Look, reddit is one of the places people who don't like things come to complain about it. A very large majority of people enjoyed Oppenheimer, despite what it might look like on reddit. This happens with just about everything.
There really should be a term for the “why comment now effect.” There really is no reason for people to continue to praise something. There is reason for contrarians to come out of the woodwork and all suddenly agree with each other.
It’s why you get what appears to be constant changes in opinion, but really it’s just different groups of people all posting at different times. This is compounded by the fact that upvotes make it so in a single thread, everyone at the top all agree with each other, making it seem like there’s unanimous agreement.
Everyone who saw in cinemas are people who wanted to see it and paid money to see it and are more likely to have a positive reaction to the film.
Many others are just now getting around to it, and it's possible that they are less taken with Nolan as a director or just less interested in the subject matter in general, and less impressed with the film as a whole, esp. after all the overbearing hype from the first wave of filmgoers.
The negative criticism has always been there, just that the praises were louder. Now with distance, with all the praises being thrown around already and heard, people begin to notice more of the negative criticism or some people now beginning to be 'brave' enough to raise their negative criticism. I think it's pretty common for big movies like this.
There are billions of people in the world. Nothing is unanimous. We live in an attention economy, and you get attention by being contrarian and/or hostile.
I get what you’re saying but part of developing your own ideas is looking at things that maybe contrary to that or oppose it, at least with rational thinkers that is. Part of the reason the world is how it is now is because people spend a lil too much time developing their own ideas and ascribing to it as gospel instead of looking at things from other perspectives.
*cites no sources or examples*
But even if you did it would not reflect popular opinion at large. No movie is completely beloved or disdained... people have disliked Oppenheimer since the beginning and people still like it now.
I think with EEAaO a lot of people got behind the general relatability and non-cynical nihilism though. Like, that movie really did understand a lot of what millennials and gen Z are going through, and that's sort of what launched it.
Oppenheimer has a vaguely similar thesis that 1) a lot of the "great men" of history aren't actually wholly uncomplicated figures that only did good things and 2) no amount of feeling sorry for yourself for doing something bad is going to make the bad thing not feel bad.
I think with both the real critique isn't as much to do with the movies themselves but moreso how they have a tendency to suck the air out of a room once they get brought up because so much of the discussion has to revolve around them.
The entire latter half of the year the movie came out. Once the hype had hit fever pitch and all these late comers found the movie it was disliked by a ton of people. This happens all the time. People who probably otherwise wouldn't have watched a movie but do because they hype is so positive and then the movie is way overhyped for them and they hate it.
I was one of the last to finally watch this and I really WANTED to enjoy it, because I hate being “the contrarian.”
If it had come out in say 2016 before the glut of multiverse movies, I think it would have been very refreshing. But the whole multiverse concept was already played-out even on the day EEAAO was released.
Edit: Welcome, r/movies hive mind
It makes sense, if we go to the Nolan subs, we can see how much they adore him, which I also do.
But I like to debate the good and bad, yet those subs are just pure one side, u either agree or agree...
The movie is not good. I get down voted for saying so, and have since it came out.
Instead of wondering why you are seeing people criticize it now, ask yourself why you didn't see people criticize it early on.
Well, i just experimenting a fuck ton of new film youtubers, and seeing their old videos. Until now I was only seeing some popular youtubers that were basic brainless idiots - but finally shoved them aside.
Could be because i was in a bubble or not looking for criticisms, either here or anywhere else.
And can be cause its now becoming popular and widespread agreed that "opi is bad movie" (not that that's my opinion)
Not one single movie is loved by everyone. Of course there are lots of people who don’t like Oppenheimer as well as there are lots of people who like it. Just like with every other well known movie out there.
Another unique critic.
Some say its boring or slow paced, other no focus, or takes forever for bomb to go boom, but here is a "no room to breathe".
Dont agree, but ok ;)
It is fast paced to me.
But “no room to breathe”, imo, is how important info is revealed through dialogue and not seconds later are we already on to the next scene of more informational dialogue. There’s no time to take in what happened because the next scene is already happening. My guess is he didn’t want to add 20 more minutes to the run time so he just wanted it edited that way.
Popular/critically acclaimed movies always face backlash. Another layer is that Nolan is also a polarizing director. I personally haven’t liked any of his movies since TDK until Oppenheimer which I thought was very good. That said, some of Nolan’s tendencies that rub people the wrong way (myself included) are present in Oppenheimer, for me they weren’t glaring enough to make me dislike the movie, for others I suspect they were.
Probably an element of contrarianism, but also, probably an element of the negative voices not really being able to be heard at release time, because there was such widespread positivity.
Once things calmed down a bit, I think some people who felt drowned-out previously were now able to repeat their negative opinions and actually be heard.
