Oppenheimer - She's Everything. He's Just Bob.

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Oppenheimer - She's Everything. He's Just Bob.

Joke Miriam: Nov 17, 2019

Did this movie have the �no animals were harmed� disclaimer? I can only assume some animals were harmed when they did the explosion.

# ? Aug 7, 2023 16:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 07:35

duz: Jul 11, 2005; Come on Ilhan, lets go bag us a shitpost

Joke Miriam posted:

Did this movie have the �no animals were harmed� disclaimer? I can only assume some animals were harmed when they did the explosion.

I don't see them on the list.

Barbie is there tho.

# ? Aug 7, 2023 18:17

Bogus Adventure: Jan 11, 2017; More like "Bulges Adventure"

Mooseontheloose posted:

I saw it yesterday and here are my thoughts:

-I see the movie as a pushback against the Great Men of History. Oppenheimer is a mess of a person both intellectually curious and a bit weird but that isn't what makes him great. He is good at getting people to come together and reach a goal, mixing science, math, policy, and theory together. His bad qualities don't inform his genius, they are just bad messy qualities.
-I think the first 15 or 20 minutes of the film is way more janky than say the last thirty.
-The whole speech in front of the scientists after Hiroshima is creepy and thought it would be an interesting horror movie. I guess some people didn't like the melting face effect but I thought it was creepy.
-The JFK line at the movie was historically inaccurate but fits thematically (in that JFK was a known commodity) in the the next generation comes in and sets the standards of what's right and wrong. I have a degree in political science and public administrations and didn't know about this whole thing between Strauss and Oppenheimer. Apparently, Strauss declined a few cabinet level positions so his friends would get it.
-Poor Chavalier.
-I like that Truman shows a slight reflection of the psychological toll of making a decision like that by telling Oppenheimer he didn't give the order. Yes, Truman was an rear end in a top hat and the decision is fraught with after effects but to show that Truman might also think about what he did is an interesting thing. Someone who knows more about Truman can let me know though.
-The cast is amazing and everyone does pretty well. Can't think of a bad performance.
-I like the moral ambiguity in the movie. Outside of strauss and his men I appreciate the nuance of views and what we idealize vs. what is in the world.

I was trying to find some information on Truman's reflection on using the bomb. I found this collection of documents relating to Harry Truman on the atomic bomb from the National Archives. Not sure if you found it already, but here it is:

https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/online-collections/decision-to-drop-atomic-bomb

# ? Aug 7, 2023 19:08

Mooseontheloose: May 13, 2003

Bogus Adventure posted:

I was trying to find some information on Truman's reflection on using the bomb. I found this collection of documents relating to Harry Truman on the atomic bomb from the National Archives. Not sure if you found it already, but here it is:

https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/online-collections/decision-to-drop-atomic-bomb

Well, I have some reading to do.

# ? Aug 7, 2023 19:41

Acebuckeye13: Nov 2, 2010; Against All Tyrants; Ultra Carp

IIRC Truman's perspective was that he didn't like the idea of killing so many people, but his primary job was to end the war with as few American casualties as possible - and thus from his position, not using the bomb when he had access to it would have been unjustifiable.

# ? Aug 7, 2023 20:10

Bogus Adventure: Jan 11, 2017; More like "Bulges Adventure"

From what I read in the archives, Truman did feel justified using the bomb at the time because the other option presented to him by the generals were that Japanese would only surrender by a land invasion which would cost 250k American military casualties and anywhere from 250k to 1m Japanese casualties. He may have felt that the Soviets or other countries would never make an atomic bomb, but he also believed atomic warfare was unthinkable because it caused casualties to both military and civilians. He felt that you can isolate military targets with conventional weapons (and Truman included gas and biological weapons into that, which I want to include because it shows what he considered acceptable), but atomic weapons just wiped cities off the face of the Earth.

There's also a pretty good WaPo article that goes into the Oppenheimer's meeting with Truman. It's paywalled, so here is the link and a copy of the article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/07/21/oppenheimer-truman-atomic-bomb-guilt/

quote:

The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had pulverized life and changed the world, and J. Robert Oppenheimer celebrated by clasping his hands like a prize fighter, soaking in the roaring applause from the crowd in Los Alamos, N.M. It was a thrilling time for Oppenheimer, who told the crowd in August 1945 in the place where the bombs were designed and built about his only regret: not that thousands of people had been killed, but that �we hadn�t developed the bomb in time to use it against the Germans� earlier in World War II.

