Branagh – Jon The Blogcentric

2023 Oscars Best Picture Review: Oppenheimer

4 March 2024Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment

Oppenheimer will get you questioning whether J. Robert Oppenheimer (played by Cillian Murphy) deserves to seen as a hero or villain, or neither.

Would a film about J. Robert Oppenheimer attract crowds to the cinema this summer? Oppenheimer proved to have the right stuff to make it happen.

When the film first arrived, there was the big question. Would a film about the inventor of the atomic bomb fly or would it flop? Would today’s audience care about a story of the inventor of the atomic bomb? Especially with this being a film with a budget of almost $100 million. Would it be a box office hit during the summer? In addition, does the film justify its three-hour running time? Oppenheimer surprised all naysayers by answering “yes” in all cases. It even succeeded in being a hit right while the Barbie phenomenon was in full-swing. No wonder 2023 will be remembered as the summer of “Barbenheimer!”

This film succeeds in justifying it’s importance. It’s easy to develop a fascination for the man who pioneered the “Nuclear Age.” Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still as intriguing and haunting today as they were when the bombs were dropped in August 1945. Even how this would pave the way for the introduction of the nuclear bomb and how it would cause the most intense moments of the Cold War of the past can make people intrigued in the man that started it all. Even though the most intense days are gone, it doesn’t mean the threat is no longer. There’s still Communist China, North Korea and even Putin taunting the world with threats. As long as nuclear bombs exist and are ready to use, J. Robert Oppenheimer will remain a man of intrigue.

The film can’t just be about building the nuclear bomb. The film is about the man himself. Oppenheimer himself started his career off as an aggressively ambition physics professor who had a clever and creative way of describing complicated things. It’s after he learns of nuclear fission in 1938 that he senses that it’s something that can be weaponized. The timing of this comes just as World War II dawns. The Manhattan Project is commissioned in 1942 to create such a weapon. J. Robert, who was Jewish himself, knew of the importance of stopping the Nazis. J. Robert didn’t simply agree to create such a bomb for the sake of having one created. He created one because he sensed the Germans themselves could learn of this and create one of their own. The war ends in Germany without a single use of such a weapon, but as its relevance is questioned, J. Robert suggests it could end the war in the Pacific. The bomb is tested successfully and that prompts President Truman to order them used in the war.

Then Hiroshima and Nagasaki happen. Everything changes for Oppenheimer. He is now ridden with guilt, feeling responsible for all the deaths that happened. The American people, on the other hand, see him as a hero for ending the war. President Truman, full of excitement with winning the war, taunts J. Robert’s empathy and rejects his wish to end further atomic development. It’s at the 1954 hearings that J. Robert, his legacy and his ties to communists are put under question and he has to confront himself on who he is. Eventually his arrogance and competitiveness would take his toll on him in the end. He’d have to face the music of the new world order he helped pioneer.

It’s also about the personal side of the man. J. Robert was a man of ambition in his early days of studies. He was also a man who thrived on knowledge and frequently consulted with Albert Einstein many times, relying on his knowledge. He was a man who liked difficult things and took an interest in the mystical and the cryptic. He was also the husband of Kitty Puening, but the marriage was rocky and riddled with J. Robert’s infidelity. His ties to communists in the intellectual community, and even with wife Kitty being a former writer for a communist newspaper, is something that could easily cause the suspicion in the 1950’s communist crackdown. J. Robert Oppenheimer was as much a complicated person as he was an important part of history.

This film should be seen as the crowning achievement of writer/director Christopher Nolan. His career has spanned over half a century starting in 1998 with Following, making his North American breakthrough with 2001’s Memento. His career would be full of landmark films like The Prestige, The Dark Knight, Inception, Interstellar, and Dunkirk. Until this film, only the latter has earned him an Oscar nomination in directing. He’s frequently delivered remarkable storytelling and has often found big box-office success, but many feel he’s missing the big renown he deserves. This film, which is an adaptation of the 2005 book American Prometheus, not only makes us take interest in the man who pioneered the nuclear age, but take us into the times and in the person Oppenheimer was. He succeeds greatly in creating a film that keeps out intrigue in the man himself as our intrigue into the creation of his bomb. Definitely the best film in an illustrious career he’s created.

