steven_torrey
Joined Sep 2009
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings138
steven_torrey's rating
Reviews138
steven_torrey's rating
I found the movie difficult to follow at first. I've seen "Fat Man and Little Boy" and "In The Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" so I knew pretty much the parameters of the story.
"Fat Man and Little Boy" (with Paul Newman as General Leslie Groves) is a fairly straightforward narration of the development of the atomic bomb in the New Mexico desert. "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" a 1968 stage play by Heinar Kipphardt about the security clearance taken away from J. Robert Oppenheimer, for his sympathies for the Communist Party, by Lewis Straus; I believe it became a PBS production. So, I had a fairly good background in the story. I thought to myself, as the movie unfolded with numerous flashbacks, how confusing this film would be without that background information and how easily lost the audience could be.
What is the subject matter of the movie is a more challenging question: is it simply about the development of a destructive bomb or is it about the moral implications of scientists developing a bomb, and their regret for being involved in development of weapons of mass destruction?
The movie starts out with a quote from the Bhagavad Gita: "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." And Oppenheimer quotes the line with the first explosion of the atomic bomb, July 16, 1945. But there is a refrain from the get-go of the film of scientists creating such a destructive weapon. And the response that quiets the argument, "If Hitler had such a weapon, he would not hesitate to use it." And there is something disquieting about a background chant that to me sounded like jackboots of marching Nazis, as if to reinforce the question. Jackboots of any totalitarian state. (And what seemed unthinkable in 1945, now in 2023 so many nations own nuclear weapons, that any flash incident can end in nuclear holocaust. And North Korea insists on developing nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of destroying America.)
Peace comes to Europe in May before the Atom Bomb is finalized, but war continues in Japan. Truman orders the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to bring a final and forceful end to what could be a projected battle to the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.
Oppenheimer goes to Truman to bemoan the loss of life, that he feels personally responsible for; Truman is less than thrilled and never wants to see the "crybaby" (his words) Oppenheimer ever again.
Subsequent to the war, Lewis Straus, who in reality was indeed a very vindictive, mean spirited, petty person, wants Oppenheimer's security clearance taken away for his sympathies with the American Communist Party, of which his brother Frank is also an active member.
I saw the movie at San Francesco Balboa Theatre (35mm print) and they allowed for two breaks at the hour and 2-hour point of the three-hour movie. (I wouldn't detect the difference between IMax & 35 mm, ...)
It is not so terribly confusing a movie, it soon follows a straightforward narrative, but it is something of a challenge to follow.
"Fat Man and Little Boy" (with Paul Newman as General Leslie Groves) is a fairly straightforward narration of the development of the atomic bomb in the New Mexico desert. "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" a 1968 stage play by Heinar Kipphardt about the security clearance taken away from J. Robert Oppenheimer, for his sympathies for the Communist Party, by Lewis Straus; I believe it became a PBS production. So, I had a fairly good background in the story. I thought to myself, as the movie unfolded with numerous flashbacks, how confusing this film would be without that background information and how easily lost the audience could be.
What is the subject matter of the movie is a more challenging question: is it simply about the development of a destructive bomb or is it about the moral implications of scientists developing a bomb, and their regret for being involved in development of weapons of mass destruction?
The movie starts out with a quote from the Bhagavad Gita: "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." And Oppenheimer quotes the line with the first explosion of the atomic bomb, July 16, 1945. But there is a refrain from the get-go of the film of scientists creating such a destructive weapon. And the response that quiets the argument, "If Hitler had such a weapon, he would not hesitate to use it." And there is something disquieting about a background chant that to me sounded like jackboots of marching Nazis, as if to reinforce the question. Jackboots of any totalitarian state. (And what seemed unthinkable in 1945, now in 2023 so many nations own nuclear weapons, that any flash incident can end in nuclear holocaust. And North Korea insists on developing nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of destroying America.)
Peace comes to Europe in May before the Atom Bomb is finalized, but war continues in Japan. Truman orders the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to bring a final and forceful end to what could be a projected battle to the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.
Oppenheimer goes to Truman to bemoan the loss of life, that he feels personally responsible for; Truman is less than thrilled and never wants to see the "crybaby" (his words) Oppenheimer ever again.
Subsequent to the war, Lewis Straus, who in reality was indeed a very vindictive, mean spirited, petty person, wants Oppenheimer's security clearance taken away for his sympathies with the American Communist Party, of which his brother Frank is also an active member.
