Are movies dying?

I wanted to make sure I booked two tickets in advance to see "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga" in IMAX 70mm. I went on Fandango the day before I intended to see the movie and picked out my seats. But, booking seats wasn't really that difficult. Sure, most of the seats in the dead center of the theater were taken, but there were plenty of nice spots to pick from.

When I got to the theater, I was surprised to find... that the spots that were available the day before were... still available. It was not a packed theater. This was Saturday, the day after Furiosa was released and the IMAX theater was maybe half-full.

"Furiosa" has underperformed in the box office so far this weekend and by all accounts it's going to be a flop despite rave reviews. It's a fucking great movie. I loved it as much as I loved "Fury Road" and I thought that'd be an impossible task. For me, it did a great job of world building without getting weighed down too much in it. There was more dialogue in Furiosa than in Fury Road, but there were still stretches of awesome action in the middle of the desert. 

It's supremely well-made, the lead actors are brilliant, it's visually stimulated and consistently gripping. Looking back, "Fury Road" didn't exactly blow the doors off at the box office. It made around $380 million worldwide and it was reported that the film lost about $20-40 million. But, things are looking even bleaker this time around with a $31 million opening. 

I saw some chatter online why anyone would even bother funding this movie and the people wondering that clearly didn't see it... which isn't surprising cause a lot of people didn't see it!  Yes, it's a sequel/prequel to an existing franchise, but goddamnit it's fantastic. George Miller is a legend. 

I think I love these Mad Max movies so much is that they're so visual, they're so cinematic. They're made for the movie theater. It doesn't get too caught up in exposition. George Miller is able to tell the story of this world and its characters through the visuals. And somehow finds new and interesting ways to make enthralling action sequences involving fast-moving vehicles. The Mad Max movies have a bit of a whacky sense of humor without being silly. Some of these characters are absolutely psychotic. In order to be a protagonist in this world, you have to be tough as nails. So many people die in these movies that I genuinely worry for the lead character (Furiosa, in this movie) because of how ruthless everything else in this movie is. Of course Furiosa can't die in this movie, it's a prequel, but damn... the movie certainly puts her in a lot of convincingly near-death situations.

I kinda do think movies are dying, especially if there are people questioning whether a movie like Furiosa should even exist. I just wonder if, down the line, Hollywood will just stop making these big budget movies for theaters in favor of solely Marvel and DC type stuff. I really worry that's all we'll be left with. Oh, and maybe Christopher Nolan's next movie. 

People's attentions are too divided, people have a lot of different ways to entertain themselves. I don't know what it'll take to make people want to go see movies again. Personally, I just don't find any enjoyment in exclusively watching movies at home. I like the "appointment viewing" of going to the theater. Putting myself in a location where all I can do is watch the movie. There are so many movies I ended up not seeing since 2020 because my only option was to watch it on TV and movies just don't hold my attention as much on TV.  And I don't think I'm alone in that regard. 

It certainly feels like we're on shaky ground. I'm getting kind of fed up with the abundance of content and media there are to consume. Aren't you tired of scrolling on your phone? I mean, I still do it. Goddamnit, I am so part of the problem. Ugh. 

I don't know though. I'm able to get my son to come to movies with me and when we're home, he's always wanted to be on the phone or play video games. But he seems to respect the cinema as a place to ONLY watch a movie and nothing else. Maybe that'll change in the future. I don't know if he'll grow up to be the kinda cinephile I was at my peak, but I do feel like it's my responsibility to make sure my kids at least acknowledge the existence of movies. Try to make them watch all the essential ones and go to new exciting ones in theaters. 

You know, for so long, I wanted to make movies myself. I think what I wanted was to do something where I'd be remembered long after I'm gone. Maybe if I had a nice filmography, I would never truly die. That was my thinking. But, when the Gen Zs and Gen Alphas grow up, will figures like Akira Kurosawa or Stanley Kubrick mean anything to them? Is becoming a filmmaker even a worthwhile venture at this point? What's the point of making movies these days? Unless you happen to be making one of those rare big budget projects, your film will likely land on a streaming service and be forgotten. I wish I could've told 2004 me about this, maybe I would've considered majoring in something that would actually help me get a better paying job.

