Oppenheimer (2023) - Dude helps to build a bomb, is shocked when said bomb is used

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Destacado
Hugger Brother dijo:
I don't know how anybody wrote or acted those scenes with a straight face.
Presiona para expandir...
The Truman scene was the only part I liked. Just because I was immensely satisfied to have a character tell this movie version of Oppenheimer to STFU.

Like seriously I get it the actual man did have guilt. The USA did snuff out the lives of Japanese Civilians. And long after we're all dead there will be people arguing the ethics of using the Atomic Bomb. If you want my opinion it was justified because the Japanese were absurd in wanting to prolong a nasty war that had already been decided, to the point there even was a coup attempt to prolong it further. But even with that mindset it's not unreasonable to lament that maybe there could have been better option. But that amounts to daydream speculation, in the same way I wish The Treaty of Versailles hadn't been so harsh on Germany as perhaps we could have avoided Funny Mustache Man and Europe would have better contained USSR and gommunism.

I went way off topic but the movie was only mildly boring through the first two hours. When it became the courtroom drama I looked down at my phone trying to estimate when the fucking thing would end. I just had no reason to care about whether Robert Downey Jr would get Oppenheimer blackballed. And hell having a simple understanding of the history I don't think Oppenheimer deserved such a dishonor but I don't blame the real Lewis Strauss. There were real traitorous bastards who gave secrets to the Soviets, the country had reason to be paranoid.
 
I'm not sure how I feel about this.


Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer” swept the Oscars on Sunday night, with many now wondering what is next for the celebrated filmmaker.

Unlike some other directors, Nolan is famous for directing one movie at a time with nothing else lying in the wings in wait that has his name attached and is begging for his attention.

So what could be next? According to Variety, one of the most frrequent guesses right now is a film reconception of the influential 1960s British mystery-thriller TV series “The Prisoner”.

The 17-episode series followed Patrick McGoohan as Number Six, an unnamed British intelligence agent abducted and imprisoned in a mysterious coastal village after resigning from his position.

The residents consist of hundreds of people from all walks of life and cultures. Most are captives, some are guards, and all are under constant surveillance. Any attempts to escape are fatal.

Nolan was attached to the project in 2009, but the project disappeared. AMC shortly after released a reconception of the work as a mini-series in 2009 starring Jim Caviezel, Ruth Wilson and Sir Ian McKellen.
 
IDanceonTrannyGraves dijo:
I'm not sure how I feel about this.


Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer” swept the Oscars on Sunday night, with many now wondering what is next for the celebrated filmmaker.

Unlike some other directors, Nolan is famous for directing one movie at a time with nothing else lying in the wings in wait that has his name attached and is begging for his attention.

So what could be next? According to Variety, one of the most frrequent guesses right now is a film reconception of the influential 1960s British mystery-thriller TV series “The Prisoner”.

The 17-episode series followed Patrick McGoohan as Number Six, an unnamed British intelligence agent abducted and imprisoned in a mysterious coastal village after resigning from his position.

The residents consist of hundreds of people from all walks of life and cultures. Most are captives, some are guards, and all are under constant surveillance. Any attempts to escape are fatal.

Nolan was attached to the project in 2009, but the project disappeared. AMC shortly after released a reconception of the work as a mini-series in 2009 starring Jim Caviezel, Ruth Wilson and Sir Ian McKellen.
Presiona para expandir...
Why wouldn't you want an extended high concept visual extravaganza telling the poignant tale of a group of under=represented marginalised characters (sorry, parodies of characters) trying to survive under the oppressive authoritarian total control of the white patriarchy? How could it possibly go wrong?
 
IDanceonTrannyGraves dijo:
I'm not sure how I feel about this.


Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer” swept the Oscars on Sunday night, with many now wondering what is next for the celebrated filmmaker.

Unlike some other directors, Nolan is famous for directing one movie at a time with nothing else lying in the wings in wait that has his name attached and is begging for his attention.

So what could be next? According to Variety, one of the most frrequent guesses right now is a film reconception of the influential 1960s British mystery-thriller TV series “The Prisoner”.

The 17-episode series followed Patrick McGoohan as Number Six, an unnamed British intelligence agent abducted and imprisoned in a mysterious coastal village after resigning from his position.

The residents consist of hundreds of people from all walks of life and cultures. Most are captives, some are guards, and all are under constant surveillance. Any attempts to escape are fatal.

Nolan was attached to the project in 2009, but the project disappeared. AMC shortly after released a reconception of the work as a mini-series in 2009 starring Jim Caviezel, Ruth Wilson and Sir Ian McKellen.
Presiona para expandir...
Nolan-tisms aside, it sounds pretty good given the scope is limited to thriller.
 
