• mlc894@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the movie is impressive in how it took the life of a very interesting man and turned it into something boring. Like, I didn’t even think that was possible beforehand.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well they do tend to have to tone down American heroes because most are super flawed.

      Thru can’t even cover some because it would be difficult to explain the huge gaps where freaky shit happened. Like the founder of jpl Jack Parsons, how would you explain the time he hung out on a boat with Hubbard until Hubbard fucked his gf/fiancee and kicked him off the boat. He doesn’t like the next three months “practicing magic” which was mostly writing wishes on slips of paper and masturbating onto them.

  • iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    Haven’t even seen it and it has vibes of “this could have been a 90 minute TV special”.

    If I’m going to the theater, I’m going for a spectacle. Anything less than that can be streamed.

    • PyroNeurosis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel a mini-series would work as well: The pacing was well maintained throughout all three hours and there were enough storylines to properly take breaks from each other.

    • babypuncher3000@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the cinematography for Openhimer was deliberately and deceptively simple. Nolan leverages the 70 mm format to capture a lot of textures without being heavy handed.

      This film was kind of a big departure from Nolan’s typical action oriented style. I do think that some of the performances were mid, and the dialogue was a bit droll at times.

      That said, I think he is extremely masterful in his ability to tell a story non linearly, which made the overall story more compelling since they packed a person’s whole adult life’s story into three hours.

      I think the ending conveyed the overall point of the film, and still highlights the complexity of human nature.

      Overall, I think the Openhimer tries to use subtleties in an era when “bigger is better”.

    • letsgocrazy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Disagree.

      There’s plenty of biopics out there - but this one really has some powerful moments, that benefit from the cinema.

      It adds a bit of depth and gravitas.

    • DeriHunter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Got to agree, when you have 75 oled tv with Sonos sound bar + sub and 4k dv releases, it needs to be a real special movie to go to the theater, to watch with loud nasty people who can’t put their phone down for 2 hours (and a newly added rent - paying for babysitter lol)

  • freamon@endlesstalk.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    This post was sandwiched between a bunch of posts from the SideOfTheRoad Community in my subscribed feed, so it was weirdly appropriate. Smashed cars, abandoned furniture, Oppenheimer reviews, random toilets … all to be expected.

  • johnlawrenceaspden@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I hate the way Big Concrete Slab is always trying to put down independent film makers in favour of yet another Hollywood blockbuster. #SmashTheSystem #SmashTheSlab

  • sachamato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m a bit scared that this is actually accurate and that going to the cinema might turn into a big disappointment…

    • Chetzemoka@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, it’s a biopic. It’s REALLY hard to make an entertaining biopic because even the most dramatic parts of real life are like 90% boring as shit.

      That said, Oppenheimer is officially the second biopic in history that I’ll watch more than once. The character depictions are nuanced and compelling, I learned new things about the political landscape of the era, and the acting alone is entertaining enough to watch. The only other biopic I’ve ever even liked at all is Damien Chazelle’s First Man about Neil Armstrong.

      It’s hard to turn real life into art

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I very much enjoyed the movie. Enough that my wife and I are going to see it in IMAX a second time. I think it’s a really well put together film, it demanded my attention, I thought the structure of the story was fantastic, and the actors delivered excellent performances.

      There are always going to be people who don’t like things, and there are always going to be a lot of them on the internet. But don’t let them make you disheartened. 93% on Rotten Tomatoes with a 91% audience score is a good movie.

    • Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Eh, I’d give it a 7. It’s a solid movie. Very cinematic, great audio design, interesting characters. Goes on longer than I would have preferred but I guess they had to tell the whole story. Still, in all fairness, a 6 isn’t even a bad movie.

    • dublet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I went to see it last night in an IMAX theatre. Whether or not you will be disappointed is depending on your expectations. I’ll be honest and say, I’m not sure IMAX really adds to it. The Trinity test explosion has been much hyped but the realism of it is debatable IMO.

      Having said all that, it is well executed, well paced with a real tension build up. The characters, as much of real world characters are all flawed. Ultimately I think it is a great story told well.

      • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think it was worth it for me just because the people paying to go to the IMAX in London are into films enough there was no talking, phones, people going to the loo, etc. Plus the score sounded great though those speakers.

