Oppenheimer (Nolan)

[BigDHornfan 6,545]

I had no idea David Byrne created the atomic bomb.

[mchookem 16,325]

saw it today...well done! 

the chronology was pretty easy to follow... so here's where i'll be a doofus and admit i didn't completely 'get' Inception until my third viewing 😊😜 but no problem with this one lol

there was a lot going on though...i can see the argument that it might have been better as a mini series, but then you wouldn't have gotten the signature Nolan time warping. i mean it wouldn't have worked as well i don't think if it had been broken up into episodes.

the second half in particular i found really reminiscent of JFK... the use of expository narration, all the cameos, flashbacks, etc... it all felt really familiar and then when they name-dropped Kennedy i was like 'oh yeah that's what this feels like!'

absolutely superb acting across the board. Downey and Murphy in particular... but good lord i've never thought of Casey Affleck as sinister before but he really sold it! barely recognized Josh Hartnett and Oldman. Emily Blunt was also outstanding.

one choice Nolan made that i thought really worked was not focusing on showing us any of the actual physical impact and fallout (pun intended) of the bomb itself, after Trinity. no shots of mushroom clouds over Japan, or from the Enola Gay, we didn't even see the slideshow...and we didn't need to. i thought the lack of those visuals gave all the subsequent discussion and human reactions even more weight and significance.

like Dead Reckoning...the length was practically unnoticeable, i was riveted throughout.

really, really good. not sure it's the best Nolan flick for me, but definitely worthy of whatever accolades and awards it earns. 

Edited July 26, 2023 by mchookem

[nbmishoid 949]

I’m being a prick, but the notion that “he made the bomb” underappreciates the gigantic scale of the effort.  Not just Los Alamos, where so many others solved the problems, in general, but also to the gigantic fuel production efforts which are outside the Oppie/Los Alamos story but we’re actually the largest scope of work in the entire “Making of the Atomic Bomb”. Both Richard Rhodes historical accounts, and the American Prometheus bio, help get the full picture. Definitely going. 

[naija 2,854]

Spoiler

I didn't think it was great or a masterpiece.

First the good. I saw it on 70mm film. Nolan's choice of medium/material continues to do wonder for how things should look and it's hard, if not impossible to duplicate via digital. There was a shot of Oppenheimer getting out of a yellow cab, and it struck me how that particular look of yellow could likely only be achieved that way.

My lowly criticisms. First, the music was just obnoxious at times and a distraction. I'm not certain why this needed a continuous soundtrack, that sometimes obscured the dialogue. You've selected a decent cast of actors/actresses, your main actor has the talent, face and eyes to convey a host of emotions without speech, let alone sound, and you chose to run a bass set almost throughout. If the thought was it would provide a contrast for the scenes when a more quiet approach was employed and give them more heft, it didn't work that well for me.

Second, I don't think the movie did as good of a job as a biography of who Oppenheimer was. We get that Oppenheimer was brilliant, a smart man and even a genius. But most of this is achieved by proxy. We know he is those things, because of other characters in the movie, and their reactions to him, especially when they first meet. And I hate to call it out, but there is even a bit of an Easter Egg mentality in some of those scenes. Yeah, if you have a solid physics history background, you can get excited at meet cute with Bohr and Heisenberg etc, but how many of the public even have a clue who those dudes are. I don't think Nolan should  dumb things down just because and maybe it's asking too much of the scope of the movie to explain or illuminate why his work was that highly thought to prior to Los Alamos, but it simply doesn't happen. In the first meeting with Groves, one of the most important questions about Oppenheimer was asked, sadly only as the witty, rebuttal things, when he asked why he didn't have a Nobel Prize.  All said and done, he ended up being the director of a project with individuals who would win, what 18 Nobel Prizes? Not very well brought to the screen here. And part of this goes with the criticism of the use of sound, but for a guy who doesn't like CGI, perhaps a little less on the use of the chemical/physical reactions/effects in the intro to tell us, this man is special. His language abilities were a nicer touch. 

