Film What did you watch last night???

[hansreinhardt]

39 minutes ago, BreakBeatDJ said:

 

Thanks for the thoughtful response.  Your point about the parallel stories of Strauss and Oppenheimer is well made.

 

I understand your POV about everything above, but the science part.  I would respectfully disagree. In fact, this film made an overt attempt to keep the science out of it.  If you look at other films with difficult to conceive scientific concepts, they find ways to involve the viewer in the STEM discovery (Moneyball is a math and sports movie, that educates the viewer on the math concepts that drive the narrative).  

 

In Oppenheimer, when we reach the goal (the explosion) we don't know enough causation science (other than chain reaction) to be included in their triumph.  Instead all we can do is simply view them enjoying their triumph with no real idea of how they did it.  And more than that, no real sense of Oppenheimer's genius of having overcome scientific hurdles to do it.

 

I agree that the topic is important, interesting, etc.  And like you, I love a good movie about discovery, especially a STEM one.  But here, the viewer was not taken on the journey of scientific discovery, we are put in a position to accept that the project was going forward, but were never included on the ride, the scientific ups and downs.  What scientific hurdle did we actually see overcome?   The only thing was the accumulation of marbles in a bowl.  That's how we knew they were ready to go, not because of any moment of discovery that included the viewer, and showed Oppenheimer's genius.  The ride we were taken on was a personal/political one, in which security clearances, fractured relationships based on politics and fear, geo-political competition, competition between scientists, those were the hurdles we saw, not scientific ones.

 

STEM films are few and far between and this feels like a real missed opportunity to include scientific concepts coming to life.  Dramatizing a daunting problem in an esoteric field was barely attempted in this movie.  Blurry calculations in the background, a wide-eyed oppenhiemer viewing fission for the first time, Einstein and Oppi discussing their discoveries . . . but we were never told what concept made fission possible, what was the core craft of discovery, what were Einstein and Oppi's scientific discoveries that they should be held accountable for?  . . . that is where the magic of a STEM film is imo.

 

Do we ever see Oppenheimer's genius in the field of physics being active?  We see he's a genius because he can learn Dutch in 6 weeks, and can read Sanskrit, but he can't explain to the viewer what his "breakthrough" was.  He throws stemware in the corner and watches it break, but what did he see in the breaking?  We are invited to accept his genius based on others evaluation, without any active manifestation of that genius in the core scientific concept of what the film is about.

 

It's clear to me early on, that Nolan had no interest in making the science part of the story, but rather wanted to focus on Oppenheimer himself.  In fact, the bomb itself was not the story at all, it was the backdrop to Oppenheimer's journey.  Nolan is clever enough to have included the science if he chose to, but that was not the film he wanted to make.  The fact that the film went on for an hour after the explosion, tells us the arc is not a scientific one, but an Oppenheimer one.

 

Did you see the Showtime series Manhattan?  So good, and so bummed it was cancelled.  After watching that, I did a deep dive in to the Manhattan project, so fascinating the dynamics of Los Alamos and the way that community functioned.

 

Anyway, if you made it this far, thanks for reading bud, I appreciate the conversation.  

The movie isn’t fresh in my mind and I’m having a difficult time recalling specifics, so just spitballing here—maybe there was concern about too much science weighing down the character development (even though I’d probably argue it would’ve strengthened it in the end). I didn’t feel it was entirely absent myself, but now I am itching to rewatch it. 

 

For example I think Interstellar fits the bill of a STEM movie much better by comparison, and I feel like a lot of folks I talk to had no understanding *at all* of what was happening. Could there have been an apprehension about alienating a subset of viewers I wonder? 
 

Just thinking out loud—fascinating reading yours and @Nadam’s takeaways. 

[BreakBeatDJ]

17 minutes ago, hansreinhardt said:

The movie isn’t fresh in my mind and I’m having a difficult time recalling specifics, so just spitballing here—maybe there was concern about too much science weighing down the character development (even though I’d probably argue it would’ve strengthened it in the end). I didn’t feel it was entirely absent myself, but now I am itching to rewatch it. 

 

Yeah, there was definitely science in it, for sure, but it was only tangental part of the arc of developing the bomb.  He explains early thoughts on black holes, and also some other concepts, but they were not connected in the narrative to the bomb.  When we see the explosion, we have no real idea of how they made that happen.

 

19 minutes ago, hansreinhardt said:

For example I think Interstellar fits the bill of a STEM movie much better by comparison, and I feel like a lot of folks I talk to had no understanding *at all* of what was happening. Could there have been an apprehension about alienating a subset of viewers I wonder? 

 

I agree, Interstellar really took a deep dive in to some very complicated concepts.  Great point.