I saw the movie at San Francesco Balboa Theatre (35mm print) and they allowed for two breaks at the hour and 2-hour point of the three-hour movie. (I wouldn't detect the difference between IMax & 35 mm, ...)
It is not so terribly confusing a movie, it soon follows a straightforward narrative, but it is something of a challenge to follow.
It would seem to be a most unpromising film about a porn star, even if it is that famous movie with a weird (and impossible) premise of misplaced anatomy.
The first part of the movie is fairly straightforward linear telling to the story about Linda Lovelace being corralled into making a pornoflick. The second part of the movie looks back at the first part and describes what really happened. Confirms one's worst impressions of a male dominated industry where women are "objects." The second part describes the physical abuse of women, the sexual abuse (rape) of women, the alcoholism, the drugs, and so on. I don't know that they couldn't have done it differently or better.
Linda Lovelace got her pay envelope for 17 days work of $1250, for a movie that would garner $600 million. $1250 for what amounts to one step above a stag film and would normally be expected to earn maybe that much in mob owned theaters. Certainly, it has none of the production values of Emmanuelle, or Misty Beethoven, or Behind the Green Door. And $600 million would be according to mob-accounting that used pornoflicks for money laundering of earnings from drugs, prostitution, illegal gambling, etc.
1972 and this movie brought sex out of the closet but not in the same way as the AIDS crisis of the 1980s would. And one wonders what porn industry thinks of where it is now, where the internet allows everyone to become an porn star?
And one always has to ask this question: why is it acceptable in America to see a guy with an ak-47 walking down the street, and not acceptable to have a naked couple walk down the street. Answer me that. Why this level of demented in America.
The first part of the movie is fairly straightforward linear telling to the story about Linda Lovelace being corralled into making a pornoflick. The second part of the movie looks back at the first part and describes what really happened. Confirms one's worst impressions of a male dominated industry where women are "objects." The second part describes the physical abuse of women, the sexual abuse (rape) of women, the alcoholism, the drugs, and so on. I don't know that they couldn't have done it differently or better.
Linda Lovelace got her pay envelope for 17 days work of $1250, for a movie that would garner $600 million. $1250 for what amounts to one step above a stag film and would normally be expected to earn maybe that much in mob owned theaters. Certainly, it has none of the production values of Emmanuelle, or Misty Beethoven, or Behind the Green Door. And $600 million would be according to mob-accounting that used pornoflicks for money laundering of earnings from drugs, prostitution, illegal gambling, etc.
1972 and this movie brought sex out of the closet but not in the same way as the AIDS crisis of the 1980s would. And one wonders what porn industry thinks of where it is now, where the internet allows everyone to become an porn star?
And one always has to ask this question: why is it acceptable in America to see a guy with an ak-47 walking down the street, and not acceptable to have a naked couple walk down the street. Answer me that. Why this level of demented in America.
I saw the film for the first time (June 16, 2023) on the TV screen and saw it primarily as a character study of people (bank robbers & police) under stress. Somehow, I missed completely any and all allusions to homosexuality & transgender. (Partly due to hard of hearing...)
I also kept wondering why Police didn't take down Sonny Wortzik (played by Al Pacino) when he was outside of the bank and take a gamble that Sal Naturile (played by John Cazale) would not kill the hostages. And I kept wondering, what police would do differently if presented with the same opportunity. According to the Wiki article, this movie is used for training purposes of Hostage Negotiators. I could believe that. It had a sense of reality docu-drama to it and apparently, the director, Sidney Lumet, allowed actors to improvise so long as the improvisation was consistent with the story line and characters. That sense of reality, explains why one of the hostages practicing military drill with a rifle, didn't use it to take down the two bank robbers.
I knew nothing about the movie, that it is apparently based on a real-life event; in the end, Sidney Lumet and the actors created a believable character study of people under stress.
I also kept wondering why Police didn't take down Sonny Wortzik (played by Al Pacino) when he was outside of the bank and take a gamble that Sal Naturile (played by John Cazale) would not kill the hostages. And I kept wondering, what police would do differently if presented with the same opportunity. According to the Wiki article, this movie is used for training purposes of Hostage Negotiators. I could believe that. It had a sense of reality docu-drama to it and apparently, the director, Sidney Lumet, allowed actors to improvise so long as the improvisation was consistent with the story line and characters. That sense of reality, explains why one of the hostages practicing military drill with a rifle, didn't use it to take down the two bank robbers.
I knew nothing about the movie, that it is apparently based on a real-life event; in the end, Sidney Lumet and the actors created a believable character study of people under stress.