Oppenheimer (Nolan)

[ztejas 43411]

Couple more thoughts:

- @GreenspointTexas made a great comparison to There Will Be Blood. The strings in the score were maybe a little derivative of that score and the film overall reminded me a bit of TWWB. Some of that could have been simply due to the desert setting. Granted that's one of my favorite films ever so I'll allow a bit of creative overlap. 

- Cillian was great but not best actor great for me. Some of the supporting cast was just ridiculous though. I thought Affleck and DeHaan especially knocked it out of the park. Blunt was great, too.

[nbmishoid 949]

Rereading Prometheus now.   Very dense, a great insight into this extraordinary person.

[Eskimohorn 5630]

Saw the 6:30 showing at at the IMAX in SA yesterday.  
If my wife hadn't been with me and the seats hadn't been reserved, I probably would have stuck around and watched the 10:30 showing, too, because it was 3 of the fastest hours of my life.  
The only criticisms I could make of the movie are:
1.  Kind of agree with Foosters above.  I would rather have had an extra hour about the actual bomb-making part of things and life on The Hill than the hour they spent on Strauss's confirmation.  But the Einstein speech at the pond at the end was probably my favorite scene in the whole movie. 
2.  I've read a lot about Oppenheimer, and hell, I've literally spent the last 4 months trying to buy a house in Los Alamos, and I cannot imagine the movie being that very fun for someone who didn't have much background knowledge of the events (or any knowledge of physics).  
I went into the movie with criticisms of the over-bearing score in my brain, but I really only thought that was even remotely an issue in one scene.  
Also, this guy had a very small role, but he absolutely killed it:

And I had no idea until a couple of minutes ago that he was this guy:
 
 
 

An extra hour for bomb making? Would be a completely different movie. Watch Fat Man & Little Boy with Paul Newman and John Cusack if you want to see a movie about that.

Everything built towards the ending. Not sure there was a wasted scene.

Same criticism people had about Dunkirk. That it wasnt a war movie.

[austingirl 2191]

On 8/14/2023 at 10:03 AM, Beau Vine said:

Saw the 6:30 showing at at the IMAX in SA yesterday.  

If my wife hadn't been with me and the seats hadn't been reserved, I probably would have stuck around and watched the 10:30 showing, too, because it was 3 of the fastest hours of my life.  

The only criticisms I could make of the movie are:

1.  Kind of agree with Foosters above.  I would rather have had an extra hour about the actual bomb-making part of things and life on The Hill than the hour they spent on Strauss's confirmation.  But the Einstein speech at the pond at the end was probably my favorite scene in the whole movie. 

2.  I've read a lot about Oppenheimer, and hell, I've literally spent the last 4 months trying to buy a house in Los Alamos, and I cannot imagine the movie being that very fun for someone who didn't have much background knowledge of the events (or any knowledge of physics).  

I went into the movie with criticisms of the over-bearing score in my brain, but I really only thought that was even remotely an issue in one scene.  

Also, this guy had a very small role, but he absolutely killed it:

And I had no idea until a couple of minutes ago that he was this guy:

 

 

 

What's crazy to me is that Alden Ehrenreich's character doesn't even have a name - he's credited as "Senate Aide."

[ztejas 43411]

Alright I'm 8 minutes into TDK and there's no chance this is overtaking it. 

But it has a very strong argument for 2nd. 

[wild_turkey 3159]

Upon more reflection from my viewing today, I guess I'm just not that big of a Christopher Nolan fan.  I've been to two of his movies in a theater because of the plot, Dunkirk and Oppenheimer.  But both times I got annoyed as shit by the loudness (I'm one of those people with hypersensitive hearing so bad on me for thinking Oppenhimer might be different).  I'm also not a big fan of the close up zoom in on faces while the person is talking and you can't see their mouth move while the score is blasting at 120 dB; but that's probably just me.  Oppenheimer didn't seem near as bad about it as Dunkirk but it still raised its head every now and then.