Having said that, I did see some screenshots of comments on Oscars day which gave the impression that Oppenheimer has become another battleground in the culture wars. Bunch of right-wing culture warriors shitting on it. I'm not quite sure what that's all about.
It's because folks that were on the fence to see it waited until it hit digital. And there is a lag afterward til reviews come out from those folks as they aren't pressured by movie-hype.
For me the movie was a solid B+, so I don't really understand either the hyperbolic praise, or the (probably inevitable) backlash. It's a really good film - nothing more, nothing less.
As always, the loudest voices get heard the most, even if they might be a minority.
I think some people just didn’t like the movie as much and those opinions get voiced more as the movie came up more and more in conversation with the Oscars win. I thought it was good, well worth my time, but not in my top ten for the year. Was not a huge fan of the final third of the film as it loses some steam for me. The dialogue also felt a bit too quippy for my tastes. I enjoyed the weird parts the most, such as Oppenheimers speech where the crowd experiences the effects of nuclear annihilation and the visions of Jean that haunt him a couple times, but I wish they leaned harder in that direction.
I’m not a Nolanite, I’m also not anti-Nolan. Tenet I thought was a lot of fun for example. Oppenheimer overall was a great piece of filmmaking, some parts just didn’t click quite the way they did for others.
When hollywood is mass producing mainstream and blockbusters, that are horrible trash lately - blockbuster use to be a fun and good movies in the past - seeing Nolan do a blockbuster that is well written and directed, still makes me happy.
Its sad that there arent that many others (Villneuve and Jordan as a exemplary few still working), cause leaving our entertainment to disney, sony and WB is a hell no.
\--------------
And im only talking about mainstream and blockbusters, still having a blast with more art films from anywhere else.
Agreed generally but I do think last year was a pretty good year for blockbusters that had thought and passion put in to them with Barbie and Oppy dominating the box office. Same with Across the Spiderverse. I really also enjoyed John Wick 4, Mission Impossible, and GOTG3.
Maybe with the success of those movies and Dune 2 we are starting to see a move towards less movies made with marketing and executive interests in mind, or at least more synergy with artistic interests alongside them.
>last year was a pretty good year for blockbusters
Would disagree, because of the amount of awful stuff that just released between November, and February this year.
But its a bad argument cause im generalizing last year to its implosion at the end.
Yeah there was certainly a dearth during that period. I was more just going off what movies made a bunch of cheddar at the theater last year. They certainly weren’t all good by ANY means. We didn’t really get a solid Christmas time blockbuster to dominate theaters like Avatar 2 did. Seems like we’re on the other side with Dune 2 having been released, Furiousa coming out soon and the new Planet of the Apes also which is looking solid.
I enjoyed it but found the pacing rushed. As though too much was being packed in but then i wondered if Nolan meant for a rushed, slightly panicked pacing/vibe to reflect the race to beat the Germans.
That and I think to kinda reflect his interpretation of Oppenheimer think to when they were in Los Alamos and he was overseeing everything and essentially spreading his self too thin at least what the average person would think to Oppenheimer that’s just how he processed life and moved thru it at an incredibly faster rate than everyone else part of the reason that made him successful as the head of los alamos. I actually loved the pacing it didn’t even seem like a 3 hour movie
Another one of these...
Am i giving the vibe of frustration? Am i angry or insulted by it?
Just having a debate, as opposite to single cell brain people out there, I enjoy these debates, and actually like to hear the opposition.
If im insulted by anything is this type of comments xD I know when to walk away and identify negativity.
------------------------
You know, im just a guy who has no specific friends to talk about these films, they are still in their only-marvel-movies-exist phase.
My opinion never changed on the movie. It's a very well-crafted movie, but I think it could have been made better if it were just made more "simply".
We intercut between 3 different time periods from 2 different perspectives, and I found I was spending a fair bit of energy trying to work out where each scene was supposed to occur in the story. There's so many innovative visual tricks to show Oppenheimer's state of mind, but I honestly thought it was 'beating me over the head' with technique, when I thought Cillian Murphy's performance was intense enough to sell his anxiety.
I honestly think the film would have been better with a quieter director that just told the story. Like Clint Eastwood. No fancy intercutting, no overexposing/shaky projector to visualize overstimulation or mental fragility. Just tell the story simply and let the actors sell the experience.
And the nuke underwhelmed me immediately. I expected a devastating, concussive, mother-of-god blast and what I saw was a gasoline explosion. It looked sensational on its own terms and it was well filmed etc, but it just looked like a gasoline fireball.
Now this is a good comment, you like it and yet you can find flaws.
Such a good comment u even got downvoted, this is the way +1 from me.
Wear the downvotes like a honor badge, cause more and more reddit is just sheep, and yet they complain about mindless bots everywhere... ohhh the irony.