        • dublet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I went to the IMAX at the Science Museum. Lots of people showed up late, lots of people still talking, open mouthed eating and phones being used.

        • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I thought it flew by, did not feel like a three hour film at all.

    • Koffiato@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s incredibly well done. It’s just that people don’t expect this kind of movie from Nolan. So wrong expectations led to bad experiences.

      • DominicHillsun@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I hate the fucking movie. Everyone is pretending for it to be a masterpiece but in reality its fucking boring. 95% of the movie is just dialog. They didn’t even properly show how the bomb was built or the problems they encountered. But for some reason I should give a shit about his ex wife and his current alcoholic wife. Boring movie and I will never watch it again, a waste of time.

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

          It’s not about the bomb, it’s about Oppenheimer. It’s a biopic. Going to see a biopic and being disappointed that it’s 95% dialogue is like going to a Marvel film and being disappointed that there’s a 45 minute CGI fight. That’s on you.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You probably won’t be disappointed if you like Nolan’s stuff, particularly Dunkirk.

      It’s a different genre than a lot of what he’s done, but the acting is superb, the sound editing is going to be a guaranteed Oscar, and it’s a compelling script.

      The pacing is slow, particularly in the second half, but it wasn’t a problem for me as the story itself has shifted at that point.

      No fighting or bullets or action. And as long as that’s not your expectation, you’ll probably enjoy it.

      And as one of the first directors to commit to shooting on IMAX format, his stuff is always going to look great in the theater, even when it’s telling a more encapsulated story.

      I don’t think it’s a film for everyone, and the box office draw his name brings might lead to disappointed audience members.

      But for me it’s in his top three films alongside Memento and Dark Knight (which remains my favorite, despite generally being looked down upon via an artistry standpoint as a comic book film).

  • bagelberger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Setting up the entire movie’s pacing and story around the legal aftermath & Strauss is what made it disappointing for me. It took too much away from the real-world implications of a nuclear weapon, an arms race, and the devastation it caused.

    Overall, cutting out Strauss would have shaved ~30min at least and made the movie into a more cohesive & refined viewing experience.

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

    I haven’t actually seen it yet. I’m wondering if seeing this review every day will keep it that way.

      • PineapplePartisan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        This just isn’t true. The vast majority of the movie is people talking in rooms. There is nothing really added by the big screen. I wish I had just waited to stream it.

        • demonquark@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          Totally agree with this. The much hyped “nuclear explosion without CGI” looked like a run of the mill action film car bomb. I mean it was a good looking explosion. It just wasn’t wow.

          The rest of the film is just … talking. Well-acted talking, well-written talking, but talking.

          I liked Oppenheimer. Wasn’t wowed.

          • Zorque@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Wait… they hyped that it wasn’t made with CGI?

            God damn I fuckin’ hate cinema nerds…

          • archiotterpup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, the hype of the visuals really let me down. They built it up and then it just felt very flat.

            I even found myself agreeing with Truman, of all people. Get that crybaby out of there.

          • Dax87@forum.stellarcastle.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Where were y’all like a week ago when everyone was calling this the greatest movie of all time? Well I’m glad I’m not the only one that thought it was just an okay movie!

        • Kabe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s true for me.

          The entire build-up to the Trinity test, the explosion and then the shockwave was awesome on a 50 foot tall IMAX screen. It wouldn’t have been the same just watching it at home.

          • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The build up to the detonation was amazingly tense and it was only after the film ended I realised I knew what was going to happen the whole time as it’s a based on real events, lol.

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

              I know, lol. You know everyone is going to be fine, but the suspense is still excruciating.

      • Sarkore@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Will defo see it but probably at home now. As someone else mentioned I think I wanted to see it in IMAX for some kickass CGI nuke action. But sounds like it doesn’t have it. Hopefully Nolan secures a real nuke for the sequel lol

        • tenochtitlan@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know why people haven’t mentioned to you the part where Oppenheimer first says “Now I am become death. Destroyer of worlds” is in a sex scene. Nolan has chosen strange ways of framing certain scenes in this movie.

        • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Eh I think it’s worth seeing in IMAX. Especially if you have access to one of the theaters showing it in 70mm film.

          Don’t go in expecting “kickass CGI nuke action,” it isn’t that kind of movie. I wasn’t underwhelmed by it, but my expectations weren’t at the level of some people apparently.