It felt like a movie that knew it was important and wanted to be so from the 1st minute to the last. Heavy-handed.

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by naija

[Surly Bevo 24,908]

Spoiler

I didn't think it was great or a masterpiece.
First the good. I saw it on 70mm film. Nolan's choice of medium/material continues to do wonder for how things should look and it's hard, if not impossible to duplicate via digital. There was a shot of Oppenheimer getting out of a yellow cab, and it struck me how that particular look of yellow could likely only be achieved that way.
My lowly criticisms. First, the music was just obnoxious at times and a distraction. I'm not certain why this needed a continuous soundtrack, that sometimes obscured the dialogue. You've selected a decent cast of actors/actresses, your main actor has the talent, face and eyes to convey a host of emotions without speech, let alone sound, and you chose to run a bass set almost throughout. If the thought was it would provide a contrast for the scenes when a more quiet approach was employed and give them more heft, it didn't work that well for me.
Second, I don't think the movie did as good of a job as a biography of who Oppenheimer was. We get that Oppenheimer was brilliant, a smart man and even a genius. But most of this is achieved by proxy. We know he is those things, because of other characters in the movie, and their reactions to him, especially when they first meet. And I hate to call it out, but there is even a bit of an Easter Egg mentality in some of those scenes. Yeah, if you have a solid physics history background, you can get excited at meet cute with Bohr and Heisenberg etc, but how many of the public even have a clue who those dudes are. I don't think Nolan should  dumb things down just because and maybe it's asking too much of the scope of the movie to explain or illuminate why his work was that highly thought to prior to Los Alamos, but it simply doesn't happen. In the first meeting with Groves, one of the most important questions about Oppenheimer was asked, sadly only as the witty, rebuttal things, when he asked why he didn't have a Nobel Prize.  All said and done, he ended up being the director of a project with individuals who would win, what 18 Nobel Prizes? Not very well brought to the screen here. And part of this goes with the criticism of the use of sound, but for a guy who doesn't like CGI, perhaps a little less on the use of the chemical/physical reactions/effects in the intro to tell us, this man is special. His language abilities were a nicer touch. 
It felt like a movie that knew it was important and wanted to be so from the 1st minute to the last. Heavy-handed.

 

Entitled to your opinion but I think your second paragraph completely misreads the intent of the movie. I don’t think it is simply a biography of Oppenheimer and more time spent on establishing his bonafides would have been time wasted. Not even sure how Nolan does that with something like physics anyway. A lot of that is accomplished in thought, research, discussion, calculations and the lab. Not exactly captivating cinema. When you think about it they really didn’t even show much of anything that had to be figured out to get to the big boom. You got the jars filling up with marbles, some implosion tests without a ton of explanation and a few other things but not really a lot when you consider the thousands of things that had to be figured out to make that boom happen. Why? Because it doesn’t translate well to the screen and neither would a bunch of early Oppenheimer stuff.

This film was a lot like Lincoln. The title makes it seem like you are getting a full scale biography. What you actually get in both is more of a focused view into the person/character and a particular set of massively historical events they were involved in, while also seeing them deal with the issues of life while they work on this momentous thing.

I also appreciated the exploration of the post war decade. That piece of history is still rather neglected in film as WW2 or Vietnam tend to be bigger lightning rods for moviemakers.

[naija 2,854]

37 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

Entitled to your opinion but I think your second paragraph completely misreads the intent of the movie. I don’t think it is simply a biography of Oppenheimer and more time spent on establishing his bonafides would have been time wasted. Not even sure how Nolan does that with something like physics anyway. A lot of that is accomplished in thought, research, discussion, calculations and the lab. Not exactly captivating cinema. When you think about it they really didn’t even show much of anything that had to be figured out to get to the big boom. You got the jars filling up with marbles, some implosion tests without a ton of explanation and a few other things but not really a lot when you consider the thousands of things that had to be figured out to make that boom happen. Why? Because it doesn’t translate well to the screen and neither would a bunch of early Oppenheimer stuff.

