Posts Tagged Emily Blunt

Film review: Disclosure Day

June 15, 2026 at 7:58 am · Filed under Film & DVD Reviews ·Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Introduction

I’ve never really got the whole ‘If it were proven beyond all doubt that we Earthlings were not the top of the food chain in God’s universe, then organised religion would collapse overnight’ argument.

Why?

Christianity survived proof that the Earth was not the centre of the universe with the other planets revolving around it, though admittedly, it took a while, and the likes of Galileo got a bit of a hard time about it.

It also survived Evolution, with a few die-hards persisting with outright denial to this day, but the vast majority managing to incorporate Darwinian Natural Selection into God’s Great Plan.

I can see no good reason why they shouldn’t be able to accept extra-terrestrial life-forms as fellow members of God’s creative handiwork.

And Christians aren’t the only game in town when it comes to religion. Buddhists and Daoists would take such a development in their stride, as they do most everything. Indeed, when high-ranking Tibetan Llamas started arriving in the West in the fifties and sixties, many of them still thought the world was flat. They took the news that they’d been misinformed with little more than a rueful shrug.

Hindus have so many looking strange beings in their pantheon of Gods that I don’t think a few more would phase them unduly either.

I’m not sure where Islam stands on the issue, but if we were subjected to a hostile invasion involving vastly superior technology, I’d definitely, on current form, give the Shia a key role in marshalling our defence.

Of course, many people aren’t religious at all. But I have a more optimistic view of human nature, of human beings of all religions and none than the Guardian reviewer of this film in that I think that, if were to have a real Disclosure Day and be presented with verifiable true footage of spindly, harmless looking traditional ‘Grey’ type alien visitors being subjected to horrific experiments by a shadowy government (American, inevitably) backed corporate entity we would be righteously appalled.

Plot

I say all this because the ‘This film will challenge everything you think you know about God and our place in the universe’ angle has been one of the main selling points of the movie.

Actually, this was only a marginal, though important and interesting aspect of the film. We have some religious symbolism, a blink and you’ll miss it appearance by Jesus (and, to be honest, I did miss this, only knowing about it through Mark Kermode’s review on You Tube), but is largely explored through the character of Jane (Eve Hewson), a one-time Novice-Nun, whose mind is quickly put at rest as regards to what all these Alien goings-on she’s stumbled into mean for her Faith by a single quote from Genesis delivered by her kindly former Nun-mentor Sister Maura (Elizabeth Marvel).

Jane is the girlfriend of Dr Daniel Kellner (Josh O’ Connor). Daniel is a former employee of this shadowy corporate-government organisation, Wardex (perhaps a stand-in for Elon Musk’s Space X), after absconding with a huge cache of memory sticks upon which he has downloaded almost eighty years’ worth of absolute proof of Alien visitations, dating back to the notorious Roswell incident of 1947. He intends to use this cache to disclose this information simultaneously to the whole world. Wardex, led by the villainous Noah Scanlon (Colin Firth, getting to be the baddie for a change).

Meanwhile, beautiful but restless Kansas City TV weathergirl Margaret Fairchild (Emily Blunt, the real star of the show), who shares her life with bumbling, amiable and soon uncomprehending boyfriend Jackson (Wyatt Russell, channelling Woody Harleston), begins to have strange experiences after a Disney-esque Red Cardinal bird (all of the animals in the film, which are actually Aliens taking on a form that is palatable to us humans, are Disney-esque, I think deliberately so) flies into their kitchen while she is expressing her desire to relocate for what is clearly the umpteenth time.

These experiences include being able to converse fluently in foreign languages she’s never learned, without knowing she’s doing it, the ability to read the minds of others, or to appear to them as long-lost loved ones.

Most of all, she is an empath, and ‘Empathy is a Superpower’ is the central, positive message of the film.

Soon, Margaret and Daniel are brought together by an equally shadowy, but benevolent group of ex Wardex employees, led by Hugo (Coleman Domingo), who are determined to help Daniel to finally get the Truth out there.

