What movie have you watched lately

I figured, so I gave it a pass.

From what I can tell, it's a post-modern, neo-Marxist movie about a Marxist fellow traveler if not card carrying Communist who, if he didn't directly pass nuclear secrets to the Soviets, associated with those who did.

Lillian Hellman was a silly writer in comparison.

What a week-end for movies: Marxist apologia and the most WOKE view of male-female relationships possible.

I would suggest that everyone go see Sound of Freedom instead.

But, i read that last year the Energy Department revoked the decision made in 1954 that took the security clearance from Oppenheimer. That means he didn't have anything to do with Commies?

Dunno. To be honest, this whole movie marketing from the actors over-hyping feels like a scam to me, each passing 15-20 minutes i was trying to convince myself that it will become more interesting until it was done, superficial, a boring biopic with some thriller elements. No wondering they were saying no CGI was used, there was no need for it when 99.99% of the movie you have people just talking to each other, despite that, i didn't knew the context what was going, it was hard to me to figure out exactly what role/position has who, especially Strauss.
 
Oppenheimer was just another intellectual fellow traveler. Like the Cambridge spies in England, being pro-Soviet was acceptable during the 30s and 40s because the Soviet Union was our ally against the Nazis. However, once the war was over and the U.S. saw the route which the Soviet Union was taking, things changed.

Had it been my decision to make he would never have gotten his security clearance in the first place. Every important person in his life, including the women with whom he was intimately involved were members of the Communist Party.

"When he joined the Manhattan Project in 1942, Oppenheimer wrote on his personal security questionnaire that he had been "a member of just about every Communist Front organization on the West Coast".[59] Years later, he claimed that he did not remember saying this, that it was not true, and that if he had said anything along those lines, it was "a half-jocular overstatement".[60] He was a subscriber to the People's World,[61] a Communist Party organ, and he testified in 1954, "I was associated with the communist movement".[62] From 1937 to 1942, Oppenheimer was a member at Berkeley of what he called a "discussion group", which was later identified by fellow members Haakon Chevalier[63][64] and Gordon Griffiths as a "closed" (secret) unit of the Communist Party for Berkeley faculty.[65]"

"Oppenheimer's party membership, or lack thereof, has been debated. Almost all historians agree he had strong left-wing views during this time and interacted with party members, but it is disputed whether he was officially a member of the party. At his 1954 security clearance hearings, he denied being a member of the Communist Party but identified himself as a fellow traveler, which he defined as someone who agrees with many of communism's goals but is not willing to blindly follow orders from any Communist Party apparatus.[67]
In August 1943, he volunteered to Manhattan Project security agents that George Eltenton, whom he did not know, had solicited three men at Los Alamos for nuclear secrets on behalf of the Soviet Union. When pressed on the issue in later interviews, Oppenheimer admitted that the only person who had approached him was his friend Haakon Chevalier, a Berkeley professor of French literature, who had mentioned the matter privately at a dinner at Oppenheimer's house.[68] Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves, Jr., the director of the Manhattan Project, thought Oppenheimer too important to the project to be ousted over this suspicious behavior. On July 20, 1943, he wrote to the Manhattan Engineer District:"

"Throughout the development of the atomic bomb, Oppenheimer was under investigation by both the FBI and the Manhattan Project's internal security arm for his past left-wing associations. He was followed by Army security agents during a trip to California in June 1943 to visit Tatlock, who was suffering from depression. Oppenheimer spent the night in her apartment.[76] Tatlock committed suicide on January 4, 1944, leaving Oppenheimer deeply grieved.[77]
Many of Oppenheimer's closest associates were active in the Communist Party in the 1930s or 1940s, including his brother Frank, Frank's wife Jackie,[78] Kitty,[79] Tatlock, his landlady Mary Ellen Washburn,[80] and several of his graduate students at Berkeley.[81]"

 
I am not sure about this whole thing, my concern was more on the huge hype that a lot of mediums were giving Nolan's Oppenheimer, i fell for it, and i was disappointed by what was served, maybe if the hype was more humble i would have been less critical.
 