We should also give many top accolades to Cillian Murphy. As much as this is Nolan’s masterpiece, we should also admire Cillian for making the film work for his portrayal of J. Robert. He does a great job in portraying the man and his genius, his weaknesses, his arrogance, and his hidden frailties. Definitely one of the film’s biggest highlights. Also excellent is the performance of Emily Blunt as Kitty Oppenheimer. Not only does she show her struggles with J. Robert’s infidelity and the potentially-destructive work he’s carrying out, but she’s able to tell J. Robert bluntly some awful truths about him, the world and all he caused. Also excellent is Robert Downey Jr. playing Lewis Strauss, the former colleague who turns against him and vilifies him in the end. Additional excellent performances come from Matt Damon as Ge. Leslie Groves who’s cynical and fearful of J. Robert’s work, Florence Pugh as J. Robert’s “other woman,” and Tom Conti as Albert Einstein, whom J. Robert often confides in and confesses to.

The technical feats of Oppenheimer are also excellent. There’s the cinematography of Hoyte van Hoytema, a frequent collaborator of Nolan’s, who did a great job of using the black-and-white and color imagery to showcase the two sides of the story. There’s the excellent editing from Jennifer Lame which showcased the story well and justified the film’s three-hour length. There’s also the costuming, hairstylists and makeup personnel that did a great job in recreating the looks of the past. The production design team also did a great job in their recreation of past buildings and the empty town meant to test the bomb’s effects. There’s also the great musical score from composer Ludwig Goransson that adds to the suspense and eeriness of the film and the sound team that delivers the right sound mixing needed for the story.

Oppenheimer is a deserving summer movie hit, an accomplishment for Christopher Nolan, and one of the best films of 2023. It’s a film that can get you feeling sorry for a historical person we should really hate and also show how important the story of his invention is for our times.

Double Movie Review: Paddington and Cinderella

21 May 201521 May 2015Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment

Normally I don’t see live-action family movies unless the renown for it catches my eye. In the last three months, there were two that caught my eye: Paddington and Cinderella. I’m glad I had the chance to see them.

PADDINGTON

For the first time, Paddington Bear comes to the big screen. And in live-action format rather than animation. However this did involve taking some chances. The first chance was making a movie that could entertain today’s children. The second was not having to mess with the Paddington Bear people know and love.

The film does a good job of keeping many aspects of Paddington such as his love of all things British, especially marmalade. The film also does a decent job of not trying to resort to too many cheap laughs like one would come to expect in today’s children’s films. It’s not to say there were some questionable moments, like the scene where Paddington thinks the toothbrushes are ‘earbrushes.’ The film also does a good job in presenting Paddington in today’s world and meeting the Brown family who are actually reluctant to adopt at first.

I give kudos to director/writer Paul King and co-writer Hamish McColl for coming up with a very good adaptation of Paddington Bear into a feature-length film. It was no easy task to make such a film especially when Paddington has resorted to being simple children’s books since the 1950’s. The plot where Paddington boats from Peru to London only to find a cold country, a reluctance to adopt from the Brown family and being pursued by the daughter of a poacher whose goal was to make him hers to kill and stuff worked well to entertain crowds. The inclusion of the effects in the film couldn’t be avoided as nowadays family movies have to have some special effects to win crowds. Even though Paddington wouldn’t be the type of movie for a lot of visual effects, the effects included did things right without messing with the story.

I also give them credit for not messing with the spirit of Paddington whose sweet charm is the reason why he has become one of the most beloved children’s book characters in recent decades. He’s even so beloved in England to the point there’s a bronze statue of Paddington Bear at Paddington Station where he got his name from. I also give them kudos for adding character to the Brown family. They may not be much like the Browns in the Paddington books but the character of the Browns do fit well in the movie.

Just as much deserving of respect are the performances of the actors. Hugh Bonneville and Sally Hawkins did a very good job playing the Brown parents. Madeleine Harris and Samuel Joslin also did well as playing the Brown children. They both played their roles well without being too overly-cutesy. Julie Walters succeeded in stealing scenes as the wise Mrs. Bird. Nicole Kidman also did a good job of playing the evil Millicent Clyde without becoming too hateable. Actually Millicent Clyde was rather entertaining as a villain. Finally Ben Whishaw did a very good voice-over as the voice of Paddington. Paddington needed a sweetness in order to make the story work and Whishaw was the right fit.

Paddington is now out on DVD and BluRay. For those that didn’t see it in theatres, it’s worth seeing. I don’t know if it’s the type of family movie one won’t need to see with a family of their own but it is entertaining and very good quality entertainment.