IDanceonTrannyGraves dijo:
I don't know if you've seen the Prisoner or not. Some of it is *weird*.
Presiona para expandir...
I first saw this show when I was 13.

I remember seeing it on SyFy when it was called "The Sci-Fi Channel" and Harlan Ellison was doing the episode intros.

I would love someone to do it some modern justice, and Nolan seems like the kind of guy that might keep at least some of the subversion of the original. However, the Nolan skeptic in me thinks his contemporary in "adult" cinema, Denis Villeneuve, got his hands on some weird sci-fi from the 60's and made it a mainstream success, and now he wants one just like it.

Bear in mind, I like Nolan, and I like Villeneuve, but I can see their faults, too.
 
I feel like The Prisoner is something that could be improved on if done right, but I have zero faith in anyone doing it right. The concept is great but they don't do much with it and the show just feels like it never really goes anywhere until the finale. Hell, there's so little connective tissue between episodes that outside of the series opener and finale there's no agreed upon episode order. Half of the episodes are really great (The Schizoid Man is still one of the best episodes of any show I've seen) but the other half are mostly middling.

One of the biggest problems for me would be recreating the visual style, which I think is important to the original. The show was very '60s, and even just using modern filming equipment would greatly change the look and feel of the show. Then there's the usual current year problems with DEI and general pozzed shit.
 
I don't think Nolan is a good fit for The Prisoner. That show was all about subtlety and Nolan can't do subtle to save his fucking life.

I think he should branch out and try something new like fantasy or whatever. So far his entire catalogue has either been schlocky science-fiction or snooze-worthy dramas.
 
ArthuriusMartyrius dijo:
I don't think Nolan is a good fit for The Prisoner. That show was all about subtlety and Nolan can't do subtle to save his fucking life.

I think he should branch out and try something new like fantasy or whatever. So far his entire catalogue has either been schlocky science-fiction or snooze-worthy dramas.
Presiona para expandir...
Fantasy would give him more leeway for even more tism, as we see in his science fiction stuff. Time manipulation via magic.
 
Not A Bunny dijo:
That's a funny way of writing "The Schizoid Man".
Presiona para expandir...
That's what I said. lrn2reed

Like I said, half of the episodes are great and Hammer Into Anvil is definitely one of those. The Schizoid Man, though, is still my favorite -- it's one of the few episodes of anything that actually managed to keep me in suspense and trying to guess what would happen next (although the psychic girl bit probably could've been axed).
 
Tor Lugosi dijo:
That's what I said. lrn2reed

Like I said, half of the episodes are great and Hammer Into Anvil is definitely one of those. The Schizoid Man, though, is still my favorite -- it's one of the few episodes of anything that actually managed to keep me in suspense and trying to guess what would happen next (although the psychic girl bit probably could've been axed).
Presiona para expandir...
I'm just happy there are other Prisoner fans around. Watch Nolan make it more mainstream and all of a sudden everyone's going to be coming out of the woodwork to say they loved the original (no one will ever admit to liking the Caviezel remake, though...I'm surprised it hasn't been accused of being proto-QAnon or some shit; I don't even remember what went on in that).

Topic? Got through about half of Oppenheimer yesterday. Could only really get that far because the whole thing is so heavy. It's certainly well put-together and it feels a whole lot like Oscar Bait and my awareness of that fact is making me wonder if it's not as good as I feel like I should be aware it is, if that makes sense. However, since I am an asshole, it makes me feel good that it beat Barbie in every Oscar category they competed in.

I mean, even if it is Oscar Bait, the construction of the film feels really good, like Nolan thoughtfully composed shots and scene structures and timelines without having to have a character stop the movie to tell the audience about themes. What did Gerwig have? A rip-off of 2001? A muddled message about male/female equality? A showcase for rich, white feminism to complain as if nothing's changed for women since the 1950s?

The weird part is, I think both movies are full of stuff that I feel like I'm supposed to think is good (and I would even add Poor Things to that list). I'm only inclined to be more charitable with Oppenheimer because it actually does have the hallmarks of a good film that parallels films that are also good (best parallel I can come up with is Godfather II), as opposed to stuff I'm told is supposed to be good.
 
The Prisoner is one of the few tv series concepts that I think would work better as a movie than a tv series
the tv is sorta "okay yeah it's this weird trippy thing and they're imprisoned and stuff, so what's your second episode" "second episode?"
 
So I finally finished this movie and...wow. I finally get it.

