mail-4230

To walk on the shoulders of physic giants in the 20th century has always fascinated me. Those names: Heisenberg, Einstein, Bohr, Rutherford, Lawrence....as if they had invented the whole world within 2 decades! And those giants were made from human flesh! This is interesting, it really is.

And then there is Oppenheimer, a difficult and complex character that was the bridge to open up the story from curious invention of some european physicists to the american nuclear bomb, the destroyer weapon of worlds. What he really added to physcics is unclear, except the he as the project manager of the Manhattan project. Let me be brief: 2 hours should have been the length. But Nolan was so close to the book it turned out to be 3 hours and it is so full of details, we cannot grasp it all. All is elaborate dialogue, which is exhausting. Did we need all the twists, every union protest, every hearing in the senate, every 3rd grade lab specialist scene to tell the whole story of Prometheus?

Still, I can assure you that the best way to enjoy Oppenheimer is to watch the move a second time and just skip the useless parts and only enjoy the great scenes. Sounds crazy, but to me this is something typical to a Chris Nolan movie - the second time is better than the first time. What are the best scenes:

• Trinity Bomb Explosion
• Edward Tellers statement for the jury (the respected arch enemy)
• The White House scene
• Rami Maleks statement to the jury (finally revenge)
• Einstein lake scene (especially the finale)

Then there are all the other scenes which left me icecold the whole movie:

• All the love scenes and affairs (Jean Tatlock) are just a cover. Did Nolan want to get the female audience involved? This film is ALL about men, it has little to do with women or family, really. I do not mean this is in a mean way, it is just not what is important to Oppenheimer.

• Robert Downey Jr. Character Schwartz is often boring. He tells us little, just a small bureaucrat (shoe salesman) that wants his career in the White House and is willing to go over Oppenheimers dead body for that. Of course this character is important, but do we need to see so much of him? And why is is not at all relatable?

• instead of showing some footage of the real drop of the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, there is a theatre scene with Oppenheimer as the speaker to state that Japan was a "success". The audience gets grilled by the nuclear flash to illustrate the drama of mass murdership. The audience will understand this trick, however I think one should have invested in the real tragedy and show parts of the real thing to make it more credible why Oppenheimer starts to develop his guilt complex. Like flashbacks. This was a bit too surreal to me.

I leave it a this, but clearly this time Chris Nolan had no time to really reconsider if the movie should be really different from the book American Prometheus. There was no dramatic rewrite, instead he filmed every page. That did not help the audience.

Despite that, I can only say that watching the whole movie has 2 genuine scenes, that make it all worthwhile:

• Gary Oldman is incredible as Truman. Just some sentences and suddenly all self questionaires about guilt are ridicolous with Oppenheimer. It was Trumans decision to drop the bombs, not Oppenheimers. Oppenheimer is confused if his decision to run the project was really that important or not. Could he have avoided the nuclear arms race that was to follow or the bomb drops on Japan? Truman says no, you are just a project leader on nuclear bombs, I run the show. But how he says that - fantastic!

• The finale with Einstein: As usual Einstein is presented as a loveable character. But it helps! When you see the Teddybear being shocked by what Oppenheimer says to him about the world burning, it is touching. When Einstein turns and walk away, It is as if the atheist Einstein finally is angry with god about the faith of mankind. In that respect, a Einstein movie that was serious would have been the more interesting protagonist.

Maybe one has to watch the whole movie to feel the emotional rollercoaster that enfolds with these two scenes. Maybe not. As a film, Oppenheimer cannot compare to previous movies - maybe it would have been best to shoot a documentary instead.

This movie obviously does not appeal to everyone. To me is is likely Ridley Scotts most underrated film and that for no good reason. The movie is as good as Douglas prior performance (Wall Street) and delivers a compelling story on what men strive for in life. How the movie deals with truth, virtue and ethics Scott will later repeat as lead motives in Gladiator.

Looking at the movie 30 years later, everything aged well and is close to perfection just as a japanese consumer product: Story (straight, but not simple), Score (Zimmers first milestone in a great career), Camera and Set-up (Scott precisely demanded a dark futuristic look as in Blade Runner) and a great cast. In fact the look is done so well, the movie could run in theaters today unnoticed as a brand new movie. Heavy use of filters on the camera lense. Michael Douglas shows no weakness, Andy Garcia is pure joy and Ken Takakura as Yusaku Matsuda deliver a mesmerizing performance. Small spicy bits as the American attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as paranoia anchor in the storyline add a surprising depth to the plot. And I am surprised how often I can see that movie again and I am as enthusiastic as the first time.

What can you dislike about the film? Well, most certainly if you are looking for feminism and political correctness - this is a pure 80s men movie. It is lightyears away from today Zeitgeist. Nevertheless it has something timeless to tell. And it is emotional - very emotional.

What makes the movie so malish are the main characters motives: All men struggle in their own role in life (divorce/job/technocratic society) and in society (what is expected from a good man today?). It is not just a dark cop flic, this is the story vehicle. What is revealed is how much the individual (USA) or collective society (Japan) both have influence on the definition of a successful life. And that one can profit from insights into the other a lot. And how much cultures enjoy sharing timeless lessons on loyality, respect and comradery. Well, typical virtues that men enjoy and women are suspicious about. And that is what I love the flic!

This biopic has all the ingredients to make it unforgettable: Ray Kroc, played by Michael Keaton, is a late comer. Just 50 he knows that the McDonald System is his once in a lifetime opportunity to success. Not just success in a middle class sense, but becoming one of the key players in the economy. A success that comes with many casualties including his marriage.