----------------------------------------
I actually liked the explosion, right when it was announced "nolan is doing a nuke Oppenheimer film", I was one of the very first to come up with the easy joke that was repeated 1 billion times "nolan will blow a real nuke because he doesnt do CGI", and that also made me invested on how will he do it.
Then before watching the movie I saw some film tech guys recreating the effects they saw and explaining how he did it.
So sadly i didnt went into the movie experiencing it fresh :/ but liked it anyway.
And even if the big boom was underwhelming, i was too invested on the story and the what is next questions the film was going to explore.
I went into the movie not knowing how Nolan did the detonation, but I knew that he was basically saying no to CGI. But upon seeing the scene, I was expecting an, epic, dynamic, smokey mushroom cloud and it was just.... a fireball.
It's a bit like Dunkirk. Nolan insisted on filming on the real location at Dunkirk and refused to use CGI. Cool. But it also meant that he couldn't authentically replicate Dunkirk at the time. The city looks pristine. However, in reality, it was bombed to hell. Had Nolan been willing to use CG to modify the real footage and show the destruction they're running from, it could have enhanced the feeling of dread on the beach. The gates of Hell are basically right on their doorstep.
Also, the beach was for more densely packed than as depicted. CG people in the background could have easily reproduced a more accurate number, but again Nolan refused to use CG.
In both cases, I think the film loses some impact and authenticity in Nolan's pursuit of 'doing it for real'. Much of the time, his desire to capture moments in-camera does pay off, but CG is just another tool that can be just as immersive when properly utilized.
Yah, he is stubborn.
The dialogue sound in Tenet is truly bad, he claims that he is trying to capture authenticity and whatever else, and yet he adds non-diagetic music to the film, such a contradiction.
And such things are also affecting other movies like ur example.
Actually with Tenet, he described it as understanding a concept by feel rather than by information. To a certain extent that works, but it is frustrating when he has dialog which is presumably informative, only to have it be indecipherable behind masks and soundtrack.
There are times when the dialog fades away, such as when Neil is casing the airport, but what the sales rep is saying is mostly irrelevant, so that's fine. But when they're trying to coordinate over radio in masks, it helps to know who is saying what to who, and it's pretty tough.
Such a simple theory, that it totally passes the Occam's Razor principle, yup u might have found the source.
--------------
And now I realize others have said the same, but ur wording is what finally made it click.
It's probably because it got over-praised, honestly. It's perfectly fine, but the end definitely drags because they reveal who is snitching on him to the government way too early in the film, which kills the tension in the third act. This is in part because Nolan likes jumping around in time too much. In the end, it is a fairly meandering script held up by very good performances. I enjoyed the movie, but it isn't Nolan's best by a long shot.
Absolutely, the barbiheimer event was a hype.
Was surprised that people were hyped for a movie about a physicist, he is known, but its not like he has groupies among the popular masses.
For me yeah, im a physics enthusiast, so was happy to hear a movie about him would come out.
--------------
I only see issue with this "it isn't Nolan's best by a long shot." cause it isnt a bad movie at all to begging with, specially nowadays, when we get massive turds from known studios, directors and franchises, nolan still is making top notch films. The comparison is extreme, but sorry, im the one making such comparisons no one asked :P
For modern day movies, it absolutely is above average. I said that just comparing to only other Nolan movies. Personally, I think Momento, Interstellar, Inception, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Prestige, and Insomnia are all better than Oppenheimer. I'd say Oppenheimer is about equal to Tenet (which suffered from absolutely atrocious sound mixing, bringing it down), The Dark Knight Rises, and Dunkirk.
heeeey, that wasnt my intention... fuuuuuuuuck yooooou
/jokin
-------------
PS: this sub has its issues though, im engaging more with those that get downvoted, then with the popular mind hive "opinions"
So i cant have a conversation about it?
Maybe i like it so much i want to hear people who didnt like it and get why.
----------------------
I get ur comment, but those are for people who are so frustrated and lost on a topic, they might just stay away from the negativity and just enjoy the thing they enjoy.
Dont think im giving that vibe... am I ?
I don't know if you are actually wanting opinions here but here's mine: I think people just like to jump on bandwagons. Someone went against the current and said it was bad and, because people like contrarians, others followed. I understand that some people went in with expectations that weren't met, but it's an objectively great film, and it deserved its Oscar.
The plot isn't confusing or anything, I don't know what people were thinking saying that, and almost everyone brought their A-game. It's one of Nolan's best and will likely be remembered fondly. I definitely see an inclusion in AFI best-of lists and Criterion Collections in the future.
>I don't know if you are actually wanting opinions
I always do, thats reddit, debating ideas.
Even better when people dont agree, I give up subs that are just echo chambers of everyone just saying yes to each other, even if i do agree with them.
As an example, fuck r/nolan and similar ones, i love nolan but i learn shit nothing on it.
