Oppenheimer - thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie was outstanding. But then, I like thoughtful movies that leave me thinking about the subject when I leave the theatre. Great casting.

What do you think of the choosing not to show the many women scientists who also worked on the project? This is one of the reasons I refuse to see it.

Penny wise, pound foolish. You missed a superb movie.

I value the truth and I don't like to see women's accomplishments ignored.

Omg, shut up.

Their roles were absolutely, 10000000% minor compared to Oppenheimer, Teller, Fermi, Lawrence, and the other big names covered in the film. There were thousands of people involved, but the movie cannot cover every minor contribution to the project from 2ndary and tertiary teams and individuals.

The movie is OPPENHEIMER. It is a biopic about one man who was the director of the entire project. It doesn't have time to cover contributions of some bench scientists or other lowly scientists in the trenches. In fact, 85% of the movie isn't even really about the Manhattan Project, it is about the rest of his life after the war and the govt came after him to destroy his reputation.

Way to miss the forest for the trees.

Lol yes whoever this troll is we get it you want to see movies about women

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I usually detest Robert Downey Jr's brand of manic, self-aware acting - but he totally played against type here and did a fantastic job. Very believable.

Cillian Murphy was excellent too. The whole movie was too long though, and WAY too much constant dialogue.

I was checking my watch constantly for the last hour.
It was good, but not worthy of 3 hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie was outstanding. But then, I like thoughtful movies that leave me thinking about the subject when I leave the theatre. Great casting.

What do you think of the choosing not to show the many women scientists who also worked on the project? This is one of the reasons I refuse to see it.

Penny wise, pound foolish. You missed a superb movie.

I value the truth and I don't like to see women's accomplishments ignored.

Omg, shut up.

Their roles were absolutely, 10000000% minor compared to Oppenheimer, Teller, Fermi, Lawrence, and the other big names covered in the film. There were thousands of people involved, but the movie cannot cover every minor contribution to the project from 2ndary and tertiary teams and individuals.

The movie is OPPENHEIMER. It is a biopic about one man who was the director of the entire project. It doesn't have time to cover contributions of some bench scientists or other lowly scientists in the trenches. In fact, 85% of the movie isn't even really about the Manhattan Project, it is about the rest of his life after the war and the govt came after him to destroy his reputation.

Way to miss the forest for the trees.

Lol yes whoever this troll is we get it you want to see movies about women

I am not a troll just because I have different opinions that you. We all chose to spend our time differentlt. Notice I am not the one calling you names because you liked it.

[Anonymous]

I really loved this movie and think it was one of the best movies of the decade. I had no idea who Oppenheimer was prior to seeing it and did find the plot of who the spy was difficult to follow but understood ultimately it was showing a loyalty and tolerance of differences that Oppenheimer was not shown.

As someone who works in the government in a political function, it made me sick to see how Oppenheimer was punished for associations when there was no evidence of him joining the communist party or advancing foreign communist agendas. The nudity with Florence Pugh was to demonstrate his strongest tie to communism and how the RDJr character was able to take him down in the sectet hearings.

The movie did an incredible job showing how the desperation of WWII and the need to demonstrate that the US knew how to use nuclear weapons forced Hiroshima. It shows how once the pandoea box of potential was opened in science we had to go there and how it was inevitable through Oppenheimer's conversations.

It also does a great job for today's audience under the influence of the great liar to understand the truth comes out and history will not fondly on those who are blindly enabling Trumps ego.

It also is hopeful in that we have not used nuclear weapons again. Its been almost 80 years now. As bad and disive as the world seems, we all have enough sense not to play this game.

It also must be very cool for all people in psychics to have this blockbuster.

Cannot recommend enough.

[Anonymous]

I wish they also focused on David Greenglaaa a bit as the secrets were given to a far more famous and executed Soviet spy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really loved this movie and think it was one of the best movies of the decade. I had no idea who Oppenheimer was prior to seeing it and did find the plot of who the spy was difficult to follow but understood ultimately it was showing a loyalty and tolerance of differences that Oppenheimer was not shown.

As someone who works in the government in a political function, it made me sick to see how Oppenheimer was punished for associations when there was no evidence of him joining the communist party or advancing foreign communist agendas. The nudity with Florence Pugh was to demonstrate his strongest tie to communism and how the RDJr character was able to take him down in the sectet hearings.

The movie did an incredible job showing how the desperation of WWII and the need to demonstrate that the US knew how to use nuclear weapons forced Hiroshima. It shows how once the pandoea box of potential was opened in science we had to go there and how it was inevitable through Oppenheimer's conversations.

It also does a great job for today's audience under the influence of the great liar to understand the truth comes out and history will not fondly on those who are blindly enabling Trumps ego.

It also is hopeful in that we have not used nuclear weapons again. Its been almost 80 years now. As bad and disive as the world seems, we all have enough sense not to play this game.

It also must be very cool for all people in psychics to have this blockbuster.

Cannot recommend enough.

Agree - my whole family loved it and the three hours flew by for us …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I finally saw it today when all movies were four dollars. My theater was almost full. I agree that it was mostly very well done, but I found that initially all the time jumping was confusing.

And when finally a woman is in a scene a ways into the movie, five minutes later there are her breasts on display. I found the way they did that disrespect and gratuitous, given how 95% of the movie is devoted to men.

And that last hour. Why? I would have condensed those hearings scenes waaaaay down.

I just keep thinking what if someday we could harness all that kind of genius and find a way to build lasting peace in the world?