But Oppenheimer�s feeling of triumph evaporated in the months after the destruction of Nagasaki, caused by another atomic bomb three days after Hiroshima, which the scientist believed was unnecessary and unjustified. His revulsion was so evident on his face that President Harry S. Truman asked him what was the matter when they met at the White House for the first time in October 1945.

�Mr. President, I feel I have blood on my hands,� Oppenheimer told Truman, according to �American Prometheus,� the 2005 Oppenheimer biography from authors Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin.

While Truman assured Oppenheimer that he should not carry the burden of the bombs � �I told him the blood was on my hands, to let me worry about that� � the president was privately infuriated by what he described to aides as a �crybaby scientist� and the regret he had over the decimation, according to author Ray Monk�s 2012 biography, �Robert Oppenheimer: A Life Inside the Center.�

�Blood on his hands, dammit, he hasn�t half as much blood on his hands as I have,� Truman said afterward. �You just don�t go around bellyaching about it.�

Truman later told Dean Acheson, his secretary of state: �I don�t want to see that son of a bitch in this office ever again.�

It was the only time the two would meet, and Oppenheimer believed he had missed perhaps his only chance to avert a potential nuclear arms race that could slaughter hundreds of millions of people.

�He didn�t convince the president, and the president didn�t like him, unfortunately,� Charles Oppenheimer, the physicist�s grandson, told The Washington Post. �My grandfather gave the right advice, and the president didn�t take it. What he said about having blood on his hands was clearly something Truman didn�t like.�

Almost 80 years after the nuclear weapons were detonated in Japan, the life and legacy of the man known as �the father of the atomic bomb� is being reexamined thanks to Christopher Nolan�s new film, �Oppenheimer,� which premieres nationwide Friday and depicts the Truman meeting. The film, based on Bird and Sherwin�s Pulitzer Prize-winning biography, has won early critical acclaim as a �supersize masterpiece� that Nolan says has left some moviegoers exiting the theater feeling �absolutely devastated.�

�I view Oppenheimer as the most important person who ever lived,� Nolan told CBS�s �Sunday Morning.� �Oppenheimer�s story is one of the biggest stories imaginable. By unleashing atomic power, he gave us the power to destroy ourselves that we never had before, and that changes the human equation.�

The interest surrounding Oppenheimer, who died in 1967, has hit a fever pitch in the run-up to the movie. Some historians say the war between Russia and Ukraine � and Russia�s repeated threats that it could use nuclear weapons � make Oppenheimer�s outlook on such weaponry as relevant today as it was decades ago.

�The movie is generating a huge amount of interest, because Oppenheimer now is, in some ways, a figure of our times,� Monk, the biographer and a professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Southampton, told The Post. �Because of his central role in the atomic bomb and the arguments about the atomic bomb in years following the Second World War, interest in him has been revived as someone who symbolizes an issue that is still occupying us.�

Charles Oppenheimer, 48, who never met his grandfather but has become a family spokesman and a founding member of the Oppenheimer Project, added: �He saw how the world had changed, and he saw it coming. It wasn�t a surprise. The reason he�s so relevant is not related to just atomic bombs but also the state of humanity.�

The depression and overwhelming anxiety J. Robert Oppenheimer felt during the development and testing of the bombs appeared to dissipate on Aug. 6, 1945, after one word was shouted by the announcer at the Los Alamos Laboratory.

�Now!�

A tremendous burst of light was followed by a deep growling roar of the explosion over Hiroshima, according to author Ferenc M. Szasz�s 1984 book, �The Day the Sun Rose Twice.� An estimated 135,000 people were dead. Oppenheimer was relieved � and feeling himself.

�I�ll never forget his walk,� Isidor Rabi, a close confidant and colleague of Oppenheimer�s, recounted in Monk�s book. �I�ll never forget the way he stepped out of the car. � His walk was like �High Noon,� � this kind of strut. He had done it.�

His mood changed three days later, when the FBI described Oppenheimer as a �nervous wreck� over bombing Nagasaki, which he argued was not justified from a military perspective. The second atomic bomb was dropped on Aug. 9, 1945, and another estimated 64,000 people were killed.