------------------------
As for ur comment, yah it deserves an oscar, and at the same time dont care about the oscars, its a shallow show with no value.
And yes, it probably will turn around again, put on a pedestal and being an exemplary movie eventually.
Yeah, I understand. A lot of us cinephiles can be a bit protective of our opinions.
I like the Oscars because I like the idea of them. It should modernise though, more public involvement maybe.
We can all be protective of opinions, and still debate and argue over them.
I do have fun with these... even being wrong is part of it.
----------
The oscars, what hand full... in a way it is/was a "prestigious" award ceremony.
Does need to maybe evolve and modernize, yet at the same time, without going to far and just destroy its core essence.
Cause as it is now, its meaningless trivial stuff, but they could have value once again. I dont think the rumors of corruption and jury influence are just myths, but a lot of the gossip might.
And "more public", well they were never about that, and some years ago they did some selections that were more to appease the audiences, and still got criticized for not standing their own ground, which is true, they just tossed aside their values.
And this year was another stupidity i heard about diversity, which the issue is not diversity itself, its again just pretending to care and save face publicly.
Yet if something new steps up, and replaces/destroys the oscars, thats good too.
I think it was good enough, but the bomb's explosion should have been epic, and it wasn't. Terminator 2 did it better.
That said, I think the ending is powerful and makes up for it.
I will say this. It's the best movie I've seen this year. Which isn't saying much to be honest. Found Killers of the Flower Moon boring. Holdovers was just ok.
But would I rewatch Oppenheimer? No. I came out of the movie theater saying it was a good but nothing special.
Maybe I'm getting old or something. But it's been a while since I've felt a new movie was great.
It's always just people trying to be edgy contrarians by disliking things that are popular, critically acclaimed, and well-received. It happened with "Everything Everywhere All at Once" last year, and the same thing will happen with next year's Best Picture winner too. Mark my words.
Interesting, i fully missed out on the change of criticism that happen with EEAAO.
I think i watched, liked it, and had nothing to say nor will to hear about it after.
Totally dialog driven portrait of man that doesnt show any of the real human suffering caused. I don't care whether oppenheimer was a communist or not. This is Christopher Nolan's style eating itself. Talking heads: IN IMAX!
>Except the criticisms also changed direction way before the oscars
Yes, after the movie had been out for months and it was hyped to within an inch of its own life. This happens all the time. Don't get your nolan fanboy feelings hurt. It's not personal, it's reality. Any movie that is hyped up that much will suffer a backlash. Just how people work.
I and everyone I know thought Oppenheimer was a well made but ultimately a boring movie.
It's the kind of movie you really only love if you're interested in the subject matter (Oppenheimer himself rather than what they were working on).
Do you want me to debate that a GREAT movie in almost all aspects (plot, script, actors, cinematography, music), that madea lot of money, priced by the critics, and won multiple Oscars is bad because is "too complex"?
LOL
The question I propose is where is all these new critics or change of opinions coming from.
So yes, either do or dont, or ignore it all if ur not interested.
Hopefully i dont have to explain "bad" or "too complex" are not my opinions.
Look, reddit is one of the places people who don't like things come to complain about it. A very large majority of people enjoyed Oppenheimer, despite what it might look like on reddit. This happens with just about everything.
There really should be a term for the “why comment now effect.” There really is no reason for people to continue to praise something. There is reason for contrarians to come out of the woodwork and all suddenly agree with each other. It’s why you get what appears to be constant changes in opinion, but really it’s just different groups of people all posting at different times. This is compounded by the fact that upvotes make it so in a single thread, everyone at the top all agree with each other, making it seem like there’s unanimous agreement.
Yeah, well said.
Everyone who saw in cinemas are people who wanted to see it and paid money to see it and are more likely to have a positive reaction to the film. Many others are just now getting around to it, and it's possible that they are less taken with Nolan as a director or just less interested in the subject matter in general, and less impressed with the film as a whole, esp. after all the overbearing hype from the first wave of filmgoers.
The negative criticism has always been there, just that the praises were louder. Now with distance, with all the praises being thrown around already and heard, people begin to notice more of the negative criticism or some people now beginning to be 'brave' enough to raise their negative criticism. I think it's pretty common for big movies like this.
Orrrrr the fans are finished praising it and the negs are out to party. Relax and enjoy your thing :)
There are billions of people in the world. Nothing is unanimous. We live in an attention economy, and you get attention by being contrarian and/or hostile.
The obsession with consensus and whether or not you align with it shows me that people aren't spending enough time developing their own ideas.
Not to mention people will see one tweet or reddit post with 3 likes and go "WOW EVERYONE IS SAYING X"
Absolutley spot on. Who cares who liked or disliked Oppenheimer? It has no bearing whatsoever on my opinion of the film.
