Oppenheimer is Nolan's worst film

Oh great wise Yoda. Why is it imperative that we have to see a movie about that? Wasn't Saving Private Ryan enough?

Why did 40,000 americans die on the hardest beach on D-Day, on Omaha and only 600 Brits and Canadians died on the beaches right adjacent. On Sword and Juno. Was it because they were better fighters. Ha. That's a good one. There is probably a feminist agenda of some kind behind this film. I haven't seen it yet. But I saw the "newer" batman movies and I could see a feminist agenda.

Maybe it isn't, but what a weird question to ask about such an important event, with near-universal implications about guilt, technology, responsibility, and a dozen other things core the experience of being human.

I'm also pretty sure this is a non-sequitur, anyway. I was simply pointing out that trying to boil some shots down to "a close up" clearly misunderstands their intent. Nothing about me saying that suggests it is "imperative" for the movie to exist.

Enough that we should never have any more films about WW2? Actually, no, not just that, but enough that we should never have any more films that deal with WW2, even if they depict an entirely different side of it, in an entirely different way?

I have no idea who or what this is aimed at. It seems like you're working backward from a broader cultural complaint (and I would remind you about the No Politics rule there) and trying to connect it to this discussion, though I don't really see how.

Regardless, the thing about suspecting there's an agenda about something you haven't even seen (???) is that you will, magically, always manage to find it whether it's there or not.

You are reminding Christopher Nolan of the No Politics rule? Ok. I am sure he is noting it. Or cares what a clown like you says. Have you ever served in the military? We are supposed to talk about Oppeheimer the care taker and philanthropist for polar bears and saving the highlands moth? Your Jack Parsons mind cap is a bit in overdrive. Pal. Nice some of that super vegan stuff. Do you even know who the president of the United States was during World War II?

Nope, I'm reminding you, since you're consistently digressing away from anything Nolan was saying with his film.

Nope. I assume this is the point where you imply that my opinion on something or other is therefore invalidated, even though none of it is contingent on that.

We're supposed to talk about the film Oppenheimer.

Yup, FDR. The guy who shunned Washington's self-imposed honor system term limit and forced us to codify it. The guy with three different Vice Presidents. The guy who tried to pack the court, and hid his polio-caused lack of ambulation from the press, and a hundred other things of historical note.

I'm a pretty big fan of the history of the office. Can name the Presidents in order, just for funsies. So stop trying to big time me, not only because it won't work, but because it has nothing to do with anything.

If you have something substantive to add, rather than a non-sequitur, great. Anything else will be deleted.

"Meet my arbitrary criteria or I don't have to explain myself" is an unfortunately common, and extremely transparent, way of dodging questions.

Wow. I think I may have seen you at a Tea Party Rally. You hate this guy more than people today hate Trump. Hey well. I have a Smithsonian magazine that shows the guy wearing a girls dress and his hair long and blonde like a girl. The magazine says, hey don't worry that was a common trope or deal going on in the late eighteen hundreds, to dress boys up like girls.

I'll admit that there are a lot of things in this world that I do not know. My question is, is Christopher Nolan able to admit that same thing. Is he making Oppenheimer as a history lesson to himself or as some educational tool for people who don't know who he is. I don't really get where the poetic verse in that is. I disagree with you that FDR doesn't have to do with anything. He was the president of the United States during World War II. I am not trying to big time you, I am someone who cares about his country. Without FDR Oppenheimer and his boy up in the fort experiments (backed by government money) wouldn't have happened.

Trick question right?

Rule 8.5.3.2. If an injury to a batter-runner or runner prevents her from proceeding to an awarded base, the ball is dead and substitution may be made. The substitute must legally touch all awarded or missed based not previously touched.

I mean. I am all burned out on rules. Seriously. Because we all know what this is. It's feminism.

Harry S. Truman was a feminist? Who knew

ROFLMFAO !!!
This could be post of the year, but not in a way the writer intended.

Not really. I certainly don't worship him, but as is often the case the most controversial things are among the most interesting, and besides, the first one (about term limits) isn't inherently negative. It could be seen as a commentary on his popularity.

But this, like most of this exchange, is neither here nor there.

What's this got to do with anything?

Nothing about the creation of this film suggests people do not know who Oppenheimer is. And the last sentence seems to bear no relationship to the rest of the paragraph. I'm also not sure why anyone would expect to "get" the verse in poetry they haven't read.

It has nothing to do with anything in the context of the film, and this discussion about it. Oppenheimer would not exist without his great great great grandparents; does it then follow that randomly telling me their life stories would qualify as on topic for a discussion of the film?

Similarly, WW2 is one of the most significant events in history, so you could, under this standard, connect it to almost anything. Which means you're using a standard that effectively has no limiting principle on whatever random thing you would care to drag into the discussion. Which is what's happening: a lot of confusing, random digressions.

Someone's importance to real life events, and their genesis, is not the same thing as their importance and relevance to the story of the film.

Normally I'd have deleted this already, but people have since responded to it (reminder everyone: when you do that, you severely limit my ability to moderate this stuff), and I get the impression you were at least initially unaware of the rules here. It also is so seemingly untethered to the existing discussion, and indeed any coherent line of reasoning I can come up with, that I'm not even sure if it is political or not, even though it sounds like it is.

Taking each in turn: in the footer of every page on this site, there is a link called Rules. You can find more there. I now consider you fully aware of them and will delete any similar responses.

I have also never understood (whether this describes you or not) the style of Internet arguing that elides reasoning altogether and just comes to some far-flung conclusion as if it were obvious. It's ostensibly done to project confidence, but I tend to read it the other way. It's the person secure in their reasoning that's most likely to be transparent about it. The people for whom their syllogisms are black boxes they have to be pestered into disclosing are generally the ones taking leaps and liberties along the way.

Regardless, this is dragging the thread off topic, and I've given ample warning. Further digressions, without explanation, will be removed.

Good, because I came in at the WRONG time lol.


OK, I just have this to say about the movie: it's a serious LOT to pack into three hours, but you get the Oppenheimer story from a plethora of angles and a great deal of his character, and how he affected others as well as the little ways others affected him, and that satisfies me. It was my movie of the year until I saw Across the Spider-Verse.



If someone doesn't like explaining their criteria, they shouldn't be on a movie forum, so I'll do mine.


1. What is the goal of this film? To greatly explore Oppenheimer's story and character while still being a cinematic experience.


2. Does it meet its goal? Yeah. The whole movie is about Oppie's personality as much as it's about his achievement, and the special effects and music felt perfectly natural somehow, likely due to Nolan's own personality.


3. Does the movie ignore or sacrifice anything to meet it's goal? Yeah: character development for other people in the long run. Perfectly directed on pretty much all accounts IMO.



4. Do other aspects of the movie make up for the sacrifices? Well, it's a lot to pack in for three hours, and we get a very strong experience with the lead character considering it's his bio. So since there's a lot to pack in, this isn't the MOST fair question, but since there are other biopics with more development for sides, I'd say it's a SLIGHT mistake.


98/100.

Oh wow u scared me, I thought u were being fr for a second

40,000 Americans did NOT die. It was more like 4,414 allied soldiers of which 2501 were Americans.

Butting in just to second this

__________________

??? Context pls?

abt the title of the thread )

Fighting the urge to make an Interstellar joke.

Definitely Good:

Memento
Inception
Dark Knight
Prestige
Oppenheimer
...

Definitely Bad:

Dark Knight Rises
...

Everything else is arguable, or down to taste.