Oppenheimer, whose crippling remorse had him smoking constantly after the Nagasaki bombing, delivered a letter to Secretary of War Henry Stimson on Aug. 17, 1945, urging that nuclear weapons be banned. Oppenheimer resigned as director of the Los Alamos Laboratory after the war ended.

The White House meeting with Truman on Oct. 25, 1945, was Oppenheimer�s opportunity to persuade the president to address a potential international issue with Russia over the use of nuclear weapons. Truman was curious to meet Oppenheimer, who he heard was charismatic and eloquent, and he hoped he could get Oppenheimer�s support in helping Congress pass the May-Johnson Bill, which would give the U.S. Army permanent control over atomic energy.

�The first thing is to define the national problem, then the international,� Truman told Oppenheimer, according to Monk.

The physicist thought what the president said was foolish and wrong � very, very wrong � and pushed for international controls over all atomic technology.

�He went into the October meeting with strung-out nerves realizing he didn�t have many chances left,� Oppenheimer�s grandson said.

Oppenheimer was perplexed when Truman asked him to guess how long it would take for the Russians to develop their own atomic bomb. When Oppenheimer said he did not know, historians say Truman offered a one-word answer: �Never.�

It was around this time that Oppenheimer wrung his hands together and told the president that it felt as if he had blood on his hands. A long and incredibly awkward silence followed.

There are differing accounts of how Truman responded, according to �American Prometheus.� One account had Truman replying to Oppenheimer by saying, �Never mind, it�ll all come out in the wash.� Another account that Bird and Sherwin detailed had Truman pulling out a handkerchief from his breast pocket and offering it to Oppenheimer.

�Well, here, would you like to wipe your hands?� Truman asked.

The meeting concluded after Oppenheimer voiced his concern. They shook hands, and Truman left Oppenheimer with reassurance, Bird and Sherwin wrote, reportedly saying: �Don�t worry, we�re going to work something out, and you�re going to help us.�

The experience stayed with Truman, who wrote months later that Oppenheimer had �spent most of his time wringing his hands and telling me they had blood on them because of the discovery of atomic energy,� according to �American Prometheus.�

�Truman was incredibly annoyed that Oppenheimer would take responsibility when it was Truman�s responsibility for the bombing,� Monk said.

Truman still honored Oppenheimer in 1946 with a presidential citation and a Medal for Merit, with Stimson describing the development of the atomic bomb as �largely due to [Oppenheimer�s] genius and the inspiration and leadership he has given to his colleagues.�

Charles Oppenheimer said that he had asked his father, Peter � J. Robert Oppenheimer�s eldest child � about the exchange, and that his father�s theory was that the physicist was �trying to impress� Truman on some level.

�With Truman, he thought he was a peer,� Charles Oppenheimer said. �There were certain people who Oppenheimer felt he could talk to like that. � But he was overruled by a high-school-educated gut feeling from Truman.�

He added: �I care a lot about this when people are portraying my grandfather as a crybaby and not recognizing the reality of what happened.�

Monk, who spent 11 years writing his book, said interest surrounding J. Robert Oppenheimer is �higher than it�s ever been.� For Charles Oppenheimer, the increased attention has been surreal. He has seen the movie � and loved it. The spotlight on the grandfather he never met, and the meeting with Truman, has been a reminder that being an Oppenheimer means �there is a duty and heaviness to use the name to deal with the problems in the world.�

�He was the type of guy to do his duty,� Charles Oppenheimer said. �And whether it succeeded or failed, he needed to try.�

# ? Aug 7, 2023 21:17

Flappy Bert: Dec 11, 2011; I have seen the light, and it is a string

It's more that Truman never made a 'decision' to use the bomb and only arrived on that narrative after it had been dropped, both as a way to talk to the public and a rationalization of his role as president. His name isn't even on the bombing order, the final authorization was by the Acting Army Chief of Staff.

- Everyone working on the project aside from some of the scientists assumed they were going to be used, especially Groves (who needed a success after spending 2 billion dollars)
- Truman assumed that FDR would have been in favor of dropping it and let current work go on without interference
- In trying to spare Kyoto, Stimson accidentally convinced Truman that Hiroshima was a military base and not a city
- Truman was very surprised at Hiroshima being a city and how Nagasaki was bombed only three days later, and the day after Nagasaki clarifies that his express permission is needed for any further bombs.

