*** OPPENHEIMER *** (Spoiler Thread)

65,175 Views | 551 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by The Collective
BenFiasco14
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 Bunk Moreland • 1:08p, 8/15/23
AG
Bunk Moreland said:
I agree, so what's your beef? Truman didn't come off as dumb in that scene. And apparently Nolan used actual language Truman used after the meeting. I think Truman came off as a typical president... A little annoyed that Oppenheimer felt blood on his hands when Truman was the one who actually had to make the ballsy call to drop the bombs.


This is historically inaccurate and one of the biggest American misconceptions about the atomic bomb. Truman did not make a "ballsy call" to drop the bombs in fact he was not involved in the decision making at all. This is further bolstered by the fact that Americans and the rest of the world viewed "bombs" and "bombings" with a lens that does NOT include our modern belief that atomic weapons are in a class of their own.

Back in the 1940s, the atomic bombs were more or less viewed as a more powerful version of the bombs that were already being used in air raids both in Europe and the Pacific. Further, the long term effects of radiation on humans was not known, so it was impossible for people back then to take into account stuff that we as modern observers know as fact (the sheer destructive power of atomic bombs and radioactive fallout).

Truman didn't even approve the Manhattan Project, that was Roosevelt. And outside of Truman vowing to continue Roosevelt's policies, by the time Truman was in office the bomb was certainly going to be used - if for no other reason alone than the US gov used to be accountable to taxpayers and didn't want their $2B effort to be for naught.

Finally, back to the original point, Truman made no "ballsy call". In fact once the bombs were ready, they were simply shipped off to be used with little fanfare (outside of Los Alamos for obvious reasons). Truman DID, in the Potsdam Declaration, demand Japan surrender unconditionally or thus face "prompt and utter destruction" but again, nobody knew back then what atomic bombs were capable of and that line does NOT MEAN Truman "knew" or "made a call" to use it in light of the utter destruction it would cause.

The actual order to use the bombs was routine and unremarkable and was an internal military order.

CNN is an enemy of the state and should be treated as such.
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 LMCane • 1:10p, 8/15/23
AG
LMCane said:
bobinator said:
I think 95% of this movie is the best movie Nolan has made, but there's just some odd choices a couple of times for me.

One example is the scene where Kitty imagines seeing Jean in the room having sex with Oppenheimer... it's literally the only scene of the entire movie where we see what Kitty is thinking insider her own head. It'd be like if one scene in the middle of The Prestige was told from the POV of Scarlett Johansson's character. Not sure I really understood that creative choice.

But overall just a great movie, one of the best I've seen in some time.
completely agree

I think that was a mistake and really there was no point in that scene


Isn't it possible this was Oppenheimer's perspective? He felt exposed and vulnerable, exposing his affair in front of his wife and in public.
Reply Quote
4
Atreides Ornithopter
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BenFiasco14 • 1:14p, 8/15/23
AG
Maybe if Truman's desk said "The Bomb stops here" we could claim he made the decision?
https://i.postimg.cc/rpHKr9JQ/IMG-0770.jpg
Reply Quote
mike073
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:20p, 8/15/23
AG
Cool to see this sign in Santa Fe this past weekend:

Gig 'em Aggies!

Reply Quote
3
LMCane
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 aggrad02 • 3:05p, 8/15/23
aggrad02 said:
Bunk Moreland said:
BassCowboy33 said:
veryfuller said:
https://www.vox.com/culture/23800888/oppenheimer-review-physics-donne-trinity-christopher-nolan-fission-fusion

This reviewer does a good job of focusing on the power dynamics and themes of the movie. I especially like the insight that Oppie represents fission and Strauss fusion (which the movie even labels) in how they try to wield their own power.

The longer I sit with the movie, the more I love how the film shows both approaches fail. Both men collapse under their own inability to wield their power. They are both nave in ways that end up biting them in the end.

My big gripe with the book is that it seems dead set that Oppenheimer's views were correct about how to handle information and nuclear weapons post-war. But we never lived in a world where that played out so we don't know if it would have been better or worse.

