Oppenheimer was boring

I got to see it on digital imax, which most of a movie like this didn't really even need. Mostly, it was for the sound, which is usually better than a normal theater. When the sound of the bomb did hit, I'm pretty sure most everyone jumped....lol.

I don't see any reason why the film needed to be on Imax, other than there needing to be an Imax release to help out the theaters that have Imax screens? Nothing about the film felt epic or awe-inspiring to the point only Imax could capture it properly.
 
I don't see any reason why the film needed to be on Imax, other than there needing to be an Imax release to help out the theaters that have Imax screens? Nothing about the film felt epic or awe-inspiring to the point only Imax could capture it properly.
I think its more because Chris Nolan has been absolutely obsessed with imax for a long time now. I don't follow every little thing he does, just read random stuff here and there. But I see his trend where he first used imax on a few scenes. I believe one of his Batman films. With each film, hes been able to film more and more parts with imax, so with this, they let him have a big enough budget to do the whole movie, which was half the hype, besides the bomb scene. Strip away the imax part, and the whole bomb scene, and if they ONLY dealt with Oppenheimer's legal issues, it would have been a far more boring film, and most likely preformed far worst. But other than for the hype, and at least the good sound from an imax sound system, yeah, imax was not needed at all.
 
Finally watched this the other night and was super underwhelmed. I knew this was going to be a dialogue heavy film which was something I was looking forward to since I assumed that meant we'd get lots of discussion regarding the Manhattan project, the many technological problems that required solving (from building the cyclotrons using silver instead of copper, WHY the pile reactor was built, HOW the explosive lenses worked, etc) and I've always liked how Nolan used practical effects so I assumed there would be some quality miniatures and effects.

What we got felt drrraaaaaaaggggggeeeedddd out. I didn't need 25% of the film--probably would have minimized the congressional investigation stuff as (spoilers) the twist at the end wasn't all that great.

- Very little technical stuff. I get that a full-on scientific documentary wouldn't be appropriate for the general audience but there was no explanation regarding the explosive lenses despite them being a semi-major plot point at times.

- Lackluster explosions. The "peak" detonation scene felt very blah. I know for a fact that it could have been better while still using pratical effects because lots of other films have done so. Sure, this film wasn't about "the bomb" but I did expect something better than what we got.

- Boooooobs. Sure am sick of Hollywood making sure that women actors have to show their **** to get featured. A smart biopic like this didn't need nudity and as a heterosexual male with average sex drive I found the sex seasons distasteful. Its blatant and cheap to include such stuff, especially as early in the film as they appear and it stinks of desperation (please keep watching my 3 hour epic--there might be more boooooobs.)

- At a few points the film lectures about the human-cost of the nuclear bombings but despite there being ample photographic evidence of these horrors they film-makers never show any of them. The bombings are a complex topic, I get that, but if you're going to discuss the moral and human implications then you really should show some of the many photographs from the actual event rather than trying to use FX burnt corpses slipped into everyday scenes (and god am I tired of that CGI "wobbly walls" effect paired with the sound fading out and a high-pitch screech that Nolan loves.)

I don't see what the hype was about. Thank God I didn't see this in theaters, don't think the 3 hours would have flown by in such an environment. The acting was ok, though the dialogue left much to be desired at times and some performances were "eh" at best (Matt Damon just wasn't that believable.)

If this is Hollywoods high-point of the year then 2023 must have been pretty bad for them. ::checks box office data:: Oh, yeah, looks like his was a rough year for them...
My Mom was telling people her thoughts on the movie. I let her read what you put. She hit the like button, which I thought I had done already. But ahe agrees on all your points.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top