# ? Aug 7, 2023 21:50

Steve Yun: Aug 7, 2003; I'm a parasitic landlord that needs to get a job instead of stealing worker's money. Make sure to remind me when I post.; Soiled Meat

Counterpoint:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-anniversary-japan-atomic-bombs

# ? Aug 7, 2023 21:54

Jewmanji: Dec 28, 2003

MJeff posted:

This is a good companion piece to Oppenheimer if you're just crazy for more BOMB content.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go

Nolan should make a spin-off about Naotake Sato.

Just want to revive this post from earlier in the thread given the current discussion. I found this very interesting. Who knows how accurate it is being on Youtube, but the guy seems to at least use lots of direct sources. For people who are curious about who knew what, and when, and why the decisions were made, it's a really good play-by-play of the month leading up to the bombing.

# ? Aug 7, 2023 22:36

Bogus Adventure: Jan 11, 2017; More like "Bulges Adventure"

I don't mean to dump more primary sources, but it's interesting to see what people wrote during the time regarding the bomb. Here is a bunch of stuff from the National Security Archives, including memos from Oppenheimer and Groves. You'll have to scroll past the intro for the documents, but they are all linked as pdfs.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2020-08-04/atomic-bomb-end-world-war-ii

# ? Aug 7, 2023 22:40

checkplease: Aug 17, 2006; Smellrose

From what I�ve read, citing a specific cause of surrender seems inconclusive among historians. There�s a lot of hypotheticals of what if this didn�t happen.

Everything makes it seem like those bombs were dropping no matter what. In the Day After Trinity, there�s a clip of Groves talking about what a disaster politically it would have been for a party when the public found out the military has a special weapon that could have saved troop lives but chose not to use it.

# ? Aug 7, 2023 22:52

checkplease: Aug 17, 2006; Smellrose

Also all connects to that great scene in the film where Oppy rides in on his horse looking like a horseman of the apocalypse and convinces the meeting scientist about the good of dropping the bomb once and how it would only have to happen once.

# ? Aug 7, 2023 22:54

Jewmanji: Dec 28, 2003

The video I quoted above is a corrective to some of those common explanation. I�m particular, he makes a pretty convincing case that the US had no intention/need to invade the island because the blockade was swiftly choking the country to death. The US basically dropped the bomb to accelerate the surrender of Japan and to avoid Russian incursions in Manchuria.

# ? Aug 8, 2023 01:18

checkplease: Aug 17, 2006; Smellrose

I need to watch that video but 2 hour YouTube is intimidating.

# ? Aug 8, 2023 02:30

Magic Hate Ball: May 6, 2007; ha ha ha!
you've already paid for this

look we had to have the bomb so we could have godzilla, idk what the big deal is

# ? Aug 8, 2023 15:36

Al Cu Ad Solte: Nov 30, 2005; Searching for
a righteous cause

Been collecting these

# ? Aug 9, 2023 13:55

Cojawfee: May 31, 2006; I think the US is dumb for not using Celsius

Why do people need to throw up? Did they not know that JFK was a senator?

# ? Aug 9, 2023 16:36

Gaius Marius: Oct 9, 2012

Millenials and their need to overreact for attention is annoying as hell, if you were upset just say that no need for the hysteria.

# ? Aug 9, 2023 16:58

stev: Jan 22, 2013; Please be excited.

Gaius Marius posted:

Millenials and their need to overreact for attention is annoying as hell, if you were upset just say that no need for the hysteria.

Tbf I did feel incredibly uncomfortable walking out of the cinema. Something about the sound design in that last scene cut deep.

# ? Aug 9, 2023 18:28

Al Cu Ad Solte: Nov 30, 2005; Searching for
a righteous cause

Gaius Marius posted:

Millenials and their need to overreact for attention is annoying as hell, if you were upset just say that no need for the hysteria.

This is me after posting those tweets thinking that it was heartening to see people respond so intensely to the artform of cinema but instead all it did was make you upset.

# ? Aug 9, 2023 18:30

Tender Bender: Sep 17, 2004

Al Cu Ad Solte posted:

This is me after posting those tweets thinking that it was heartening to see people respond so intensely to the artform of cinema but instead all it did was make you upset.

