I disagree but that's largely a personal opinion. I had no idea how much American industry and money was behind mustache man until about 5 years ago. The eugenics movement here in the states was very supportive. Americans were actively seeding these ideas in Germany.

There were no innocents in that war...
[Reply]

Obviously everyone has and is entitled to their opinion. Mine is this....I saw Oppenheimer today and I thought it was the best film I've seen in years. Nolan did a fantastic job. I did not experience some of the audio difficulties others seem to have. The acting was A plus. RDJ is such a talented actor. Emily Blunt was amazing. Murphy was brilliant. Everyone else was on point as well. Just a terrific job telling and acting out the story. I won't spoiler but the test scene was so well done and moving, you could've heard a pin drop in the SRO (there were literally people sitting on the stairs, we are at the beach and the weather was not ideal today so everyone else had the same idea we did, apparently) theater. I'm for sure going to see this again when I can get a better seat than 4th row from the bottom, last seat on the right, lol.
[Reply]

Probably not a terrible decision. I did really enjoy the photography on a large screen. Won't be too shocked if this wins an Oscar for Best Cinematography. Really strong photography work from Hoyte van Hoytema.
[Reply]

The best part about going to to movies alone is that I don't worry about whether the person with me in enjoying the movie.

Nothing kills a mood faster than knowing the person/people that are with you are bored and ready for it to be over with.
[Reply]

Just got back from seeing it. I guess first and foremost, this is definitely the least annoying Nolan movie I've seen in years. Nothing about it really pissed me off. It was well made and the acting was superb. That being said, it was.... just kind of there. Absolutely nothing in this film screamed out for an IMAX screen; you'd be fine watching it on your phone. The special effects in the latest episode of Star Trek were more impressive than anything in Oppenheimer. It seemed that the interesting stuff took a backseat to the main story line, which I guess I won't delve into because that would be spoilerish, but while Murphy did a fantastic job creating a character, that character was, at least to me, not particularly interesting or likeable.

Solid, good film, I guess, but not worth movie theater time or money.

One thing - and this is a small detail, but for the love of God, THE AMERICAN FLAG HAD 48 STARS DURING WORLD WAR II, NOT 50. How do spend millions on a movie like this and fuck that up? :-)
[Reply]

The explosion was sexy as hell in 70 mm IMAX.
[Reply]

I agree that Murphy's Oppenheimer wasn't terribly interesting or likeable. But I disagree that he did a fantastic job, because he was supposed to be those things.
[Reply]

Good movie.

My only critique is I wish they spent more time/scenes on testing the bomb.
[Reply]

It's not a Disney movie.
[Reply]

Enjoyed it.

The first 15 minutes made me nervous because the pacing was roooough. And hey - big ups for completely gratuitous boobs; those were nice. The last 10-15 minutes strayed a little too far into 'Hollywood' territory for me and again, the pacing stumbled.

But everything in the middle was outstanding. I believe I've recommended The Age of Radiance around here before but it's a fantastic book about the nuclear age and the middle 1/4 or so leans heavily into the Manhattan Project and Oppenheimer. If I have any objections, its a fairly stupid set of them given that it's a biopic. Notably, I don't know how you all but ignore Fermi and Szilard. Fermi was such an intellectual heavyweight that it almost made it seem like they build Oppenheimer's portrayal as a composite character of him. Oppenheimer was unquestionably very bright but he was something of a salesman and administrator moreso than the driving mind behind the development of the bomb. I'd have loved to have seen them somehow highlight the contributions of the Chicago Group more.

I didn't even know Damon was in this movie and man he did a fantastic job. Second most compelling performance of the movie (behind Florence Pugh's boobs).

I don't actually know anything about Strauss; never heard of him prior to this movie. But I kinda wish they wouldn't have made him such a 'heavy' and turned it into a traditional good/bad guy narrative structure down the end. Strauss had some really good points w/r/t Oppenheimer's odd martyr complex and his desire to both be famous for what he did while simultaneously decrying the results of it. It's South Park's "I'm a little bit country" thing in action - "We can be a nation that believes in War...but tells the world we don't..." And maybe Strauss really was a piece of shit - like I said, I don't know him at all. But I think there's a pretty interesting line of thought that gets buried by Nolan turning Strauss into a heavy. Oppenheimer's hypocrisy was a little more ripe for dissection than it got, IMO.

And just as a history nerd, I liked that they briefly touched on Lemay's firebombing campaign but then when Oppenheimer would've had a chance to spike the set, he didn't take it. Suddenly there seemed to be some real conversation that maybe the bomb didn't actually save lives? Fucking hell, read a history book or two. LeMay would kill 100K Japanese before breakfast. And the Emperor's speech after Nagasaki made it SUPER clear that they wouldn't have surrendered with mere firebombing despite the staggering casualties (there was nothing 'divine' about it) and had that war continued even a couple more months you may be talking losses in the millions had MacArthur not been able to get in there and get food/water/infrastructure in place for the Japanese people prior to the brutal winter of 1945.

I mean historically there IS no moral quagmire and I absolutely believe Oppenhiemer knew that behind closed doors. And so to portray him as someone who, in closed inquiries or private conversations with family/colleagues, wouldn't have been willing to simply say that. - eh, that's odd to me. And if that IS an accurate portrayal, then his hypocrisy is worth all of Strauss's scorn and then some because it really is just a pure martyr complex at that point.

But seriously - read Age of Radiance. Awesome awesome book.
[Reply]

You expected excitement? In a biopic about a physicist?

Yeah - Imma go ahead and blame you for this one.

I thought Nolan did a spectacular job building tension through the middle 50% or so out of a re-telling (of a history we know quite well) that really shouldn't have THAT much tension in it.
[Reply]

:-) You’re such a miserable old fuck. I love it.
[Reply]

A movie in a similar style about the Cuban Missile Crisis would open a lot of eyes to Curtis LeMay’s standard operating procedure.
[Reply]

Yeah, LeMay was a 'damn the torpedoes' sort. His answer was pretty much always to attempt overwhelming force.

He's stayed under the historical radar but man he was in the middle of a lot of major conflicts. And honestly, he may well have been the best man for the job in many of those instances, especially when he wasn't someone (like MacArthur) who was such a hot head that he couldn't be tempered at all. LeMay would listen to contrasting positions even if he didn't agree. And if given an order, he'd obey it.

I like LeMay, but when unchecked he was...aggressive.
[Reply]

You have to understand, Nolan's previous films going back several years have just aggravated the fuck out of me.

Finally, he put one out that didn't. Wasn't a masterpiece or anything, but overall I liked it.
[Reply]