Amistad.
… saw the replica schooner last weekend at the Mystic Seaport Museum, … I was surprised as I thought it was in New Haven, but there it was!

f3yrpS8.jpg


kJCQNIt.jpg
 
Stallone … “I’m proud to be part of such beautiful strong people …” (Gioia Del Colle - Apulia) .. got the key of the City, cool :)
His Paternal side is Apulian.

September 2023
 
Last edited:
I watched this


And after Oppenheimer (equally bad movie) this is a major disappointment, i believe this movie was made just to profit from the AI hype, dumb movie. Denzel Washington's son is overrated as actor IMO.

For this year, i have high hopes on Scorcese's upcoming movie this month. I hope i don't get disappointed.

 
I watched this


And after Oppenheimer (equally bad movie) this is a major disappointment, i believe this movie was made just to profit from the AI hype, dumb movie. Denzel Washington's son is overrated as actor IMO.

For this year, i have high hopes on Scorcese's upcoming movie this month. I hope i don't get disappointed.


"Killers of the flower moon" looks very promising. I am definitely going to watch it.
 
The last movie I watched was "The Nun II." I'm a big fan of the original, which is one of the few horror movies that genuinely scares me.
 
I started to like watching South Korean movies, they're not bad..
 
I watched this


And after Oppenheimer (equally bad movie) this is a major disappointment, i believe this movie was made just to profit from the AI hype, dumb movie. Denzel Washington's son is overrated as actor IMO.

For this year, i have high hopes on Scorcese's upcoming movie this month. I hope i don't get disappointed.


Well, it was an over-rated movie.

Well acted though, but the story plot is unbelievable, how can they get away with murders with such an obvious overview/guess on who might be doing or ordering.

But i realized it's actually almost 100% based on true events. It's a tragedy, and so many bad things happening to this native community. On top of it, what makes it worse Bill Hale was released from prison at latter point. I guess native American lives were not counted as human beings lives.
 
Last edited:
No recent movies that hook you to the story, very empty and with no soul.

Welcome to the new era.

80-90s were the best time to live, atleast in USA.
 
Oppenheimer was just another intellectual fellow traveler. Like the Cambridge spies in England, being pro-Soviet was acceptable during the 30s and 40s because the Soviet Union was our ally against the Nazis. However, once the war was over and the U.S. saw the route which the Soviet Union was taking, things changed.

Had it been my decision to make he would never have gotten his security clearance in the first place. Every important person in his life, including the women with whom he was intimately involved were members of the Communist Party.

"When he joined the Manhattan Project in 1942, Oppenheimer wrote on his personal security questionnaire that he had been "a member of just about every Communist Front organization on the West Coast".[59] Years later, he claimed that he did not remember saying this, that it was not true, and that if he had said anything along those lines, it was "a half-jocular overstatement".[60] He was a subscriber to the People's World,[61] a Communist Party organ, and he testified in 1954, "I was associated with the communist movement".[62] From 1937 to 1942, Oppenheimer was a member at Berkeley of what he called a "discussion group", which was later identified by fellow members Haakon Chevalier[63][64] and Gordon Griffiths as a "closed" (secret) unit of the Communist Party for Berkeley faculty.[65]"

"Oppenheimer's party membership, or lack thereof, has been debated. Almost all historians agree he had strong left-wing views during this time and interacted with party members, but it is disputed whether he was officially a member of the party. At his 1954 security clearance hearings, he denied being a member of the Communist Party but identified himself as a fellow traveler, which he defined as someone who agrees with many of communism's goals but is not willing to blindly follow orders from any Communist Party apparatus.[67]
In August 1943, he volunteered to Manhattan Project security agents that George Eltenton, whom he did not know, had solicited three men at Los Alamos for nuclear secrets on behalf of the Soviet Union. When pressed on the issue in later interviews, Oppenheimer admitted that the only person who had approached him was his friend Haakon Chevalier, a Berkeley professor of French literature, who had mentioned the matter privately at a dinner at Oppenheimer's house.[68] Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves, Jr., the director of the Manhattan Project, thought Oppenheimer too important to the project to be ousted over this suspicious behavior. On July 20, 1943, he wrote to the Manhattan Engineer District:"

