The whole communist-trial storyline was utterly uninteresting and unnessessary. Nolan apparently thought he was making a spy thriller midway. As if we would suddenly care about Oppenheimer's life on account of his personality.
shareI agree. No need to have so much focus on Strauss. Could have told the same story with cutting out 45-60 minutes.
shareI agree.
Spoiler alert:
About three minutes before the credits start to roll in this three hour film, a Senate aide finally comes to an accurate conclusion. The aide finally figures out that Strauss just isn't that important a guy. It would have been better if Nolan himself had reached the same conclusion--Strauss isn't all that important--maybe an hour earlier in the film and given Strauss (Robert Downey Jr) substantially less screen time.
Strauss is a significant enough to Oppenheimer to certainly warrant some focus--but he dominates this film to an extent not justified by his actual role in Oppenheimer's life.
Lol, well said. Strauss was there for RDJ to chew up screen time. Ironically, his acting was one of the more enjoyable parts of this movie, even though it all should have been cut out.
shareThen it wouldn’t have been the same story.
shareWell apparently people were interested in his life story considering the box office results. By the end of the first week by word of mouth people should have been aware that movie was about more than just the bomb.
shareyou think the consequences of his actions weren't important?
shareThe consequences in terms of the aftermath in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very important.
However the consequences in terms of Oppenheimer having some boring beurocratic license retracted is utterly insignificant.
The consequences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were that as many as a million lives were spared that probably would have been lost had an invasion of Japan taken place. The two bombs averted what would have been a far greater disaster.
shareThe movie’s entitled Oppenheimer-not the making of the atomic bomb. You can’t make a biopic about Oppenheimer and omit his coming under suspicion for communist sympathies and losing his security clearance. It’s the other famous aspect of his life.
shareNo, it's not.
shareexcept if he wasnt involved in the manhattan project, nobody would give a single fuck about him. this is like a movie called napoleon but 90% of it was focused on him being a whimpy cuckold. oh wait.
share???
shareSorry I thought you might've seen the new napoleon movie. Basically it's 90% about his personal life with josephine where he acts like a simp and let her cheat on him. He's also portrayed as being a weakling throughout the movie, like where he covers his ears whenever a cannon is fired. We watch a movie like napoleon to get to see his military exploits and political maneuvers. Maybe 20% of it should've been about his private life, instead it's 90%. With oppenheimer we wanted to see the manhattan project, not the witch hunt or his boring trysts with a communist wannabe.
shareThroughout history, soldiers have used some kind of ear protection, or their fingers or hands, when artillery was fired. It's not "being a weakling". It's just what any intelligent person does to try to prevent his hearing from being destroyed.
shareok then why does he wince? literally no one in his army is smart enough to cover their ears except him? he's their general, why didnt he advise his soldiers? why does he ride a horse all goofy and shit? why's he always so somber and sad looking?
share"ok then why does he wince? literally no one in his army is smart enough to cover their ears except him... why does he ride a horse all goofy and shit? why's he always so somber and sad looking?"
His hemorrhoids were inflamed
I didn't get that response at all from his covering his ears. Rather, I got that he was smart and was preserving his hearing.
And him being a "cuckold" is not at all what I got either. Rather, he had a very powerful connection to Josephine both intellectually and, especially, sexually.
Yes, we can.
Many biographical movies choose to highlight specific aspects of a famous personality's life. However, Nolan made a directing mistake; after building up to the climax of the film with the production of the bomb, he brings us crashing down with a whole hour of bureaucracy and dull internal politics.
You dismiss the grossly unjustified destruction of this national hero’s reputation as “dull internal politics”? Then you miss the entire point of the movie. The power of the Oppenheimer story is that he achieved the pinnacle of success, and then was brought down. THAT’S THE STORY NOLAN WAS TELLING. Since you're deluded enough to. think you know more about making good movies than one of today’s most celebrated filmmakers, you can omit that very compelling aspect of Oppenheimer’s life when you make your own version. Good luck!
shareI don't understand why you have to be so hostile when we talking about movies, but anyway, I just think he made a mistake to take the movie to that direction instead of just telling the story about the bomb. And many agree with me. Every director draws his strength from the audience, so our opinions count.
shareDid you think throwing out an accusation of "hostility" would distract anyone from noticing that you can't refute anything I said? And since Nolan won the Oscar, BAFTA, Golden Globe & Directors Guild awards for Oppenheimer, a movie that’s grossed nearly $1 billion to date, I’d say the opinions of those who agree with you don’t count for much.
shareI mentioned "hostility" for a few valid reasons. Firstly, you referred to me as "deluded." Additionally, you've labeled others with terms like "ignorant" and "Trump supporter" (while political affiliation isn't inherently negative, its inclusion here seems out of place). Such actions are unnecessary. Our conversations about movies should be conducted with dignity and respect.
Regarding your argument, why should I feel compelled to refute anything? The opinions expressed, both mine and others', indicate that the final portion of the movie is superfluous and boring. Why should I concern myself with whether it garnered awards or not? Is it taboo to critique a film despite its success? Furthermore, if you decide to take that stance, I could counter by stating that had Nolan embraced my idea, the film's rating might have get higher rating and garnered more awards.
Like many of us, you likely don't rate every movie a 10, even those that have won Oscars. Are you suggesting that you have no criticisms of the movie? Is there nothing you would have done differently?
Thanks so much for caring enough about my opinion to read my other comments! Very flattering. The rest of your lengthy post is just petty nitpicking.
You’re under the delusion that your opinion has merit because – well, because it’s your opinion, even though you can’t defend it. You take umbrage when your poor judgment is pointed out. You can’t see that the destruction of Oppenheimer’s reputation is just as essential a part of his story as his monumental success. That part doesn’t meet your childish threshold of boredom. But that's the story the creators were telling - not your version. Sad that you can’t be bothered to consider their intent.
One gets tired of self-indulgent moviegoers who come to this board to spew out ignorant reviews they can’t substantiate, vs. engage in a worthwhile exchange of ideas. I know you’ll feel compelled to post another wearisome response. I won’t waste my time reading it. You’re ignored.
It's hard to have a cultural discussion with an attitude like yours
sharelol that's literally where i stopped watching too. holy shit the movie was boring but everything after the bomb dropped was like 1000x more boring.
sharethe parts who needed to be cut are from the first hour. i did not give 2 shits about ugly midget florence pugh and her tities and her relations to tranny looking chilian murphy
share