claudg1950

This film got bad luck at IMDB. Apparently, it managed to attract an unusual percentage of snobs who would speak quite well about the film but nevertheless they gave it a bad rating (perhaps to demonstrate how intellectual they were). Action films? Mehh.

Some viewers point out that the background of the plot (conspirators try to rise disturbs to sell their helicopter) is quite absurd and they are right (one point less for that), but to me that's where criticisms to Blue Thunder should stop. Besides, two colossally great action films come to my mind: in one a killer robot travels back in time to kill a woman but a defender is sent back to protect her... in another a disgruntled garden variety police officer, locked in a skyscraper, singlehandedly eliminates a platoon of well-trained and well-armed mercenaries who took the building. How reasonable these plots are?

Is Blue Thunder to be criticized by its acting or by its dialogues? I think both are very good. Certainly action is highly energetic. Not a moment to yawn.

As an action film with no pretensions of being testimonial or PC, I cannot honestly give it any point below a nine.

This is an excellent film, of course.

Before this I had a mediocre opinion of Nolan, mainly grounded in that he shamelessly lifted the plot of Inception from a Donald Duck comic strip (which is ok, but Nolan denied that all the time), And, also, to the fact that, to my surprise, I found Insterstellar boring after just ten minutes.

However, in Oppenheimer Nolan has gained my respect, because he produced a script worthy of Ben Hecht or Joseph Leo Mankiewitz. Dialogues are brilliant, sparkly, decisive and take place at a rapid fire succession. The interrogatory at the Kangaroo court is another model of great writing.

The energetic editing is also very impressive, though the constant back and forth somehow detracts from clarity.

I surely am in the minority, but I do not find Murphy's acting especially impressive: his role is too much one-note as to allow him to display his talents. As always, Gary Oldman did it perfectly in a 60 second's scene, and Robert Downey Jr shows what he can really do with a complex and extreme character.

My main complaint is that the film is too much interested into the attacks and political back-stabbings Oppenheimer suffered and very little to the reason he became a celebrity then. Then and now: Oppenheimer is remembered not by the mistreatments he suffered, but by his accomplishments.

Nevertheless, as I said, this is an outstanding film.