Overreaction City

 I'm not really on social media all too much. I do check Reddit more often than I should. But, I deactivated my Twitter account months ago, I'm still on Facebook but I rarely visit the site, and then there's Instagram, which I do check daily. You know, when I started this blog, kenoncinema, in 2010, it's because I had a deep love for movies. I also loved reading about upcoming movies and following movie news in general. So, naturally, I've followed quite a few different film/entertainment sites on my various social media accounts over the years. Even now, on Instagram for example, I'll get some update about a trailer that just came out, or an announcement of an upcoming movie. It feeds into my excitement. "Oooh, a new trailer for Napoleon? I can't wait to see this!" That's generally how it works for me.

But, there's another aspect that comes with that. I just need to scroll Instagram for about five minutes until I come across controversy over an upcoming movie. It truly seems to me that every major movie that comes out these days has some sort of controversy attached to it. It's rare for a movie to get released without it. "Barbie" had angry men and conservatives attacking it. "Oppenheimer" has a sex scene or two. Oh, the horror! 

I just saw "Killers of the Flower Moon" and I really wish I hadn't checked any social media for months before seeing it, because unfortunately, I did. I'd see reports like "Martin Scorsese defends Brandon Fraser's performance" or I'd read an angry reaction about the content of the film, or that some theaters put in an intermission in the middle of the movie which upset some people. Or the lack of intermission upset people. Holy shit. Why does everything piss us off these days?

Coming away from the movie, the 3 1/2 hour movie that I was able to sit through without getting up once (I'm not trying to brag, it's really just... if you're gonna see a movie like that, plan ahead. Don't drink coffee beforehand if coffee gives you the shits. Things like that. Use your head.)----All the complaints I had heard all seemed to be for naught. Brandon Fraser... a bit too histrionic? Well, he's barely in the movie and his over-the-top performance seemed to fit with what the filmmakers were going for with that character. I couldn't help but think... "That's it? Martin Scorsese needed to defend this??"

I don't really want to get into too much else with regards to the movie, because I understand we're all different and we have our own opinions, but I'll just say my peace, which is this - I feel firmly this is a story that needed to be told. If Scorsese wasn't involved, it doesn't get made. It certainly doesn't get made with a $200 million budget. And Scorsese did about as much as he could to get approval from the Osage community. Bottom line is, we need to hear these stories. We all need to do a better job of fully  understanding the ugliness that is American history. Some already know how ugly it is, but we still need to tell these stories. I had no idea about the history of the Osage people and what was done to them. It's absolutely horrifying and the movie does a masterful job of capturing it. It's really ugly, disgusting stuff and really makes me ashamed of how awful and cruel we can be, both in the past and in the present. 

Anyway, I just wanted to get that across. I'm tired of overreactions to movies. There is obviously real shit going on in the world, too many things happening in the real world... let's let movies be movies, for crying out loud. Either see them or don't. That doesn't mean you can't complain about shitty movies. My point is, if every movie has controversy attached to it, then the word "controversy" really starts to lose its luster. 

Yeah this is hard.

 I blinked and nearly two months passed by. Here's the thing, I freakin' write for a living, 40 hours a week. It's hard to write outside of that, it really is. So uh, that's all I'm gonna say now cause I'm tired.

Guys, I Think Comedies Might Be Dead

Comedies might be dead, guys. I don't know. There are still funny shows, I guess. Funny stand-up comics, of course. But what about comedy films? Barbie would be a shining example of one of the great recent comedies to come out in theaters and actually be successful. But, let's be real here: it's a movie based on a hugely popular product. If it was called anything else, would it have had a chance? If The Hangover came out today or 40 Year Old Virgin or Step Brothers or Tropic Thunder... wouldn't they all likely flop in the box office? Other than Barbie, it just doesn't feel like your average comedy could make much noise and/or become the cultural touchstone that Barbie has become.

And while I'm happy to see Barbie do so well, my god is the backlash annoying. That's another reason why I think comedies are generally dead. When one comes along and gains major attention, there has to be something about the movie that's deeply problematic and drives a portion of the population crazy. In the case of Barbie, it's... men. #notallmen, but the people complaining all happen to be men (I'm using that hashtag facetiously, I promise). What's funny is that a lot of the men complaining are the same ones that tell you to relax when, say, people get up-in-arms about a Dave Chappelle comedy special. I'm really disappointed with how my gender has reacted to the movie. There are plenty of cool guys out there who dig it, but man, the others who are so mad about it... you're freakin' embarrassing. If you can dish it, you have to be able to take it. Yeah, there are a lot of jokes at our expense in Barbie, but if you're seriously offended by any of them, then goddamn are you sensitive. 