Have you seen any of Nolan’s other movies? You only mention Oppenheimer and Dunkirk, but what about Interstellar, Inception, The Dark Knight, The Prestige, or Memento?

[Helobious 9450]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

Alright I'm 8 minutes into TDK and there's no chance this is overtaking it. 

But it has a very strong argument for 2nd. 

Re-watching the trilogy years later, I actually felt like Batman Begins was the better movie. TDK was still very good. TDKR was pretty much garbage in every aspect. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19189]

8 hours ago, wild_turkey said:

 

Have you seen any of Nolan’s other movies? You only mention Oppenheimer and Dunkirk, but what about Interstellar, Inception, The Dark Knight, The Prestige, or Memento?

 

Nope.  I’m a once every five years kind of movie guy and pretty much limit it to films with a historical plot.

[Guest]

18 hours ago, ztejas said:

Couple more thoughts:

- @GreenspointTexas made a great comparison to There Will Be Blood. The strings in the score were maybe a little derivative of that score and the film overall reminded me a bit of TWWB. Some of that could have been simply due to the desert setting. Granted that's one of my favorite films ever so I'll allow a bit of creative overlap. 

- Cillian was great but not best actor great for me. Some of the supporting cast was just ridiculous though. I thought Affleck and DeHaan especially knocked it out of the park. Blunt was great, too.

Fair point and it's your opinion.  What made or didn't make his performance what you were expecting?  Who would have been a better fit?

Just my opinion, I felt like Cillian conveyed intelligence, conflicted morality, and deeply pensive nature in dealing with one of the most crucial turning points in the history of the world.  Maybe I am biased, but I like his mannerisms and the way he portrays a thinking man.

[956 Worldwide 34702]

19 hours ago, ztejas said:

Couple more thoughts:

- @GreenspointTexas made a great comparison to There Will Be Blood. The strings in the score were maybe a little derivative of that score and the film overall reminded me a bit of TWWB. Some of that could have been simply due to the desert setting. Granted that's one of my favorite films ever so I'll allow a bit of creative overlap. 

- Cillian was great but not best actor great for me. Some of the supporting cast was just ridiculous though. I thought Affleck and DeHaan especially knocked it out of the park. Blunt was great, too.

Casey Affleck killed it with his small role. Really sold the menace that was barely concealed under his “just curious” questions of Oppenheimer. 
 

I viewed it twice because my parents really wanted to go after I’d seen it. On the second time through one thing I noticed is my sympathies switched from Oppenheimer to HST in the Oval Scene. 

[mchookem 16322]

4 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Casey Affleck killed it with his small role. Really sold the menace that was barely concealed under his “just curious” questions of Oppenheimer. 

yeah i think this was literally the first role i've ever thought 'holy shit he's scary/menacing!' re: Affleck. 

[Eskimohorn 5630]

Casey Affleck killed it with his small role. Really sold the menace that was barely concealed under his “just curious” questions of Oppenheimer. 
 
I viewed it twice because my parents really wanted to go after I’d seen it. On the second time through one thing I noticed is my sympathies switched from Oppenheimer to HST in the Oval Scene. 

HST seemed pretty damned proud to be responsible for dropping on the bomb. Did I miss something, except that HST seemed unsympathetic

[GopherRock 1765]

1 hour ago, Eskimohorn said:

HST seemed pretty damned proud to be responsible for dropping on the bomb. Did I miss something, except that HST seemed unsympathetic

I had no idea until well after I saw the movie that Gary Oldman was HST.

[nbmishoid 949]

HST was in no intellectual position to seriously consider arms control.  He saw it as a ridiculous non starter.  Oppenheimer regretted the blood on hands statement as that only passes HST off (it meant HST had even more).   That meeting was the beginning of the end.   Really, Bhor’s visit to Los Alamos in 44 was the real beginning of the end for opt.