The first two hours were all docudrama to me, I suppose, and I was starting to feel underwhelmed, even to the point that I was kind of wondering why RDJ got an Oscar for this (I considered Cillian Murphy a given, since people seem to really like the guy). There were even points where I was lost in recognizing actors as if all the actors who were there, showed up to be in this project because there are just so many of them.

And then the last hour happened.
One of those actors was Rami Malek. Dude has had a generally low profile since he won an Oscar himself, as opposed to say, Timothee Chamelet, and he's a bit young for gratuitous cameos. He pops up in the movie and I'm like, okay, until he showed up later and I was all "oh...OH..."

Also, I did not know Gary Oldman was even in this, let alone did I recognize him as Harry Truman. Oh, by the way, I don't know how true the depiction is, but I can't imagine that a man who made the call to drop a bomb on any given population is feeling that much different than his depiction in this. Full-on dismissing the guy that gave you the weapon? Yeah, that's on-brand.

And I'm not even getting to where the story went, which I am pleasantly surprised doesn't get talked about in the press. But I suppose when a movie is this good, when plot twists happen, those are secondary to how good the movie is as a whole.

This is why I like Christopher Nolan. Because he's not afraid of risks. He has a lot of characters. A LOT of them. A lesser filmmaker might have overloaded fewer characters with more motivations and story because he's afraid his audience won't be able to follow. Nolan treats his audience like they're smart enough to follow a complicated concept he's suggested, and then expands upon it later.

Each character is there for a reason, each character is there to support a particular story thread, and each thread is paid off, which is hard to do in a movie like this.

It kind of makes me wonder how the press bundled this movie with Barbie. Barbie was a mess of a movie based in wish fulfillment. I daresay that movie posits a world where grown women en masse are playing with Barbies pretending little girls are playing with Barbies, because that's really the way that movie makes sense. Meanwhile this movie is about real, imperfect people, sometimes outright bad people, but realistic people nonetheless.
 
This movie is literally a wikipedia article with a budget. Completely schizophrenic pacing with like 14 different timelines all going on at the same time, you have flashbacks within flashbacks within flashbacks, every single line is exposition and everyone is a one dimentional carboard cutout.

It is the equivalent of doing a movie about Buzz Aldrin and 90% of it being him spending time with his family, doing calisthenics, briefing a NASA panel for 2 1/2 hours and then a 30 second scene of him in an actual Apollo shuttle.

Its full of redditisms, oppeneheimer will say shit like "Atoms are mostly empty space" and the music will swell as if its the most profound shit ever and the panties of every woman in the room he's will simutaneously drop from this profound wisdom drop.

At one point in the movie he's banging some chick that's a psycologist and he namedrops carl jung and she makes a face as if him knowing who jung is, is the most mindblowing shit ever. He also says I am become death while fucking her for literally no reason as nobody even knows about the bomb yet. Or maybe they have, who knows how many levels of flashback we're on.

Nolan uses his ear shattering tension music like sitcoms use a laugh track, to indicate where you should feel something because without it the dialogue falls flat.

When oppenheimer talks about big stars making a bigger boom when they collapse in the middle of a university lecture and the music goes BWONG I'm not thinking "Damn he's so clever how profound" I'm thinking "Yes, I also watch rick and morty."

I shit you not, at one point someone says to heimer "Advanced theoretical quantum mechanics are like music. You don't need to be able to read or write it, as long as you can hear the music. Do you hear the music oppenheimer?"

And then oppeneheimer deadass hallucinates atoms in the air while the music blows out your eardrums, you know, because he's so in tune with physics he can literally like see the atoms, man.

Nigga, rick and fucking morty is legitimately more subtle than this.

People calling this movie deep are beyond retarded. Its shallow, its pretentious and it insists upon itself. This is what stupid people think smart people movies are like.

Also, sound mixing was dogshit. I had to enable subtitles just to understand what everyone was saying because sound effects and music were completely overtaking dialogue.
 
Última edición:
Not A Bunny dijo:
Oh, by the way, I don't know how true the depiction is, but I can't imagine that a man who made the call to drop a bomb on any given population is feeling that much different than his depiction in this. Full-on dismissing the guy that gave you the weapon? Yeah, that's on-brand.
Presiona para expandir...
Yeah, it happened: https://www.biography.com/political...ry-truman-didnt-like-oppenheimer-atomic-bombs

“Blood on his hands; damn it, he hasn’t half as much blood on his hands as I have. You just don’t go around bellyaching about it,” Truman said, according to the book Robert Oppenheimer: A Life Inside the Center by Ray Monk. He called Oppenheimer a “cry-baby scientist” and said, “I don’t want to see that son of a b–– in this office ever again.”
Presiona para expandir...
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo