Oppenheimer

Normally, the movie industry wants to shy away from bombs. But this story ain’t normal. Perhaps that explains the way director Christopher Nolan presents this tale—in a most unconventional way, particularly for a biopic. The storytelling here is eccentric, impressionistic, and idiosyncratic, with an almost staccato rhythm and pacing in the way it weaves its the tale. And 'weaving' is the correct term, as this story is nearly a co-biography of the title physicist and businessman and government official Lewis Strauss, with the parallel paths that the two men follow in the later years of their public careers displayed in intertwining narratives. Cillian Murphy is fine in the title role—he carries a heavy load here, being in almost every frame of the film—though Robert Downey Jr. almost steals the show (and will be a strong contender for a supporting actor award come next spring) as the antagonistic Strauss. The movie does have some flaws: some character introductions and scenes feel obligatory, the sorts of cinematic elements one often sees in a biopic; even with this work's nonstandard DNA, it can’t avoid some of the genre's cliches. Also, Nolan’s penchant for representational visual interjections—which lends a lot of that aforementioned staccato pacing—grows annoying after a while. Really, the whole style of the film is the greatest challenge the average viewer will face in watching this one. If you’re open to a non-conventional approach and allow the story to do its work, you will find this film to be rewarding, intriguing, in stretches even engrossing. But I also suspect that many viewers will be put off by the way Nolan’s direction asks a lot of the audience. That may be why, of the summer's two most anticipated releases, this one appears to have been left somewhat in the dust. Perhaps this should have been an Oscar-season release after all, and should not tried to swim against the summer blockbuster tide. Such a decision might have aligned expectations better for this film. Nevertheless, this movie is ultimately a success on its own terms, and one more interesting entry in the catalog of one of today’s most successful and intriguing directors. No bomb here; this project produced its intended product, be it a blockbuster or not.

Tenet

Be your own Bond. It’s a certainty that recent rumors about someone Black taking over the role of world’s preeminent movie spy informed the casting of this film’s lead. And it raises a good point: why take over someone else’s franchise when you have the opportunity to develop something wholly fresh and new? Of course, the trick there is to do the developing and actually create something that is fresh, and new—and well done. That goal is somewhat accomplished here. This is a spy film that’s so devoted to its on-screen skulduggery that it even keeps its secrets from the audience. The viewer is never really informed about who the players are here, which side is which, or what, or whomever. Add that to the deep humbug about winding and rewinding time and everything starts out as clear as mud…and pretty much stays there throughout. You can just let those aspects slip and choose to view the scenery; there is enough audacious action sequences that it can be enjoyed simply on that level. You can also appreciate John David Washington’s cool, always in control performance as the (strangely unnamed) man making the moves, in one timeline or another. Is that stuff positive enough to build an enduring franchise a la 007? Well, that remains to be seen, in the future…which may be the past…or something like that.

Dunkirk

Yeah, surprised me, too. But it turns out that the Bad Cat, apparently, is not a "moggie." Hence, patriotic exercises masquerading as a movie have little positive effect here. This is another example of "Saving Private Ryan" syndrome: "Let me throw a pastiche of combat scenes at you, which don't have any particular thread running through them other than their particular circumstance, and then I'll sit back and listen to your applause. Because, you know, War. And stuff." Narrative barely exists here; mostly, it's just an exercise in two hours of watching British guys sitting around looking mopey. And while certain creative liberties are to be expected in any movie, particularly a history of war flick, some of the license here borders on ridiculous. Day turns to night and then immediately back to day--the same day, apparently--again and again. And I'm pretty sure the same plane was shot down three different times. The movie drags, there seems to be little point (beyond setting up a Churchill oration book report), and the smart viewer's attention wavers to wondering how badly the British armed forces screwed up in allowing the situation to happen (and how incompetent the Nazis were in letting them get away). A major, major disappointment.

