*** OPPENHEIMER *** (Spoiler Thread)

65,129 Views | 551 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by The Collective
Cliff.Booth
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JCA1 • 11:50p, 7/21/23
JCA1 said:
Cliff.Booth said:
InternetFan02 said:
12 ft Cillian Murphy IMAX dong


Thanks for the mental image on that one


You could have went with "sweaty grinding Florence Pugh." Kind of on you.


I'm always grateful to see her in movies so I get a break from the weird haircut / septum piercing version. She's was hot in this movie.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
NColoradoAG
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PatAg • 11:55p, 7/21/23
PatAg said:
Quick takes before thinking about the movie more for a real opinion.
Amazingly well made and well acted, not sure how much I actually liked it or if I will see it again. 3 hours went by pretty fast though, considering the length.
Did anyone else get a weird amount of horror movies for previews?

We had the Demeter trailer and The Exorcist. I maintain an opinion that scary movie trailers should only be shown before scary movies.

As for Oppenheimer, great film. Will probably not watch it again very soon though.
Reply Quote
7
Brian Earl Spilner
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cliff.Booth • 11:57p, 7/21/23
AG
Careful, folks around here tend to get a bit uppity when you call Florence Pugh anything less than a perfect 10.
Reply Quote
1
PatAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Brian Earl Spilner • 12:00a, 7/22/23
AG
Brian Earl Spilner said:
Careful, folks around here tend to get a bit uppity when you call Florence Pugh anything less than a perfect 10.
I remember that conversation on here, lol. I have now decided that she often looks beautiful in movies, and makes a conscious decision to look as ugly as possible in her real life. (based on promotional stuff for this movie)
Reply Quote
2
Cliff.Booth
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Brian Earl Spilner • 12:12a, 7/22/23
Brian Earl Spilner said:
Careful, folks around here tend to get a bit uppity when you call Florence Pugh anything less than a perfect 10.


I'm not saying I would have gone from New Deal Democrat to Marxist to bang her, but I don't blame young Robert.
Reply Quote
10
Post removed:
by user
In reply to PatAg • 12:20a, 7/22/23
birdman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:27a, 7/22/23
Awesome movie in every aspect. Downey was great, but Cilliam was even better. Phenomenal performance.
Reply Quote
2
TexAgs91
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:34a, 7/22/23
AG
I liked it, but I thought it could have been better. Cillian Murphy was perfect as Oppenheimer. I thought the first half was well done, and appreciated the interplay between all the physicists.

Nolan filled most of the Manhattan Project period with all the commie side of the story. And then they followed the post-war era with the commie side of the story. I would have assumed during the Manhattan project, Oppenheimer was focused on building the bomb, no? I would have liked to have seen more about why Oppenheimer was such a great pick to head the Manhattan project. I felt that part was completely glossed over.

The Trinity test felt underwhelming. There was incredible buildup over the last couple months about how great it was going to be, and how the use of practical effects, the new IMAX technology, the types of optics, the film used, 2500 fps footage, etc was really going to sell it. After seeing it, I would say there still has not been a satisfactory recreation of a nuclear bomb in cinema.

No, I don't care what CNN or MSNBC said this time
Reply Quote
7
AggieLitigator
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:56a, 7/22/23
It's brilliant. A masterpiece. It might be the best movie I've ever seen.
Reply Quote
11
Ghost of Bisbee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TexAgs91 • 4:26a, 7/22/23
AG
All I know is the sonic boom startled the **** out of me
Reply Quote
18
Ghost of Bisbee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieLitigator • 4:31a, 7/22/23
AG
AggieLitigator said:
It's brilliant. A masterpiece. It might be the best movie I've ever seen.


Yea I think I agree with you. Certainly Nolan's best yet for me. There is not a close 2nd to this film.