 

22 minutes ago, hansreinhardt said:

Could there have been an apprehension about alienating a subset of viewers I wonder? 

 

Yeah, I think you're right, but more than that, I just don't think Nolan wanted to make that movie.  He made the movie he wanted to make.  He wasn't interested in the craft and process of scientific discovery (and so spent little time on it), he was interested in exploring the consequences of scientific discovery on the people who make them, from a character stand point.  At least that is what is on the screen. 

[Nadam]

1 hour ago, BreakBeatDJ said:

 

Thanks for the thoughtful response.  Your point about the parallel stories of Strauss and Oppenheimer is well made.

 

I understand your POV about everything above, but the science part.  I would respectfully disagree. In fact, this film made an overt attempt to keep the science out of it.  If you look at other films with difficult to conceive scientific concepts, they find ways to involve the viewer in the STEM discovery (Moneyball is a math and sports movie, that educates the viewer on the math concepts that drive the narrative).  

 

In Oppenheimer, when we reach the goal (the explosion) we don't know enough causation science (other than chain reaction) to be included in their triumph.  Instead all we can do is simply view them enjoying their triumph with no real idea of how they did it.  And more than that, no real sense of Oppenheimer's genius of having overcome scientific hurdles to do it.

 

I agree that the topic is important, interesting, etc.  And like you, I love a good movie about discovery, especially a STEM one.  But here, the viewer was not taken on the journey of scientific discovery, we are put in a position to accept that the project was going forward, but were never included on the ride, the scientific ups and downs.  What scientific hurdle did we actually see overcome?   The only thing was the accumulation of marbles in a bowl.  That's how we knew they were ready to go, not because of any moment of discovery that included the viewer, and showed Oppenheimer's genius.  The ride we were taken on was a personal/political one, in which security clearances, fractured relationships based on politics and fear, geo-political competition, competition between scientists, those were the hurdles we saw, not scientific ones.

 

STEM films are few and far between and this feels like a real missed opportunity to include scientific concepts coming to life.  Dramatizing a daunting problem in an esoteric field was barely attempted in this movie.  Blurry calculations in the background, a wide-eyed oppenhiemer viewing fission for the first time, Einstein and Oppi discussing their discoveries . . . but we were never told what concept made fission possible, what was the core craft of discovery, what were Einstein and Oppi's scientific discoveries that they should be held accountable for?  . . . that is where the magic of a STEM film is imo.

 

Do we ever see Oppenheimer's genius in the field of physics being active?  We see he's a genius because he can learn Dutch in 6 weeks, and can read Sanskrit, but he can't explain to the viewer what his "breakthrough" was.  He throws stemware in the corner and watches it break, but what did he see in the breaking?  We are invited to accept his genius based on others evaluation, without any active manifestation of that genius in the core scientific concept of what the film is about.

 

It's clear to me early on, that Nolan had no interest in making the science part of the story, but rather wanted to focus on Oppenheimer himself.  In fact, the bomb itself was not the story at all, it was the backdrop to Oppenheimer's journey.  Nolan is clever enough to have included the science if he chose to, but that was not the film he wanted to make.  The fact that the film went on for an hour after the explosion, tells us the arc is not a scientific one, but an Oppenheimer one.

 

Did you see the Showtime series Manhattan?  So good, and so bummed it was cancelled.  After watching that, I did a deep dive in to the Manhattan project, so fascinating the dynamics of Los Alamos and the way that community functioned.

 

Anyway, if you made it this far, thanks for reading bud, I appreciate the conversation.  

 

I greatly appreciate your viewpoint, as I 100% agree that it could have used a heavier emphasis on the science aspect. But, for what it was (more of a drama of Oppenheimer's life), I really enjoyed it. Still, more focus on science (like Moneyball as you mentioned) would have made it even better. 

 

I have not seen Manhattan, but I definitely need to start it here soon. Thank you so much for the suggestion, and also the fun and insightful conversation! I love these thought-provoking and deep discussions on film and whatnot.  

[LeadFarmer]

not bad at all however a little strange albeit in a good way it was a prequel to army of the dead.

[Nadam]

It was SO GOOD! The concept is that an audio engineer for movies accidentally records the assassination of a major political figure while out recording random sounds for the film he is currently working on. As a result, he ends up involved in a conspiracy wanting to silence him and another witness so that the tape doesn't go public in order to disprove the fake narrative thrown out by the police and government. 

 

This movie actually took the idea from a 1966 film, Blow-Up by Michelangelo Antonioni, where the concept is a photographer is out taking pictures in nature and accidentally captures the murder with his camera. So, he works to solve the mystery. Blow-Up is a phenomenal work of art, and I love every second of it, so Blow Out had big shoes to fill for me. After finally watching it, I can easily say Blow Out did a magnificent job, as the cast really brought this movie to life! John Travolta and Nancy Allen were AMAZING as the protagonists, and John Lithgow was on his A-game as the antagonist (the hitman).