Michael Keaton plays a charismatic character with unforeseeable moves and facettes. He is utterly reckless when it comes to making sacrifices. He can shine on sales shows and creates an economic future for many. Personally I think this kind of driven personality that does everything for success and that thinks beyond the usual scale can best be compared to Steve Jobs. And even though its about burgers and not chips, Kroc is best when it comes to playing people.

Along we have a great cast, I could not see any weakness, only mature strength. The director created a seamless experience and the feeling really rose with the fantastic soundtrack.

The movie affected me deeply as being an entrepreneur myself it is one of the first films that devoted itself to show how it is: Eating glass for years, managing all the trouble and all the downsides and one day, just one day you want to surf the wave of success. It is an incredibly difficult ambition and you just wish yourself aka Ray Kroc that one day, he will finally make it.

Unfortunately there are rarely exceptions to the rule of a lack of professionalism of German docu-drama - this is one. In a very balanced approach this is no propaganda, but shows the many sides of this important political figure. Cruel, how German media has otherwise banned Kohl from reports due to the bribe scandal which is none in all other western countries, not even by morale means. However the left wing majority has deemed Kohl to be persona non grata despite his quite historical importance for reunification. Gives immense inner views of CDU powerplay and private matters. Acting is superbe, genius script, technically great, worthwhile watching not only for politically interested audience.

Somehow a movie making creative drama of its own. The movies main idea is one of the boldest and brightest, however it could only achieve 90% of its potential. Thats still great, however we are talking Ridley Scott here, one of our best and brightest, certainly the best visual director ever. Why? The movie in making is a tragedy as Scott scores 100% of his potential, but except Fassbender and Arthur Max the rest cannot deliver on that level. This is particularly true to story writing (overdone, why 2 writers if the ideas are there?). here are the other flaws: 1. Movie suffers of being only compared to cinemas all time masterpieces, movie is still B level, technically A+++. B. Dramaturgy, timing and cuts are a fast pace, almost speed overdose as cut for attention disorder kids. C. certainly a 160 min Version will help it mature over time. Too many ideas in one movie, Lindelof overdoes characterization that is enough for Long Running TV series. Editing is questionable in its MTV style, fast cuts show that Scott or his editor lost temper of mere mortals surrounding him - or The Studios 2h Summer Movie Law f&€?! it all up.

D. Unbalanced Powers. Fassbender outplays Theron heavily, how cheeky of him; Rapace has not enough time to develop inner psyche terror as she usually does. Visually a milestone again, but at what cost? Scott looses the team, maybe due to his now epochal ego. rest of team can t stand a chance or is too impressed to challenge him - Soundtrack can't match Goldsmith, still great though, but lacks ideas such as Hansons symphony. Don't forget when you compare it to Alien what a masterpiece it was. O Bannons Alien script that was pure and focused. H.R? Giger lived as if it was only for this one movie. than the cast was exceptional, one in a decade crew. How does this these days? The Prometheus Movie has a unique idea (Compiled from Danikens Chariots of Fire) that was so strong: Where are we coming from and what purpose (here it is the intelligent idea of unnatural selection, earth as a breeding farm, nice!). But that was not enough for Scott or the studio to push millions into it. They stuck with the successful original too often and too obvious for me as a fan. , the storyline still is the normal Alien plot of Monster evolution on Top. One idea would have been enough. Smoke more certain grasses guys and relax as Kubrick did in 2001. All The Blade Runner ideas are nice but Show that Scott was already in The next movie without finishing this piece as it would have deserved. A directors Cut can heal 9o% of its flaws.

What as usual cannot be healed: German dubbing - helpless, uninspired, cheap and not able to keep the movies awing atmosphere. Only good job is Noomi Rapace voice, they match well from character and tone of voice.

After Scorsese and DiCaprio made the worthwhile "Aviator" it is with regret that this elaborate TV masterpiece is almost forgotten: It dares to portrait almost the whole life of Howard Hughes with far greater detail than Aviator, which certainly is more challenging for the viewer and at the cost of story telling, however after that you have a far better impression about the illustrious and manic personality of the first billionaire of the new age. The early dead of his parents, the apocalyptic end of Hughes, isolated and alone in various Hotels spread over the world, suffering from manias and letting hair and nails grow to the floor levels only surrounded by his Mormon servants is authentic and reported in biographies such as the Barlett/Steele standard and I cannot understand why DiCaprio/Scorsese thought they could tell the story about Hughes without several decades of his life. The bookkeeper character Noah Dietrich is at least given the importance he deserved and I assume the lack of flamboyance was the reason of cutting him out the Scorsese movie (not Rileys fault). Tommy Lee Jones delivers the best performance I have seen from him, hopefully the movie will be available online or on DVD somewhere soon.

I'm incredibly disappointed with the Godfather III, it has in no way kept any of the dramatic strength, the intensity nor the atmosphere of its predecessors. Many critics concentrated on the weak side parts, which is true compared to the long line of top actors in the first two episodes. There is no replacement for Robert Duvall, a John Cazale or a De Niro at all. Garcia is not bad, he plays the reincarnation of Sonny quite convincingly. But the part itself is not big enough to fill the movie nor is his love relationship to Corleones daughter. It was one of the key strenghts of the Godfather to integrate story lines of many characters in that "Family" environment and bind them well together. In Part III we see a scarcity of that, on top of it is blends the clichés of Mafia guys cooking pasta when they are at war, machine gun shootings when there is a reputation at stake and now the "evil church". There is no surprise in it and hell, how boring is it to have a real estate fund as a new ship for the Family - it's no way as interesting as a Casino.

I had hoped for more, the script fails behind and if I look at it objectively, Al Pacino seems not have had any significant new idea on how he could evolve the character of Don Corleone. Sorry, Mr. Coppola, this is below your standard.