Nolan avoids this with his ending, IMO. Oppie acknowledges that they set the world on fire, and his post-war work of trying to put the genie back in the bottle is almost a futile attempt at penance.

Anyway, the longer I've sat with it, the more impressive an effort this movie has become to me. Cannot wait to watch it again.


A lot of people are saying it is a very heavy movie that they don't think they can watch again. I'm on the other end of that. I could absolutely watch this again, because it was very entertaining. Three hours just zoomed by.


Same. Can't wait to see it again.


I've watched it twice now, once yesterday and once today, and found it boring and emotionally impaired.

Yesterday I watched it but was buzzed from breakfast bloody marys. I like Nolan and was looking forward to the movie so I was extremely disappointed.

I decided to watch it again today completely sober and in 70mm, still didn't help.

The movie is cinematically beautifully shot and produced, the acting was top notch, the writing just wasn't there. Never did I become emotionally invested in Oppenheimer, or emotionally biased against Strauss. It seemed as though all of the characters were paper thin.


that's because you are not SUPPOSED to be invested in oppenheimer or strauss

both were complex men with positives and negatives
Reply Quote
LMCane
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 Brian Earl Spilner • 3:13p, 8/15/23
Brian Earl Spilner said:
LMCane said:
bobinator said:
I think 95% of this movie is the best movie Nolan has made, but there's just some odd choices a couple of times for me.

One example is the scene where Kitty imagines seeing Jean in the room having sex with Oppenheimer... it's literally the only scene of the entire movie where we see what Kitty is thinking insider her own head. It'd be like if one scene in the middle of The Prestige was told from the POV of Scarlett Johansson's character. Not sure I really understood that creative choice.

But overall just a great movie, one of the best I've seen in some time.
completely agree

I think that was a mistake and really there was no point in that scene


Isn't it possible this was Oppenheimer's perspective? He felt exposed and vulnerable, exposing his affair in front of his wife and in public.
you are correct

but I just think it was gratuituous

it took away from the solemnity of the events

and kind of gross
Reply Quote
aggrad02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LMCane • 3:26p, 8/15/23
AG
LMCane said:
aggrad02 said:
Bunk Moreland said:
BassCowboy33 said:
veryfuller said:
https://www.vox.com/culture/23800888/oppenheimer-review-physics-donne-trinity-christopher-nolan-fission-fusion

This reviewer does a good job of focusing on the power dynamics and themes of the movie. I especially like the insight that Oppie represents fission and Strauss fusion (which the movie even labels) in how they try to wield their own power.

The longer I sit with the movie, the more I love how the film shows both approaches fail. Both men collapse under their own inability to wield their power. They are both nave in ways that end up biting them in the end.

My big gripe with the book is that it seems dead set that Oppenheimer's views were correct about how to handle information and nuclear weapons post-war. But we never lived in a world where that played out so we don't know if it would have been better or worse.

Nolan avoids this with his ending, IMO. Oppie acknowledges that they set the world on fire, and his post-war work of trying to put the genie back in the bottle is almost a futile attempt at penance.

Anyway, the longer I've sat with it, the more impressive an effort this movie has become to me. Cannot wait to watch it again.


A lot of people are saying it is a very heavy movie that they don't think they can watch again. I'm on the other end of that. I could absolutely watch this again, because it was very entertaining. Three hours just zoomed by.


Same. Can't wait to see it again.


I've watched it twice now, once yesterday and once today, and found it boring and emotionally impaired.

Yesterday I watched it but was buzzed from breakfast bloody marys. I like Nolan and was looking forward to the movie so I was extremely disappointed.

I decided to watch it again today completely sober and in 70mm, still didn't help.