Thank you for posting them, love to see people moved by cinema

# ? Aug 9, 2023 23:39

Bogus Adventure: Jan 11, 2017; More like "Bulges Adventure"

mfw seeing a curmudgeon complaining about people posting online

# ? Aug 10, 2023 00:17

Negostrike: Aug 15, 2015

I also don't get the overreaction. I watched it last night and there's almost nothing I didn't already know besides Strauss' existence and a couple other things.

Anyway I watched in Cinemark XD because my local IMAX always have the good seats taken. Am I missing out much?

# ? Aug 10, 2023 15:02

checkplease: Aug 17, 2006; Smellrose

I too watched in XD due to schedule. Considering rewatching in imax soon

# ? Aug 10, 2023 15:12

Maxwell Lord: Dec 12, 2008; I am drowning.
There is no sign of land.
You are coming down with me, hand in unlovable hand.

And I hope you die.

I hope we both die.; Grimey Drawer

Just got out of a 70mm screening (I�d seen it earlier) and while it didn�t gain a ton it was nice to see that format at last.

Murphy should get all the awards, the way he makes Oppenheimer both incredibly charismatic and incredibly standoffish- probably close to the reality but not a lot of people could pull that off.

The entire cast though, I�d be interested in seeing how they came together- Nolan obviously had some people in mind from the start and he has his regulars but it�s also loaded with �Hey I�ve seen that guy� folks.

# ? Aug 10, 2023 23:30

Bogus Adventure: Jan 11, 2017; More like "Bulges Adventure"

Maxwell Lord posted:

Just got out of a 70mm screening (I�d seen it earlier) and while it didn�t gain a ton it was nice to see that format at last.

Murphy should get all the awards, the way he makes Oppenheimer both incredibly charismatic and incredibly standoffish- probably close to the reality but not a lot of people could pull that off.

The entire cast though, I�d be interested in seeing how they came together- Nolan obviously had some people in mind from the start and he has his regulars but it�s also loaded with �Hey I�ve seen that guy� folks.

Teller is an underrated star in that movie. He's such an rear end in a top hat. It's great.

Also, I started laughing when I saw Dastalmachian in it because I didn't expect it. He rules, and it's wild to see him go from random Joker thug to all the different characters he's played throughout the years.

# ? Aug 11, 2023 00:53

Gaius Marius: Oct 9, 2012

Teller's really no more an rear end in a top hat than Opie is. Both are so motivated by their own pet projects and the prestige they would attain as becoming father of a Bomb they don't reckon with the reality of the situation until after the genies is out of the bottle. Opie is just more charismatic and diplomatic about his egomania

# ? Aug 11, 2023 01:02

Bogus Adventure: Jan 11, 2017; More like "Bulges Adventure"

Gaius Marius posted:

Teller's really no more an rear end in a top hat than Opie is. Both are so motivated by their own pet projects and the prestige they would attain as becoming father of a Bomb they don't reckon with the reality of the situation until after the genies is out of the bottle. Opie is just more charismatic and diplomatic about his egomania

I'm not comparing one over the other as historical figures, just saying that the actor who plays Teller kills it in the movie. His whole bit where he explains that he is bored by the proposed fission issues and mentions fusing deuterium would be more destructive is fantastic.

A lot of the characters played by bigger names like RDJ, Damon, Blunt, Hartnett, even Oldman as Truman, likely get more recognition due to who plays them. Benny Safdie hasn't been in much, but he owns in every scene he's in because he plays him as such a weird rear end in a top hat.

# ? Aug 11, 2023 01:09

Gaius Marius: Oct 9, 2012

Safdie's transition from Director to noted and successful character actor is strange, but I can't complain

# ? Aug 11, 2023 01:13

MeinPanzer: Dec 20, 2004; anyone who reads Cinema Discusso for anything more than slackjawed trolling will see the shittiness in my posts

The one that really got me was his appearance in Obi-Wan Kenobi. He's an odd looking but compelling guy so I'm glad to see him getting more acting work.

# ? Aug 11, 2023 12:12

Mooseontheloose: May 13, 2003

Josh Hartnett getting revived will be a strange legacy of this movie.

Also David Krumholtz did a great job as well.

