Anonymous wrote:it was ok. I'm sour on it because the movie set in a war made for men that came out at the same time as the movie made for women and somehow underperformed the movie made for women swept the oscars while the movie made for women by women was almost shut out

The Oscars? Hardly a good judge. A gaggle of mentally ill broken people.

No, not the most overrated movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Nolan has become a bit overly commercial and flashy. I don't think he breathes enough life into his characters. Sometimes watching his movies is like watching a really long music video or extended trailer. I'm really not a fan of his recent films. So I went into it with low expectations.

I think two things really save Nolan this time (unlike Dunkirk, Interstellar, etc). The depth of the topic and Cillian Murphy.

I don't think it's a "Criterion Collection" type of movie but it was interesting.

Anonymous wrote:it was ok. I'm sour on it because the movie set in a war made for men that came out at the same time as the movie made for women and somehow underperformed the movie made for women swept the oscars while the movie made for women by women was almost shut out

Eh, just because something is popular and appeals to the unwashed masses doesn’t mean it’s good or special. By the numbers, McDonalds and Chipotle perform better than 5 star restaurants.

I feel like both movies were overhyped: the industry and media told us they were amazing and everyone should see them. Barbie was fun in the theater when everyone was wearing pink and having a group experience, but it impossible to sit through it again. Oppenheimer seems like a long, tough slog.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely not. There are other movies that are way more overhyped than Oppenheimer. Hell look at some past best picture winners- some are terrible. Oppenheimer is not terrible at all.

Overhyped and overrated doesn’t mean terrible.

Rather, it means it received so much attention/publicity it didn’t deserve thanks to immediate (even prerelease) acclaim that wasn’t deserved.

Hollywood is really good at making fetch happen.

Think of all the not so handsome actors who were forced upon us as leading men.

But what’s the anti-Oppenheimer case? The consensus, with which I happen to agree, is that it was very well acted, beautifully shot, etc. Did you not like Downey’s performance, which seemed to me excellent after years of Tony Stark? Emily Blount didn’t do it for you? I thought she was amazing. There are certainly legitimate critiques: it is a bit talky in places, and the choice to focus on the administrative process about his security clearance later in the film was surely not everyone’s cup of tea. Although it’s pretty impressive that this kind of movie was such a commercial success as well. Perfectly reasonable to not like it or to think that there were better films this year, but the praise Oppenheimer got was reasonably well deserved and hardly a pathological example of overhype IMO.

it was ok. I'm sour on it because the movie set in a war made for men that came out at the same time as the movie made for women and somehow underperformed the movie made for women swept the oscars while the movie made for women by women was almost shut out

Apparently there are tons of threads on Reddit along with countless legit movie reviews calling Oppenheimer overhyped and overrated.

One review called it a chaotic assortment of vignettes, noting the Florence Pugh bit was unnecessary.

It popped up as available on one of our streaming services but I decided to watch Ricky Stinicky instead.

Have to watch in theater. The magnitude of the bomb is a big part of the movie. Doesn’t translate on the small screen

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely not. There are other movies that are way more overhyped than Oppenheimer. Hell look at some past best picture winners- some are terrible. Oppenheimer is not terrible at all.

Overhyped and overrated doesn’t mean terrible.

Rather, it means it received so much attention/publicity it didn’t deserve thanks to immediate (even prerelease) acclaim that wasn’t deserved.

Hollywood is really good at making fetch happen.

Think of all the not so handsome actors who were forced upon us as leading men.

Okay. But that doesn't apply to Oppenheimer.

Anonymous wrote:Definitely not. There are other movies that are way more overhyped than Oppenheimer. Hell look at some past best picture winners- some are terrible. Oppenheimer is not terrible at all.

Overhyped and overrated doesn’t mean terrible.

Rather, it means it received so much attention/publicity it didn’t deserve thanks to immediate (even prerelease) acclaim that wasn’t deserved.

Hollywood is really good at making fetch happen.

Think of all the not so handsome actors who were forced upon us as leading men.

Not even close, Oppenheimer is at worst a very good movie, I think it’s better than that but understand the arguments to the contrary. I think it’s a reasonable choice for Best Picture, but it was a competitive year and I didn’t hear a lot of “Oppenheimer is so good that no other movie this year comes close.” It was, all in all, a pretty good year for movies. Even the Oppenheimer hype was bound up with Barbie hype, so it’s not like anyone was ever pretending there weren’t other good movies this year.

No but it was only okay.

Definitely not. There are other movies that are way more overhyped than Oppenheimer. Hell look at some past best picture winners- some are terrible. Oppenheimer is not terrible at all.

No? It was fine! Good. Not everything has to be for everyone, and this one wasn’t for me, but no one could credibly argue it wasn’t well made.

Title says it all.

I’ve heard several people say this. Is it true?