The movie is cinematically beautifully shot and produced, the acting was top notch, the writing just wasn't there. Never did I become emotionally invested in Oppenheimer, or emotionally biased against Strauss. It seemed as though all of the characters were paper thin.


that's because you are not SUPPOSED to be invested in oppenheimer or strauss

both were complex men with positives and negatives


Exactly they are complex humans and they were portrayed about as complex as a cardboard box.
Reply Quote
Aggie_Journalist
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BenFiasco14 • 8:23a, 8/16/23
AG
BenFiasco14 said:
Bunk Moreland said:
I agree, so what's your beef? Truman didn't come off as dumb in that scene. And apparently Nolan used actual language Truman used after the meeting. I think Truman came off as a typical president... A little annoyed that Oppenheimer felt blood on his hands when Truman was the one who actually had to make the ballsy call to drop the bombs.


This is historically inaccurate and one of the biggest American misconceptions about the atomic bomb. Truman did not make a "ballsy call" to drop the bombs in fact he was not involved in the decision making at all. This is further bolstered by the fact that Americans and the rest of the world viewed "bombs" and "bombings" with a lens that does NOT include our modern belief that atomic weapons are in a class of their own.

Back in the 1940s, the atomic bombs were more or less viewed as a more powerful version of the bombs that were already being used in air raids both in Europe and the Pacific. Further, the long term effects of radiation on humans was not known, so it was impossible for people back then to take into account stuff that we as modern observers know as fact (the sheer destructive power of atomic bombs and radioactive fallout).

Truman didn't even approve the Manhattan Project, that was Roosevelt. And outside of Truman vowing to continue Roosevelt's policies, by the time Truman was in office the bomb was certainly going to be used - if for no other reason alone than the US gov used to be accountable to taxpayers and didn't want their $2B effort to be for naught.

Finally, back to the original point, Truman made no "ballsy call". In fact once the bombs were ready, they were simply shipped off to be used with little fanfare (outside of Los Alamos for obvious reasons). Truman DID, in the Potsdam Declaration, demand Japan surrender unconditionally or thus face "prompt and utter destruction" but again, nobody knew back then what atomic bombs were capable of and that line does NOT MEAN Truman "knew" or "made a call" to use it in light of the utter destruction it would cause.

The actual order to use the bombs was routine and unremarkable and was an internal military order.



Much of this is incorrect.

When Truman became president, he considered the bombs such a big decision that he formed a committee to help him consider what to do with them. Eight members, all civilians. The presidents of Harvard, MIT, Carnegie, the undersecretary of the Navy, assistant secretary of state, and three esteemed scientists. The final decision would be his, but the committee would advise. The committee met three times and came to three recommendations:
1.) The bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible.
2.) The bomb should target war machine factories surrounded by workers' homes, "to make a profound psychological impression on as many inhabitants as possible."
3.) The bomb should be used without warning. Despite its successful tests, the advisors weren't sure the bomb would actually work in a combat situation. What if they announced a demonstration, and the thing was a dud? Or what if the Americans said, "We're going to use it HERE," and the Japanese brought American POW's there? No, the committee resolved, the attack should come without warning.

As Truman wrote, "The conclusions of the Committee were similar to my own, although I reached mine independently. I felt that to extract a genuine surrender from the Emperor and his military advisers, there must be administered a tremendous shock which could carry convincing proof of our power to destroy the Empire. Such an effective shock would save many times the number of lives, both American and Japanese, that it would cost."

Truman's orders were to use the bombs as they became available, but after the second bomb was dropped without his direct consultation, he changed the process so that nukes could only be used with the president's express permission. A military commander would never again be able to drop one without checking in with the commander in chief and getting them to issue the order.

There was no similar process when Americans built new tanks, planes, guns, or bullets. Everyone knew this bomb was different.
Thanks and gig'em
Reply Quote
16
1 edit
LMCane
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 BassCowboy33 • 9:22a, 8/16/23
BassCowboy33 said:
KidDoc said:
Jack Thauer said:
Claude! said:
KidDoc said:
Also what was the budget to make.everyone looks constantly sweaty? That was distracting.
People were sweatier back then. Air conditioning wasn't widely available.


And they were in the freaking desert
I noticed it most in the DC scenes.


