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.
Leslie Groves was a very obese man for the day. A lot of attention was paid to making Cillian Murphy into Oppenheimer, yet Matt Damon couldn't wear a fatsuit?
Barbie did not win. Oppenheimer also wasn’t as good as everything everywhere all at once.
Please tell me what was “good” about Everywhere everything?
Scenes changed every 30 secs. Flashing lights. Goofy unfunny humor. Meaningless movie. And the moral is “nothing matters” — wow so deep.
Utter trash “movie” made for people stoned out of their mind to watch and think “woooooo!! Nothing matters lulz!”
Tar probably should have won best picture last year; though my favorites were RRR, Navalny, and Prey. (Great year for people/aliens punching apex predators!). Everything Everywhere... I considered to be about a 2/5 movie (might need to rewatch it, but nothing about it made me want to ever watch again).
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Barbie was not a good movie - it had some entertainment value but not a good movie.
Oppenheimer was good - although, it did drag on a bit. I wanted more focus on the bomb development itself - felt like 1/4 or 1/3 of the movie where I expected like 3/4 of the movie would be focused on the bomb kinda like Ocean 11 project thing. Too much romance, etc.
everything everywhere all at once was a different kind of movie - very good but different - kind of like Parasite in 2019. Approached a troubling subject in a sci fi way with a good mix of comedy to break things up.
Oppenheimer was good biographical film reminded me of Bohemian Rhapsody and other music biographical films mixed with a Beautiful Mind in terms of the romantic awkwardness of nerds.
everything everywhere all at once was a different kind of movie - very good but different - kind of like Parasite in 2019. Approached a troubling subject in a sci fi way with a good mix of comedy to break things up.
Oppenheimer was good biographical film reminded me of Bohemian Rhapsody and other music biographical films mixed with a Beautiful Mind in terms of the romantic awkwardness of nerds.
What “troubling subject”? There wasn’t any cohesive sci-fi, it was just silly. And the comedy was extremely low brow - “omg lol dildos!!!”
They were going through divorce and about to lose their business due to back taxes, and dealing with cultural conflicts with their daughters sexuality. Maybe, I didn't use the right word but those are some difficult topics to approach in a movie.
The sci-fi was the parallel universes, I found it somewhat cohesive. Ya their was some of those but I mean they had some The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy comedy bits a kin to the Infinite Improbability Drive. I found it funny.
There is a great movie in the middle of it that would have just stopped with his victory speech where he pictured the room going up in flames. The plots that were nested around that went nowhere and took forever
The best movie I saw last year was Boy and The Heron followed by M3gan
Nice cope. It's a normie film that was tailor-made to fool gullible midwits like you and the Academy into mistakenly thinking it's deep just because it's a dialogue-heavy biopic that centers on bureaucratic babble about security clearances and cabinet positions.
It did not need to be filmed in IMAX and watching it in theaters afforded the audience little to no advantage over a standard TV viewing experience.
I disagree. Thought Opp was best film so far in this century. Nolan took a complicated idea and made it into a beautiful LONG film.
The technical elements of editing, score, cinematography and the use of IMAX were amazing. Reminded me of the classic Chinatown with high quality production.
Since everyone already knows the outcome, the personal drama with the security clearance was necessary to create tension and suspense. It also was the primary means of exposing the human side of Oppenheimer.
Agree with criticism that too much was packed in, and dialog was sometimes drowned out by background noise, but all minor sins. I did find myself having to go back and figure out who some of the scientists were. They often make only a fleeting appearance, but if you cut them out for clarity, a Nobel winner participating in the Manhattan project gets wiped out.
A director makes big choices when presenting complicated stories. All in I like the choices he made.
I really liked the political dispute angle. Lots of people seemed to find it boring but I didn’t. I just don’t think the movie is for those people and that’s okay. If you need action, maybe the new Deadpool will entertain you
you've probably never served in the military or held a TS-SCI clearance which is why you found the political discourse so fascinating and novel. the 2nd part of the movie was filled with so much boring melodrama over things as inane as getting a security clearance that my military buddies and I were facepalming pretty much the whole time at how dramatic they made it look.
i can see why it would impress civilians like yourself though. or "normies" as the other poster liked to say
You probably weren't around in the '50's in the McCarthyite era with its rabid anti-communist persecution of anyone who had a whiff of the left about them. It destroyed careers and lives. The film showed how a brilliant man seen as the saviour of America in 1945 had been transformed by the subsequent change in the American political climate into a threat to his own country some 10 or so years later.
Oppenheimer was an excellent, though flawed, movie. The love interest was odd and off topic and should have been cut out. It was appropriate to look at his connections to communists but more attention should have been paid to the minimum two Soviet agents in the Manhattan Project (Ted Hall, Klaus Fuchs), who gave enough technical schematics to the Soviets to allow them to generate an exact copy of the Trinity device a few years later) so that we could better understand why connections to 1930s communists meant anything at all. The actual effect of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an absolute key part of the movie and the psyche of Oppenheimer as well as his legacy that it was criminal to treat it barely at all as they did. Then they spent way too much time on his subsequent investigations. The film was best in the Los Alamos phase. Though I didn't read the biography, Oppenheimer, I got almost all the key details from a bio my son had read, Bomb, which goes more into the actual spies on the project. As for the award, who knows what was the best movie of 2023? How many people even saw 10 or 20% of the films released in theaters? Dune 2 is about as good a movie in medias res can be, with no clear event beginning or ending the film, similar to the first. But we're talking 2024 now.
All of these movies are just lucky that Dune 2 was pushed back to this year. Had it released last fall it could have bodied some of the awards (still think that Cillian would have probably won tbh)
Rather than a bunch of movies no one watches, how about cutting everything short and call the movie which made the most money just that, Best Picture.. It would also cover all the categories and cut the academy awards show down to about 30 minutes.
Oppenheimer was an excellent, though flawed, movie. The love interest was odd and off topic and should have been cut out. It was appropriate to look at his connections to communists but more attention should have been paid to the minimum two Soviet agents in the Manhattan Project (Ted Hall, Klaus Fuchs), who gave enough technical schematics to the Soviets to allow them to generate an exact copy of the Trinity device a few years later) so that we could better understand why connections to 1930s communists meant anything at all. The actual effect of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an absolute key part of the movie and the psyche of Oppenheimer as well as his legacy that it was criminal to treat it barely at all as they did. Then they spent way too much time on his subsequent investigations. The film was best in the Los Alamos phase. Though I didn't read the biography, Oppenheimer, I got almost all the key details from a bio my son had read, Bomb, which goes more into the actual spies on the project. As for the award, who knows what was the best movie of 2023? How many people even saw 10 or 20% of the films released in theaters? Dune 2 is about as good a movie in medias res can be, with no clear event beginning or ending the film, similar to the first. But we're talking 2024 now.
Interesting that we both like the movie, but see it wildly different. I found the Los Alamos phase to be almost pointless as compared to the rest of the movie, to me it felt slid in to just cover the political/project history people would want to see, while the personal relationships (maybe the most important being the love interest) being what the movie was actually about. The movie was almost entirely from Oppenheimers viewpoint, so unless he was in with the soviet agents, I dont know why they'd focus on them. I found the movie to be a lot less about the bomb (anything about the bomb almost used as symbolism of events Oppenheimer created in his personal life, and at most just a plot advancer, rather the central point of the movie), rather it was more about loyalty to people or ideas in his personal, family, and professional life and the causality of choices he made. It's a movie about self destruction of oneself and those close, with the destruction of humans/earth as the symbolic allegory.