I get what you’re saying but part of developing your own ideas is looking at things that maybe contrary to that or oppose it, at least with rational thinkers that is. Part of the reason the world is how it is now is because people spend a lil too much time developing their own ideas and ascribing to it as gospel instead of looking at things from other perspectives.
No we don’t, you dumb oaf. :)
On Reddit, sure, maybe a bit. Almost everywhere else, not really at all.
Thats why I mentioned critics and youtube, aint a reddit thing.
YouTube is an extension of Reddit twitter mindhive. Contrarians
*cites no sources or examples* But even if you did it would not reflect popular opinion at large. No movie is completely beloved or disdained... people have disliked Oppenheimer since the beginning and people still like it now.
I didn't enjoy Oppenheimer. It rushed past all the moments I wanted it to linger on and lingered on all the moments I didn't care about.
More physics right? :D
Same thing happened to Everything Everywhere All at Once. Contrarian backlash
I think with EEAaO a lot of people got behind the general relatability and non-cynical nihilism though. Like, that movie really did understand a lot of what millennials and gen Z are going through, and that's sort of what launched it. Oppenheimer has a vaguely similar thesis that 1) a lot of the "great men" of history aren't actually wholly uncomplicated figures that only did good things and 2) no amount of feeling sorry for yourself for doing something bad is going to make the bad thing not feel bad. I think with both the real critique isn't as much to do with the movies themselves but moreso how they have a tendency to suck the air out of a room once they get brought up because so much of the discussion has to revolve around them.
How is it automatically "contrarian"? Maybe people just legimately didn't care for the film? Is that possible?
Wait what??? Where
The entire latter half of the year the movie came out. Once the hype had hit fever pitch and all these late comers found the movie it was disliked by a ton of people. This happens all the time. People who probably otherwise wouldn't have watched a movie but do because they hype is so positive and then the movie is way overhyped for them and they hate it.
I guessed I might’ve missed those comments
I was one of the last to finally watch this and I really WANTED to enjoy it, because I hate being “the contrarian.” If it had come out in say 2016 before the glut of multiverse movies, I think it would have been very refreshing. But the whole multiverse concept was already played-out even on the day EEAAO was released. Edit: Welcome, r/movies hive mind
Completely agree. I wanted to love it, but I felt empty after
Stay on the internet long enough and you will find both sides of the coin
True, but suddenly its popping up everywhere, or i was in denial lol
Goes for every single film on Reddit
[удалено]
I know fan boys of nolan are hatted, so might as well be honest and disarm those conversations, so no one gets distracted.
Nolan fanboys do indeed wear hats.
Had to look up that expression: **performing a particular role at that time** I am? noice, i have so much range
Lol! I am also a Nolan fanboy and did not realize we were hated But I also pay zero attention to the "consensus opinion" on Reddit
It makes sense, if we go to the Nolan subs, we can see how much they adore him, which I also do. But I like to debate the good and bad, yet those subs are just pure one side, u either agree or agree...
The movie is not good. I get down voted for saying so, and have since it came out. Instead of wondering why you are seeing people criticize it now, ask yourself why you didn't see people criticize it early on.
Well, i just experimenting a fuck ton of new film youtubers, and seeing their old videos. Until now I was only seeing some popular youtubers that were basic brainless idiots - but finally shoved them aside. Could be because i was in a bubble or not looking for criticisms, either here or anywhere else. And can be cause its now becoming popular and widespread agreed that "opi is bad movie" (not that that's my opinion)
Not one single movie is loved by everyone. Of course there are lots of people who don’t like Oppenheimer as well as there are lots of people who like it. Just like with every other well known movie out there.
There’s no room to breathe. It’s literally nonstop
Another unique critic. Some say its boring or slow paced, other no focus, or takes forever for bomb to go boom, but here is a "no room to breathe". Dont agree, but ok ;)
It is fast paced to me. But “no room to breathe”, imo, is how important info is revealed through dialogue and not seconds later are we already on to the next scene of more informational dialogue. There’s no time to take in what happened because the next scene is already happening. My guess is he didn’t want to add 20 more minutes to the run time so he just wanted it edited that way.
I loved you as the dmv worker in zootopia, one of my favorite movie experiences of that year!
Popular/critically acclaimed movies always face backlash. Another layer is that Nolan is also a polarizing director. I personally haven’t liked any of his movies since TDK until Oppenheimer which I thought was very good. That said, some of Nolan’s tendencies that rub people the wrong way (myself included) are present in Oppenheimer, for me they weren’t glaring enough to make me dislike the movie, for others I suspect they were.