This film was a lot like Lincoln. The title makes it seem like you are getting a full scale biography. What you actually get in both is more of a focused view into the person/character and a particular set of massively historical events they were involved in, while also seeing them deal with the issues of life while they work on this momentous thing.

I also appreciated the exploration of the post war decade. That piece of history is still rather neglected in film as WW2 or Vietnam tend to be bigger lightning rods for moviemakers.

Spoiler

It's not a question of how much screen time, but what was chosen to show on screen. Spending more time, doing the same things, yes won't do that. As for how you do that, I would say at least two movies come to mind that establish really quickly and the viewer understands pretty early why the characters are considered geniuses and what their personality traits are apart from that. One fictional (Good Will Hunting), the other real (A Beautiful Mind). I didn't misread anything. I didn't go in thinking it was going to be a straightforward biography of Oppenheimer, but that doesn't mean it should fall somewhat short of the mark in telling us who the man was. I think the New Yorker review does a better job at explaining some of the issues that stood out to me, than I can here. 

Personally, I think the human drama works best when telling these "important" big stories. I understand its a choice, but I thought the addition of so much in sound through the constant music, visuals and effects undercut the simple, but ultimately more effective tactic of just people talking. 

 

[UpperWestside 6,161]

Just leaving a showing because I wanted to see it when I had time and 12:30 was the time  I could make. It’ll make for little sleep, but it was worth it to see this movie. It really works the mind over watching them create the most destructive weapon in human history. It’s a masterpiece of film.

[UpperWestside 6,161]

On 7/22/2023 at 11:03 PM, cabowabo said:

I’m not a big movie guy, so not really familiar with his style. It was a good movie, but the reviews are going overboard about how great it was.  I just don’t understand the need for background music for pretty much the whole god damn movie. Annoying as hell.   Also, I love all the precautions taken for the Trinity test….everything except hearing protection. 

I am fully supportive of the music and sound effects in pretty much every movie I see. If there is one thing that shuts people up from being annoying in a theatre it is even louder noise than themselves. I do not enjoy random loud noise in public, but in an enclosed theatre where you are guaranteed to have at least three or four people that won’t shut up or keep their phone from shining brightly, seeing this cacophony of sound effects did the trick and kept the people in there silent.

[MAUFRAIS 6,621]

[Eskimohorn 5,633]

Really interesting movie. Saw it last night after ignoring this thread.

Good
>Every performance. Surprisingly Matt Damon might have been the weak link but I sensed he got some scenes cut. Probably gonna see 4-5 noms. Took me awhile to figure out that was Josh Hartnett, who was very good.
>The pacing was amazing as was the bomb sequence.
>Florence Pugh. Good gravy.
>Truman scene. Wonder if that happened that way.

Bad
> I can see they left out a whole bunch of stuff, but it was already a 3-hour movie. Think the Lincoln comp was decent. That this was more about capturing key pieces mostly over 3 time periods and more about Opp than the bomb.

Ugly
> Really went overboard on the soundtrack. Constant blaring. It could be more noticeable in this flick, since there was more dialogue than a Dunkirk for example.

[someguy 1,508]

I think I am one of the few who is in the middle on this movie.  I didn't love it and didn't hate it.  It has some obvious strengths - acting is outstanding, loved the cinematography, the attention to detail.  But I thought the film displayed Nolan's weaknesses as a film maker - namely, his lack of trust in his audience and his desperate need for an editor.

Respectfully, I think the comparison to Lincoln is crazy.  Oppenheimer would be 1000x better if it tried to be like Lincoln (or, for that matter, Sorkin's Steve Jobs script). Biopics are usually bad films because they try to take on too much, so end up being a mile wide and an inch deep.  Lincoln was focused on the final 4 months of Lincoln's life and the passage of the 13th Amendment.  Steve Jobs focuses on three press conferences he gave over the span of 14 years.  The first 2/3 of Oppenheimer is a technically well made, big budget, paint by numbers biopic, with all the usual trappings (and a needlessly distracting, ever present, score).  It starts with Oppenheimer in grad school (1926ish) and goes through 1954.  The lack of focus meant too many characters with too little depth - no exploration, just endless exposition.  By the end of the film you don't really get a sense of Oppenheimer, the man.  It was like reading a wikipedia article, but with better special effects.

