Started By
Message

re: Oppenheimer | Official Reaction Thread | Spoilers

Posted on 8/12/23 at 7:00 pm to
Posted by crimsonsaint
Member since Nov 2009
37274 posts
Posted on 8/12/23 at 7:00 pm to
Fantastic movie. It was my first time watching a movie in IMAX also. I enjoyed that. My only complaint is I couldn’t pause it at times to google shite lol. I want to read the book it’s based on now.

I have seen comments about the music being too loud at times. I can agree with that in the closing part of the security clearance interrogation. Could have done without that dramatic effect.

3/4ths of the way through the movie I wondered why Rami Malek would take that role but when he showed up at the end for the congressional appointment I got it.
Posted by BluegrassBelle
RIP Hefty Lefty - 1981-2019
Member since Nov 2010
99465 posts
Posted on 8/12/23 at 8:57 pm to
I was glad to see Josh Hartnett back on the big screen. Hope we see him in some more films.
Posted by 3nOut
Central Texas, TX
Member since Jan 2013
29053 posts
Posted on 8/12/23 at 9:06 pm to
quote:

was glad to see Josh Hartnett back on the big screen. Hope we see him in some more films.


He had a nice comeback in Wrath of Man which I would highly recommend. Not a lead role but played his part well.
Posted by vuvuzela
Oregon
Member since Jun 2010
14663 posts
Posted on 8/18/23 at 2:28 am to
quote:

As hyped as I was to see this movie, I left somewhat disappointed. I liked it. But I expected to love it.


Just watched it in 70mm. Couldn’t agree more, was quite a snoozer if I’m being honest. 6.5/10
Posted by finchmeister08
Member since Mar 2011
35881 posts
Posted on 8/18/23 at 3:09 am to
Yeah, the movie doesn’t quite take advantage of the IMAX 70mm format like it was initially marketed towards, but it’s still a decent movie overall.
Posted by JPLSU1981
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2005
26394 posts
Posted on 8/18/23 at 11:34 pm to
I thought this movie was terrible. They focused on the wrong things and strung it out way too long. This could have been a much more powerful movie if they cut 1/3 of it
This post was edited on 8/18/23 at 11:38 pm
Posted by leeman101
Huntsville, AL
Member since Aug 2020
1514 posts
Posted on 8/19/23 at 8:02 am to
quote:

I thought this movie was terrible. They focused on the wrong things and strung it out way too long. This could have been a much more powerful movie if they cut 1/3 of it




I agree. Seems 25% was about his personal life the next 25% about the bomb and 50% about the politics Oppenheimer had to deal with.

I almost walked out after the bomb part and they were interrogating people. Glad I stayed to see what the conversation between Oppenheimer and Einstein by the lake was about. Einstein telling him the thank you for your work party will be for them and not him.
This post was edited on 8/19/23 at 8:03 am
Posted by BluegrassBelle
RIP Hefty Lefty - 1981-2019
Member since Nov 2010
99465 posts
Posted on 8/19/23 at 11:05 am to
quote:

I thought this movie was terrible. They focused on the wrong things and strung it out way too long. This could have been a much more powerful movie if they cut 1/3 of it


While I wholeheartedly disagree with you, I’m genuinely curious what you think should have been cut out and what was the “wrong things” they focused on?

I think it’s also worth noting that the movie is based on American Prometheus, a biography of Oppenheimer and not solely focused on the creation of the bomb by itself.
Posted by RollTide1987
Augusta, GA
Member since Nov 2009
65147 posts
Posted on 8/19/23 at 11:52 am to
quote:

I think it’s also worth noting that the movie is based on American Prometheus, a biography of Oppenheimer and not solely focused on the creation of the bomb by itself.



This.

The film is called Oppenheimer for a reason. It's a biopic about his life and not solely about the creation of the atomic bomb. If you want that there's a solid film starring Paul Newman as Leslie Groves that was released in 1989 called Fat Man and Little Boy.
Posted by Teddy Ruxpin
Member since Oct 2006
39625 posts
Posted on 8/19/23 at 3:02 pm to
quote:

Awesome movie and had no idea until now that Gary Oldman was playing Harry Truman.


Gary Oldman trying to play every pivotal WWII leader. See him next as Stalin
Posted by BigNastyTiger417
Member since Nov 2021
3135 posts
Posted on 8/21/23 at 5:36 pm to
This is a top 3 film of Nolan in my opinion. Very well done!
Posted by sorantable
Member since Dec 2008
48929 posts
Posted on 8/21/23 at 6:26 pm to
I’m so ready to watch it again. Soon.
Posted by Hot Carl
Prayers up for 3
Member since Dec 2005
59424 posts
Posted on 8/29/23 at 6:56 am to
quote:

I got a physics degree. I took quantum mechanics with no other students. I just went to the professor’s office.


That reminds me of one of my favorite scenes. It’s when Opp 1st gets to Berkley and after meeting Josh Hartnett in the lab (very underrated performance btw—I thought he was great) and then leaves to go teach his 1st class to his only 1 student. He gets on the chalk board and has something drawn on there, and asks the student if light acts as protons or waves. Then doesn’t let the student answer and says “it’s both.” Student says, “but that’s impossible, it can’t be both.” And Opp says, “I know. But it is.”

Reminded me of the 1st time I actually understood something about quantum mechanics. I had heard the term before, but didn’t really know much about what it meant. Until somebody on the OT started a thread about the double split experiment with a little cartoon illustration. Blew my fricking mind. I remember being in the office/computer room and trying to wrap my head around how an “observer” could change the way light acts (not the right word, but it’ll have to do) simply by observing it.