"Throughout the development of the atomic bomb, Oppenheimer was under investigation by both the FBI and the Manhattan Project's internal security arm for his past left-wing associations. He was followed by Army security agents during a trip to California in June 1943 to visit Tatlock, who was suffering from depression. Oppenheimer spent the night in her apartment.[76] Tatlock committed suicide on January 4, 1944, leaving Oppenheimer deeply grieved.[77]
Many of Oppenheimer's closest associates were active in the Communist Party in the 1930s or 1940s, including his brother Frank, Frank's wife Jackie,[78] Kitty,[79] Tatlock, his landlady Mary Ellen Washburn,[80] and several of his graduate students at Berkeley.[81]"

The film hardly mentioned Enrico Fermi who created the first nuclear reactor.
 
"Il Primo Re" (The First King) remains one of my favorite movies as it recounts Matteo Rovere's interpretation of Romulus and Remus' struggle for survival. The focus on the importance of respect and fear of the gods is a type of story that I think would be well appreciated by many ancient Romans if they were still alive today. For this reason and several others I very much appreciate Rovere's aversion to modern hollywood/liberal moral structures. The weapons, armors, clothing sets and building construction is correctly based on Villanovan era material culture finds with help from the Universita Sapienza in Rome. The language used is a modern attempt at reconstructing Old Latin, which is quite far removed from the Classical Latin that most of us are familiar with. I have heard some Latin speakers and linguistic experts critique this aspect, with at least one complaining that the reconstruction was too "innovative" and that it deviated too strongly from Proto-italic. Since I'm not an expert in this field I'll leave that to those who are, but I do give them points for the attempt. I see a lot of stylistic similarities with Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" which I also think was performed in very good taste. The actors here are all Italian so you're thankfully not forced to endure the mental disease fetish of those who'd rather characterize historic figures from southern europe as black, middle eastern, nordic, indian etc.

If you haven't watched it, it's definitely worth a look. Even those who have no interest in Roman history have genuinely loved it when I showed it to them. It's one of the few recent movies that I think is well worth its salt.

1706974257069.jpeg
 
Last edited:
One of the newer movies i actually enjoyed watching. Available on Amazon Prime.

 
One of the most enjoyable neo-noirs out there after Heat.

 
Well, it was an over-rated movie.

Well acted though, but the story plot is unbelievable, how can they get away with murders with such an obvious overview/guess on who might be doing or ordering.

But i realized it's actually almost 100% based on true events. It's a tragedy, and so many bad things happening to this native community. On top of it, what makes it worse Bill Hale was released from prison at latter point. I guess native American lives were not counted as human beings lives.
Fact is stranger than fiction.

These events happened and given human greed and the eye-watering racism of that era it was also perfectly plausible.
 
I rewatched an Italian film I have seen years ago called Illustrious Corpses or Cadaveri eccellenti by Francesco Rosi who is widely recognised for his political thrillers, along with Elio Petri and Damiano Damiani. The film follows Inspector Rogas (Lino Ventura) in his investigation of a series of murders in which the victims are prominent judges. Rogas is faced with a conspiracy involving the (deep) state and adviced to look for a mad loner or to pin the killings on some of the far-left groups. It's a hardly original plot, even at the time, but it does reflect the tumultous 1970s in Italy and tensions between the state, the Left and the Democrazia Cristiana. While this is a relatively good film, I can't shake off the impression that something is missing. The pieces are not really falling into place because some seem to be missing. Rosi does not provide a deeper insight into the state-sponsored conspiracy. It's just there. Nevertheless, I consider it a classic and recommend it to everyone interested in political thrillers.

I only watch classic films and cannot stand the term "movie." It does not imply the work of an auteur, artist or simply a director who has something to say, something informative and educational employing the means of drama. A "movie" is something the viewer consumes and that consumes him. It suggests cheap, dumbed-down entertainment with no other purpose but financial gain, exploiting the most base emotions and impulses of an audience turned into paying spectactors. The last 30 years or so have produced some good films, even in Hollywood, but not a trace of creativity is left in that industry. In my opinion, cinema is dead. Everything has been done and much better at that. If people are still watching films in 30+ years, no one will remember what has been produced in the last 10 years or so, perhaps even more. But some of classics will still be watched and talked about here and there.
 

This thread has been viewed 64281 times.

Back
Top