this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
30 points (73.4% liked)

Movies and TV Shows

3 readers
2 users here now

General discussion about movies and TV shows.


Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:

::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::

Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!


Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [[email protected]](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)


Related communities: [email protected] [email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Hey yall!

So we did it. Barbenhiemer double feature As I stated in my previous post:

https://lemmy.world/post/1887202

Oppenheimer review:

Overall I recommended people go see it in theaters, Preferably in IMAX.

The film tells Oppenheimer's story well and conveys the complexity of Oppenheimer and the nuance of the situations that he was in. All of the performances where spectacular from a star studded cast. Its emotional, informative and visually pleasing. Go see it.

That being said: I ultimately found the film to be pretentious, tedious and kinda hard to sit through to the end. Many stylistic choices by Nolan get in the way of the films entertainment value.

SPOILERSZZZZZZZZZZZ BELOW

Some stylistic choices by nolan that I didn't like:

1.)The entire movie is scene after scene of random jumps in time. There is almost zero contexts given for each scene. No year, or location is stated when scenes change. And the film takes place over 4 different time periods. Scenes just start up mid conversation: Oppenheimer in an office talking with some famous physicist for a 15 word conversation before another sharp cut to a different scene doing basically the same thing...... For 3hrs.

While i feel this is purposeful by Nolan, maybe to prevent taking too much creative license with the story? Not sure, but it makes the film very confusing. There is such little effort made to explain the settings of each scene. Im glad I knew my history to fill in the gaps.

2.) Typical of a Nolan film: Its way too loud and too quite. The audio of explosions and visualization, shakes the whole theater while some fellow viewers cover their ears. Then the next scene, which is sharply cut from the previous one, is DEAD silent. Often followed by short whispered dialog. I couldn't hear half of what was said.

3.) Maybe most frustrating thing: Nolan didn't use cgi for the trinity test explosion.

Much of the movie builds to the Trinity test. Its the longest scene in the movie. The build up was emersive and exhilarating. Its honestly a incredible scene, until the explosion.

Unless you have lived under rock for the past 80+ years, you have probably seen the original footage of the trinity test. The real life footage is awe inspiring. Its surprisingly clear and detailed and shows the fury and scale of the first nuclear bomb. It's mesmerizing and terrifying.

Christopher Nolan seems to think he can do a better job of creating an explosion than the real Oppenheimer and a real nuke. He's wrong. The explosion during the Trinity test scene is severely underwhelming. So muxh so, It broke me out of the film. :(

Mission accomplished Mr.Nolan. Its painfully obvious you're not using CGI. PS. If I wanted to watch movies made with 1930s tech, ill hit up turner classic.

I was so excited for this scene. Maybe its my fault for trying to enjoy Nolan's recent films, instead of collapsing under the weight of the importance of the story.

Why he would choose to go this path can be nothing but pompousness. Like honestly, how are you going to make a 3rh movie about creating the atomic bomb, and then skimp on trinity test? Thumbs down Mr. Nolan.

Nolan is well on his way to become one of the legendary directors. Complete with a string of long "Epic" films I wouldn't watch a 2nd time.

stay tuned for the Barbie review coming soon!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Personally I liked the test scene. I was tense waiting for the pressure wave to hit them

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I loved the test scene and it didn’t even occur to me that they weren’t using CGI. I thought the tension was amazing and the stylistic choice to not have any music or sound during the explosion was surprisingly effective.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But didnt you feel alittle underwhelmed at the explosion? It didnt even look close to the real thing.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think CGI would have been the better choice but I will say I found the slow motion close-up shots of the fireball very evocative

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah maybe. I was just let down a little bit I guess . the lead up to that scene was epic. I had sweaty palms! Then just some shots pf fire and such.

I went and watched the original trinity test footage after. Its pretty crazy looking. I just dont know why they wouldn't include that in the film.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not in the slightest. The entire build-up/explosion/shockwave sequence on 70mm IMAX is one of the greatest cinematic experiences I've ever had.

Nolan is known for wanting to shoot as much as possible in-camera, partly because he loves to shoot on film rather than rely on digital effects. I think that's admirable.

I thought the entire film was excellent. Zero complaints whatsoever.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not in the slightest. The entire build-up/explosion/shockwave sequence on 70mm IMAX is one of the greatest cinematic experiences I've ever had.

I thought the build up was incredible that's Why i am frustrated with this scene.

I think that's admirable.

Why?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Because modern cinema is saturated with CGI, to the point where audiences are becoming desensitized to it. Unless it's done really well, it also tends to feel less realistic than practical effects.

Being able to actually create a real representation of a nuclear explosion and filming it, rather than just shooting in front of green screen and adding it in post-production, takes a lot more dedication and skill.