Then I had all these crazy epiphanies. I remember saying to myself “the question isn’t ‘if a tree falls in the woods and there’s nobody there to hear it, does it really make a sound?’ The question is if there’s nobody there to hear/observe it, is there really even a tree? Or woods?”

I convinced myself that my living room through the door didn’t exist until I walked into it. To “observe it.” Went down a huge rabbit hole and got to the the philosophical/theological train of thought that some people used “The Observer” as proof of God. If the universe exists, there has to be something outside of it to be able to observe it (i.e. God).

And God as Creator is a theme of Oppenheimer that I haven’t heard anybody discuss. They don’t mention it in the film, but it’s clearly in the subtext. Oppenheimer as God, his weapon giving him absolute power over life and death. Or at least death. And that burden is obviously alluded when he quotes the God Vishnu in the Bhagadav Gita, saying “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” Which he’s almost as famous for as building the bomb itself. He realized his profound responsibility as the creator of bomb making him in a way the creator of death itself. The potential death of all mankind. Heavy shite.

But there’s also the theme of Oppenheimer as God when he’s compared to the Greek God Prometheus. It’s on the title card before the film starts, in a kinda too-on-the-nose dialogue exchange, and of course, the film is based on the book American Prometheus . Prometheus giving fire to Man could be see as creating the new, modern man, who could use that fire to evolve by being able to cook their meat, but could also use it as a weapon to destroy his fellow Man. Like Oppenheimer, what responsibility did Prometheus have to make sure his his newly “created,” modern man would wield that powerful tool correctly?

And I can’t believe I’m the 1st to make this connection, but speaking of Prometheus, Creators and their creations, and modern man, has nobody picked up on the allusion to Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein? Whose actual title is Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus? That book is all about having power over life and death and the profound responsibility that the Creator has to its Creation. Not just to nurture and protect it for itself, but to protect others/mankind from being killed/destroyed by IT.

Sorry for rambling. But there are some pretty profound themes this film is dealing with slightly under the surface. It’s not just an interesting biopic. There’s some heavy shite going on here.

Posted by meeple
Carcassonne
Member since May 2011
9438 posts
Posted on 8/29/23 at 7:42 am to
quote:

Until somebody on the OT started a thread about the double split experiment with a little cartoon illustration.

Link? I’d like to see this.
Posted by Hot Carl
Prayers up for 3
Member since Dec 2005
59424 posts
Posted on 8/29/23 at 8:10 pm to
quote:

Link? I’d like to see this.


The thread or the YouTube video? I’m sure I could find the video, but the thread was somewhere around ‘06-‘08, so that might be tricky. I’ll look, though.
Posted by EthanHunt007
Member since Aug 2023
1171 posts
Posted on 8/29/23 at 8:12 pm to
"Curious how the real Nolan fanboys will feel about this one. Apparently it isn’t the mind bending Nolan that we’re all used to."

I haven't watched it but don't plan on it either (and I'm a Nolan Homer). Nothing about the movie or story interests me.
Posted by Hawgnsincebirth55
Gods country
Member since Sep 2016
16142 posts
Posted on 8/29/23 at 8:35 pm to
quote:

I haven't watched it but don't plan on it either (and I'm a Nolan Homer). Nothing about the movie or story interests me.
it was a solid movie, great acting across the board and the story was interesting enough but it’s not some movie that will go down as one of the best ever as some in this thread paint it out to be. Worth it to see it once but I don’t see how anyone could go back for more than one viewing. Genius intellect struggles with being a piece of shite in his personal life. Not like we haven’t seen that before.
Posted by Hawgnsincebirth55
Gods country
Member since Sep 2016
16142 posts
Posted on 8/29/23 at 8:39 pm to
quote:

the question isn’t ‘if a tree falls in the woods and there’s nobody there to hear it, does it really make a sound?’ The question is if there’s nobody there to hear/observe it, is there really even a tree? Or woods?” I convinced myself that my living room through the door didn’t exist until I walked into it. To “observe it.
and all of this is where the quantum mechanics guys lose grip on reality. This is the thought process of a 4 year old. Yes shite exists just because you don’t see it. If I blow your best friends brains out in the next room, when you walk in that motherfricker will be dead, even if you didn’t see me pull the trigger. He will still be dead even if you never walk into the room to look upon his actual dead body.

You aren’t being smart. Your just being a jackass
This post was edited on 8/29/23 at 8:40 pm
Posted by Hot Carl
Prayers up for 3
Member since Dec 2005
59424 posts
Posted on 8/29/23 at 9:04 pm to
Yeah, you can get rightly fricked. Do you think I actually believe(d) that? It was just me finally coming to the understanding of the concept. The theory. But I left it there.

quote:

Your just being a jackass


And even if I did believe all that was actual reality, what about that could possibly paint me as jackass? Ridiculously aggressive—and embarrassingly stupid—reply to that post, you dumb fricking, tiny dick cocksucker.
Posted by Hawgnsincebirth55
Gods country
Member since Sep 2016
16142 posts
Posted on 8/30/23 at 9:36 am to
quote:

And even if I did believe all that was actual reality, what about that could possibly paint me as jackass?
because it’s stupid?? My bad jackass wasn’t nice. Smug twat is more accurate. Like a South Park character smelling his own farts. But I get it, all of you people loved Oppenheimer because of how “deep” and “meaningful” it was. Wow nukes can destroy the world?! I never realized that but now I do!
first pageprev pagePage 22 of 23Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram