|
Hartnett was also pretty good in Wrath of Man, another recent Guy Ritchie movie. nothing spectacular, but a decent heist movie, certainly above par for late-era Guy Ritchie. was still surprised when he popped up in Oppenheimer, and surprised again when he was really good in it.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Hartnett was also pretty good in Wrath of Man, another recent Guy Ritchie movie. nothing spectacular, but a decent heist movie, certainly above par for late-era Guy Ritchie.  Not a great Richie movie but the best he's done in a while. Had some surprisingly good one-shot scenes too. Hartnett wasn't bad in it, especially for playing a weiner
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:16
|
|
|
I wanna know how Oppenheimer’s real-life trip to Japan after the war went.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
Probably just walked around Japan mumbling Bhagavad Gita quotes, attempted to get a destroyer of worlds tattoo in Kanji.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 22:41
|
|
|
I will admit, I did not know Safdie was a director. I'm dumb. I still stand by my original point: he owns as Teller.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 00:38
|
|
|
Go watch uncut gems
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 00:41
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Go watch uncut gems Uncut gams?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 00:50
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Go watch uncut gems I've seen it and it's good. I didn't realize he was 1/2 of the director team, and I probably never would have guessed in a million years that he did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 00:55
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Uncut gams? onka jahms
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 02:12
|
|
|
Benny Safdie's acting career is part of a Hollywood conspiracy to deny us RPatz's "BETTER TIME"
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 02:21
|
|
|
I just really want to see whatever the gently caress he made with Nathan Fielder
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 02:35
|
|
|
Saw the movie last night, my thoughts: --I grew up in Los Alamos and saw it with another person from there. Doesn't give us any more authority but the mythology and warts we grew up with does shape our viewpoint. --That is the most intense Christopher Nolan movie I've seen, and it was just people talking for three hours. (My choice of most intense movie that was just people talking still goes to Twelve Angry Men, but it's a different sort of intensity) --The cast was amazing, but in particular I want to give a shout-out to RDJ as Strauss. He was pretty much the only driving character in most of his scenes, talking about things that had happened offscreen in the past, and he carried that weight. --I felt hollow afterward. The movie had an ending, but it (intentionally) wasn't a moral or emotional ending. --I appreciated that the people were allowed to be people. A lot of the narratives I've heard over the years paint it as "the scientists thought this, the soldiers thought that" and while the movie didn't go fully Shades of Gray it at least gave the characters some room to breathe. --Trinity was jaw-dropping. --I got sucked into the movie enough that when they had shots in Fuller Lodge I thought "wow, it looks exactly the same today" and had to remind myself that the movie was filmed today. Every gathering in town uses that space, I probably spent almost as much time in there drinking cheap punch as I did in my own house. Overall, if it had presented itself as a movie about the Manhattan Project rather than about Oppenheimer I'd be pretty angry with the result, but that's not what it was doing and I hope that's not anybody's takeaway. As an exploration of a character it was fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 03:26
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Sad seeing people just come out and admit they didn't go see Operation Fortune Ruse de Guerre. No Penny Dreadful heads in here either!
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 05:53
|
|
|
I keep waffling back and forth on “Nolan is too sympathetic to Oppenheimer” vs. “Nolan has just the right amount of sympathy for Oppenheimer.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 08:22
|
|
|
I lean toward the latter, especially with the movie constantly revisiting the idea of theory versus experimentation. And by theory I'm talking more about hypotheses (what is proposed based on the math and past evidence). I see it as an analogy for intentions versus outcomes. Intentions are a lot like theory in that they are what you expect the outcome will produce. However, theory and intentions can be upended by experimentation and reality. What you do may not result in what you intended. That's why the scene where Oppenheimer and Lawrence learn that German scientists have split the atom really stands out to me. Oppenheimer runs to the blackboard and writes out the proof on why that's impossible. Lawrence and his associates try to replicate the experiment, and prove that its correct. Theory, like intentions, don't matter once reality provides a different outcome. The movie keeps revisiting this idea. The scientists start working to make the bomb with the intention of beating the Nazis to it. However, when Germany surrenders before they can make it, they are stuck working on it despite reservations. When they made the bomb, they intended to use it as an acute weapon (all the harm comes from the initial use), but never expected the outcome would involve fallout and radiation poisoning. And Oppenheimer is awful at bringing theory into reality on his own. He's poo poo in the lab when studying at Oxford. Oppenheimer intends to use his status and connections to convince the military and government from continuing an arms race, but the interactions simply cause him to be excluded from future developments (Truman kicks him out of the Oval Office, and Strauss conspires to remove his security clearance). That combined with contrasting his virtues (very smart and charismatic) with his sins (lovely friend who has sex with said friend's wife, lovely father who leaves parenting to his obviously overwhelmed wife, and lovely husband who cheats with on that wife with his former friend with benefits, etc.) makes me see the film as a portrayal of an important man in history, but not a lionization.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 08:51
|
|
|
Bogus Adventure posted:I lean toward the latter, especially with the movie constantly revisiting the idea of theory versus experimentation. And by theory I'm talking more about hypotheses (what is proposed based on the math and past evidence). I see it as an analogy for intentions versus outcomes. Intentions are a lot like theory in that they are what you expect the outcome will produce. However, theory and intentions can be upended by experimentation and reality. I think this is the piece of things that helps resolve everything for me. Well put. Also, I saw someone on Twitter mention Twin Peaks as an influence and I can see it. The speech and the sex scene in the interrogation room are very Lynchian. Bruceski fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Aug 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 15:51
|
|
|
Bruceski posted:I think this is the piece of things that helps resolve everything for me. Well put. Thank you  Bruceski posted:Also, I saw someone on Twitter mention Twin Peaks as an influence and I can see it. The speech and the sex scene in the interrogation room are very Lynchian. Oh man, that's so true
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 19:47
|
|
|
Bruceski posted:I think this is the piece of things that helps resolve everything for me. Well put. Should’ve just played Twin Peaks S3 E8 for the Trinity test.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
Just got home after seeing this, and have a lot of thoughts, but mostly that it felt like a 4-hour film that was cut down to 3 hours. I don’t mind the frenetic pacing of the first half, but this pacing extends to the dialogue: every character speaks and responds to each other without a single pause, breath, moment to think, stammer, etc, and it sometimes feels very unnatural. This type of rapid, always-on dialogue works in the deposition scenes, courtroom scenes, and when scientists are bouncing ideas off of each other, but the interpersonal stuff definitely needed more breathing room. Actually hoping for a longer cut at some point! Also, the dialogue was all perfectly audible at the Alamo. Alamo has great sound system though and it was cranked to the max Edit: one more thing: what was up with that one dialogue scene with three people the hallway where they **very obviously** kept breaking the 180 degree rule? Nolan has too much of a pedigree to do that by accident?… some statement about the shifts in perspectives that were forming?… or truly just a weird editing choice Polo-Rican fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Aug 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 23:16
|
|
|
I had to lol when Oppenheimer first puts on the hat presented like Batman first donning the cowl.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 00:14
|
|
|
Yeah Ioved that hat and pipe scene even more on my second viewing. Cowboy scientist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 00:18
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I had to lol when Oppenheimer first puts on the hat presented like Batman first donning the cowl. Man, I only knew that hat from the posters and trailers, so I loled too. He is wearing it on the cover of American Prometheus tho
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 06:15
|
|
|
The 1940s were the last full decade in which a man could wear a hat at all times and not look dumb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 11:35
|
|
|
I saw this movie late, so forgive me if this has been answered, but I haven't found anything satisfactory to answer this question. (mid-movie but fairly minor spoilers for Oppenhiemer) Feynman (Jack Quaid) watched the Trinity test while seated in an automobile and didn't use welder's glass, sunblock or anything. This is because the windshield glass would protect them from the UV radiation. This is apparently true, which I figured because it's too unbelievable to make up for your movie. And obviously Feynman didn't become famous for being "the dumbfuck who blinded himself at trinity" so we know it was safe enough. But the mechanics of it still just blow my mind. I know glass can absorb some forms of UV rays, but the scope makes it seem impossible to my tiny mind so I was trying to find an explanation of this. What are the mechanics of that? Does anyone know the answer to that question? My searching online has gotten me other irrelevant stuff because looking up stuff about nukes attracts all sorts of TEOTWAWKI people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 14:42
|
|
|
I don’t know what the truth is but there’s no way the car windshield protected him from the worst of the radiation, in particular the gamma rays. I suspect he got a pretty big dose of radiation to the face, but due to its relatively low yield and their distance from the blast it wasn’t a catastrophic mistake.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 15:17
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:I saw this movie late, so forgive me if this has been answered, but I haven't found anything satisfactory to answer this question. It was surprisingly annoying to find actual numbers, even approximations. There are a couple of factors involved: --Things that are transparent at one wavelength of light are not transparent at all wavelengths, UV rays are just light at different wavelengths that we consider different because it interacts with our bodies differently. --Windshields have been made of laminated glass since the 1930s. This was for safety because it doesn't shatter when breaking, but as a side effect it's particularly good at blocking UV radiation. I've seen numbers of 98-99% effective, though nobody was citing their sources and I don't know if that's with extra treatments. 1% of a lot is still a lot, but not nearly as much. --Health knowledge at the time was less sophisticated. They didn't have modern techniques for measuring eye damage (Feynman states in the anecdote that "bright light can never hurt your eyes" which is absolutely untrue) and the brain does an excellent job of ignoring blind spots. UV-B radiation causes visible sunburn while UV-A penetrates deeper, causing damage where it can't be seen. --Feynman was a cocky narcissist who thought he was the smartest guy in the room even when that room contained everyone else at Los Alamos. Not a molecule of humility in his body.