Interstellar

I think this movie's heart is in the right place. Director Christopher Nolan has built a lot of equity with previous works, so one might be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, or at least a pass on certain things. But that also means there's a pretty high level of expectations attached to his projects, and this one does not live up to that hype. I'm not bothered by the predictability of what seems to be an obvious attempt at ginning up a big "shocking twist"; I'm more concerned about the vagueness surrounding much of the film's presentation: the unsteady science (including that one major boner that every screenwriter seems to love, misunderstanding black holes), the characters' odd motivations, even just the set-up for why all this is necessary in the first place. Indeed, the science is so vague in some places that this might be a more honest movie if it were an outright fantasy, with everyone wearing robes and pointed hats and doing magic rather than talking about wormholes. Too much of what may have been intended as atmospheric obscurity simply comes across as intellectual or creative laziness. If you want to shoot something into space in a rocket, make it your lack of willingness to work the problem all the way through.

The Dark Knight Rises

A satisfying conclusion to Nolan's trilogy. Much more of a sequel to Batman Begins than its immediate predecessor--though that film has its impact here, too--this installment focuses strongly on the emotional life of its key characters, with heartening results when all is said and done. Even so, this is still a big, sweeping epic action hero movie, and it delivers the spectacle as well. One sour note: either I'm losing my hearing, or the sound mix was really poor (either in the theater or in the digital film; I couldn't particularly tell); either way, I could not hear far too much of the dialogue in the action sequences. There's also some muddle to the plot, especially early on, but a lot of that becomes clearer when you step back and look at the big picture. And this is, indeed, a big picture--and even worth the inflated ticket price of today's theater experience.

Inception

Christopher Nolan is rapidly rising up the roster of cinema's greatest directors, and here's another booster rocket for his rep. The plot and its execution may include more serpentine twists and turns than many audience members will tolerate, but the viewer who's willing to work a little is rewarded by the imaginative breadth of the vision and the deft execution applied to the visual presentation. How deep can you go indeed? If you're a sharp tack, take this plunge and you won't regret it.

The Prestige

Magic movies always have some appeal; there's built-in intrigue, you might say. Add to that a director as good as Christopher Nolan, and a fine cast led by Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale, and you've got a very likable movie, filled with strong performances, clever (but not too clever) twists, and just a dollop of humbug. It isn't quite as good as the contemporaneous, vaguely similar film The Illusionist, but it's worth it in its own right.

The Dark Knight

Holy shit. This is what you'd have if William Blake had drawn comic books: not just an action hero story, but a true vision of Hell--a realistic vision of Hell, an all-too-possible vision of Hell. The mayhem in Gotham City is what happens when the "terrorists" stop having rational motivations; when it's all about madness & randomness, when the violent act is the only end in and of itself. No wonder this movie has affected so many people (to the tune of so many millions of dollars). I too was blown away, not so much by this film as a piece of moviemaking; more so for the deep waters in which it treads. There's so much here that you can almost forget the amazing performance by Heath Ledger (if not for the publicity, you simply wouldn't know it was him under that make-up) and forgive the few minor faults. I wouldn't necessarily call it a masterpiece, but this is truly a film worth seeing. Posted .

Batman Begins

Not your typical comic book movie--and that's a good thing here. Director Christopher Nolan left the standard issue Batman camp in the vault, choosing instead to play it straight and serious, and the results are damn near spectacular. Everything feels very real: a terrific, entertaining story, well-presented and well-acted by Christian Bale, Michael Caine and others (including a tragic reminder that the now-trainwrecked Katie Holmes had a real career ahead of her). This film owes a lot not just to Frank Miller, but also Nolan's previous work (the very uncampy Memento and Insomnia), and even the '90s movie version of The Shadow (though this is a much better work than that). This franchise has been played out before, but if they want to have another go with this team, I'd be up for it.

Memento

The moral of this story: sometimes you can't even trust yourself. That's not a bad thing to keep in mind, even if your short term memory is not on the fritz. Besides that, this one is clever enough; you almost certainly will get lost in the rewind narrative at least once, but don't sweat it. And Guy Pearce once more makes the case that he's the Aussie with the heavy-duty acting chops.