It becomes clear that this coming together and Margaret is no accident, that it has long been predestined by Close Encounters they’d had separately in their childhood, the memory of which they had suppressed.

They are to be the joint vehicles through which the existence of the Aliens will finally be revealed to the world.

The movie soon becomes a traditional chase/quest movie, taking place against a backdrop of a world on the brink of World War 3 over tensions on the Korean peninsula (due to the actions of the dastardly DPRK of Hollywood imagination).

There is one particularly thrilling chase scene involving a train in a scene that Spielberg has acknowledged as a conscious nod to Hitchcock’s North by Northwest.

It’s a Big Hollywood Steven Spielberg film, so it’s big in every way, impeccably directed, great cinematography, a big score by John Williams, plenty of thrills and spills, human interest and humour, all performed by a great ensemble cast.

Conclusion

I won’t give the ending away, though the title gives a pretty big clue as to who comes out on top in the battle between the Truthers and the anti-truthers. All I’ll say is that I found the climactic last twenty minutes or so to be both thrilling and moving.

There are criticisms to be made, for instance, the Alien device utilised by Margaret, Daniel and Co. in pursuit of their quest is something of a McGuffin. But I enjoyed the film too much to want to dwell on such things here.

Of course, you could, as some have, dismiss the whole thing as a fairy story based on conspiracy nonsense, and maybe I’m guilty of Confirmation Bias, because I want very much for extra-terrestrial visitations to be true. That is so because I have a heart and soul and don’t work for the Guardian.

But I’m not alone. Spielberg has called his original story a summation of both his cinematic work in the Science Fiction genre and his own longstanding studies of UFO/UAP sightings and abduction accounts. He believes the film to be true ‘in essence’, so the question really as to its quality as a movie should be, ‘Did Spielberg convince us that he is indeed a believer, and did he realise his vision in such a way as to make that belief seem plausible?’

On both counts, I say a big yes. I might have somehow missed Jesus speaking fluent Aramaic, with every word, of course, understood by Margaret, but I wasn’t bored for a single one of the movies two-hundred-and-twenty minutes: What more can you ask of a wet Thursday afternoon?

A worthy addition to the great Spielberg canon. Maybe not as groundbreaking as Jaws, ET, or its spiritual predecessor Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but a fine movie nonetheless.

Postscript   

I’m aware that there is an alternative reading of this film that sees it as part of an ongoing Psyop, linked to the real-life disclosures promised by the Trump administration and the no doubt entirely benevolent ‘training’ being provided to American Evangelical ‘Pastors’ by Israel to prepare them for a potential faith-shattering series of ‘revelations.’  I don’t dismiss this reading out of hand and will certainly bear it in my mind when and if events linked to ‘The Alien Files’ unfold. But, for now, a deep dive into that particular rabbit hole could ruin a very good film.

Anthony C Green, June 2026

Directed by Steven Spielberg

Screenplay by David Koepp, from a story by Steven Spielberg

Music by John Williams

Starring

  • Emily Blunt
  • Josh O’ Connor
  • Colin Firth
  • Even Hewson
  • Wyatt Russell

Advert

 

 

Leave a Comment

The Devil Wears Prada — Fashion, Power, and the Quiet Cost of Becoming Someone Else

June 14, 2026 at 11:34 am · Filed under Film & DVD Reviews ·Tagged , , , , , , , ,

There are films that arrive with a burst of hype and then fade, and there are films that quietly embed themselves in the culture, quoted, referenced, and revisited long after their release. The Devil Wears Prada (2006) belongs firmly in the second category. On paper, it’s a workplace comedy set in the fashion industry. In practice, it’s a film about power, identity, and the subtle, creeping cost of ambition — all wrapped in the immaculate tailoring of a Meryl Streep performance so controlled it borders on mythic.

Anne Hathaway plays Andrea “Andy” Sachs, the earnest journalism graduate who stumbles into a job at Runway magazine, a job she neither wants nor respects. Hathaway gives Andy a kind of open‑faced sincerity that makes her early awkwardness painful to watch: the shapeless sweaters, the clunky shoes, the hopeful smile that dies a little each time someone looks her up and down. She is the outsider in a world that speaks a language she doesn’t understand.