If Oppenheimer was structured like Lincoln, it would have focused on the security clearance hearing, and made callbacks to his communist ties and manhattan project efforts.  That movie would be much better, IMO.

I left the theater really wishing Oppenheimer could have been made in a similar way as Chernobyl, as a 5 part high budget HBO limited series.  There are some parallels between the stories (nuclear power and its devastating effects, the scientist/government team up - Oppenheimer/Groves and Legasov/Shcherbina).  Chernobyl had the space to really tell the story.  Oppenheimer, the film, did not.  

[Snake Diggity 4,620]

A lot of good takes in this thread.  I saw it last night, thought it was good not great which meant I left the theater disappointed.  The Lincoln comp works for me, but not sure why.  And I agree it would have been better as a series.  Acting was great across the board.

I disagree that leaving out a scene showing aftermath at Hiroshima was smart.  I felt like it would have driven home the real internal conflict Oppie was facing.  Especially if it were paired with scene of soldiers coming home who otherwise would have almost certainly died.

Also, I liked the score/soundtrack.  I thought it was well done and enhanced the dramatic impact of almost every scene.  There were a couple times it made it harder for me to understand the dialogue but that’s because my hearing sucks.

I felt like it was trying to tell 2 stories (Oppie’s journey in creating the bomb, and Oppie falling victim to the red scare), and that took away from the overall effectiveness of either story.

[GreenspointTexas 9,598]

The score was fucking fantastic. Without it, the movie would have definitely been knocked down a few notches

 

This was the best movie ive seen in 2023, thus far

[Eskimohorn 5,633]

The score was fucking fantastic. Without it, the movie would have definitely been knocked down a few notches
 
This was the best movie ive seen in 2023, thus far

I think the score was used as a crutch. Very loud movie and it used silence to jarring effect. The man’s a genius, but I think 4-5 scenes didnt need it.

[henrygandorf 29,189]

4 hours ago, someguy said:

Respectfully, I think the comparison to Lincoln is crazy.  Oppenheimer would be 1000x better if it tried to be like Lincoln (or, for that matter, Sorkin's Steve Jobs script). Biopics are usually bad films because they try to take on too much, so end up being a mile wide and an inch deep.  Lincoln was focused on the final 4 months of Lincoln's life and the passage of the 13th Amendment.  Steve Jobs focuses on three press conferences he gave over the span of 14 years.  The first 2/3 of Oppenheimer is a technically well made, big budget, paint by numbers biopic, with all the usual trappings (and a needlessly distracting, ever present, score).  It starts with Oppenheimer in grad school (1926ish) and goes through 1954.  The lack of focus meant too many characters with too little depth - no exploration, just endless exposition.  By the end of the film you don't really get a sense of Oppenheimer, the man.  It was like reading a wikipedia article, but with better special effects.

i had some steve jobs flashes while i watched.  i fucking love that movie.  i also had some oliver stone/jfk deja vu, so i was happy to read i was not alone in that.

i think some people take issue with the plot because it's not structured like an oppenheimer biopic, it's structured as the story of the confirmation hearing of lewis strauss, using a lot of flashbacks and cutaways.  that's the act breakdown.  right or wrong, that was the decision nolan made.

[GreenspointTexas 9,598]

Def. vibes of There Will Be Blood meets The Aviator

[LonghornSean 3,989]

Just got out of a screening at Bullock.

Incredible movie. A bit overwhelming in the amount of dialogue and named characters and the structure of the storytelling, but visually and sonically stunning. The Trinity test obviously stands out but the ending with what his words to Einstein and the imagery as the score builds was very powerful. Also the scene of Oppy’s post bombing celebration speech was masterfully unsettling. And brilliant performances all over.

Also credit to the group of six or so people at the bullock screening who chose to sit on the aisle steps at the top of the theater instead of the front row. Good thing there wasn’t a fire.