 

I cannot recommend this movie enough!

 

[LeadFarmer]

stumbled across this film some years ago browsing youtube when looking for more western movies to buy. I ended up watching the whole thing on there which you can still do today. The intro and outro song immediately grew on me so much to the point I'd listen to it often when driving home late night from work and when I would sit and just let my mind wander. In any case a good spaghetti western to watch.

[Chief_lookout]

Avoiding watching Nice Guys forever because I thought it was The Other Guys. Started watching it tonight and am thoroughly enjoying! Got about 30 mins left on it which I'll prolly finish tomorrow night!

[hansreinhardt]

 

Third time watching this one. I don't revisit it often because it freaks me the hell out. It's really well done though. JK Simmons steals the show as the alien expert. 

 

[Nadam]

Just finished my second Kore-eda film! This movie is really something special, as it doesn't use any kind of big dramatic scenes, epic music and whatnot to keep the attention of the viewer. This movie just shows the simplicity of this older couple's life as their two kids and their families come home for the once-a-year family ritual to pay respects for their third child (son), of whom lost his life trying to save another person from drowning. As you watch them go about their mundane daily tasks, you get to witness conversations that feature even the slightest facial expressions and body gestures (alongside some comments) from the parents that indicate a reserved anger and sadness over the loss of their third child years ago (the array of motions can be seen, but are also very subtle). Their second child, the only male child now (in addition to his sister), feels that his parents wish he were the one that died instead of his brother. The entire film flows so well that it doesn't come off boring in the slightest -- such a feat is remarkable, and easily shows how much Kore-eda really is a master of the craft.

 

I loved this movie so much, and am so glad I am getting to experience more of Kore-eda's work! After Life is still my favorite, but this is an incredibly close second. 

 

 

 

[LeadFarmer]

Bit of a strange one. I may need to watch it again but my first viewing I was trying to make sense of some scenes with the aliens. I understood the struggle of trying to keep a grip on reality and not knowing if events transpired were real but other scenes again had me thinking what the hell is going on here. 

[Veum]

 

 

🥤📺🎬💽  🍿🧋watched 

 

 

 

Sun - Wed Feb 25-28 ‘24 

 

 *Your Honor (2020-2023) S1 - S2 ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ 1/2

 

A judge's son who gets involved in a hit-and-run and faces a web of lies and choices. 

 

 

 

Wed Feb 28 ‘24 

*Mobsters (2008) S1 E1-2 ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️

 

 

Features the true stories behind the mob legends who have ruthlessly clawed and fought their way to their own precarious versions of the American Dream.

 

S1 E1 Whitey Bulger

James “Whitey” Bulger reigned supreme in Boston’s underworld for more than 20 years. His power, as part of South Boston’s Irish-American Winter Hill gang, was due in part to a remarkable relationship with the FBI.

 

S1 E2 Murder, Inc.

Murder, inc. was a ruthless gang that carried out mob hits during the 1930s. As the enforcement arm of The Syndicate, members of Murder, Inc. killed an estimated 1,000 people from coast to coast.

 

 

S1 E1 - Whitey

 

Edited February 29 by Veum

[Heywoodmoutaw]

On 2/25/2024 at 11:16 PM, Chief_lookout said:

Avoiding watching Nice Guys forever because I thought it was The Other Guys. Started watching it tonight and am thoroughly enjoying! Got about 30 mins left on it which I'll prolly finish tomorrow night!

I love that movie and I find that everyone who discovers it likes it.  In a sane world that movie is a hit, and we’re talking about sequels.

[Heywoodmoutaw]

On 2/26/2024 at 10:02 PM, LeadFarmer said:

Bit of a strange one. I may need to watch it again but my first viewing I was trying to make sense of some scenes with the aliens. I understood the struggle of trying to keep a grip on reality and not knowing if events transpired were real but other scenes again had me thinking what the hell is going on here. 

I read this book when I was a teenager, then saw the movie.  It’s hard for the movie to build up as slowly with “I’m not a person who believes this nutty stuff, how am I becoming this person?”

 

I haven’t looked at what he’s up to lately but at the time Streiber, who was already a well known writer of stories nothing like this one, claimed this really happened to him.

[LeadFarmer]

1 hour ago, Heywoodmoutaw said:

I read this book when I was a teenager, then saw the movie.  It’s hard for the movie to build up as slowly with “I’m not a person who believes this nutty stuff, how am I becoming this person?”

 

I haven’t looked at what he’s up to lately but at the time Streiber, who was already a well known writer of stories nothing like this one, claimed this really happened to him.