And then there is Miranda Priestly. Meryl Streep doesn’t play Miranda so much as inhabit her — a performance built on micro‑expressions, glacial pauses, and a voice so soft it forces everyone around her to lean in. It’s one of those rare performances where the actor’s restraint becomes the source of the character’s power. Streep strips away the clichés of the “boss from hell” and replaces them with something far more interesting: a woman who has survived in a world that punishes softness, and who has learned to weaponise precision, silence, and expectation.

Miranda is also, crucially, not remotely PC — and that’s part of her enduring fascination. She doesn’t flatter, she doesn’t soften her language, and she doesn’t pretend to care about the emotional comfort of the people around her. She judges ruthlessly, dismisses incompetence without apology, and expects the world to meet her standards rather than the other way around. In 2026, when workplaces are drenched in HR‑approved phrasing and corporate empathy theatre, Miranda’s bluntness feels almost radical. She is a relic of an older professional culture — one where excellence was demanded, not negotiated — and the film never tries to sand down her edges. It lets her be formidable, exacting, and occasionally cruel, because that is the truth of who she is.

Andy’s journey begins with humiliation. Her early days at Runway are a blur of ringing phones, impossible demands, and the constant sense that she is one mistake away from being fired. Emily Blunt, in her breakout role as senior assistant Emily Charlton, plays her with a brittle, hilarious desperation — a woman who has built her entire identity around serving Miranda and who sees Andy as an unworthy intruder. Blunt’s performance is sharp, funny, and tinged with sadness; she is the loyal soldier who has given everything to a system that will never love her back.

The turning point comes when Andy, after yet another icy dismissal from Miranda, decides she has had enough of being the office joke. With the help of Nigel — Stanley Tucci at his warmest and most quietly devastating — she undergoes the famous transformation. The clothes change first: Chanel boots, sleek coats, immaculate tailoring. But the real transformation is internal. Andy learns the rhythms of the office, anticipates Miranda’s needs, and begins to excel. Hathaway plays this shift beautifully, letting Andy’s confidence bloom even as the audience senses the cost.

Because the cost is real. As Andy rises, her old life begins to fray. Adrian Grenier’s Nate becomes the embodiment of the life she is drifting away from — supportive at first, then resentful, then quietly alienated. Her friends roll their eyes at her new priorities. Andy herself starts to feel the dissonance between who she was and who she is becoming. The film never condemns her ambition, but it does show how ambition can quietly rearrange your values when you’re not paying attention.

Paris is where everything crystallises. The city is a dreamscape of fashion and power, but it is also where Andy sees Miranda’s humanity for the first time. Streep allows tiny cracks to appear in the armour: the tremor in her voice when she mentions her failing marriage, the flicker of fear when she realises her position at Runway is under threat. These moments don’t soften Miranda; they deepen her. They show the cost of being a woman at the top of a world that still expects women to apologise for their success.

And then comes the betrayal — not of Andy, but of Nigel. Tucci plays the scene with heartbreaking dignity, the quiet devastation of a man who has given everything to an industry that discards him in a heartbeat. Miranda sacrifices him to save herself, and Andy sees, with painful clarity, the kind of person she would have to become if she stayed on this path. It’s not that Miranda is evil. It’s that she is pragmatic in a way Andy cannot be without losing herself.

The moment Andy walks away — throwing her phone into the Paris fountain — is not a triumphant escape. It’s a moment of self‑recognition. She has reached the edge of who she is willing to be. When she returns to New York, she is not the naïve graduate who started the film, but someone who has seen the machinery of power up close and chosen not to be consumed by it.

The final scene between Andy and Miranda is one of the most quietly perfect endings in modern cinema. Andy sees Miranda on the street. Miranda pretends not to notice her. But once inside her car, she allows herself the smallest, most private smile — a smile that acknowledges respect, recognition, and perhaps even affection. It is the closest the film comes to a reconciliation, and it is enough.