[Beau Vine 54208]

4 hours ago, mchookem said:

yeah i think this was literally the first role i've ever thought 'holy shit he's scary/menacing!' re: Affleck. 

Sorry you missed his Dunkin Donuts commercials.

[Captainant 27637]

On 8/18/2023 at 1:33 PM, ztejas said:

Finally got around to it. I agree the dialogue was hard to hear at times but I have some slight hearing issues. YMMV.

 

This is an instant masterpiece. I can't wait to see it again because I think it will get better upon repeat viewings. Without hesitation I'd put it in his top 3 and it may be closer to TDK than The Prestige. Hopefully they give him the best picture they should have given him 15 years ago. 

I thought it was maybe 10 minutes too long. Cut it by 30 minutes and you miss out on the weight of the ending. Between the Trinity test and his wife defending him in the hearing I thought it dragged a bit. 

That said - I think Nolan intentionally misdirects the audience and challenges you to catch back up. He probably loses some folks that might fail to understand a lot of the commentary of the 2nd half, but, you know, fuck em. And in taking you through all of the various hearing rooms and Washington politics I think it makes the ending stick a bit harder - in that none of that shit really matters because there's no going back - there's pre and post Atomic and that's our reality. 

The entire thing was a technical marvel. At one point I caught myself just zoning out taking in the cinematic beauty of what was being stitched together and barely listening to the dialouge.  

I'm a big Nolan fan but I've never been a huge dweeb for Interstellar or Dunkirk. For me, this is a level he's only reached once previously - and I wouldn't rule it out as his best effort ever until I've seen it a few more times. 

If this is your thing, you should check out the book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" which includes a ton of primary sourced journal entries and interviews of the men and women of Los Alamos. 

[nbmishoid 949]

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

If this is your thing, you should check out the book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" which includes a ton of primary sourced journal entries and interviews of the men and women of Los Alamos. 

Yes, these two books pair very well.  ‘The Making”. Is a great book.  As are the next 3 from Richard Rhodes.

[Buzzrock 14903]

Finally saw it. Real Genius did it better.

Really good movie. I liked the first two hours better than the third. Incredible cast, acting, and dialogue. Pugh was smoke in such a natural real way. Saw it in a mini IMAX and it was LOUD.

I actually found the trinity test scene a little underwhelming. The winner for best explosion I’ve seen on screen stays with Deepwater Horizon.

[gsoda3 3246]

was that or was that not a black glove pushing florence pugh down into the bathtub?

[Helobious 9450]

3 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

was that or was that not a black glove pushing florence pugh down into the bathtub?

It was. There has long been speculation that she was murdered and didn’t drown herself, so nolan left it kind of ambiguous. 

[gsoda3 3246]

5 hours ago, Helobious said:

It was. There has long been speculation that she was murdered and didn’t drown herself, so nolan left it kind of ambiguous. 

thanks.  

 

one thing bothers me:  there was a scene towards the end when kitty's yelling at oppenheimer, emily blunt completely loses control of her american accent and it sounds weird.  was that on purpose?  kitty's first language was german but she spoke perfect english without an accent.  it's a weird thing to overlook in editing, they could have easily DBRed that one part.  

[ClubWhatever 12120]

This movie is really heavy but I enjoyed it.  Can you imagine living with the knowledge that you were instrumental in developing technology that can instantly kill everything?  That is an interesting angle and I thought it was captured really well.  The longer the film went the more respect I had for both the real guy and the actor.   The soundtrack, while a bit too loud in a few instances, was instrumental in creating the haunting mood of the whole film.   Like any really good cinema, you walk away fully provoked.

[Homercles 10205]

Just rented it, and can see why this was an excellent pairing with Barbie…watching it after Oppenheimer would be like a sweet, simple dessert after finishing your shag roll at Uchi.  

In the same vein, Oppenheimer paired well with my on/off fascination with nuclear weapons.  I’ve long been enamored with the assembly, operation and controls surrounding them but cared little for the personalities behind one of the greatest wartime engineering undertakings ever.  