That type of reaction will plague all comedy films. Thing is, if you're making a comedy film that doesn't really say much of anything, it's probably not going to gain much traction in pop culture. It would have to be a super quotable movie with a major star or a star-making performance that gets everyone talking. Otherwise, the only other way to get attention from a comedy is to pull no punches and when you take that approach, people will be offended... loudly... all over social media and in media general. The fact that we've had someone like Bill Maher "speak up" on Barbie like it's such a serious issue that needs to be addressed... that's where we are with comedy! 

I just don't see a way out of that bullshit. I'd love to see a rise of comedies, a new wave of comedies taking pop culture by storm. Whatever the 2023 version of the Frat Pack or the Apatow-universe is, I would embrace it. But, it seems comedy writers are... well... on strike right now, but if they're not on strike, they're working on something TV/streaming-related or they're on YouTube or Tik Tok. Come to think of it, there was another big studio comedy that came out this year... No Hard Feelings with Jennifer Lawrence, but I swear the only thing I've heard about that movie is the fact that J-Law gets naked in it. That's it. Also, when you check the movie's wikipedia page, there's a whole section dedicated to "controversy". Underneath: complaints that J-Law's character is grooming the 19-year-old main character. This part really struck me: 

           "Feldman, who plays Percy, said in an interview regarding the controversy that, "The film never condones the things that Jennifer's character does or that my character's parents do. This is a movie about flawed people and it's a cringe comedy. You're meant to cringe! You're meant to sit with those uncomfortable feelings." He also noted that the film normalizes "wanting to find love and connection," not pressuring young males to have sexual relationships."

When people have to explain the jokes afterwards, then you know it's true: comedies are dead. Because what do you need in comedy? People to laugh. And while, yes, there are still some audiences who do have a sense of humor, they are drowned out by the loud, angry, offended crowd. I hate to be the guy complaining about people being offended, but my complaints stem from the "Barbie is anti-male" crowd. What those guys don't realize is, the more of a stink they create about Barbie, the more other comedy films will be open to criticism. What we should be doing is making some sort of pact. You can have Barbie, can we have another R-rated This Is The End-type comedy with zero backlash attached to it and then we can be even?

But in all seriousness, we all know how risk-averse major studios are, so I gotta imagine they hear about the backlash to a movie like Barbie and all of a sudden, the leash on other comedies (if they even manage to get made) will be even tighter. 

You know what's coming out tomorrow? Strays. An R-rated movie with foul-mouthed talking dogs. I got to see it a little while ago and I thought it was hilarious. On Rottentomatoes, it has a 54% approval and I've heard zero buzz on the movie despite Jamie Foxx, Will Ferrell, Will Forte, and Randall Park all voicing characters in the movie. I have no faith it's gonna do serious business. Why? Because comedy is dead. (Please prove me wrong, world.)

The Elephant in the Room

 

I started writing this on July 30th, then I had work, then I went outta town. Goddamnit guys, it's hard for me to maintain a blog! So anyway, I'll just keep this brief so I can finish this blog post and move on... 

Of all the times to want to get back into writing about movies, we just so happen to be going through the most tumultuous time in the history of Hollywood. Maybe "tumultuous" is an overstatement, but I don't know about you guys... I don't see a solution to these strikes anytime soon, do you? Both the Writers and Actors striking at the same time? And it sounds like the studios aren't even willing to negotiate, let alone meet the actors' and writers' demands? This thing could last a long, long time. I'm curious, too, if the actors could come to an agreement before the writers, or would it have to be a joint thing. Because it feels like they're both asking for roughly the same thing: fair compensation, residuals from streaming services, assurances they won't get replaced by A.I., etc. 

