Hey yall!

So we did it. Barbenhiemer double feature As I stated in my previous post:

https://lemmy.world/post/1887202

Oppenheimer review:

Overall I recommended people go see it in theaters, Preferably in IMAX.

The film tells Oppenheimer’s story well and conveys the complexity of Oppenheimer and the nuance of the situations that he was in. All of the performances where spectacular from a star studded cast. Its emotional, informative and visually pleasing. Go see it.

That being said: I ultimately found the film to be pretentious, tedious and kinda hard to sit through to the end. Many stylistic choices by Nolan get in the way of the films entertainment value.

SPOILERSZZZZZZZZZZZ BELOW

Some stylistic choices by nolan that I didn’t like:

1.)The entire movie is scene after scene of random jumps in time. There is almost zero contexts given for each scene. No year, or location is stated when scenes change. And the film takes place over 4 different time periods. Scenes just start up mid conversation: Oppenheimer in an office talking with some famous physicist for a 15 word conversation before another sharp cut to a different scene doing basically the same thing… For 3hrs.

While i feel this is purposeful by Nolan, maybe to prevent taking too much creative license with the story? Not sure, but it makes the film very confusing. There is such little effort made to explain the settings of each scene. Im glad I knew my history to fill in the gaps.

2.) Typical of a Nolan film: Its way too loud and too quite. The audio of explosions and visualization, shakes the whole theater while some fellow viewers cover their ears. Then the next scene, which is sharply cut from the previous one, is DEAD silent. Often followed by short whispered dialog. I couldn’t hear half of what was said.

3.) Maybe most frustrating thing: Nolan didn’t use cgi for the trinity test explosion.

Much of the movie builds to the Trinity test. Its the longest scene in the movie. The build up was emersive and exhilarating. Its honestly a incredible scene, until the explosion.

Unless you have lived under rock for the past 80+ years, you have probably seen the original footage of the trinity test. The real life footage is awe inspiring. Its surprisingly clear and detailed and shows the fury and scale of the first nuclear bomb. It’s mesmerizing and terrifying.

Christopher Nolan seems to think he can do a better job of creating an explosion than the real Oppenheimer and a real nuke. He’s wrong. The explosion during the Trinity test scene is severely underwhelming. So muxh so, It broke me out of the film. :(

Mission accomplished Mr.Nolan. Its painfully obvious you’re not using CGI. PS. If I wanted to watch movies made with 1930s tech, ill hit up turner classic.

I was so excited for this scene. Maybe its my fault for trying to enjoy Nolan’s recent films, instead of collapsing under the weight of the importance of the story.

Why he would choose to go this path can be nothing but pompousness. Like honestly, how are you going to make a 3rh movie about creating the atomic bomb, and then skimp on trinity test? Thumbs down Mr. Nolan.

Nolan is well on his way to become one of the legendary directors. Complete with a string of long “Epic” films I wouldn’t watch a 2nd time.

stay tuned for the Barbie review coming soon!

  • ClarkDoom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Theres a lot here and I dont have the time to tackle everything but I will say the movie isnt about making the atomic bomb, its about Oppenheimer and the complexities of the person who made the bomb because of his impact on history.

    There only being silence when the bomb actually went off was the perfect way to depict the scene - Oppenheimer opened pandora’s box and the focus is entirely on the person instead of the explosion. I thought it was a bold and intelligent creative choice precisely because it makes you engage with the inner workings of Oppy’s mind and the central premise of the film. Making the dramatic tension about an explosion instead of what the movie is actually about is what would have came off as pretentious to me.

    I think you can argue against the movie being pretentious in general because this isnt a work of fiction and Oppenheimer was incredibly important and influential and effected actual lives. Every little moment, quirk, or relationship molded him and created the person that literally changed the world. Folks can disagree on whether they have a positive or negative perception of Oppenheimer but to say the man and his life’s depictions are unimportant or pretentious doesn’t seem fair.

    • Discoslugs@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      focus is entirely on the person instead of the explosion.

      Then why not just use the original Trinity test footage. Why recreate the explosion in a different and obvisouly inaccurate way?

      Agree to disagree

      but to say the man and his life’s depictions are unimportant or pretentious doesn’t seem fair.

      I never said this so I dont know where you getting it from.

      • ClarkDoom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not sure how using that footage would have been more impactful than just focusing on the person like it did. Plus that would unnecessarily break the diegesis of the film.

        You said the film felt ultimately pretentious, that’s what I was responding to in that comment. Idk how this movie came off as pretentious considering the real world implications of his life. I didn’t get the feeling anything shown was unimportant but was trying to portray itself as more important than it actually was. Maybe I just need more clarification from you around that opinion.

        • Discoslugs@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You said the film felt ultimately pretentious, that’s what I was responding to in that comment. Idk how this movie came off as pretentious considering the real world implications of his life.

          People seem to be misunderstanding me here, i am saying Christopher Nolan is pretentious. not Oppenheimer the person. Not Oppenheimer’s actual life. I am not calling the events depicted inthe film pretentious.

          Im calling the director, Christopher Nolan pretentious. specifically His chioce to make the movie so Loud it hurt my ears and was visibly uncomfortable other viewers.

          But The main thing I find pretentious, is Nolan’s choice to not use CGI for the Trinity test scene.

          I didnt even know this was the case when I went to the film. I was simply underwhelmed by the explosion in the scene. And later started googling the film only to find out that he didnt use CGI.

          I dont care who you are. If you make movie about the Father of the nuke. The nuke scene should not be underwhelming. Thats my opinion at least.

        • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          you are clearly misunderstanding OP . He isn’t complaining that the trinity test focused on it’s maker. That is clearly a creative decision that IMO it worked well and I even agree with OP that while the movie is good, it is not amazing or anywhere near perfect.

          So what I believe he is saying is that you can focus on Oppie and still have an actual big bang for literally the biggest nuke known to man at the time. I really enjoyed the scene, and how they made it with that silence, but you can’t deny that if you take a still or just look at the explosion images it looks like they blew up a medium sized shack.