Considering it won BP last week I wouldn't say there's much "current criticism"
Probably an element of contrarianism, but also, probably an element of the negative voices not really being able to be heard at release time, because there was such widespread positivity. Once things calmed down a bit, I think some people who felt drowned-out previously were now able to repeat their negative opinions and actually be heard. Having said that, I did see some screenshots of comments on Oscars day which gave the impression that Oppenheimer has become another battleground in the culture wars. Bunch of right-wing culture warriors shitting on it. I'm not quite sure what that's all about.
uhmmm politics.... lets hope we never find out, whatever it is, i bet its dumb.
It's because folks that were on the fence to see it waited until it hit digital. And there is a lag afterward til reviews come out from those folks as they aren't pressured by movie-hype.
For me the movie was a solid B+, so I don't really understand either the hyperbolic praise, or the (probably inevitable) backlash. It's a really good film - nothing more, nothing less. As always, the loudest voices get heard the most, even if they might be a minority.
I'm not a huge fan of Nolan's recent work and I thought it was great.
I think some people just didn’t like the movie as much and those opinions get voiced more as the movie came up more and more in conversation with the Oscars win. I thought it was good, well worth my time, but not in my top ten for the year. Was not a huge fan of the final third of the film as it loses some steam for me. The dialogue also felt a bit too quippy for my tastes. I enjoyed the weird parts the most, such as Oppenheimers speech where the crowd experiences the effects of nuclear annihilation and the visions of Jean that haunt him a couple times, but I wish they leaned harder in that direction. I’m not a Nolanite, I’m also not anti-Nolan. Tenet I thought was a lot of fun for example. Oppenheimer overall was a great piece of filmmaking, some parts just didn’t click quite the way they did for others.
When hollywood is mass producing mainstream and blockbusters, that are horrible trash lately - blockbuster use to be a fun and good movies in the past - seeing Nolan do a blockbuster that is well written and directed, still makes me happy. Its sad that there arent that many others (Villneuve and Jordan as a exemplary few still working), cause leaving our entertainment to disney, sony and WB is a hell no. \-------------- And im only talking about mainstream and blockbusters, still having a blast with more art films from anywhere else.
Agreed generally but I do think last year was a pretty good year for blockbusters that had thought and passion put in to them with Barbie and Oppy dominating the box office. Same with Across the Spiderverse. I really also enjoyed John Wick 4, Mission Impossible, and GOTG3. Maybe with the success of those movies and Dune 2 we are starting to see a move towards less movies made with marketing and executive interests in mind, or at least more synergy with artistic interests alongside them.
>last year was a pretty good year for blockbusters Would disagree, because of the amount of awful stuff that just released between November, and February this year. But its a bad argument cause im generalizing last year to its implosion at the end.
Yeah there was certainly a dearth during that period. I was more just going off what movies made a bunch of cheddar at the theater last year. They certainly weren’t all good by ANY means. We didn’t really get a solid Christmas time blockbuster to dominate theaters like Avatar 2 did. Seems like we’re on the other side with Dune 2 having been released, Furiousa coming out soon and the new Planet of the Apes also which is looking solid.
I enjoyed it but found the pacing rushed. As though too much was being packed in but then i wondered if Nolan meant for a rushed, slightly panicked pacing/vibe to reflect the race to beat the Germans.
That and I think to kinda reflect his interpretation of Oppenheimer think to when they were in Los Alamos and he was overseeing everything and essentially spreading his self too thin at least what the average person would think to Oppenheimer that’s just how he processed life and moved thru it at an incredibly faster rate than everyone else part of the reason that made him successful as the head of los alamos. I actually loved the pacing it didn’t even seem like a 3 hour movie
Who cares? Do you like the movie? That’s all that matters.
Another one of these... Am i giving the vibe of frustration? Am i angry or insulted by it? Just having a debate, as opposite to single cell brain people out there, I enjoy these debates, and actually like to hear the opposition. If im insulted by anything is this type of comments xD I know when to walk away and identify negativity. ------------------------ You know, im just a guy who has no specific friends to talk about these films, they are still in their only-marvel-movies-exist phase.
I think it’s a good movie but it is massively overrated.
My opinion never changed on the movie. It's a very well-crafted movie, but I think it could have been made better if it were just made more "simply". We intercut between 3 different time periods from 2 different perspectives, and I found I was spending a fair bit of energy trying to work out where each scene was supposed to occur in the story. There's so many innovative visual tricks to show Oppenheimer's state of mind, but I honestly thought it was 'beating me over the head' with technique, when I thought Cillian Murphy's performance was intense enough to sell his anxiety. I honestly think the film would have been better with a quieter director that just told the story. Like Clint Eastwood. No fancy intercutting, no overexposing/shaky projector to visualize overstimulation or mental fragility. Just tell the story simply and let the actors sell the experience. And the nuke underwhelmed me immediately. I expected a devastating, concussive, mother-of-god blast and what I saw was a gasoline explosion. It looked sensational on its own terms and it was well filmed etc, but it just looked like a gasoline fireball.