And yeah, an end doesn't appear to be in sight. What I find interesting is, technically, there are indie productions that can continue working with actors because they've agreed to the terms of the strike, indie studios like A24. I wish actors and writers can just forget about the main studios altogether and go independent. There's precedent for this: the creation of United Artists over 100 years ago saw Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, D. W. Griffith coming together to make their own studio thanks to growing frustrations with the studios in the late 1910s. I don't think we'd get anything quite as drastic in 2023. I also think that the old school studios probably want to settle eventually but streamers like Netflix, Amazon, and Apple may be less willing to do so. The Silicon Valley types aren't really known for negotiating with unions. 

I'm thinking some sort of break-up is due to occur down the line. Paramount+, Disney+, and Peacock have been largely unsuccessful streaming ventures for those parent companies. Max seems to do ok for Warner Bros, but I wonder if most of the studios would eventually rather just partner with Netflix, Amazon, and Apple, selling off rights to streaming libraries and maybe collaborating on future TV and movie projects. That seems like the only way to successfully have those Silicon Valley-types be able to work with what actors and writers are demanding.

Anyway, yes, this will be an ongoing thing for the foreseeable future. I fully support what the actors and writers are doing and the way I see it, with Hollywood essentially "pausing" this is a good time for me to play catch-up on the last few years of cinema. I didn't want to continue blogging as if I wasn't aware of what was happening in the present. So, this felt like a necessary blog to get off my chest so I can move on and talk about movies. 

That said, I do hope all this gets resolved in a way that favors the writers and actors. It really is ridiculous these studio heads really don't seem to want to budge or even negotiate. What the WGA and SAG are asking for isn't really all that complicated. Fight on SAG and WGA! But yeah, I still wanna talk about movies and what not... so... I'm gonna do that... as long as I have enough time in my schedule for it, anyway!

KenonCinema plans

 I've promised I'd be back before on this blog and I've gone back on that promise. The main problem has been the combination of having two children and a full-time job. That means there's just not much time for many more hobbies. Even right now, I've had more time than usual to write in this blog because I took a few days off from work. But this time, something feels different. I really do feel a need to "return to my roots", so-to-speak. I do still love movies, but that love had been dormant for awhile, particularly during COVID. But now I'm feeling more comfortable returning to the cinema. Just in the last month or so, I've seen Asteroid City, Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning: Part One (mouthful of a title), Barbie, and Oppenheimer. Understand - between March 2020 and May 2023, I think I went to the cinema a total of 5 times. I didn't even get to see Licorice Pizza in theaters. I'd seen every PTA movie in theaters dating back to There Will Be Blood in January 2008. On my way back to Penn State, I made a stop at Princeton University and saw TWBB at the Princeton Garden Theater. It's crazy, there were two movies showing there, TWBB and No Country For Old Men. Man, I wish I just saw both films there. I ended up seeing No Country months later on DVD. Love the movie, but it's not the same experience, as you know.

And that's kinda been the problem these last few years. The cinema is my hub. Going to the cinema is the heart of my movie fandom. I go to the movies and it makes me want to watch more movies at home. But if I can ONLY watch movies at home, I... kinda lose interest? I don't know, maybe my TV isn't big enough. Maybe I don't have a nice enough setup. There's something about ONLY seeing movies at home that just kinda stales the whole experience for me. I need the ability to go to the movie theater. I need that full experience. I talk about it in my Oppenheimer review, but the experience of being totally rapt in a movie is unlike anything else for me. I don't get quite the same experience watching one at home. There's just something too casual about watching movies at home. I'm still able to enjoy it, but it's always going to be a better experience at the theater. That's just how I feel about it. I don't need to see a movie in the theater ALL the time. Just enough to fuel my love for it. So then when I'm home, I want to carry that experience with me by watching more movies. But the longer I go without watching a movie in theaters, the less inclined I feel to pop on a movie at home. It doesn't help that there are a plethora of viewing choices at home that I can make. Too often, these last few years, I'd opt to watch a bunch of dumb Youtube videos instead of watching a movie. Something about committing to something for 90-120 minutes at the end of a long work day... just doesn't feel worth it. But that lackadaisical feeling isn't there if I'm attending the cinema on, at least, a somewhat regular amount. My overall enthusiasm for the art of cinema cuts through any exhaustion I might feel after a long work day. 

