie Brown. Django Unchained inspires a lot of real emotion, but it's on sort of an epic scale. I don't see Tarantino as a director who's interested in delving deeply into human emotions. I thought after "Jackie Brown" (1997) that he might explore more nuanced stories, but that doesn't seem to be of much interest to him. It not especially a criticism. I think he's a talented filmmaker and storyteller, and I see all of his films...and enjoy them. I often think of Pedro Almodóvar, when I think of him, in the sense that I didn't expect either to necessarily grow beyond their early stylish tendencies. Almodóvar surprised me by deepening his work into something very humane and universal, while still retaining his style. I just don't think that Tarantino has the same depths. But who knows, if he stays at it long enough.

Yes, “Jackie Brown” is the understated gem in the Tarantino oeuvre, the scale is relatable and Pam Grier & Robert Forster both have weary “life has slapped me around but im still here” personas finely etched,

As to growth, was a bit surprised by Tarantino’s “Once upon a time in Hollywood”” it was almost a warm nostalgic time trip , …almost.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, “Jackie Brown” is the understated gem in the Tarantino oeuvre, the scale is relatable and Pam Grier & Robert Forster both have weary “life has slapped me around but im still here” personas finely etched,

As to growth, was a bit surprised by Tarantino’s “Once upon a time in Hollywood”” it was almost a warm nostalgic time trip , …almost.

I loved "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood!" It IS warm, and nostalgic and funny, and one of my favorites of his. I'm just not sure it qualifies as "growth." It's just a different vibe, but it's very Tarantino. I honestly think he's not that interested in getting too close to his own emotions, or those of his characters. He's more of a plot and style guy. That's fine, too.

 

[Kieran]

You know, I'd forgotten that a Spielberg directed that, which might be a good thing. (In that, he didn't especially make a "Spielberg" film out of it. And don't get me wrong...I love him.) I think he did a great job updating that film, and, frankly, it needed it. At the risk of heresy, I never quite loved the original. I could argue that the remake is better. But, you're right...the songs (and all the music, and dancing) have always been amazing.

Yeah, when the film was announced and Spielberg was directing, I had misgivings. I haven’t seen the original in years but I remember the songs mostly. I thought Spielberg was on a boomer nostalgic trip and it wouldn’t be worth seeing, but I need to get over my younger selfs resistance to Spielberg. All them children running around in his films. Saccharine and comfortable movies. I can’t be the only one who was chewing his popcorn too fast watching Jurassic Park, muttering “go on veggiesaurus, prove them pesky kids wrong, EAT THE BASTARDS!” I think the film would have been better. Imagine T Rex lifting its leering head with one of the screaming kids impaled on its teeth, then the camera does a swift cut to the other kid, holding their head, mentally destroyed. The music comes to a screaming halt while we chomp popcorn and wonder who’s next.

But he’s playing the long game and he’s been very diverse in his choices, and given us some great films. Prolific too. I haven’t seen The Fabelmans but I enjoyed West Side Story so much. It captured the filmmaking style of the period, but the cast and music and colours of it were beautiful.

I looked him up, and he's directing a film called The Movie Critic, set in the 70s, but that's all I know. I still think his most "human" film was Jackie Brown. Django Unchained inspires a lot of real emotion, but it's on sort of an epic scale. I don't see Tarantino as a director who's interested in delving deeply into human emotions. I thought after "Jackie Brown" (1997) that he might explore more nuanced stories, but that doesn't seem to be of much interest to him. It not especially a criticism. I think he's a talented filmmaker and storyteller, and I see all of his films...and enjoy them. I often think of Pedro Almodóvar, when I think of him, in the sense that I didn't expect either to necessarily grow beyond their early stylish tendencies. Almodóvar surprised me by deepening his work into something very humane and universal, while still retaining his style. I just don't think that Tarantino has the same depths. But who knows, if he stays at it long enough.

Yeah he says The Movie Critic is his last film, and it’s based loosely (Tarantinoesquely, I imagine) on a real movie critic for a porn magazine in the seventies. That sounds good, and possibly will have a lot in common with Once Upon a Time…, which I really loved. Django was great too but then all the spatter at the end, it was too much. Too overdone. Probably the best I’ve seen from Samuel Jackson. But the film suffered from Tarantino’s trademark childishness, his gimmicky tendency towards genre film references and imitations. There was a lot that was great on the film, and typical of him, it was beautifully filmed.

It gets overlooked sometimes, amid the gore and the cool stagy scripts, but Tarantino is aesthetically a superior film maker. It’s a good comparing you make with Almodovar - both of them are distinctive and challenging but often limited too, to their own quirks and eccentricities, which are themselves bound to be limited and predictable, eventually. It’s no coincidence that a lot of us agree that Jackie Brown is Tarantino’s most satisfying film, and it’s the only one - I think - that isn’t an original Tarantino story..

 

[Kieran]

I loved "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood!" It IS warm, and nostalgic and funny, and one of my favorites of his. I'm just not sure it qualifies as "growth." It's just a different vibe, but it's very Tarantino. I honestly think he's not that interested in getting too close to his own emotions, or those of his characters. He's more of a plot and style guy. That's fine, too.

What’s really interesting about this and Inglourious Basterds is his alt-history endings. That was very satisfying in Once Upon, and of course the handsome buddy aspect of it was redolent of Robert Redford and Paul Newman. Some great comedic scenes, one of his best scripts. And lately we’re bingeing on Justified with Timothy Olyphant and can see clearly why he was cast in the role he’s in. Tarantino is a complete library of pop culture stuff, and in that film he brought it all home brilliantly. I love Al Pacino’s turn in that, especially when he’s laying down the truth to Rick Dalton in the restaurant. How many shows did he mention that we all watched growing up?

 

[Kieran]

Yes, “Jackie Brown” is the understated gem in the Tarantino oeuvre, the scale is relatable and Pam Grier & Robert Forster both have weary “life has slapped me around but im still here” personas finely etched,

As to growth, was a bit surprised by Tarantino’s “Once upon a time in Hollywood”” it was almost a warm nostalgic time trip , …almost

Robert Forster was well cast here, wasn’t he? I read that Tarantino was looking for a type of actor, and Gene Hackman fit the bill perfectly but wasn’t available, I think, and Robert Forster stepped in. Maybe a better choice because he’s not so well known?

Pam Grier too. Another great thing Tarantino has done in films is reboot some careers…

 

[don_fabio]

I watched Oppenheimer last night at the open air cinema.

I am not satisfied with the movie. I read a lot of reviews and knew more or less what to expect, but I gave it a chance and I still thought it would be much better made.

1. The film would have been much better if the basis of the story was physics and the whole process of making the bomb, and not patriotism and America against Nazism/communism. Nolan is a director who could have done it much better, he went very deep in Interstellar and it came out great. Here he played the safe card of politics/patriotism that everyone can understand and nuclear physics is not something that might appeal to the general public. I feel a regret that he chose this path.

2. The bomb explosion disappointed me. I know that Nolan didn't want to use CGI, but you wait 2 hours of the movie to see how that bomb will explode and then instead of the explosion, I see people's faces and the flash that illuminates them. The bomb looked as if someone had put a little more dynamite on the pile. Bad.

3. I knew there would be politics in the movie, but I really didn't expect THAT much politics. Oppenheimer security clearance troubles doesn't excite me. Give me how they made that enriched Uranium and Plutonium, give me how they failed during the process of making the bomb and how they figured it all out, this must have been one hell of a journey worthy of the big screen and Nolan was a perfect director for such a story.

4. The acting roles are perhaps the best part. Cilian Murphy acted fantastically, as did the rest of the cast (Gary Oldman took over the screen in that one scene he acted) and it all looks really nice on the big screen, but I have a feeling that even the actors could not bring the film to be great in the end. I don't know why so many people give the movie 10/10. It should be an absolutely perfect film in every way, and Oppenheimer is not, at least to me.

I was really looking forward to this movie and I was expecting a lot more, the first joke that comes to my mind is Floppenheimer. That might be a little rude of me, but it's not far from the truth. What should I look forward to now? Which new movie should I be waiting for? Ah yes, the Dune sequel is coming in a few months, that should be a great movie.

 

[Kieran]

I watched Oppenheimer last night at the open air cinema.

I am not satisfied with the movie. I read a lot of reviews and knew more or less what to expect, but I gave it a chance and I still thought it would be much better made.

1. The film would have been much better if the basis of the story was physics and the whole process of making the bomb, and not patriotism and America against Nazism/communism. Nolan is a director who could have done it much better, he went very deep in Interstellar and it came out great. Here he played the safe card of politics/patriotism that everyone can understand and nuclear physics is not something that might appeal to the general public. I feel a regret that he chose this path.

2. The bomb explosion disappointed me. I know that Nolan didn't want to use CGI, but you wait 2 hours of the movie to see how that bomb will explode and then instead of the explosion, I see people's faces and the flash that illuminates them. The bomb looked as if someone had put a little more dynamite on the pile. Bad.

3. I knew there would be politics in the movie, but I really didn't expect THAT much politics. Oppenheimer security clearance troubles doesn't excite me. Give me how they made that enriched Uranium and Plutonium, give me how they failed during the process of making the bomb and how they figured it all out, this must have been one hell of a journey worthy of the big screen and Nolan was a perfect director for such a story.