Edited July 28, 2023 by LonghornSean

[Levi 2,585]

7 hours ago, someguy said:

I think I am one of the few who is in the middle on this movie.  I didn't love it and didn't hate it.  It has some obvious strengths - acting is outstanding, loved the cinematography, the attention to detail.  But I thought the film displayed Nolan's weaknesses as a film maker - namely, his lack of trust in his audience and his desperate need for an editor.

Respectfully, I think the comparison to Lincoln is crazy.  Oppenheimer would be 1000x better if it tried to be like Lincoln (or, for that matter, Sorkin's Steve Jobs script). Biopics are usually bad films because they try to take on too much, so end up being a mile wide and an inch deep.  Lincoln was focused on the final 4 months of Lincoln's life and the passage of the 13th Amendment.  Steve Jobs focuses on three press conferences he gave over the span of 14 years.  The first 2/3 of Oppenheimer is a technically well made, big budget, paint by numbers biopic, with all the usual trappings (and a needlessly distracting, ever present, score).  It starts with Oppenheimer in grad school (1926ish) and goes through 1954.  The lack of focus meant too many characters with too little depth - no exploration, just endless exposition.  By the end of the film you don't really get a sense of Oppenheimer, the man.  It was like reading a wikipedia article, but with better special effects.

If Oppenheimer was structured like Lincoln, it would have focused on the security clearance hearing, and made callbacks to his communist ties and manhattan project efforts.  That movie would be much better, IMO.

I left the theater really wishing Oppenheimer could have been made in a similar way as Chernobyl, as a 5 part high budget HBO limited series.  There are some parallels between the stories (nuclear power and its devastating effects, the scientist/government team up - Oppenheimer/Groves and Legasov/Shcherbina).  Chernobyl had the space to really tell the story.  Oppenheimer, the film, did not.  

I thought the editing was pretty good given that Jennifer Lame was at the helm.  She’s really good. To name a few Manchester by the Sea, a bunch of Noah Baumbach films, Hereditary, and her first with Nolan in Tenet. 

To your second point, I felt given Nolan’s style of jumping around in time, we got see Oppenheimer slowly degrade. There’s the scene where Teller is going back and forth with other scientists and eventually “quits”. In that moment we watch Oppenheimer struggling then in a flash snapping back into it. It was almost as if Nolan was teasing us of his inner conflict till we finally see it when he’s making his speech after the Trinity test. 

[someguy 1,508]

2 hours ago, Levi said:

I thought the editing was pretty good given that Jennifer Lame was at the helm.  She’s really good. To name a few Manchester by the Sea, a bunch of Noah Baumbach films, Hereditary, and her first with Nolan in Tenet. 

To your second point, I felt given Nolan’s style of jumping around in time, we got see Oppenheimer slowly degrade. There’s the scene where Teller is going back and forth with other scientists and eventually “quits”. In that moment we watch Oppenheimer struggling then in a flash snapping back into it. It was almost as if Nolan was teasing us of his inner conflict till we finally see it when he’s making his speech after the Trinity test. 

to be fair, I had no issue with Lame's editing of the film.  When I said I felt Nolan needs an editor, I meant his screenwriting.  Apologies for my poor communication.

[henrygandorf 29,189]

1 hour ago, someguy said:

to be fair, I had no issue with Lame's editing of the film.  When I said I felt Nolan needs an editor, I meant his screenwriting.  Apologies for my poor communication.

fairly common when the writer also directs. 

[WhatTheBuck 28,775]

On 7/25/2023 at 7:44 PM, BigDHornfan said:

I had no idea David Byrne created the atomic bomb.

That’s what life during wartime will do. 

[RexWilson 1,346]

I was disappointed with Florence Pughs titties. 

[GopherRock 1,765]

7 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

That’s what life during wartime will do. 

Los Alamos sure as hell ain't no party, disco, or CBGB.

Saw it last night. Thoughts:

-Enjoyed it. Very heavy material.

-Somehow Nolan managed to make three movies at the same time (a standard biopic, a treatise on the pitfalls of nuclear weaponry, and a courtroom drama) and roll them all into one.