The second most I've ever sweated in my life was working in the literal swamp that is DC.
been living here in the DC metro off and on since law school in 1995..

there were literal summers where it did not rain for over 60 days and near 100 degrees heat. with massive humidity because DC (as others have mentioned) WAS BUILT ON A SWAMP.

now imagine what it was like in 1953.
Reply Quote
1
LMCane
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 • 9:30a, 8/16/23
TCTTS said:
For the record, with this scene, I don't think *Nolan* is saying we're doomed. That's not his verdict. Like most of the movie, he's simply depicting Oppenheimer's point of view, and it's Oppenheimer's belief that he himself just doomed the world. IMO, that final shot is a depiction of his guilt... literally, a destroyer of worlds.
Not to go on too far a tangent, but it's a shame that Oppenheimer and the rest of the Manhattan Project would not be able to see the world of today.

it's been 80 years, and MILLIONS of people have not died in wars because there are atomic bombs.

around 30 million people were killed from 1914-1945.

since 1945 there has been less than a million killed.

Reply Quote
1
LMCane
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 aTmAg • 9:39a, 8/16/23
aTmAg said:
Cliff.Booth said:
OldArmy71 said:
I didn't find anything troubling about the portrayal of Truman.

First of all, Truman had a reputation as being a straight shooter: blunt, to the point, etc.

Secondly, I agree with his POV concerning Oppenheimer, so maybe that's why the scene doesn't disturb me.
That wasn't a depiction of him being blunt and to the point. It was a depiction of him being ignorant, arrogant, and dismissive. Not saying he was a flawless man, but I don't think he was the kind of man that scene presented him as.
This movie tried to imply that everybody other than the scientists were unsophisticated knuckle draggers. When in actuality, the scientists were naive as hell in every field other than their specialty.
I actually think they portrayed Groves in a sympathetic light.

Reply Quote
1
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 LMCane • 10:18a, 8/16/23
LMCane said:
aTmAg said:
Cliff.Booth said:
OldArmy71 said:
I didn't find anything troubling about the portrayal of Truman.

First of all, Truman had a reputation as being a straight shooter: blunt, to the point, etc.

Secondly, I agree with his POV concerning Oppenheimer, so maybe that's why the scene doesn't disturb me.
That wasn't a depiction of him being blunt and to the point. It was a depiction of him being ignorant, arrogant, and dismissive. Not saying he was a flawless man, but I don't think he was the kind of man that scene presented him as.
This movie tried to imply that everybody other than the scientists were unsophisticated knuckle draggers. When in actuality, the scientists were naive as hell in every field other than their specialty.
I actually think they portrayed Groves in a sympathetic light.

There's even a scene where Oppenheimer basically tells Groves, "I know you're smarter than you let on." I thought Groves was the most likable main character in the film.
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 LMCane • 10:20a, 8/16/23
LMCane said:
BassCowboy33 said:
KidDoc said:
Jack Thauer said:
Claude! said:
KidDoc said:
Also what was the budget to make.everyone looks constantly sweaty? That was distracting.
People were sweatier back then. Air conditioning wasn't widely available.


And they were in the freaking desert
I noticed it most in the DC scenes.


The second most I've ever sweated in my life was working in the literal swamp that is DC.
been living here in the DC metro off and on since law school in 1995..

there were literal summers where it did not rain for over 60 days and near 100 degrees heat. with massive humidity because DC (as others have mentioned) WAS BUILT ON A SWAMP.

now imagine what it was like in 1953.
I used to have to walk M Street to the Navy Yard every day. I'd arrive at work covered in sweat and get back on the metro covered in sweat. Miserable time.

Reply Quote
1
Bird Poo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:37a, 8/16/23
AG
If anything, it exposed how infested academia was with communists. Some things never change.
Reply Quote
10
LMCane
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 BCG Disciple • 11:51a, 8/16/23
BCG Disciple said:
I enjoyed it tremendously. There aren't many movies for which I stay awake, especially when it ends after 1245am on a Tuesday morning, but this one had me interested.