So, the fact I've been going to the movies more often is one thing. but I was going to the movies pretty regularly from 2016-2019 and I still wasn't updating the blog. Grad school and starting my 9-5 job played a big part in that. Particularly from 2017 to 2019, I was commuting to work every day and it'd often take 90 minutes to get there and back. So a 9-5 job with a total of three hours commuting. That's 11 hours of my day everyday! I still went to the movies to unwind, but I sure as hell didn't have the energy to write about those movies.

Do I have the energy back? Right now I do. I think I'm getting there. There's a simple pleasure that I'm missing by not updating the blog. I write for a living, but sometimes it's nice to just... write for myself. To say whatever I want however I want. Don't have that kind of power at work, but I would with this blog. I don't think I'll be the kind of reviewer I was in 2010 to 2015. Back then, I think I was trying to be "professional". There's going to be a heavy use of first person in my movie reviews and I want to share more thoughts on the industry and other stray thoughts here and there. 

That brings me to my plans. The title of this blog post is "KenonCinema plans" - so what does that entail?

-    I want to review new releases, like I used to.

-    I also need to catch up on a bunch of movies that I missed between 2020 - the first half of 2023. So I'm gonna go back and watch releases from the last three years and write reviews on them.

-    BTW: no grades on new releases. I don't like grading movies anymore. I'll rank them at the end of the year just to have some perspective on the year in film, but I don't want my entire review to be about the grade I give it. I feel like it diminishes the whole point of writing a review in the first place. Did I like the movie? Read and find out!

-    That said: I also wanna do an overview on notable directors from the last several years. I didn't review any movies from 2016 to 2019 and a way to cover that is to go back and do an overview of directors like Fincher, PTA, Greta Gerwig, etc... Now the onus is gonna be on me to go back and watch these directors older movies. I also want to catch up on some newer directors like Ari Aster. I only saw Midsommar from him, which I liked a lot. I'd also love to watch all of Bong Joon-ho's films and, for some reason, I've never watched a single Hirokazu Kore-eda film. There's a few directors like that where I really wanna dive into their filmography and write about them, so I definitely want to do a regular feature like that on this blog. And, when I do these overviews, I will grade those films since I'll have a bit more perspective on a lot of their movies and I can rank their movies and determine which of their movies I liked best. A director, like Kore-eda, maybe I'd refrain from grading since I haven't seen any of his films, but others, like Wes Anderson? I actually did a blog post on Wes Anderson ten years ago or so, it'd be nice to revisit that topic.

-    ...should I get into video content? Podcasting? I briefly had a podcast from 2014 to 2016 called The Long Take Movie Podcast, I don't know if I'd revive that, but I may start making videos on Youtube. I have no audience for this blog. Like, none. Zip. Nada. It'd be nice to have, at least, a small following. I'm basically writing this long blog post to myself. When I debated about coming back to kenoncinema, one thought I had was... there are a lot of shitty "film critics" who have big platforms. Why not me? I actually studied film in college, I have a Master's in screenwriting, I've reviewed hundreds of movies, I've contributed for The Playlist for several years, I've written screenplays, I made a no-budget feature film and a few more short films. I feel like I have a pretty solid-ass background and I'm older and wiser now that I'm in my mid-30s. This is starting to sound like a bit snobby, but that's another thing: I'm totally not that guy. I generally hate myself! Ok, not really, but... generally speaking, I have self-loathing tendencies. I've curbed those tendencies as soon as I became a dad, but there's still there, deep down. I don't take myself all that seriously, but that's been kinda the problem. There's a balance. For too long, I haven't taken myself seriously enough (which is why I stopped writing all together: a crippling sense of self-doubt). So, I'm trying to reach that balance of making well-written reviews and engaging video content, while also not making it seem like I know more than anyone else. Anyway, I got off-track. I think I wanna make video content. I may start a Youtube channel in the hopes that people will visit this site. Maybe podcasting will soon follow, we'll see, but for now, I'm just trying to gain some semblance of a following. If it's ten people, that's enough. I'm getting too old to be writing and not getting any eyeballs on what I wrote. I'm also confident enough to know that I'm at least a decent writer. 

I'm thinking of making a video component to the "director overview" segment I want to do. I think I want to call it "Director Progress Report" or something, where I talk about a director's filmography and give them a grade. Another idea I have is called "Was that bait?" Basically, I talk about a movie released in the last 15-20 years and debate whether the movie was pure Oscar bait. I'll get into that idea at a later date, I've had that idea for like 2 years and have done nothing with it. Lastly, for the youtube page - brief, instant-reaction reviews. Like 1 minute reviews designed for Youtube shorts. It'd just be a plain ol' shot of my face giving my opinion.