Yeah I ordered a used copy of the book for cheap but was shocked to see he wrote it claiming it was based on his real life events. 

[LeadFarmer]

Originally borrowed it from a neighbor on vhs but when we opened the case there were roaches (I know kill it with fire) so we quickly gave it back with the excuse we already saw the movie and just forgot. I eventually did see it when my family rented it from our local video store you know the classic Friday night movie rental pizza combo us 90s kids enjoyed so much. I've considered it a good watch ever since. The music score will have you ready to grab a sword and start slaying dragons trolls any entities from the warp that dares to stand before you.

[LeadFarmer]

[LeadFarmer]

A good watch and a great music score as well. It starts off slow but picks up. It's interesting seeing Adam Sandler act in this role especially taking into consideration his genre of movies he was so known for in his younger years. My mom who was no fan of said movies watched this with me and even she walked away with an appreciation for it. I'm not an emotional guy but the ending hit me in the feels.

[LeadFarmer]

Last night was the night for lonely cosmonauts. 

[LeadFarmer]

How many of you guys are still watching walking dead? For me the excitement isn't there as much as it was when the series was younger but I am still intrigued to check in from time to time to see what's happening and who's still alive.....or not.

[nathan_s82]

7 minutes ago, LeadFarmer said:

How many of you guys are still watching walking dead? For me the excitement isn't there as much as it was when the series was younger but I am still intrigued to check in from time to time to see what's happening and who's still alive.....or not.

I stopped watching after they killed Carl off. After reading the series, and see the drastic changes (which I understand for tv), I couldn't continue on.

[hansreinhardt]

30 minutes ago, LeadFarmer said:

How many of you guys are still watching walking dead? For me the excitement isn't there as much as it was when the series was younger but I am still intrigued to check in from time to time to see what's happening and who's still alive.....or not.

 

I think after Season Three or Four, I finally gave up. For me it became too formulaic—they go to a new town, conflict happens, they're on the run again. Rinse and repeat. 

 

That first season though was so incredible. 

[LeadFarmer]

25 minutes ago, nathan_s82 said:

I stopped watching after they killed Carl off. After reading the series, and see the drastic changes (which I understand for tv), I couldn't continue on.

That's how my mom felt when she was said "they killed my boy Carl I'm done." Plenty of my coworkers felt the same as well. It definitely felt odd when Rick left for me or I should say lost I guess. 

[raylight]

vor 37 Minuten schrieb LeadFarmer:

How many of you guys are still watching walking dead? For me the excitement isn't there as much as it was when the series was younger but I am still intrigued to check in from time to time to see what's happening and who's still alive.....or not.

In the beginning I liked the series much because it was something new and also heavy and rough.

Spoiler

But after killing this asian guy by Neagan and in the following episodes noone took revenge and of course everytime again they went into the same traps it was just boring and going from 8-9 from 10 oints down to 3-4 points in my opinion. I Dont know it exactly but I think I stopped somewhere in season 7...can that be ? Whatever...people who can talk to Zombies etc...no...sorry...it was getting more and more nonsense and just ridiculous in many cases.

Too bad, you could have made more of it and the real goal...rescue or is there still someone out there? It became more and more irrelevant and therefore the whole series was pointless and silly in my eyes.

 

Edited March 4 by raylight

[LeadFarmer]

6 minutes ago, hansreinhardt said:

 

I think after Season Three or Four, I finally gave up. For me it became too formulaic—they go to a new town, conflict happens, they're on the run again. Rinse and repeat. 

 

That first season though was so incredible. 

Agreed it was like they were grinding to level up. New area new minions leading up to eventual boss fight. I will say I was interested in world beyond because it showed them experimenting with the zombies  

[LeadFarmer]

30 minutes ago, raylight said:

In the beginning I liked the series much because it was something new and also heavy and rough.

  Hide contents

But after killing this asian guy by Neagan and in the following episodes noone took revenge and of course everytime again they went into the same traps it was just boring and going from 8-9 from 10 oints down to 3-4 points in my opinion. I Dont know it exactly but I think I stopped somewhere in season 7...can that be ? Whatever...people who can talk to Zombies etc...no...sorry...it was getting more and more nonsense and just ridiculous in many cases.

Too bad, you could have made more of it and the real goal...rescue or is there still someone out there? It became more and more irrelevant and therefore the whole series was pointless and silly in my eyes.

 

Yes well said. You summed up part of the reason I went from watching every Sunday night faithfully I mean the entire episode to losing interest so much to the point where I would start flipping between episodes and something else on to missing entire episodes altogether and just reading a quick rundown of whatever I missed. It went on like that until the last season and I didn't even finish that.