Slight criticism, I wanted more bomb making quantum mechanics theoretical physics back and forth. As someone who has taken his family to Los Alamos, it is just something that gets me going. Would have preferred the movie to have been titled A Bomb instead of Oppenheimer.

I knew Oppenheimer was caught up in some form of McCarthyism, but had no knowledge of the details. Watching how it went down, I couldn't help but think he was more guilty than they likely led on considering the source and intent of the movie. I did not have much sympathy for his plight. He was not a man of character considering his personal life choices, so I have a hard time believing he was suddenly a man of character when it came to his country. Maybe Nazi fear made him walk the straight and narrow, but it just didn't work for me on that level.

I believe the historical record is that he sympathized with the Communists, and wanted the Soviets to have access to the bomb so that there would not be a huge devastating arms race.

At the same time, I don't think Oppenheimer himself actually spied and turned over information to Soviet agents.

that was the Rosenbergs and the British scientist who Oppenheimer did not select for the Manhattan Project.
Reply Quote
4
LMCane
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 BassCowboy33 • 11:52a, 8/16/23
BassCowboy33 said:
LMCane said:
BassCowboy33 said:
KidDoc said:
Jack Thauer said:
Claude! said:
KidDoc said:
Also what was the budget to make.everyone looks constantly sweaty? That was distracting.
People were sweatier back then. Air conditioning wasn't widely available.


And they were in the freaking desert
I noticed it most in the DC scenes.


The second most I've ever sweated in my life was working in the literal swamp that is DC.
been living here in the DC metro off and on since law school in 1995..

there were literal summers where it did not rain for over 60 days and near 100 degrees heat. with massive humidity because DC (as others have mentioned) WAS BUILT ON A SWAMP.

now imagine what it was like in 1953.
I used to have to walk M Street to the Navy Yard every day. I'd arrive at work covered in sweat and get back on the metro covered in sweat. Miserable time.


YEP

I have tickets for the Marine Barracks parade right there and dreading that walk.

I think the movie portrayed actual human reality pretty well for life in the 1940s and early 50s.
Reply Quote
1
LMCane
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 • 12:50p, 8/17/23
TCTTS said:
TXTransplant said:
One scene that really left an impression on me was during the hearings when Groves was asked by the board if he would give Oppenheimer his security clearance by current (at the time of the hearing) standards.

Before Groves even answered, I knew where it was going - of course not. Probably very few of the people would have gotten a security clearance to work on the Manhattan Project. But desperate times called for desperate measures, so to speak.

Oppenheimer himself, based on the little I have read, seemed to have mental health issues that were more severe than what was depicted in the movie. He had questionable politics, questionable taste in women, and a difficult personality.

But he was a scientific genius who happened to be in the right place at the right time in history. As I said in a previous post, I'm sure this started out as a vanity project for him. He was driven by ego, to beat his colleagues in Europe to the punch.

What I think the movie tried to convey is that at some point he realized the project and its impact were bigger than his genius and his ego.

Academics are primarily concerned with their legacy. Many of his colleagues went on to do other things - even win Nobel Prizes - and their names weren't synonymous with the bomb. However, at some point, Oppenheimer realized that as director, his name and his legacy was going to be forever known as the father of the most destructive weapon ever created and used. And I don't think he was comfortable with that (honestly, who would be).

I think the movie wants us to believe that his opposition to the hydrogen bomb was some sort of atonement or penance for his work on the atom bomb and that post-war, he became some sort of scientific "influencer" of atomic policy (at least until his security clearance was revoked). I also think it wants us to believe that, whatever association he had with Communism, he did not commit treason. Also, it makes no sense that we would give information to rival colleagues that could allow them to "scoop" him. That's the worst thing that can happen to an academic researcher, which is what he was.

I too didn't come away from the movie "liking" Oppenheimer or even feeling sorry for him, but I don't think that's what Nolan intended. The movie did carry through with the martyr theme, but in the context of the movie, that's not a desirable characteristic (Kitty is angry at him for being a martyr).