EXACTLY. And my adult children who saw it with me agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I was nervous about it being 3 hours, I sometimes have a hard time sitting through 2 hours. But it didn’t feel long at all, fast moving storyline, lots to think about, interesting characters. I’d say worth seeing in a theater bc you’re forced to get off your phone and pay attention and it’s a movie you don’t want to just half watch

Totally agree. I just saw it and feel like I need to see it again. There is a lot to unpack.

I saw it yesterday - it's at the AMC Tyson's in IMAX. I don't think I will see it again, but I thought it was really excellent and thought-provoking on several levels.

Cillian Murphy was great in this role, but also distracting in some way. I don't know. I think it's how thin he got for this role or the way they shot his face. I realize the real Oppenheimer was fairly slight. But Murphy really portrayed a lot of the moral questioning even though he was dedicated to defeating the Nazis. So many good moments - Groves and the bombs leaving Los Alamos and Oppenheimer and the audience realizing at the same time that the thing they have been so invested in/considered theirs is out of their hands. The rally after they hear the Hiroshima news.

I kind of agree on the nudity, but I saw it more as the representation of Oppenheimer's womanizing/questionable personal life. And the two of them naked in the chairs was a reference to psychoanalysis. The scene in the hearing room was from the POV of Kitty. Still, like my husband said - without the nudity you could show this film in every high school in America.

I thought the clearance hearing/Senate hearing backdrop was cleverly done and of course Rami Malek delivered the signature Nolan twist. RDJ was great. Watching the hearings stuff was a reminder of how much of this stuff is politics and not sincere.

Shout out to Matt Damon as Gen. Groves. Thought he was fantastic and added a perfect amount of levity as well as a distinct contrast in personality/feel to the scientists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really loved this movie and think it was one of the best movies of the decade. I had no idea who Oppenheimer was prior to seeing it and did find the plot of who the spy was difficult to follow but understood ultimately it was showing a loyalty and tolerance of differences that Oppenheimer was not shown.

As someone who works in the government in a political function, it made me sick to see how Oppenheimer was punished for associations when there was no evidence of him joining the communist party or advancing foreign communist agendas. The nudity with Florence Pugh was to demonstrate his strongest tie to communism and how the RDJr character was able to take him down in the sectet hearings.

The movie did an incredible job showing how the desperation of WWII and the need to demonstrate that the US knew how to use nuclear weapons forced Hiroshima. It shows how once the pandoea box of potential was opened in science we had to go there and how it was inevitable through Oppenheimer's conversations.

It also does a great job for today's audience under the influence of the great liar to understand the truth comes out and history will not fondly on those who are blindly enabling Trumps ego.

It also is hopeful in that we have not used nuclear weapons again. Its been almost 80 years now. As bad and disive as the world seems, we all have enough sense not to play this game.

It also must be very cool for all people in psychics to have this blockbuster.

Cannot recommend enough.

Agree - my whole family loved it and the three hours flew by for us …

Plus two

Excellent movie, well cast and acted plus educational

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RDJr should win an Oscar for his role. Just masterful acting. The movie itself was choppy, unnecessarily long, and too much dialogue. Cillian Murphy was good but RDJr stole the show. Thought Emily Blunt was overacting and insufferable throughout. Movie was interesting and thought provoking but not the best movie ever made. Way overhyped.

I didn't find it to be too long because I thought it was engaging, but it could have shaved time by just eliminating Emily Blunt's character as a whole. She was terrible and his relationship with her was unnecessary and also uninteresting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I take my 13 year old to see this? What sort of R-rating is this stuff?

Several scenes of completely gratuitous nudity and sex. I don't know why every single movie has to have so much gratuitous sex. It adds nothing to the story. I was embarrassed seeing those scenes with my 19 year old.

Other than that, it's fine for a 13 year old.

I found it too long, with a poor script and very hard to follow (too many characters), but superb production values. I did not like the lead actor. He was so gaunt and unappealing to me, and his character wasn't all that interesting.

Robert Downey Jr. completely overacting. Matt Damon was good, just right, I thought.

Watch it when it comes out on Netflix. I wish I hadn't wasted three hours of my life watching it. The NYT raved about it, but I don't think it lived up to the hype.

I would be fascinated to learn what movies you do like. Cillian Murphy isn't a Tom Cruise household name, but he's certainly not a nobody who can't be named... And he was gaunt because...Oppenheimer was very slight. Seriously, what do you like to watch?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saw it yesterday. It would have made a much better miniseries like Chernobyl on HBO. Just way too much plot, too many "main points." I found it, frankly, tedious and hard to follow and I had trouble understanding the dialogue. By Hour Three I felt like I was losing it. Just too much movie.

In the world of TikTok and 20-second videos, it seems many people can't focus on anything anymore.

[Anonymous]

He was only in one scene but Gary Oldman was so perfect as Truman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw it yesterday. It would have made a much better miniseries like Chernobyl on HBO. Just way too much plot, too many "main points." I found it, frankly, tedious and hard to follow and I had trouble understanding the dialogue. By Hour Three I felt like I was losing it. Just too much movie.

It was a very complex project though.

Most of America is pretty stupid so it's to be expected that they wouldn't be able to understand a movie about the making of an atomic bomb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw it yesterday. It would have made a much better miniseries like Chernobyl on HBO. Just way too much plot, too many "main points." I found it, frankly, tedious and hard to follow and I had trouble understanding the dialogue. By Hour Three I felt like I was losing it. Just too much movie.

In the world of TikTok and 20-second videos, it seems many people can't focus on anything anymore.

Seriously. Yes, it was a complex film because sometimes history is complex!