CINDERELLA

If you think making a film about Paddington Bear is difficult, try making a live-action version of Cinderella. And knowing that it will be Disney doing the work, you can understand they’d be under a lot of pressure. We’re talking about the film company that made their 1950 animated version a staple into many people’s hearts. So it would not be surprising that there would be a lot of questions surrounding the make of the new live action version. Will it have the same Disney spirit? Will it stray too much from the animated version that lives on in the hearts of millions? Or even the book? How will the sets and costumes be done? And will it entertain crowds of today?

There’s no question that making a live-action version of a fairy tale can be expensive in production. Cinderella wasn’t too expensive to make but $95 million is expensive enough. For a film like Cinderella to work, there’s no question that one of the top aspects to focus on would be the technical areas like set design and costuming. Dante Ferretti was a top choice for set design. We’re talking about a set designer whose works have earned him nine Oscar nominations and three wins for The Aviator, Sweeney Todd and Hugo. Ferretti did not let anyone down. In fact his set designs in all scenes worked perfectly for the movie. It was hard to notice a glitch.

Costumer Sandy Powell was another top pick with loads of cred including ten Oscar nominations and three wins. Here she again adds to the reputation by making costumes perfect not only for Cinderella but for all characters in the movie. My favorite costumes were actually the bratty looking outfits for Drisella and Anastasia. It fit their brattiness perfectly. However Cinderella’s glass slippers really caught my eye. They looked more like crystal slippers. The visual effects team also did a top job in adding the necessary visual effects for the film and giving them the magic that will remind people of the magic Disney movies are famous for. They even succeed in making the mice and lizards human enough without being too ridiculously cartoonish.

Credit should also be given to director Kenneth Branagh and writer Chris Weitz. People easily forget that Branagh is as much of a director as he is an actor directing films from Shakespeare (Henry V) to comedy (Love’s Labor’s Lost) to superhero action flicks (Thor). Now he ventures into the territory of fantasy films. The result is excellent. Just as excellent is the writing from scriptwriter from Chris Weitz. He does a very good adaptation by retaining the spirit of Disney and even including some aspects not included in the original. Actually his writing makes you forget he wrote American Pie!

Despite all those efforts, the success of the movie would have to bow down to the roles being done right. The inclusion of the king, the prince’s father, added to the story as did the appearances of Cinderella’s parents. The characterizations of the mice and lizards were well done and didn’t go over the top or even cheesy. The characters of the two stepsisters were very good depictions. They were nasty and bratty but you’ll actually find yourself laughing at how stupid they are rather than hating them. If there’s one character you will hate, it’s the stepmother Lady Tremaine. Cate Blanchett did an excellent job of depicting Lady Tremaine as both cruel and hurting on the inside to the point she feels she should hurt Cinderella. Her depiction also fits within the common Disney theme of featuring a female villain who’s beautiful rather than ugly. Blanchett’s depiction actually seems more like the queen from Snow White rather than the stepmother of the animated version.

There were some radical choices for character depictions in the movie. The first was the prince as being more of an awkward young adult rather than the flawless Prince Charming we come to expect. Even referring to himself as ‘an apprentice’ during the casual contact with Cinderella is something no one would have expected. The most radical of character depictions has to be Helena Bonham Carter as the fairy godmother. I found it very different to have a clumsy fairy godmother this time around. I wasn’t expecting another fairy godmother that sang ‘Bibbity Bobbity Boo’ but this was way different from what I expected.

Finally I focus on the character of Cinderella. Lily James did a very good job as Ella. She’s already an experienced actress in her native England and she does a very good portrayal here. She portrays Ella as a young woman who doesn’t make having an imagination look like a weakness. We shouldn’t forget her imagination has kept her holding her head high during the toughest of times such as the deaths of her parents and keeps her going strong with her stepmother and stepsisters whom even her father described as ‘trying.’ Hah, ‘trying’ is an understatement! However she does not come across as naive as most would come to expect of her or anyone with an active imagination. In fact it’s the scene where she says to her stepmother: “You were never my mother and you never will be.” shows Cinderella to have more inner strength than most thought.

Focusing on Cinderella lastly seems appropriate because she is essentially the epitome of the theme of the movie. The movie showed two people who had a lot of tragedy in their lives: Cinderella and Lady Tremaine. One was bitter about it. The other did what her mother said: “Have courage and be kind.” Cinderella’s courageous positivity upset Lady Tremaine to the point she had to hurt her however she can. Cinderella stayed strong. There were some points where her courage was tested but she still stayed strong. I guess that’s what this version of Cinderella was trying to say. That staying positive is not being oblivious. That having an imagination is not a weakness. That’s what was not only shown in Cinderella but almost every Disney movie.

Both movies have had their own box office success stories. Cinderella has grossed $197 million in North America and over $500 million worldwide. Paddington was not as big of a hit but it did have its own success with $76 million in North America and $259 million Worldwide. Impressive since it was done with a $55 million budget. The marketers of Paddington did a common job but a smart job in releasing it in most of Europe, South America and Asia first during the latter weeks of 2014 before releasing it in the US on January 16th. That’s a common technique used to plug movies with characters common in European pop culture. They did that with Tintin back in 2012.

Paddington and Cinderella are two family movies that have pleased the critics and will also please audiences alike. Both have what it takes to entertain children but they both also have elements that will please adults.

Movie Review: My Week With Marilyn

11 February 2012Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

My Week With Marilyn is an adventurous comedy of a young man assisting on the set of a Marilyn Monroe movie. What we get is an interestingly adenturous story and a lot more.

Before Colin Clark became a successful British documentarian, he was dazzled by the movies and movie stars, including Marilyn. That didn’t rest well with his upper class family who felt that the movie business wouldn’t get him anywhere. Then in 1956, he hears the news that Marilyn Monroe is coming to England to film The Prince And The Showgirl. How could he turn down an opportunity to work on the set of a film like that?

Once he arrives on the set, Laurence Olivier arrives, Vivien Leigh arrives, Sybil Thorndike arrives and Marilyn arrives with her acting coach Paula Strasberg and husband Arthur Miller. Working with Marilyn is not easy as she often misses her cues and easily loses her confidence in believing she can do a good job. The other actors like Olivier, Leigh and Thorndike find her difficult to work with. The pressure is soon adding up on Marilyn, both physically and emotionally. In the meantime, Colin is winning the attractions of young costume girl Lucy.

Arthur Miller then leaves England for a short while. Marilyn decides to take a break from the pressures of filmmaking and movie stardom and finds her escape through having Colin escort her. Colin takes her around the countryside, around Eton College where he was educated in, just about everywhere every day. During the time, Marilyn develops an attraction to the young Clark and the two have a short affair. During the time, Clark learns that Marilyn is a hurting woman: burdened by a difficult childhood and often feeling like a failure as an actress. This goes on for the week. During the whole escapade, he forgets about his date with Lucy. The filming end after a week and Marilyn leaves England for Hollywood. Colin is left with an experience he’ll never forget.

The unique thing about this movie is that it’s not just a young man’s adventure with Marilyn Monroe but also an intimate look at a screen legend who epitomizes the beauty and charm of Hollywood but also epitomizes Hollywood tragedy. Marilyn was made into a beauty that excelled in Hollywood. Nevertheless she always wanted to be taken seriously for her talent. She relied on her coaching from Lee and Paula Strasberg and often felt like a failure. Interesting bit of trivia is that Marilyn is the biggest Hollywood star never to be nominated for an Oscar. Never! As a person, she had problems getting over her difficult past out being raised unloved by her mother. It would be an ordeal she’d go through throughout her whole life. She would eventually take her own life six years later.

The funny thing about the movie is that it wasn’t just about the empty feeling of Marilyn but also the empty feeling of actors in general. During Colin’s time on the set, he also dealt with Sir Laurence Olivier: an actor beloved for his mastery of great roles. He was the accomplished actor while Marilyn was the popular star. Nevertheless he too felt an emptiness of his own. He wanted the movie star acclaim that Marilyn had. That should surprise just about everybody. That’s a very common theme in this movie: an actor’s insecurities, traumas and feelings of emptiness. It hits movie stars like Marilyn and it hit great actors like Sir Laurence.

The most shocking thing is that we would learn from Laurence is that Marilyn’s traumas and insecurities are what make her the actress and legend that she is. It’s not that uncommon that we celebrate entertainers who are troubled and traumatized and all too often, their traumas and troubles make them the greats that they are.

It’s obvious Colin never forgot his experiences of this. He would release his diaries under the title The Prince, The Showgirl and Me and memoirs titled My Week With Marilyn. Both would provide the material for this film. It should be noted that the diaries were made into a television documentary in 2004, one year after Clark’s death.

The biggest strengths of the film have to be the performances of Michelle Williams as Marilyn and Kenneth Branagh as Olivier. They weren’t just performances of the two acting legends but very deep parts. They made the two actors three dimensional and they stand out as two of the best acting performances of the year. The performance of Eddie Redmanye as the young Colin Clark was good but lacked depth. It was a simple role not as Colin Clark but as a twentysomething. Emma Watson’s part as the costume girl Lucy was simple but she is able to make you forget that she is Hermione Granger.

