Rules: explain why
Ready player one.
That has to be one of the cringiest movies I’ve seen, is tries so hard, too hard with it’s “WE LOVE YOU NERD, YOU’RE SO COOL FOR PLAYING GAMES AND GETTING THIS 80S REFERENCE” message and the whole “corporation bad, the people good” narrative seems written for toddlers… The fan service feels cheap and adds nothing to the story.
Finally, they trying to make the people believe that very attractive girl with a barely visible red tint spot on her face is “ugly”… Like wtf?
Yet it received decent reviews plus being one of the most successful movies of that year.
Not necessarily hate, but did not like as much as the rest of the internet: Oppenheimer
The moment I left the theater, I thought it should have been longer. Yes, I think an already 3hr film should be even longer. Just torture the audience at this point. But I thought that there was just so much stuff to cram into that 3hr length, there was not enough room for the story to breath, even if those stories were needed to paint a better picture of Oppenheimer’s life, morals, and conflicts.
I’d still recommend it to people. If anything, it’s still a visually well directed film. But if you aren’t a physics/history buff, you might not enjoy the story as much.
In my opinion, a better history based movie would be The Imitation Game. Much more focused story, even if some aren’t historically accurate.
I thought the nuclear explosion was pretty disappointing. It was hyped up so much and it’s just like, a normal explosion zoomed in. It didn’t look like a nuclear bomb went off to me.
Exactly this. You can’t hype up an audience to that degree and make them sit through 3 hours without showing them something theyve never seen before. And at this point you can’t just Nolan your way out by making the blast larger than life, because I think by now we possibly all imagine it bigger than it actually was. But what you can do is some sort of trippy shit where the blast goes on for ages, where it ripping things apart is shown in some sort of artistic and novel way, perhaps something emphasising an old world is being torn apart and this is a new nuclear age. ANYTHING. except a half hearted blast that looked and felt like half hearted CG. And the irony is the production team went out of their way to avoid using CG. It was just immensely unsatisfying and rushed and all the momentum of the film was lost. It just didn’t feel momentus enough.
If they’d been bolder they’ve have culminated with the bombing of Hiroshima and shown the horror in some new terrifying light…
I don’t know if you’ve seen Twin Peaks, Season 3, ep 8, but if not… well, I think you’ll find it matches your description pretty well. Plus there are weird spooky Abraham Lincoln lookalikes covered in soot. And a performance from The Nine Inch Nails.
None of the above is made up.
Twin Peaks Season 3 was chaos. That episode was perfect for it. My wife and I did all three seasons in a row a couple or few years back, and the 20-something year gap gave David Lynch a whole lot of time to make the show bananas. The first two seasons had their oddity. Season three was on another planet.
It really was, and I loved every minute of it. Did you also watch Fire Walk With Me in your watch through? Wild stuff, although significantly less fun than much of the show, obviously. Brilliant though.
It was honestly the one time where I was like, ya, CG would have been better. Or restored footage or something. It also looked like they used the cotton technique like they do on models but I might be misremembering.
If you know the actual story of Oppenheimer, you know the movie is garbage. It made it about this mostly fictitious investigation before Congress because of a pretty feud
Hmmmm
https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/oppenheimer/
deleted by creator
Admittedly I haven’t watched it, but at this point wouldn’t it be a better idea to divide it into two parts?
It would, but it also probably would be a bad idea to do so. How many people would come back for a part 2 of a documentary film? I think not a lot.