I'm a bit nervous about doing a youtube page. It feels late in the game for me, right? Like, it's 2023, can I really get a following going that route? I don't know, but right now I have 0 followers so, gotta start somewhere.

One last idea: I kinda want to dive into my ol' blu-ray/DVD collection. Some of those movies I haven't even watched yet, somehow. Some I haven't watched in over a decade. I wanna break out the ol' collection and give my thoughts on the movie and maybe the blu-ray/DVD and the features. I don't know... everyone streams these days and it'd be nice to make some content on the giant collection I have that's just sitting on the top shelf of my closet gathering dust.

These are a lot of ideas. I'm gonna start slow for now, but that's just where my thought process is for now. I'll keep trying to update this blog on a regular basis and implement some of the above ideas along the way. That's all for now! Good night.

Oppenheimer review

 

The greatest thing about the movies, for me, is the feeling of awe I get when I'm forced to reckon with a truly great film. A film that challenges, spellbinds, confounds, and overwhelms me. A film that doesn't leave my mind hours after watching it and makes me speechless. No other art-form does that for me, especially now that I'm in my mid-30s. As you get older, you can feel jaded. Great cinema makes me feel like a kid again. There's nothing like it. and too often I forget just how powerful a film can be for me until one day, I sit down at the cinema and it happens all over again: pure joy. I can't find that kind of joy anywhere else. Being a husband and father? Sure, there's a lot of joy in that, but I find that fatherhood is more rewarding, the more I put into it. I have to work to find joy. With cinema, it almost feels like stealing. I'm just sitting in my seat watching a collective of dozens of artists making something special. Yeah, I spent money for that experience, but you don't always get that kind of experience with every movie. It doesn't happen every time. That's why, when it does happen, it really does bowl me over. "Oh yeah, I love movies!" I say to myself. Sometimes it's nice to get that kind of reminder every once in awhile.

With Oppenheimer, what writer/director Christopher Nolan pulled off is nothing short of a miracle. Think about what it is for a second. It's a 3-hour biopic! We've had biopics on famous scientists before (remember Theory of Everything? Imitation Game?), but none felt as BIG as this movie did. Somehow Nolan took Oppenheimer's life and work during the Manhattan Project and turned it into a major summer blockbuster. And while it does have a big, "bomb"-bastic sequence with the Trinity bomb test, a large majority of the film is just people in rooms talking. And yet, the frenetic pacing, the intensity of the soundtrack, the intricate sound design in general, the switch between black-and-white and color, and the incredible performances from a cast that's really an embarrassment of riches --- it all helped to amplify what was happening on screen. Every moment felt vital and I was hooked from the jump.

Oppenheimer is framed around two events: the interrogation of Oppenheimer in 1954 by the FBI and a Senate confirmation hearing for the Secretary of Commerce. From there, we dive into two separate timelines: 1) Oppenheimer's rise through the ranks, going from student to professor to director of the Manhattan Project 2) Oppenheimer's relationship and history with Lewis Strauss, the man who was appointed by Eisenhower to become Secretary of Commerce. The first timeline is in color; the second one is in black and white. Eventually these timelines collide and we come to find out how they link with each other.

I don't want to get much deeper into plot details. But what I will say is, when you read the above paragraph, it doesn't exactly sound all THAT "thrilling," right? In lesser hands, this movie would be "just another biopic" (remember Theory of Everything? Imitation Game?) and yet, it's filled to the brim with energy and is pure cinema from start to finish. Nolan uses all the cinematic tools at his disposal to make a truly immersive experience. By the end, I didn't even know what to say. Hell, I barely know what to say right now. I'm still in awe of what I just saw. Lately, I've been up and down on Nolan. I loved all his work in the 2000s all the way to Inception. After that? Dark Knight Rises and Interstellar were... decent. Dunkirk was amazing. Tenet was... ok. So here we are with Oppenheimer and... holy fucking shit! I've always been in the camp of referring to Memento as his best film, even after all the major blockbusters he's made since, there's something so original and clever about that movie. Well, he just may have topped it. 

Cillian Murphy's performance as Oppenheimer had the perfect light touch. It wasn't bombastic, he wasn't loud, yet he still carried gravitas. You could believe this man was a great theoretical physicist AND a celebrity. Moreover, Murphy nailed the constant inner conflict this man must've felt knowing his impact on the world. Basically, Oppenheimer is a very layered, complicated character and Murphy nailed all the nuances a performance like that needs. 

Robert Downey Jr. definitely got the "showier" performance playing Lewis Strauss. Man, I've heard some complain about the final hour and I'm completely confused as to how anyone could not be blown away but what is basically the Robert Downey Jr. show during the final act. We finally got to see RDJ really sink his teeth into a role that isn't Iron Man. How long has it been since he played someone this smarmy? A guy who makes you wanna punch him in the face? And when it's found out the kind of man Strauss really was, Downey Jr. leans into it and it's so very satisfying. 

I could spend all day talking about other performances, whether it's Jason Clarke as Roger Robb, Emily Blunt as Kitty Oppenheimer, or what about Florence Pugh? What about Benny Safdie?? Matt Damon as General Leslie Groves? The cast list just goes on. To me, Oppenheimer is Christopher Nolan's JFK. It's an obsessive look at a period of history with an editing style that's sometimes disorienting. But also, JFK had pretty much every important actor from 1991 appear in that movie. Oppenheimer is like that too. Just a ridiculous cast, which Nolan uses as a secret weapon. The constant surprise appearances from various famous actors kept me guessing and it was like a trick. Oh, Rami Malek is in the background of this scene? Oh, that character must be important, I'm gonna remember his face. Then you have an actor like Josh Hartnett show up and it's like, shit, when's the last time I've even seen Hartnett? And he gets to have a meaty role in this movie? Especially in light of the SAG-AFTRA strike, there's something gratifying seeing all these actors bring their A-game to this movie. 

I wish I could dig deeper into the cinematography and editing, but I was so immersed with the story and characters that it's going to require a second viewing to get into all that. I'll just leave you with some thoughts about what I feel the movie means thematically. Nolan has been pretty upfront about how he views the main character and the movie, in general, that this is meant to be a cautionary tale. I definitely got that impression, walking away from the movie. Oppenheimer was a very complicated man. That Time magazine cover hailing him as "the father of the atomic bomb"... yeesh. Knowing the sheer amount of damage and destruction that bomb did to two cities in Japan, that's not exactly a title one could be proud of, and yet that bomb was a culmination of a life's work. Everything that Oppenheimer was building towards in his career lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. The interrogations that followed from the FBI and Oppenheimer's unwillingness to really fight back the charges that were levied against him (despite his wife pleading for him to grow a pair), it speaks to the guilt he was experiencing and the martyrdom he felt necessary to indulge in.

All the renown scientists portrayed in the movie, whether it's the title character, Einstein, Niels Bohr, etc... it's crazy to think they spent their whole lives knee-deep in "theory". Oppenheimer, to me, shows the dangers of what could happen when theory can be put into practice. When great minds can be used as weapons. How the H-bomb could be concocted in a room full of scientists spouting theories back and forth. It's exhilarating to see these great minds at the top of their game in the moment, but then we soon see what can happen when these scientific achievements can get to the wrong hands.

There's a naïveté about Oppenheimer that's heart-breaking. Throughout the movie he talks about how he feels the creation of the atom bomb could be the key to ending all wars, yet we know that its creation and use would, instead, set the stage for a decades-long Cold War between the US and the Soviets. Threats of nuclear holocaust would dominate people's lives for several decades to follow. To think, all that started in those rooms in that makeshift city of Los Alamos, New Mexico.

And again, I'm not quite sure how Nolan did it. I'm not sure how he was able to take all this material and make it feel like a summer blockbuster despite there being no action set-pieces or CGI. This movie has more in common with A Few Good Men than The Avengers, but I think it's good to have a reminder that you don't need explosions to make a blockbuster movie. A great script, a collection of great actors, and a director using a wide array of cinematic tools---that's really all you need. Oppenheimer was worried about a chain reaction that could happen if an atomic bomb was detonated ---- could it destroy the world? Well what about the atomic bomb that is this movie? Could it set a chain reaction of more great big budget films to follow? We can only hope.