Oppenheimer wins best film- Oscars reaction

AlP wrote:

Not surprised Oppenheimer won as it checked every box - high-grossing WW2 biopic with a tortured protagonist by a superstar director who was “due” for an Oscar.

However, I think there are legitimate criticisms of the film that go beyond “attention span too short”. It’s not Nolan’s best work imo.

The sound editing was bad. We didn’t need the action movie soundtrack blasting over mundane courtroom scenes and overshadowing the dialogue, that detracted from the drama - any other director would have had someone step in and tell them to dial it down.

The classic Nolan time skips were overused and too abrupt.

The underlying plot (Oppenheimer’s security clearance trial) was simply not that interesting and the courtroom scenes could have been 30min shorter. The making of the bomb IS as fascinating story and those scenes were the best part of the movie - though I understand the movie was about the man and not the bomb.

Some of the dialogue and directing with the female characters was laughable - the “I am death” quote during the sex scene was B-tier writing.

Still a good movie but probably not the best of the year.

Simpletons Enjoy Being Ruled wrote:

Blue Walls wrote:

Lol it’s not that deep. The movie is about Oppie. I don't think it really does have any sort of "message" to give out. It's about him and how he viewed things , his actions and contributions, and concern about his loyalties.

The last line tho is something like a fact much more than a message. Oppie agreed with Einstein's view that they had unleashed something that will change the history of mankind.

If you found this to be an earth-shattering or life-changing revelation I have some other low-IQ films that I could recommend for you.

You clearly were not paying attention. Why do you think that Lewis Strauss was such a major character? Why were his confirmation hearings such a big deal? Did you see any parallels to international political figures today? What about Roger Robb? Kenneth Nichols? Does it concern you that such awesome power, developed by brilliant and thoughtful men, is controlled by mediocre minds more concerned with vendettas, personal clout, expansionist agendas, ideology, and easily hurt feelings?

Yes, the second half offered a first-person account of how J. Robert Oppenheimer was destroyed and then somewhat redeemed by history. The more cogent message was that the work of great men is often co-opted to serve the aims of ambitious and jealous mediocrities. That is the true danger of nuclear weapons.

Simpletons Enjoy Being Ruled wrote:

Blue Walls wrote:

Lol it’s not that deep. The movie is about Oppie. I don't think it really does have any sort of "message" to give out. It's about him and how he viewed things , his actions and contributions, and concern about his loyalties.

The last line tho is something like a fact much more than a message. Oppie agreed with Einstein's view that they had unleashed something that will change the history of mankind.

If you found this to be an earth-shattering or life-changing revelation I have some other low-IQ films that I could recommend for you.

You clearly were not paying attention. Why do you think that Lewis Strauss was such a major character? Why were his confirmation hearings such a big deal? Did you see any parallels to international political figures today? What about Roger Robb? Kenneth Nichols? Does it concern you that such awesome power, developed by brilliant and thoughtful men, is controlled by mediocre minds more concerned with vendettas, personal clout, expansionist agendas, ideology, and easily hurt feelings?

Yes, the second half offered a first-person account of how J. Robert Oppenheimer was destroyed and then somewhat redeemed by history. The more cogent message was that the work of great men is often co-opted to serve the aims of ambitious and jealous mediocrities. That is the true danger of nuclear weapons.

Simpletons Enjoy Being Ruled wrote:

Blue Walls wrote:

Lol it’s not that deep. The movie is about Oppie. I don't think it really does have any sort of "message" to give out. It's about him and how he viewed things , his actions and contributions, and concern about his loyalties.

The last line tho is something like a fact much more than a message. Oppie agreed with Einstein's view that they had unleashed something that will change the history of mankind.

If you found this to be an earth-shattering or life-changing revelation I have some other low-IQ films that I could recommend for you.

You clearly were not paying attention. Why do you think that Lewis Strauss was such a major character? Why were his confirmation hearings such a big deal? Did you see any parallels to international political figures today? What about Roger Robb? Kenneth Nichols? Does it concern you that such awesome power, developed by brilliant and thoughtful men, is controlled by mediocre minds more concerned with vendettas, personal clout, expansionist agendas, ideology, and easily hurt feelings?

Yes, the second half offered a first-person account of how J. Robert Oppenheimer was destroyed and then somewhat redeemed by history. The more cogent message was that the work of great men is often co-opted to serve the aims of ambitious and jealous mediocrities. That is the true danger of nuclear weapons.

John Cena wrote:

Simpletons Enjoy Being Ruled wrote:

You clearly were not paying attention. Why do you think that Lewis Strauss was such a major character? Why were his confirmation hearings such a big deal? Did you see any parallels to international political figures today? What about Roger Robb? Kenneth Nichols? Does it concern you that such awesome power, developed by brilliant and thoughtful men, is controlled by mediocre minds more concerned with vendettas, personal clout, expansionist agendas, ideology, and easily hurt feelings?

Yes, the second half offered a first-person account of how J. Robert Oppenheimer was destroyed and then somewhat redeemed by history. The more cogent message was that the work of great men is often co-opted to serve the aims of ambitious and jealous mediocrities. That is the true danger of nuclear weapons.

blah blah blah we all knew these things already and it's still boring. no amount of wordsmithing or pedantry in your failed rhetoric will change this.

The irony is Oppenheimer is a shallow movie pretending to be deep. Whereas Barbie is a layered movie pretending to be shallow.

Nolan fan wrote:

Simpletons Enjoy Being Ruled wrote:

You clearly were not paying attention. Why do you think that Lewis Strauss was such a major character? Why were his confirmation hearings such a big deal? Did you see any parallels to international political figures today? What about Roger Robb? Kenneth Nichols? Does it concern you that such awesome power, developed by brilliant and thoughtful men, is controlled by mediocre minds more concerned with vendettas, personal clout, expansionist agendas, ideology, and easily hurt feelings?

Yes, the second half offered a first-person account of how J. Robert Oppenheimer was destroyed and then somewhat redeemed by history. The more cogent message was that the work of great men is often co-opted to serve the aims of ambitious and jealous mediocrities. That is the true danger of nuclear weapons.

In my opinion, Oppenheimer is a rather mediocre film. The characters are each emptier than the next (except perhaps the one played by Matt Damon), and I found the way Nolan edited the dialogue unbearable. There are many aspects that could have helped us understand Oppenheimer, such as his interest in Indian mythology or his relationship with the two women who appear in the film, but these aspects were either executed or treated poorly by Nolan. Episode 8 of Twin Peaks is a better treatment of the Manhattan Project and has more to say about it than the entire Oppenheimer movie.