Outside of the acting, nothing much else stood out. The direction of Simon Curtis and the writing of Adrian Hodges were good and flawless but not spectacular. Nevertheless it did make for an enjoyable comedy. In addition, I commend Curtis for directing an excellent first feature. In essence, it was a semibiographical movie whose best assets were the acting performances.

My Week With Marilyn is a surprising look at a screen legend. Make that two screen legends, and the young rising documentarian who witnessed it all. If you like legendary actors, you’ll like this movie and will leave surprised.

Movie Review: Thor

25 August 2011Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

Once again, Marvel Comics had another superhero movie for release. This time it was Thor and it’s directed by Kenneth Branagh. The big question is does Thor stack up? And is Branagh able to direct sci-fi action?

Before I give my review, I have to confess that I’ve never read the Thor comic books so I am unable to compare the movie with the comics. I can just judge the movie for what it is.

The movie takes place between two worlds. The first is in the supernatural world of Asgard in 965 A.D. The second is in present day New Mexico. Odin, king of Asgard is in a war against the Frost Giants in their quest to conquer the Nine Realms, including Earth. The Asgardian army wins and seizes the Casket of Ancient Winters. Just as Odin is about to crown Thor the new king, Frost Giants attempt to retrieve the Casket. Against Odin’s order, Thor battles Laufey and the Giants along with his brother Loki, childhood friend and the Warriors Three. The battle destroys the fragile truce between the two races and Thor is stripped of his godly power by Odin for his arrogance. He is banished via a Bifrost to present day Earth along with his hammer–the source of his power–protected by an enchantment only allowing the worthy to wield it.

Thor lands in present-day New Mexico where he is found by astrophysicist Jane Parker, her assistant Darcy Lewis and her mentor Dr. Selvig. However Thor and the hammer also caught the attention of a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent who soon commandeers the hammer area building a security-tight shield and and forcibly acquires Jane’s data about the wormhole that delivered Thor to earth. Thor learns of his hammer inside the S.H.I.E.L.D. area and breaks in to retrieve it. He’s unable to lift it and is captured by the S.H.I.E.L.D. team. Selvig is able to break him free and is left exiled on Earth clueless of his surroundings. He does develop a romance with Jane.

In the supernatural world, Loki learns he is the son of Laufey, the leader of the Frost Giants who the king adopted after the war ended. Loki is able to manipulate his way to becoming king when a stressed-out Odin falls into a deep recuperating ‘Odinsleep’. He offers Laufey the chance to kill Odin and retrieve the Casket. His rule does not sit well with the Warriors Three and try to find a way to enter the Bifrost but Loki soon learns of the plan and sends a warrior to Earth to kill Thor. The Warriors find Thor, but the Destroyer attacks and defeats them, which prompts Thor to offer himself instead. After he’s hit by the the Destroyer by a potentially fatal strike, his self-sacrifice now makes him worthy to wield the hammer. As he finally retrieves his hammer, his powers return to him and allows him to defeat the Destroyer. Before he leaves back to Asgard with his fellow Asgardians, he kisses Jane goodbye and vows to return.

As Thor and the Asgardians return to Asgard, Loki kills Laufey in an attempt to destroy the Frost Giants land with the Bifrost Bridge to appear worthy of the crown to Odin. Thor arrives and fights Loki while destroying the Bifrost Bridge to destroy Loki’s plan. Thor is left to battle Loki stranded on Asgard in danger of falling into the Abyss. Odin awakes and prevents the brothers from falling into the abyss, but Loki does a suicide fall. Before Odin coronates Thor, Thor admits he’s not ready to be king while back on Earth, Jane and her colleagues seek for a way to open the portal to Asgard.

Overall the movie has the predictable thick drama one would come to expect from a superhero movie. The special effects were excellent and top notch. The set design of the world of Thor was excellent. The action scenes were scenes that can keep one thrilled. The acting was the type of thick and casual acting one would expect from a popcorn movie, so no really bravado performance from Natalie Portman here. There’s no doubt the role of Thor was intended to make Chris Hemsworth a star. The directing was done right. Kenneth Branagh did a good job. The writing was also well done but sometimes went over the top during some of the more comical scenes. Overall Thor is the type of movie that would impress people who like action hero movies or your expected summer blockbuster fare.

Thor was a very good start to the summer movie season. It has what it takes to charm audiences of action movies and superhero movies as well as get summer movie crowds excited.