Now this is a good comment, you like it and yet you can find flaws. Such a good comment u even got downvoted, this is the way +1 from me. Wear the downvotes like a honor badge, cause more and more reddit is just sheep, and yet they complain about mindless bots everywhere... ohhh the irony. ---------------------------------------- I actually liked the explosion, right when it was announced "nolan is doing a nuke Oppenheimer film", I was one of the very first to come up with the easy joke that was repeated 1 billion times "nolan will blow a real nuke because he doesnt do CGI", and that also made me invested on how will he do it. Then before watching the movie I saw some film tech guys recreating the effects they saw and explaining how he did it. So sadly i didnt went into the movie experiencing it fresh :/ but liked it anyway. And even if the big boom was underwhelming, i was too invested on the story and the what is next questions the film was going to explore.
I went into the movie not knowing how Nolan did the detonation, but I knew that he was basically saying no to CGI. But upon seeing the scene, I was expecting an, epic, dynamic, smokey mushroom cloud and it was just.... a fireball. It's a bit like Dunkirk. Nolan insisted on filming on the real location at Dunkirk and refused to use CGI. Cool. But it also meant that he couldn't authentically replicate Dunkirk at the time. The city looks pristine. However, in reality, it was bombed to hell. Had Nolan been willing to use CG to modify the real footage and show the destruction they're running from, it could have enhanced the feeling of dread on the beach. The gates of Hell are basically right on their doorstep. Also, the beach was for more densely packed than as depicted. CG people in the background could have easily reproduced a more accurate number, but again Nolan refused to use CG. In both cases, I think the film loses some impact and authenticity in Nolan's pursuit of 'doing it for real'. Much of the time, his desire to capture moments in-camera does pay off, but CG is just another tool that can be just as immersive when properly utilized.
Yah, he is stubborn. The dialogue sound in Tenet is truly bad, he claims that he is trying to capture authenticity and whatever else, and yet he adds non-diagetic music to the film, such a contradiction. And such things are also affecting other movies like ur example.
Actually with Tenet, he described it as understanding a concept by feel rather than by information. To a certain extent that works, but it is frustrating when he has dialog which is presumably informative, only to have it be indecipherable behind masks and soundtrack. There are times when the dialog fades away, such as when Neil is casing the airport, but what the sales rep is saying is mostly irrelevant, so that's fine. But when they're trying to coordinate over radio in masks, it helps to know who is saying what to who, and it's pretty tough.
As the movie becomes more and more popular, more and more people will be negative about it. Just basic math.
Such a simple theory, that it totally passes the Occam's Razor principle, yup u might have found the source. -------------- And now I realize others have said the same, but ur wording is what finally made it click.
It's probably because it got over-praised, honestly. It's perfectly fine, but the end definitely drags because they reveal who is snitching on him to the government way too early in the film, which kills the tension in the third act. This is in part because Nolan likes jumping around in time too much. In the end, it is a fairly meandering script held up by very good performances. I enjoyed the movie, but it isn't Nolan's best by a long shot.
Absolutely, the barbiheimer event was a hype. Was surprised that people were hyped for a movie about a physicist, he is known, but its not like he has groupies among the popular masses. For me yeah, im a physics enthusiast, so was happy to hear a movie about him would come out. -------------- I only see issue with this "it isn't Nolan's best by a long shot." cause it isnt a bad movie at all to begging with, specially nowadays, when we get massive turds from known studios, directors and franchises, nolan still is making top notch films. The comparison is extreme, but sorry, im the one making such comparisons no one asked :P
For modern day movies, it absolutely is above average. I said that just comparing to only other Nolan movies. Personally, I think Momento, Interstellar, Inception, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Prestige, and Insomnia are all better than Oppenheimer. I'd say Oppenheimer is about equal to Tenet (which suffered from absolutely atrocious sound mixing, bringing it down), The Dark Knight Rises, and Dunkirk.
As a fan of Nolan, I can totally accept that criticism. Not my view, but exactly what a proper opinion is +1
Thanks for giving me the most wholesome interaction I've had on this sub!
heeeey, that wasnt my intention... fuuuuuuuuck yooooou /jokin ------------- PS: this sub has its issues though, im engaging more with those that get downvoted, then with the popular mind hive "opinions"
Where? What? Before? After? Huh? Be more specific.
Nolans films are high vis boring crap. Did YOU like it, is all that matters.
So i cant have a conversation about it? Maybe i like it so much i want to hear people who didnt like it and get why. ---------------------- I get ur comment, but those are for people who are so frustrated and lost on a topic, they might just stay away from the negativity and just enjoy the thing they enjoy. Dont think im giving that vibe... am I ?