What makes The Devil Wears Prada endure is that it refuses to simplify its characters. Miranda is not a monster. Andy is not a saint. Emily is not a villain. Nigel is not a martyr. They are all people navigating a world that demands more than it gives back. The film understands the emotional complexity of female power, the loneliness of leadership, the seduction of ambition, and the quiet bravery required to walk away from something that is consuming you.

And perhaps that is why the film still resonates. It understands that growing up — truly growing up — means recognising the moment when the cost of staying outweighs the fear of leaving. Andy learns it in Paris. Many of us learn it much later. But the lesson is the same: your life is yours to shape, and no job, no matter how glamorous, is worth losing yourself for.

By Christopher Storton

Picture credit: By IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8559391
Pat Harrington’s review of the Devil Wears Prada 2 is  here
Advert

Leave a Comment

The Devil Wears Prada 2: A Sequel Crying Out for the Old Miranda

June 7, 2026 at 7:17 am · Filed under Film & DVD Reviews ·Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Twenty years after leaving Runway, Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) has built a respectable career in journalism — right up until her entire newsroom is laid off by text message during an awards gala. At the same time, Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) faces a crisis of her own: a sweatshop scandal involving a major advertiser gives corporate owner Irv Ravitz (Tibor Feldman) the excuse he’s been waiting for to interfere. Runway publishes what should have been a glossy, harmles puff piece  on a major fashion brand — only for that brand to be exposed days later for using sweatshop labour. Without Miranda’s consent,  Irv hires Andy as Runway’s new features editor, a move that lands like a diplomatic incident.

Miranda, once the terrifying high priestess of fashion, now finds herself hemmed in by HR briefings, “tone workshops,” and a younger staff who don’t instinctively recognise her authority. Print is shrinking, advertisers are restless, and the magazine is being pushed toward cheap digital churn. Andy tries to uphold real journalism, but her long‑form pieces barely register in a world ruled by algorithms.

Andy reunites with Emily Charlton (Emily Blunt) — now a high‑powered executive whose company’s aggressive pricing strategies symbolise the industry’s moral drift. Meanwhile, tech investors circle Runway, including the serenely confident mogul Evan Roth (played with icy charm by an actor clearly enjoying himself), who sees the magazine not as a cultural institution but as an underperforming asset. As the pressure mounts, Andy becomes central to Miranda’s survival strategy — not as an assistant this time, but as someone who understands both the old world and the new.

The men orbiting Miranda and Andy remain so resolutely beige they could be painted directly onto the set. Kenneth Branagh, as Miranda’s latest husband, drifts through scenes like a distinguished but faintly bewildered museum patron — present, polite, and utterly incapable of matching her gravitational pull. Peter Brammall, playing Andy’s boyfriend Peter, fares no better: a man so gently supportive and narratively weightless he feels less like a romantic partner and more like a well‑meaning flatmate who occasionally remembers they’re dating. And then there’s Stanley Tucci, returning as Nigel, the lone male presence with actual flavour — sharp, warm, and effortlessly charismatic, reminding you how much more alive this world becomes when someone on screen has a pulse stronger than chamomile tea.

Themes: What the Film Tries to Say — and How Well It Says It

The film is preoccupied with change — who drives it, who benefits from it, and who gets crushed beneath it. It contrasts Miranda’s old‑world authority with the frictionless, jargon‑heavy ideology of modern tech.

The “techno‑manosphere” is embodied in nepo‑CEO Jay Ravitz (B.J. Novak) and Emily’s boyfriend Benji Barnes (Justin Theroux), a mash‑up of Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg. They spout shibboleths about “cutting expenses” (meaning people) and the inevitability of technological “progress.” Benji’s mantra — “You just have to get out of the way” — is the distilled essence of their worldview: change as inevitability, disruption as moral good, efficiency as destiny.

A critical planning session with a dozen consultants takes place, improbably, in the packed company cafeteria. When Jay invites Miranda, she asks, with surgical disdain, “Do we have one of those?” It’s one of the few moments where the film remembers who she is.