People say Dunkirk but that one just didn't do it for me
Reply Quote
2
TXTransplant
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:28a, 7/22/23
Have tickets today at 12:30. Wouldn't normally want to spend almost an entire Saturday afternoon at a movie, but the blasted heat doesn't leave much else to do. Sort of a funny coincidence that most of the US is experiencing a heat wave, and I wonder if it's helping ticket sales a little.

I learned about the Manhattan Project in school but didn't recognize/remember Oppenheimer's name specifically. So I did a little Google searching the other day. I was reminded what an amazing amount of genius physics/chemistry/engineering contemporaries (names I do remember) were also active during this same time period - Niels Bohr, Linus Pauling, etc.

My background is chemistry/chemical engineering, but there was so much overlap between physics and chemistry and thermodynamics that I forget to appreciate. The history is just as fascinating as the technical details.

I was also reminded that many of the most intelligent scientists were also deeply flawed and often struggled greatly with their mental health. That dichotomy is fascinating for me. I suspect I'll want do a deep dive into the biographies and non-fiction books that go into greater detail after I see the movie.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
jokershady
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:55a, 7/22/23
AG
Not sure if I'll see this one so I'm curious….do they bring up the "Demon Core" in this movie or does a scientist by the name of Louis Slotin ever make an appearance?

That's an amazing story of how reckless that one scientist was and what happened gives a next level of respect of the reactivity of uranium and radiation.
Reply Quote
bobinator
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jokershady • 9:20a, 7/22/23
AG
No, in fact nothing at all goes wrong at Los Alamos.
Reply Quote
6
jokershady
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bobinator • 9:39a, 7/22/23
AG
Reply Quote
4
BassCowboy33
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jokershady • 9:42a, 7/22/23
jokershady said:
Not sure if I'll see this one so I'm curious….do they bring up the "Demon Core" in this movie or does a scientist by the name of Louis Slotin ever make an appearance?

That's an amazing story of how reckless that one scientist was and what happened gives a next level of respect of the reactivity of uranium and radiation.


The movie focuses less on the physics and more on what Oppenheimer deals with, which is keeping spies at bay and channeling the talents of the scientists to efficiently get the A-bomb ready. There's a sizeable H-bomb component as well.
Reply Quote
2
Cliff.Booth
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:06a, 7/22/23
We did it, boys

Reply Quote
16
bobinator
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jokershady • 10:17a, 7/22/23
AG
I'm serious, other than some "there might be spies!/there definitely aren't spies!" drama and the scientists arguing about designs, the movie portrays Los Alamos as something of a well oiled machine.
Reply Quote
TriAg2010
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jokershady • 10:31a, 7/22/23
AG
jokershady said:
Not sure if I'll see this one so I'm curious….do they bring up the "Demon Core" in this movie or does a scientist by the name of Louis Slotin ever make an appearance?


No - it goes unmentioned.
Reply Quote
Brian Earl Spilner
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ghost of Bisbee • 10:52a, 7/22/23
AG
Ghost of Bisbee said:
All I know is the sonic boom startled the **** out of me


Reply Quote
1
HollywoodBQ
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cliff.Booth • 11:17a, 7/22/23
AG
Cliff.Booth said:
Brian Earl Spilner said:
Careful, folks around here tend to get a bit uppity when you call Florence Pugh anything less than a perfect 10.


I'm not saying I would have gone from New Deal Democrat to Marxist to bang her, but I don't blame young Robert.
Straight up Clay Travis - DBAP unless you need to SBAP
Reply Quote
2
HollywoodBQ
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PatAg • 11:19a, 7/22/23
AG
PatAg said:
Brian Earl Spilner said:
Careful, folks around here tend to get a bit uppity when you call Florence Pugh anything less than a perfect 10.
I remember that conversation on here, lol. I have now decided that she often looks beautiful in movies, and makes a conscious decision to look as ugly as possible in her real life. (based on promotional stuff for this movie)
One of the first things you learn out here is: Everything is fake

Later you come to understand why hair and make-up are two different crafts and the folks in Hollywood are the best. They are absolute magicians.
Reply Quote
1
jokershady
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bobinator • 11:27a, 7/22/23
AG
bobinator said:
I'm serious, other than some "there might be spies!/there definitely aren't spies!" drama and the scientists arguing about designs, the movie portrays Los Alamos as something of a well oiled machine.
bummer. Not that there's anything wrong with that direction this movie sounds absolutely incredible I'm just personally into more of the science stuff when it comes to this portion of history.

