Someone gets it criticizing movies for what they are is harder than criticizing them for what they’re not, which is why twitter n all that just sees the latter form all the time

There's a scene where the fall out from the bombs is just off screen and we're holding on the pain of our sad military scientist 🥲 Pan the f***ing camera

There's a scene in The Grey Fox where Richard Farnsworth plays a historical character and goes to see a screening of an early silent film and he's intimately affected by it and we cross cut between him and the screen and it's the best scene in the movie!

bro you can still make this exact same movie and not change one frame in it

but just make the bomb scene a spectacle.

no one is asking for non-stop action thrill ride and forced over the top visuals to hammer home the concept that bomb is bad

but taking 1/180 minutes to put all that budget into and make a bomb scene with enough impact as that Chernobyl scene wouldn't be too much of an ask.

the bomb was as subdued as the whole movie...which is GREAT dont get me wrong.

I loved the movie because of all of the dialogue scenes
not because of the bomb spectacle
..wish it was both (esp coming from a director that handles spectacle and expert storytelling so well in the first place)

"just make the bomb scene a spectacle"

some of us are arguing that the movie point was to NOT MAKE THE BOMB A SPECTACLE

I get it.. but I can't help but think that there is still a more visually interesting way to make the detonation more memorable than it presently is in the movie

Already said this but the movie is titled Oppenheimer not the trinity test

why do people keep saying this like you can't f***ing show bothhh lmaoooo

Yes the movie is called Oppenhiemer it doesn't mean the only thing that has to be shown in every frame of the movie is Oppenhiemer's face.

the man was heavily involved with the Trinity Test

is it SO MUCH to ask for to include a little razzle dazzle for the 30 seconds that the explosion is shown?

The movie shows a graphic suicide/murder he is responsible for and him in the woods trying to kill himself over it as well this naked ghost f***ing him and cucking his wife. I'm afraid we can't make too many leaps

One of the best scenes in the movie is the rally with flaying skin and a paper mache shape because it's not literal and gets to the actual consequences of his actions which are otherwise some ambient anxiety

It’s not that you can’t show multiple things, its that complaining that there’s a fixation on the titular character is pointless

The movie kinda did hype up the bomb scene itself lmao

I loved how it played out though.

The commie girl had some nice t***

Yeah, it's a dumb argument. A movie title shouldnt necessarily dictate that the whole narrative has to solely (keyword) focus on said title - and there are plenty of examples of this.

What was the context? His side piece dying?

overall, loved the movie
for different reasons than I thought going in
def didn't give me that Nolan feel like even Dunkirk did

rn my Nolan Ranking is..
-Interstellar
-Inception
-TDK
-Dunkirk
-Tenet
-Opennhiemer

Yeah, also it's left for interpretation if she killed herself or someone else murdered her

TDK
Inception
Memento
TDKR
Dunkirk
BMB
Tenet
Oppenheimer
Interstellar

Still need to watch a couple more of his

brother why is Interstellar so low..?

Tier 1
Inception (2010)
The Prestige (2006)
The Dark Knight (2008)

Tier 2
Batman Begins (2005)
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Tier 3
Memento (2000)
Insomnia (2002)

Tier 4
Interstellar (2014)
Tenet (2020)
Oppenheimer (2023)

Tier 5
Following (1998)

Haven't seen
Dunkirk (2017)

I think it’s more the opposite, Nolan made the movie intending it to be a pure biopic and solely/mostly focused on the man himself, which then dictated the title. The fact he called it Oppenheimer (as opposed to the book name or whatever else about the Atomic Bomb) gives you an idea of where his head was at and what he wanted to do with the movie and using that logic helps explain why he left certain things out

Yes, but when you're making a historical film it's not like fiction film. It doesn't begin and end with what they show us.

There is so much outside of the scope of the story that what they include/exclude says a lot about them. How they frame the things they do show also says a lot about the film's purpose. It's not a safety net to say "oh well he didn't include that so it's not relevant". He decided to make it irrelevant. It's a choice.

I think the movie is at its best when it goes from the trinity test to the surreal existential dread and guilt. It then gets really pedantic and insider baseball and I'm supposed to care about- a guy being smeared until he loses his security clearance so he can't, uh, talk at councils about how the bomb he created is bad. Okay.

This rlly the worst thread of all time

The Prometheus allegory aspect of the movie left me wanting more.

Felt like the movie focused way more on the Soviet/Communist paranoia aspect of Oppenheimer's life rather than the balancing of the guilt/accepting of his creation like Prometheus.