But the film’s biggest misstep is Miranda herself. The original Miranda was frightening because she embodied taste, hierarchy, and institutional authority at their most refined and ruthless. Here, she has been softened into something almost unrecognisable — tidy, tamed, and constantly shadowed by the moral anxieties of 2026. When we see Miranda struggling to hang up her own coat it’s clear that something has changed. And the dialogue tells us she no longer throws her coat at assistants due to HR complaints. The film seems more interested in showing a tamed Miranda than in understanding why she worked in the first place. The result is not growth; it is defanging.

And yet, the film does land one thematic point beautifully: tech’s victory is not inevitable. Without spoiling anything, the final movement hints at a future shaped not by dashboards but by people who still believe in the value of craft. It’s a quiet, almost stealthy note of hope.

Cameos and Watchability

Despite its flaws, the film is undeniably watchable. The cameos — designers, editors, influencers, and a few sly nods to real‑world fashion royalty — give it a fizzy, knowing energy. Lady Gaga’s brief appearance is a highlight: funny, pointed, and perfectly calibrated.

The film moves briskly, the locations are gorgeous, and the cast is uniformly committed. Hathaway remains a compelling centre of gravity; Blunt steals every scene she’s in; Streep, as Miranda, even in a softened register, still radiates authority. Even the tech bros are entertaining in their buffoonery.

It’s not the sharp, cruel, diamond‑cut satire of the original — but it’s never dull.

Would I See The Devil Wears Prada 3?

Absolutely.

And I’d like to see it go further.
I’d like the PC guff — the HR euphemisms, the corporate tone‑policing, the algorithmic hand‑wringing — to be presented as outdated. I’d like a return to mean Miranda, not just as a bully, but as a woman whose authority comes from taste, judgement, and the ability to see what others can’t.

If this sequel is about the world outgrowing its monsters, the third film should be about the world realising it still needs them. Because the truth is that industries don’t collapse from cruelty; they collapse from complacency. Prada 2 imagines a landscape where the sharp edges have been sanded down, where Miranda’s authority is treated as an embarrassing relic, and where institutions believe they can replace vision with workflow and taste with metrics. But the absence of monsters doesn’t create harmony — it creates drift. Standards loosen, identities blur, and the centre of gravity shifts from people who know what they’re doing to people who know how to present what they’re doing. A third film should confront that reckoning head‑on: the uncomfortable but necessary realisation that the figures once dismissed as tyrants were often the ones holding the whole thing together. Not because they were kind, or gentle, or easy, but because they cared enough to demand more than the world found convenient. We need the monsters and we need to learn how to deal with them.

By Pat Harrington

 

Leave a Comment

The Fall Guy (2024): A Thrilling Blend of Action, Romance, and Nostalgia

May 14, 2024 at 7:47 am · Filed under Film & DVD Reviews ·Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Click on image for buying and renting options

470 words, 2 minutes read time.

As a devoted fan of the original TV series, “The Fall Guy,” the 2024 cinematic adaptation held high expectations for me. Directed by the talented David Leitch and boasting a screenplay by Drew Pearce, this film promised to infuse new life into the beloved ’80s show. With a star-studded cast headlined by Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt, it was poised to deliver a fresh take on the classic premise.

From its premiere at SXSW to its subsequent international release, “The Fall Guy” captured my attention with its engaging storyline and standout performances. Ryan Gosling, known for his versatility, brought a captivating portrayal to Colt Seavers, the stuntman-turned-action hero. His portrayal was nuanced, blending humour and vulnerability effortlessly, breathing new life into the character.

Emily Blunt, in the role of Jody Moreno, showcased her range as an actress, infusing the character with both strength and warmth. While her character diverged from the original series’ Jody Banks, Blunt’s performance added depth and emotional resonance to the story.

Supporting the leads were a talented ensemble cast, each bringing their own flair to the film. Hannah Waddingham, best known for her role in “Ted Lasso,” delivered a memorable performance as Gail Meyer, the film producer. Teresa Palmer, recognized for her roles in “Warm Bodies” and “Lights Out,” brought her signature charm to the character of Alma Milan, Tom’s personal assistant.