Here's a clip from a movie about this…has John Cusak playing Slotin and everything you see in this clip is pretty dang accurate. This took place in May of 1946.

Reply Quote
HollywoodBQ
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to InternetFan02 • 11:28a, 7/22/23
AG
InternetFan02 said:
I'm bad with recognizing people and all the characters looked alike to me.
Wow. I thought that was one of the things they did a great job of. All of the characters looked distinct from one another.

Also, there were no diversity characters or commentary forced into the movie. No Negro cooks, no separate water fountains.

The closest they came was when Oppenheimer said they should give Los Alamos back to the Indians.

That one could be taken either way - as making a political statement, or being very irresponsible considering they'd just saw exploded an Atomic bomb on the land.
Reply Quote
1
Cliff.Booth
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HollywoodBQ • 12:21p, 7/22/23
In my view that response from him just further drove home the point that despite being a great scientific mind he must have been a total idealist and not practical in how he viewed political issues. Just give Los Alamos back to the indigenous people is a similar level of naive as just share what we are working on with Stalin and we can cooperate on its development.
Reply Quote
3
BassCowboy33
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cliff.Booth • 12:41p, 7/22/23
Cliff.Booth said:
In my view that response from him just further drove home the point that despite being a great scientific mind he must have been a total idealist and not practical in how he viewed political issues. Just give Los Alamos back to the indigenous people is a similar level of naive as just share what we are working on with Stalin and we can cooperate on its development.


I think his naivete was exposed by his refusal to believe that some of the scientists he recruited were spying for the Soviets.
Reply Quote
12
2 edits
HollywoodBQ
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cliff.Booth • 1:35p, 7/22/23
AG
Cliff.Booth said:
In my view that response from him just further drove home the point that despite being a great scientific mind he must have been a total idealist and not practical in how he viewed political issues. Just give Los Alamos back to the indigenous people is a similar level of naive as just share what we are working on with Stalin and we can cooperate on its development.
I took the possible working with the Russians to mean a couple of things.
1 - He figured it was a way to get more talent and more ideas. If they'd already tapped out the Americans and Brits, maybe adding Russians to the project could be a net benefit - to that goal.

2 - From his idealistic view, he figured that the Russians would get there anyway - as have the Israelis, Pakistanis and Indians (subcontinent). Why have them be competitors when as "The W.O.P.R" said, the only winning move in Global Thermonuclear War is to not play the game at all.

Frankly, I think that he thought maybe we could prevent the Cold War which dominated the world for 40 years, if we were able to get the Soviets on our side. It's hard to say but he definitely didn't see things as Black and White as the Red Scare folks did.
Reply Quote
2
TriAg2010
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HollywoodBQ • 1:52p, 7/22/23
AG
HollywoodBQ said:
InternetFan02 said:
I'm bad with recognizing people and all the characters looked alike to me.
Wow. I thought that was one of the things they did a great job of. All of the characters looked distinct from one another.

Also, there were no diversity characters or commentary forced into the movie. No Negro cooks, no separate water fountains.

There were three moments in the film I thought there might be a diversity quota character:

1.) Female chemist who has to defend her place on the team given possible radiation risk.

2.) Black man escorting them at the University of Chicago campus when they visit the Pile experiment.

3.) Black man sitting in the crowd during Oppenheimer's "pep rally" after the atomic bombings.