-There's no way RDJr could have pulled that off if he hadn't spent the past decade playing Tony Starke.

-Was it just the theater I was in (Alamo Drafthouse Twin Cities Big Show screen), or did Nolan need to pull way back on the top-end volume?

 

[Surly Bevo 24,908]

I loved the movie, but I will admit while I also really liked the score it got heavy handed volume wise at the expense of the dialogue in multiple moments.   That said holy shit will this be a train wreck on a TV or Computer without caps on

 

 

[RPM 26,318]

On 7/27/2023 at 8:48 AM, Eskimohorn said:

Truman scene. Wonder if that happened that way.

Haven't seen it yet, but it was pretty well documented Truman HATED Oppenheimer and appointed his biggest critic to head the AEC. The PBS/BBC doc covers it well.

 

[wild_turkey 3,159]

Saw it last night and thought it was great. Not perfect and probably not a top 3 Nolan movie for me, but it lived up to my expectations.

I did not have a problem with the volume of the score or understanding the dialogue. I suppose I noticed the score being loud a few times, but not in the sense that it detracted from what was happening on screen.

[Reynolds Woodcock 4,739]

Saw it this morning in 70mm Imax. Blown away (a pun, haha). Nolan is hit or miss for me but this was easily top 2 (the other being Dunkirk). 

RDJ was incredible.

I felt the last hour was a little much. Could have trimmed a fair amount.

[speed817 19,256]

Just got out on 70mm showing. Enjoyed it a lot!!!

[52-80 19,147]

Enjoyed the movie - good, but not spectacular.  It was very overkill for presenting on IMAX what is more or less a biography (or, better put, a character-centric movie).  Sound engineering wasn't as obnoxious as some of the recent Nolan movies but certain scenes were gratuitously deafening.

Don't get much opportunity to go to theater cuz of kid at home, but perhaps I should've saved the big screen time for Mission Impossible and wait for Oppenheimer for home release.

[52-80 19,147]

On 7/24/2023 at 12:35 AM, Helobious said:

Did anyone else not really have a problem understanding the dialogue? I didn’t have any issues at all really

This one was mostly fine.  I found Tenet impossible to hear.  Wife has megasonic hearing and after Tenet she vowed to not watch a Nolan movie in the theater again.

[speed817 19,256]

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

Wife has megasonic hearing 

Don't they all???

[deadshank 24,652]

[bluto 4,915]

For anybody curious about fission/fusion relative power, here’s the wiki entry for the Tsar Bomba that russia tested. Makes the Manhattan project a bomb seem like a dollar store popper. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

[BigOrange1 6,433]

just saw it.  thought it was great.  just saw it in a regular theatre and didn't have any issues with sound or anything.  in fact, at one point during the movie i thought to myself that nolan must have taken all the sound related criticism from tenet to heart.

i didn't know who everyone was, but did not have much trouble following along.  honestly, for a nolan film, this one came across as pretty straight forward in my view.

inception is my favorite nolan film, but i really, really like this one.  will have to see again, but i could see it ultimately becoming my favorite nolan movie.

[52-80 19,147]

2 hours ago, speed817 said:

Don't they all???

Mine can hear a mouse fart from 3 houses over

[LonghornSean 3,989]

Interested to hear why/how Nolan decided to go with Ludwig Göransson instead of Hans Zimmer for the score, but damn it was incredible. And I love Zimmer.

 

[Rip76 4,925]

Saw it last night.  I still don’t quite know how I felt about it.  Don’t get me wrong, it was a good movie.  I wanted to love it, I don’t think I did.

The acting was fantastic.

I was debating (with myself), whether or not I liked the fact that they didn’t show the bombs dropping, the devastation and the aftermath.  Near the end of the movie I thought it was a good idea, we know what happened.

Then as we were walking out, I noticed a lot of young kids leaving the movie.  I thought that maybe they needed to see the bombs dropping, etc.