4. The acting roles are perhaps the best part. Cilian Murphy acted fantastically, as did the rest of the cast (Gary Oldman took over the screen in that one scene he acted) and it all looks really nice on the big screen, but I have a feeling that even the actors could not bring the film to be great in the end. I don't know why so many people give the movie 10/10. It should be an absolutely perfect film in every way, and Oppenheimer is not, at least to me.

I was really looking forward to this movie and I was expecting a lot more, the first joke that comes to my mind is Floppenheimer. That might be a little rude of me, but it's not far from the truth. What should I look forward to now? Which new movie should I be waiting for? Ah yes, the Dune sequel is coming in a few months, that should be a great movie.

Wow, Floppenheimer! That’s fairly brilliant!

But your review makes good points. I’m not sure what you mean by “that much politics” but my spidey sense is tingling, and now I’m unsure. Hollywood and politics is a terrible mix. The reason why this film is block booked in IMAX screens everywhere is because it’s meant to be sensational. The bomb scene sounds actually like the avoidance of trying something sensational.

I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about fricking Barbie holding up a slot on iMax screens in Ireland, so I had to see Mission Impossible on a bog standard screen in the local cinema. Screen 7. Barbenheimer twinned up to take the big screen, with all the effects that entails. I get it, with Oppenheimer, because Christopher Nolan has a pedigree in that scale, and also because Kodak actually invented a camera specifically for IMAX, to film black and white scenes in the film. But Barbie? I’ve been told it wasn’t on such a scale to need the biggest and best screens.

Whatever. They got it. I’m a big fan of Greta Gerwig’s films but this one isn’t for me. There was a lot of mention at the time that Tom Cruise rejuvenated cinema when he released Top Gun Maverick, which was magnificent. Mission impossible is just a smidge below that. It’s very entertaining, and jaw dropping in parts. It needed the big screen. It had a brief window where it got access, but then it got bumped.

Hayley Atwell is great in this one. Delicious too. The super villain is AI. The chase scenes around Rome are gigantic. There’s a funny scene where Tom Cruise is using his wrist gadget to urgently find a car to escape in. Here it is, he says, and they hurry towards a gleaming Aston Martin. Then past it to a tiny cool yellow Fiat that you can’t even see until it’s too late.

It’s got the usual ingredients, if you like the other MI films, you’ll enjoy this…

 

[don_fabio]

Wow, Floppenheimer! That’s fairly brilliant!

I surprised myself by this one, given it's my second language

But your review makes good points. I’m not sure what you mean by “that much politics” but my spidey sense is tingling, and now I’m unsure. Hollywood and politics is a terrible mix. The reason why this film is block booked in IMAX screens everywhere is because it’s meant to be sensational. The bomb scene sounds actually like the avoidance of trying something sensational.

What I meant is that the movie concentrated too much on Oppenheimer's ties with the communists. I think the story of building the atomic bomb was supposed to be main one.

I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about fricking Barbie holding up a slot on iMax screens in Ireland, so I had to see Mission Impossible on a bog standard screen in the local cinema. Screen 7. Barbenheimer twinned up to take the big screen, with all the effects that entails. I get it, with Oppenheimer, because Christopher Nolan has a pedigree in that scale, and also because Kodak actually invented a camera specifically for IMAX, to film black and white scenes in the film. But Barbie? I’ve been told it wasn’t on such a scale to need the biggest and best screens.

Whatever. They got it. I’m a big fan of Greta Gerwig’s films but this one isn’t for me. There was a lot of mention at the time that Tom Cruise rejuvenated cinema when he released Top Gun Maverick, which was magnificent. Mission impossible is just a smidge below that. It’s very entertaining, and jaw dropping in parts. It needed the big screen. It had a brief window where it got access, but then it got bumped.

Hayley Atwell is great in this one. Delicious too. The super villain is AI. The chase scenes around Rome are gigantic. There’s a funny scene where Tom Cruise is using his wrist gadget to urgently find a car to escape in. Here it is, he says, and they hurry towards a gleaming Aston Martin. Then past it to a tiny cool yellow Fiat that you can’t even see until it’s too late.

It’s got the usual ingredients, if you like the other MI films, you’ll enjoy this…

Yeah, I don't know why would they bump Barbie to IMAX and dump MI to normal screen, MI calls for the biggest screen possible due to a lot of remarkable action scenes, probably most suitable to IMAX of the Barbie/Oppie/MI trio.

I like MI, I think it's one of the best action flicks in last decade. I'm pretty sure I'm going to like it plus there will be a sequel. They really revived this franchise and last few MIs were made a lot better than the ones in early 2000s. There is a good amount of jokes in MI too, like the small FIAT you mentioned . I should probably watch it on big screen if they still air it here. It's only once per week and they show one movie per day on one screen when it gets dark outside, I think today is Meg 2 .