And all three are why I think the diversity quotas are bull***** I would never have given any of these moments a second thought - but for the Academy saying "you need to meet this diversity rubric for your film to be eligible." For all I know, maybe Oppenheimer's Judaism checks all the boxes on its own as the lead character and those were moments that Nolan wanted in the film on their own merits. Or maybe not. The Academy policy distracts from the movie and leaves me wondering.
Reply Quote
8
mslags97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 2:11p, 7/22/23
AG
TCTTS said:
Yes, in any other situation I realize how ridiculous it might be to have a spoiler thread for a historical drama, but because it's Christopher Nolan we know this one's going to be anything but traditional, told in twisty, time-hopping fashion. So as to keep the structure, story-telling choices, and more minor character arcs from being spoiled in the other thread, I'm creating this one, on the eve of the domestic release (with a number of international markets opening today).

Per usual, I won't be seeing it until Saturday evening myself, in glorious 70mm IMAX, on the third largest IMAX screen in North America. Next to Dune: Part Two this is easily my most anticipated movie of the year, reviews say it's an all-timer, and I absolutely cannot wait.


Haven't read the thread yet, but I just got back; this was my most anticipated movie of the year, followed closely by MI7 and Dune 2. The first two on that list have not disappointed.

This was magnificent. 3 hours, and I would have stayed for another hour if it had it. I felt the 3 hours were perfectly filled and spaced, and I was not bored at any point. Nor wanting it to end. It was so good.

Incredible story telling by Nolan. Of a story I know fairly well….. but I still was mesmerized with how it was told.

And, as always, the music was genius. Such a huge part of the movie, and it accented the movie perfectly. Amazing how small a part of the movie the actual bombing was, and I love that there was nothing visually devoted to he actual dropping, but just the radio with Truman.

I loved everything about this movie. Acting was impeccable. Downey Jr was brilliant. As was Murphy. Actually, every role was great. May have been Damon's best acting job. And I loved Remy Malek in his role. He was phenomenal for the short few minutes he was on center stage.

So far, this is my movie of the year, and Dune is going to have to do something amazing for it to be surpassed.
Reply Quote
4
Bunk Moreland
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TriAg2010 • 2:12p, 7/22/23
TriAg2010 said:
HollywoodBQ said:
InternetFan02 said:
I'm bad with recognizing people and all the characters looked alike to me.
Wow. I thought that was one of the things they did a great job of. All of the characters looked distinct from one another.

Also, there were no diversity characters or commentary forced into the movie. No Negro cooks, no separate water fountains.

There were three moments in the film I thought there might be a diversity quota character:

1.) Female chemist who has to defend her place on the team given possible radiation risk.

2.) Black man escorting them at the University of Chicago campus when they visit the Pile experiment.

3.) Black man sitting in the crowd during Oppenheimer's "pep rally" after the atomic bombings.

And all three are why I think the diversity quotas are bull***** I would never have given any of these moments a second thought - but for the Academy saying "you need to meet this diversity rubric for your film to be eligible." For all I know, maybe Oppenheimer's Judaism checks all the boxes on its own as the lead character and those were moments that Nolan wanted in the film on their own merits. Or maybe not. The Academy policy distracts from the movie and leaves me wondering.


JFC some of you just refuse to live any moment of your life not through a political lens. Go outside and enjoy yourself.
Reply Quote
49
1 edit
Brian Earl Spilner
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:29p, 7/22/23
AG
Good video.

Reply Quote
1
PatAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TriAg2010 • 3:07p, 7/22/23
AG
This is a 'you' problem
Reply Quote
19
Brian Earl Spilner
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:10p, 7/22/23
AG
Reply Quote
chick79
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:24p, 7/22/23
AG
Just got back. Terrific with mild flaws. About a half hour too long and I thought Damon was a miscasting mistake. This will clean up at the Oscars. I have to think Downey is a lock for supporting actor. For those who have not seen the movie yet I highly recommend doing at least some moderate research on the backstory of Oppenheimer post Manhattan project.
Reply Quote
3
Brian Earl Spilner
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:38p, 7/22/23
AG
Gary Oldman has played both Truman and Churchill.
Reply Quote
13
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.