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:I saw this movie late, so forgive me if this has been answered, but I haven't found anything satisfactory to answer this question. I don't know the answer, but if I remember right, Feynman pretty strongly regretted saying that considering when he actually watched the test his vision went pure white and he assumed he had just blinded himself permanently. So while the windshield protected him from UV light he didn't comprehend that that wasn't going to be the main issue. That was the weird part about the movie for me though. They go out of their way to showcase Feynman, but there was no point considering that in the actual Manhatten project, according to Feynman himself, he wasn't really an important part of it, and was more famous for all the dumb poo poo he got into while he was there, which you can't really showcase in a movie that's supposed to be pretty serious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
Biff Rockgroin posted:That was the weird part about the movie for me though. They go out of their way to showcase Feynman, but there was no point considering that in the actual Manhatten project, according to Feynman himself, he wasn't really an important part of it, and was more famous for all the dumb poo poo he got into while he was there, which you can't really showcase in a movie that's supposed to be pretty serious. I actually didn’t realize it was Feynman until after the movie ended (partly due to the audio quality), so I wouldn’t say they “showcased” him
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 21:39
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Hartnett was also pretty good in Wrath of Man, another recent Guy Ritchie movie. nothing spectacular, but a decent heist movie, certainly above par for late-era Guy Ritchie. Oppenheimer was the second time I've seen Josh in recent years and thought "Wow when was the last time I saw HIM?" The first time was Wrath of Man a year ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 21:47
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:I actually didn’t realize it was Feynman until after the movie ended (partly due to the audio quality), so I wouldn’t say they “showcased” him They have a scene during the "We're putting together a team" montage where they specifically seek him out, even though if I remember right, Feynman only saw Oppenheimer in person a few times while working on the project and barely ever said anything to him. It could be interpreted differently, but it felt a bit odd to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 21:50
|
|
|
If they didn't include Feynman there'd be just as many observations about "why didn't they show the physicist who played the bongos and watched through a windshield, also look at all these cool stories about safecracking and how to teach physics."
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 22:24
|
|
|
The Feynman wiki article makes him sound like a much cooler Carl Sagan, tbh
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 22:27
|
|
|
Eason the Fifth posted:The Feynman wiki article makes him sound like a much cooler Carl Sagan, tbh https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/surely-youre-a-creep-mr-feynman-mcneill
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 22:40
|
|
|
issuing correction on a previous post of mine, regarding the scientist Richard Feynman. You do not, under any circumstances, "gotta think he's a much cooler Carl Sagan"
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
This is what's forever associated to my brain every time I think of Richard Feynman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKI8Xq0AiYI
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2023 07:52
|
|
|
"He studied particles or whatever" is funnier than whatever jokes they were trying to do there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2023 08:13
|
|
|
MeinPanzer posted:This is such a lazy counterpoint that always gets trotted out in CD threads. Why does film criticism have to begin and end with assessing the film as presented? It's perfectly legitimate to explore what works and what doesn't in filmmaking by thinking about how a film could have been done differently, provided it doesn't become some elaborate and masturbatory fanfic exercise. Because no one else has access to the hypothetical "better" version being imagined! If we were to discuss that version we'd have to speculate on what is already a speculation. It could very well be better; making only slight changes as opposed to elaborate ones - but we haven't seen it, it doesn't exist! It's just easier to talk and argue about the actual movie because it's something irl that we all saw, can rewatch/check, etc. Fwiw I think it's fine to imagine how a story could be improved and so on, as long as the speculation is grounded first in the actual movie being discussed. But it's also an approach that seems prone to cases of misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the film as is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 01:54
|
|
|
Blood Boils posted:Fwiw I think it's fine to imagine how a story could be improved and so on, as long as the speculation is grounded first in the actual movie being discussed. Did you read my post? This is exactly what I am talking about in it. Also, I’m sorry but this thinking: quote:Because no one else has access to the hypothetical "better" version being imagined! If we were to discuss that version we'd have to speculate on what is already a speculation. It could very well be better; making only slight changes as opposed to elaborate ones - but we haven't seen it, it doesn't exist! It's just easier to talk and argue about the actual movie because it's something irl that we all saw, can rewatch/check, etc. is laughable to me. Why don’t you try using some creative thinking to imagine what a different kind of movie would or could be like? Writers do it all the time, with some great results! MeinPanzer fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Aug 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 19:02
|
|
|
"Creative thinking"? In this economy??
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
Because It’s not your movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2023 20:45
|
|