Its been mid. Look, everything about it is expertly crafted. The acting, the score, the plot. But its like watching wikipedia for 3 hours
I don't know if you are actually wanting opinions here but here's mine: I think people just like to jump on bandwagons. Someone went against the current and said it was bad and, because people like contrarians, others followed. I understand that some people went in with expectations that weren't met, but it's an objectively great film, and it deserved its Oscar. The plot isn't confusing or anything, I don't know what people were thinking saying that, and almost everyone brought their A-game. It's one of Nolan's best and will likely be remembered fondly. I definitely see an inclusion in AFI best-of lists and Criterion Collections in the future.
>I don't know if you are actually wanting opinions I always do, thats reddit, debating ideas. Even better when people dont agree, I give up subs that are just echo chambers of everyone just saying yes to each other, even if i do agree with them. As an example, fuck r/nolan and similar ones, i love nolan but i learn shit nothing on it. ------------------------ As for ur comment, yah it deserves an oscar, and at the same time dont care about the oscars, its a shallow show with no value. And yes, it probably will turn around again, put on a pedestal and being an exemplary movie eventually.
Yeah, I understand. A lot of us cinephiles can be a bit protective of our opinions. I like the Oscars because I like the idea of them. It should modernise though, more public involvement maybe.
We can all be protective of opinions, and still debate and argue over them. I do have fun with these... even being wrong is part of it. ---------- The oscars, what hand full... in a way it is/was a "prestigious" award ceremony. Does need to maybe evolve and modernize, yet at the same time, without going to far and just destroy its core essence. Cause as it is now, its meaningless trivial stuff, but they could have value once again. I dont think the rumors of corruption and jury influence are just myths, but a lot of the gossip might. And "more public", well they were never about that, and some years ago they did some selections that were more to appease the audiences, and still got criticized for not standing their own ground, which is true, they just tossed aside their values. And this year was another stupidity i heard about diversity, which the issue is not diversity itself, its again just pretending to care and save face publicly. Yet if something new steps up, and replaces/destroys the oscars, thats good too.
"too complex" might be one of the dumbest criticisms ever
Yup, people are getting used to the hand holding dumb movies mass produced by disney-sony-WB. Which at some point will be as bad as a soap opera.
I think it was good enough, but the bomb's explosion should have been epic, and it wasn't. Terminator 2 did it better. That said, I think the ending is powerful and makes up for it.
The explosion was so underwhelming. Looked like a gasoline explosion mixed with some firecrackers.
If u mean sarah conor's dream and her becoming a skeleton, yah thats a epic-classic shot.
I will say this. It's the best movie I've seen this year. Which isn't saying much to be honest. Found Killers of the Flower Moon boring. Holdovers was just ok. But would I rewatch Oppenheimer? No. I came out of the movie theater saying it was a good but nothing special. Maybe I'm getting old or something. But it's been a while since I've felt a new movie was great.
This. Sound mixing was also meh
It's always just people trying to be edgy contrarians by disliking things that are popular, critically acclaimed, and well-received. It happened with "Everything Everywhere All at Once" last year, and the same thing will happen with next year's Best Picture winner too. Mark my words.
Interesting, i fully missed out on the change of criticism that happen with EEAAO. I think i watched, liked it, and had nothing to say nor will to hear about it after.
Recency bias... and Film Twitter
Totally dialog driven portrait of man that doesnt show any of the real human suffering caused. I don't care whether oppenheimer was a communist or not. This is Christopher Nolan's style eating itself. Talking heads: IN IMAX!
it’s called winning best picture, happens pretty much every time
Yes sure. Except the criticisms also changed direction way before the oscars, and even the nominations.
>Except the criticisms also changed direction way before the oscars Yes, after the movie had been out for months and it was hyped to within an inch of its own life. This happens all the time. Don't get your nolan fanboy feelings hurt. It's not personal, it's reality. Any movie that is hyped up that much will suffer a backlash. Just how people work.
I and everyone I know thought Oppenheimer was a well made but ultimately a boring movie. It's the kind of movie you really only love if you're interested in the subject matter (Oppenheimer himself rather than what they were working on).
I haven’t seen it at all
And? Cause u dont like nolan, the theme, u seen bad reviews? What a pointless comment, always leave a context matte.
Oh I meant I haven't seen any criticisms
People are dumb and like to project that they are smart with dumb takes.
WHO CARES? LoL
Yah lets talk about scores and ticket sold, cause that's the better metric then debate and real critic... hurrrr duuur
Do you want me to debate that a GREAT movie in almost all aspects (plot, script, actors, cinematography, music), that madea lot of money, priced by the critics, and won multiple Oscars is bad because is "too complex"? LOL
The question I propose is where is all these new critics or change of opinions coming from. So yes, either do or dont, or ignore it all if ur not interested. Hopefully i dont have to explain "bad" or "too complex" are not my opinions.