Stephanie Hsu, a rising star with a background in theatre and television, shone in her role, adding humour and levity to the film. And Winston Duke, known for his roles in “Black Panther” and “Us,” brought gravitas to the character dynamics, elevating each scene he was in.

it’s interesting to note that David Leitch, who began his career as a stunt double for actors like Brad Pitt, directed the film, and his long-time friend and fellow stunt veteran, Chris O’Hara, worked behind the scenes as the Stunt Coordinator and Second Unit Director. No wonder, then, that the stunts are so impressive.

What truly set “The Fall Guy” apart for me was its nostalgic nods to the original series. From the surprise cameo by Lee Majors himself to the familiar strains of the theme tune, it was a delightful trip down memory lane for fans.

While some critics have pointed out the film’s light plot, it’s the performances and sheer entertainment value that shine through. As Rolling Stone aptly described it, “The Fall Guy” may be light on plot, but it’s heavy on action and heart, making it a thrilling ride from start to finish.

“The Fall Guy” is a must-watch for fans of action-packed comedies with a twist of mystery and romance. With its stellar performances, nostalgic nods, and pulse-pounding action, it’s a cinematic experience that’s sure to leave a lasting impression.

By Pat Harrington

Picture credit: By Universal Pictures – http://www.impawards.com/2024/fall_guy.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=75207794

Comments (1)

Oppenheimer: A Cinematic Tour de Force on Morality and Consequences

March 3, 2024 at 10:08 am · Filed under Biographical, Film & DVD Reviews ·Tagged , , , , ,

753 words, 4 minutes read time.

The film grapples with the moral dilemmas faced by Oppenheimer and his team during the Manhattan Project, the U.S. government research project (1942–45) that produced the first atomic bombs..

As the stakes rise, so does the emotional weight of their decisions, making it a powerful exploration of history and ethics.

The director, Christopher Nolan, employs a unique central framing device: Oppenheimer’s 1954 hearing before the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). This hearing becomes the fulcrum around which the narrative pivots. It reveals not only Oppenheimer’s scientific achievements but also his personal struggles.

The fallout from this hearing leads to his eventual fall from grace, intertwining fame, politics, and scientific legacy.

Throughout the film, Nolan presents scenes shot either in colour or black and white (or more accurately nuanced shades of grey). The difference in colour is likely not merely a change of time period; it may signify scenes presented subjectively or objectively.

These subjective scenes allow us to experience events from a character’s perspective, while objective scenes provide a more detached view.

The black-and-white scenes, the colour palette, and the focus on facial expressions all contribute to the film’s unique texture. Nolan’s direction encourages viewers to lean in, to decipher the unspoken, and to feel the weight of history.

“Oppenheimer” is not merely about scientific achievements; it delves into the emotional journey of its characters. Cillian Murphy, who plays Oppenheimer, captures the complexities of the man, including his tortured pathos.

Murphy knew from the start that portraying Oppenheimer would involve revealing the character’s thoughts through the smallest movements and gestures. His face becomes a canvas—a landscape—where emotions, doubts, and inner turmoil play out. The camera lingers on his expressions, allowing us to witness the gears turning in Oppenheimer’s mind.


It’s the kind of acting that intrigues audiences—the ability to see the character thinking, to read their face like an open book.

The film trusts the audience to engage actively, interpreting the subtleties etched on Murphy’s features.

“Oppenheimer” masterfully weaves symbols into its narrative, inviting viewers to contemplate the intricate threads of human existence, the choices we make, and the indelible marks we leave on the world. Nolan’s direction encourages viewers to lean in, to decipher the unspoken, and to feel the weight of history.