 

 

[The Ace of Aces 5,175]

Saw it at 70mm imax in King of Prussia today. Very very good movie - my favorite of Nolan’s. 
 

Agree it was too loud and about 25 minutes too long. The final hour could have been trimmed in half I think and still be as poignant   

[GenXer 2,850]

On 7/22/2023 at 10:03 PM, cabowabo said:

I’m not a big movie guy, so not really familiar with his style. It was a good movie, but the reviews are going overboard about how great it was.  I just don’t understand the need for background music for pretty much the whole god damn movie. Annoying as hell.   Also, I love all the precautions taken for the Trinity test….everything except hearing protection. 

I’m with you on the background music. At times, it drowned out the actors’ lines. I got to the point where it was like a laugh track for me; all I heard was the heavy-handed background music rather than the lines.

I’ll likely watch it again on netflix or whatever streaming service shows it with subtitles.

The beginning of the film seemed to chop off the actors’ line delivery between oppenheimer and his wife/girlfriend/whatever. No nuance for the actors’ delivery or response.

I don’t understand the great reviews.

[Jersey Man10 3,528]

The nudity was really unnecessary lol. Without it this would have been PG-13.

[GenXer 2,850]

20 minutes ago, Jersey Man10 said:

The nudity was really unnecessary lol. Without it this would have been PG-13.

I found this to be an integral part of the storyline. Just kidding. Kinda. The inquiry room sex was pretty important to show the wife’s loyalty to oppe.

 

[Stella Link 534]

Already working on the sequel.....

[Eskimohorn 5,633]

The nudity was really unnecessary lol. Without it this would have been PG-13.

The visuals of a nubile Florence Pugh demonstrated why he risked it all in a toxic relationship. But beyond that, it demonstrated the allure and revolutionary thinking of the time, the romance of being a Red juxtaposed against the victorian, straight-laced mainstream society of the 30’s and 40’s. But mostly, we got to see Pugh all nude and sweaty in IMAX.

[tx 3 putt 76,880]

On 7/26/2023 at 3:15 PM, nbmishoid said:

I’m being a prick, but the notion that “he made the bomb” underappreciates the gigantic scale of the effort.

Approximately 130,000 people were employed by the project at its peak, from laborers to Nobel Prize winners. 

[Deej 76,756]

9 hours ago, Eskimohorn said:

juxtaposed against the victorian, straight-laced mainstream society of the 30’s and 40’s

That ended at the turn of the century. 

[Eskimohorn 5,633]

That ended at the turn of the century. 

Thanks Poindexter. We appreciate your contributions. Yet, Victorian principles and values continued to impact English-speaking culture into the 20th century. Reds rebelled against prudishness and traditional marriage.

[52-80 19,147]

24 minutes ago, Deej said:

That ended at the turn of the century. 

but what if the queen's spirit lived on for a few more decades?

[52-80 19,147]

9 hours ago, Eskimohorn said:

The visuals of a nubile Florence Pugh demonstrated why he risked it all in a toxic relationship.

A very attractive gal I'm fond of but Helen of Troy she is not.  A tiny bit gratuitous with respect to the film... but then again it this movie wasnt meant to appeal to young kids anyway

[henrygandorf 29,189]

15 hours ago, GenXer said:

I don’t understand the great reviews.

yes you do.

[Eskimohorn 5,633]

A very attractive gal I'm fond of but Helen of Troy she is not.  A tiny bit gratuitous with respect to the film... but then again it this movie wasnt meant to appeal to young kids anyway

She was an anti-establishment wild child who was DTF. It showed why she was really really in to him, maybe she was a spy, maybe not, maybe a little. She was very sexy and lathered up and rode him like a pony. All captured in graphic detail, demonstrating what his wife had to endure.

And it was different. Really intimate scenes, with interesting dialogue. It added a whole bunch and I doubt it was included for jollies. I could totally see why he would conduct self-destructive and duplicitous behavior and still care for her.

The sex scene and nudity made perfect sense to me. And, for authenticity sake, she did not have a perfect body or bolt ons. She was intense. And raw. She should earn an Oscar nod.