# ? Aug 11, 2023 12:20

atrus50: Dec 24, 2008

Gaius Marius posted:

Safdie's transition from Director to noted and successful character actor is strange, but I can't complain

bro is working supremely less hard as an actor, i think he's the only director ive heard of who was proud to boom mic operate on set, cuz it let him stay closer to the actors and immediately have the feedback as to if a take is working. the safdies shoot generally far away with long lenses+lots of closeups, so i imagine every scene in their movies with just one of the directors staring the actor down just out of frame lol. obviously that's the sort of small-team thing you'd expect from indie guys but from what i understand he was still doing two jobs on set even on the rpatz movie. i think he's also one of the chief editors too, sharing duties with third safdie bro Ronald Bronstein

i think he suddenly had a viable career just acting (he's got kids and is apparently a family man) and had to work maybe 1/5th as hard, so its actually a no-brainer decision to just coast on that while he can

atrus50 fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Aug 11, 2023

# ? Aug 11, 2023 16:09

The REAL Goobusters: Apr 25, 2008

Gaius Marius posted:

Safdie's transition from Director to noted and successful character actor is strange, but I can't complain

he's the GOAT

# ? Aug 11, 2023 16:18

live with fruit: Aug 15, 2010

atrus50 posted:

bro is working supremely less hard as an actor, i think he's the only director ive heard of who was proud to boom mic operate on set, cuz it let him stay closer to the actors and immediately have the feedback as to if a take is working. the safdies shoot generally far away with long lenses+lots of closeups, so i imagine every scene in their movies with just one of the directors staring the actor down just out of frame lol. obviously that's the sort of small-team thing you'd expect from indie guys but from what i understand he was still doing two jobs on set even on the rpatz movie. i think he's also one of the chief editors too, sharing duties with third safdie bro Ronald Bronstein

i think he suddenly had a viable career just acting (he's got kids and is apparently a family man) and had to work maybe 1/5th as hard, so its actually a no-brainer decision to just coast on that while he can

It's always interesting when people get what's a dream job for a lot of people and think "Actually, this sucks."

# ? Aug 11, 2023 18:54

checkplease: Aug 17, 2006; Smellrose

Watched this again today in imax this time, and again I was amazed by how quickly the 3 hours go by. I thought 3rd act might feel longer, but nah it�s fun to see RDJ in action and some great visual effects with Oppenheimer and his visions.

There�s a nice theme of Oppenheimer and sinning and getting various results. The first is the poison apple, but he gets to take this one back and no harm done. Later after he sees Tetlok for the final time and he learns she dies, his wife finds him despondent in New Mexico woods. She scolds him that he doesn�t get to commit the sin and then ask that everyone feel sorry for him. She tells him he�s got responsibility to the people there.

Finally of course the test and bombing of Japan, after which Oppy complains to Truman which again goes badly. So he tries to lead policy once more. It�s all so well constructed.

# ? Aug 11, 2023 20:07

Nightmare Cinema: Apr 4, 2020; no.

A friendly reminder that if you still plan to watch (or rewatch) this on film, go somewhere that regularly exhibits this kind of thing instead of a random one-off in the suburbs.

Getting reports that the 70mm print at the AMC in Paramus NJ has visible tear streaks running through all reels and the gate's completely unstable.

# ? Aug 11, 2023 20:27

MrMojok: Jan 28, 2011

Mooseontheloose posted:

Josh Hartnett getting revived will be a strange legacy of this movie.

Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that. When I saw him I tried to remember the last things I saw him in and all I could come up with was Sin City and 30 Days of Night.

# ? Aug 11, 2023 20:31

Cojawfee: May 31, 2006; I think the US is dumb for not using Celsius

I last saw him in Oppenheimer. And before that I saw him in Black Mirror.

# ? Aug 11, 2023 20:31

Gaius Marius: Oct 9, 2012

Sad seeing people just come out and admit they didn't go see Operation Fortune Ruse de Guerre.

# ? Aug 11, 2023 20:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 07:35

live with fruit: Aug 15, 2010

Gaius Marius posted:

Sad seeing people just come out and admit they didn't go see Operation Fortune Ruse de Guerre.

It's a minor Ritchie and Hartnett wasn't particularly good in it.

# ? Aug 11, 2023 20:34

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Oppenheimer - She's Everything. He's Just Bob.

«‹›21 »