To give some examples:

Jean Tatlock’s Flowers:
Oppenheimer’s persistent act of bringing flowers to his troubled girlfriend, Jean Tatlock (portrayed by Florence Pugh), perhaps symbolizes desire for reconciliation, inability to let go, and emotional ritual.
The repetition of this gesture carries poignant meaning throughout the film.
Raindrops and Ripples:
Raindrops falling onto a pond create ripples that symbolize far-reaching consequences.
Oppenheimer’s existential weight of responsibility and the global impact of the atomic bomb are metaphorically depicted through this cyclic imagery.
Einstein’s Role:
Einstein serves as a guide and conscience for Oppenheimer.
Their conversation underscores the irreversible nature of scientific discovery.

Oppenheimer’s love life was intricate. After his engagement ended, he dated an array of “mostly very attractive youngish girls.” However, his path led him to Kitty Harrison, whom he married in 1940. Kitty became a steadfast partner throughout his life.

Jean Tatlock, with whom Oppenheimer had a passionate love affair, left a lasting impact. Their relationship was intense and complex. Ruth Sherman Tolman, a close friend, who was a little more than that. She was a psychologist, and her husband, Richard Tolman, was a key figure during the Manhattan Project.

Many friends, lovers and associates were Communist Party members or ‘fellow travellers’ as the film makes clear. This was something often used as a weapon against him. As anti-communism rose and the Cold War began having Communist friends was a liability for anyone but for someone who required security clearance and kept so many secrets, even more so. His complex relationships with Jean Tatlock and others reveal the intricate dance between personal beliefs and the changing demands of government and institutions.

The resilient and intellectually formidable Kitty Oppenheimer, portrayed by the talented Emily Blunt, emerges as a powerful counterpart to her brilliant husband. Kitty’s endurance amid both their personal flaws, forgiveness, and unwavering determination shape their relationship. Her quiet strength embodies the often overlooked heroines who leave indelible marks on history.

Oppenheimer weaves together Oppenheimer’s personal and professional life, exploring the agonizing success of the Manhattan Project. Nolan’s direction, Murphy’s performance, and the film’s exploration of morality and consequences make it a cinematic tour de force, offering a powerful and immersive narrative experience.

By Patrick Harrington

Picture credit: By Universal Pictures Publicity, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71354716

Comments (2)

Film review: Sicario (2015)

October 27, 2015 at 7:15 am · Filed under Film & DVD Reviews ·Tagged , , , ,

15 | 121 min
Director: Denis Villeneuve
Writer: Taylor Sheridan
Stars: Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin, Benicio Del Toro

“Sicario” follows an idealistic (or naive!) FBI agent, Kate Macer (Blunt), recruited to a government task force to aid in the escalating war against drugs at the border area between the U.S. and Mexico.

The secrtive and brutal methods of a mysterious and sinister agent Alejandro (Del Toro) and her superior Matt (Brolin) owe more to CIA black ops than police work. Sicario starts from the premise that normal, lawful methods have failed to win the ‘war on drugs’. No one in the film challenges that assumption. Steven Soderbergh’s Traffic (also starring Benicio Del Toro), showed how the drug trade influenced so many areas of life and how difficult it was to deal with. Now Sicario starts from the point that the war on drugs is lost and that the rulebook has to be thrown out of the window even to manage the trade.

Emily Blunt is convincing in her understated performance of a conflicted agent who is way out of her depth. Critics have said that Kate Macer is strong. That’s not my view. Macer compromises and shows weakness throughout. Whenever faced with a difficult moral choice she goes against her beliefs. She always submits to Alejandro and Matt eventually. I think she does that because, despite her moral qualms, she understands that they have the only practical solutions. That’s a dark message but perhaps a true one.

Sicario is a fascinating film with a thought-provoking theme. The set-piece action sequences (the opening raid, The Border crossing, the night- vision/tunnel sequence and the dinner scene) are nail-biting and intense.So it’s no wonder that the film has been well received. On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 95%, based on 175 reviews, with an average rating of 8.1/10. Small wonder that Lionsgate has already commissioned a sequel, centering on del Toro’s character. The project is being overseen by writer Taylor Sheridan with Villeneuve also involved.

Reviewed by Pat Harrington

Leave a Comment