What I did come away with is an appreciation and respect for the wide ranging impact that Oppenheimer and this project have had - on the academic fields of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, engineering, and the scientists who have built on his work, as well weapons, war, world peace, and the ethics and morality of it all.

The movie wanted us to believe that Oppenheimer died thinking his legacy was death and the destruction of the world. We all know that's not what happened (at least not yet), and I think in many ways the relative peace across the world of the last 75+ years is making us forget his name and his contributions.

This movie is really staying with me. There have been a lot of genius scientists who have made a lot of extremely significant contributions. But I'm inclined to view this one differently, not because of its larger impact, but because of what it required from Oppenheimer and his colleagues and what it left on their collective consciences. I can't think of a scientific development before or since that asked so much of the people who created it.


So well said, and spot on, IMO.

The Germans and British who invented poison gas?

the scientists who invented biological weapons?

the scientists who invented gunpowder and TNT explosives to be used in artillery shells?

the inventor of the Gatling and Maxim machine guns?
Reply Quote
1 edit
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:51p, 8/17/23
AG
Reply Quote
6
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:28p, 8/19/23
AG
Reply Quote
8
Ornithopter
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LMCane • 7:30p, 8/19/23
AG
I feel like Curie family paid a pretty hefty price for their research.
Reply Quote
5
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:36p, 8/20/23
AG
Reply Quote
1
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
In reply to TCTTS • 3:10p, 8/20/23
AG
What in the hell is she talking about? I mean I'm not attracted to Florence Pugh's naked body either but this is a bit much.
Reply Quote
7
SoulSlaveAG2005
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 • 3:24p, 8/20/23
AG
TCTTS said:


Reply Quote
8
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 TCTTS • 3:37p, 8/20/23
TCTTS said:


The guy during each of those moments.



Reply Quote
8
Cliff.Booth
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:40p, 8/20/23
And the wife when the breast-bearing commie gets Pash'd.

Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Post removed:
by user
In reply to TCTTS • 3:46p, 8/20/23
DannyDuberstein
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:50p, 8/20/23
AG
Enjoyed it. My dad was born in 1941, his undergrad is in history, and my grandfather and his 3 brothers all served in the Pacific in WW2. That resulted in my dad being a major WW2 buff, and instead of being told normal stories as a kid when going to bed or on car trips, mine were heavy doses of WW2 stories including the Manhattan project. I thought Nolan did the story decent justice

That said, maybe it was the theater I was in, but one common issue that seems to keep coming up for me with Nolan movies is dialogue being too hushed and drowned out. This one wasn't as bad, and again, maybe it was my theater. But there were times when it seemed to be an issue and detracted from the experience
Reply Quote
1
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:59a, 8/21/23
AG
Absolutely insane company to be in...

Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Madmarttigan
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 [removed post] • 7:32a, 8/21/23
AG
Thought it was also hilarious they live their life in fear of being triggered.

How soft do you have to be.
Formerly tv1113
Reply Quote
6
Brian Earl Spilner
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:59p, 8/21/23
AG
Reply Quote
10
LMCane
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 • 9:19a, 8/22/23
seriously what in the actual @#$@#

are they like super conservative religious catholics?

but then she keeps saying 'I don't want to be TRIGGERED" like a millenial lefty.

why would anyone be triggered by 7 seconds of seeing Pugh naked?
Reply Quote
LMCane
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 Brian Earl Spilner • 9:20a, 8/22/23
I starred this but don't even understand what is being portrayed here.
Reply Quote
Madmarttigan
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 LMCane • 9:23a, 8/22/23
AG
Olivia Wildes movie bombed so just a joke comparing it to an actual bomb
Formerly tv1113
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Chipotlemonger
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:56p, 8/24/23
AG
Finally saw it last night. Loved it. Excellent movie.
Reply Quote
3
LMCane
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 Chipotlemonger • 1:59p, 8/24/23
Chipotlemonger said:
Finally saw it last night. Loved it. Excellent movie.
Reply Quote
4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.