Stuff like Always/Never (Sandia labs video), Swords of Armageddon and Dark Sun fascinate me.  Therefore I’m more fluent on exploding bridge wire vs slapper detonators than I am on Oppenheimer’s role in the Manhattan project…or know more about the Teller-Ulam design than what Edward Teller was like as a person.  

“Oppenheimer” helped fill a void for me.

Regarding the movie itself, I really enjoyed it and it left me with one of those ‘existential dread’ feelings that a smart, dialog-driven drama should.  It also captured, very well, that transitional period where things went from an urgent wartime science problem into one dominated by the massive government/military personalities over their use.  The fact that I missed so many cameos is testament that the story and personalities were the real star.  Bravo.  

Was definitely a Nolan film with non-linear flow, challenging plot points and lack of cgi.  I happen to enjoy that kind of film, but I can see why it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.  I agree with others in that this mostly wasn’t a “gotta see it in IMAX” due to fewer “holy shit” visual/score combos than something like Interstellar.  

Anyways, guess the point of my long cat post here is I’m glad I finally saw it and it’ll fuel my curiosity surrounding the people involved in that whole rodeo…but Interstellar is safely still #1 in my Nolan hierarchy.  

[Reynolds Woodcock 4739]

Suggest a double feature of Oppenheimer followed by Threads for a nice, light evening.

[Surly Bevo 24908]

Rewatched the other night.  An interesting thing struck me.  This movie has a lot of similarities to another Oscar pic of the now fairly distant past....Amadeus.  You have Oppenheimer, the theoretical physics genius with  character flaws (that Damon as Groves nicely rattles off when they first meet).  Much as you had Mozart with all his flaws on full display.  Then you have Lewis Strauss, the dutiful public servant with an axe to grind over some real, but mostly perceived slights just as you had with Salieri.  They both use those slights as fuel to drive the underhanded destruction of the flawed genius....but in so doing destroy themselves as well.

Now it seems like from things I read Oppenheimer is much more faithful to history than Amadeus was but from a character study the resemblance of this film to that one is pretty remarkable.  

[WholesomeChungusSocialist 3]

We’d all be better off of Nolan shrunk his ego and procured good screenwriters for anything other than his least-talky like Dunkirk. Like the scene where Oppy and his wife arrive at their new house only to find it lacks a kitchen, making him deliver, “I guess we’ll just have to build one” in that nauseating Marvel style? Took me out of everything, fair or not. Stinks that the Nora Ephrons (or even Nancy Meyers) of the world are long gone; turns out they served to keep shitty “dramatists” like Nolan in check.

[4th&Five 41516]

[Parliament 14244]

We were also promised more nakedness from Ms. Pugh.  Maybe there's a director's cut?

[Brisketexan 105071]

We were also promised more nakedness from Ms. Pugh.  Maybe there's a director's cut?

Yeah…I found her “realistic sexiness” to be pure smoke. She did an amazing job with the role.

[Surly Bevo 24908]

1 hour ago, WholesomeChungusSocialist said:

We’d all be better off of Nolan shrunk his ego and procured good screenwriters for anything other than his least-talky like Dunkirk. Like the scene where Oppy and his wife arrive at their new house only to find it lacks a kitchen, making him deliver, “I guess we’ll just have to build one” in that nauseating Marvel style? Took me out of everything, fair or not. Stinks that the Nora Ephrons (or even Nancy Meyers) of the world are long gone; turns out they served to keep shitty “dramatists” like Nolan in check.

He says, "Really?  We'll fix that".  It showed how the guy who was the project leader having to manage A LOT of egos, technical problems, military oversight etc was also still managing on the homefront.  At least get the line right if you're gonna bitch about it.  

[WholesomeChungusSocialist 3]

1 hour ago, Surly Bevo said:

He says, "Really?  We'll fix that".  It showed how the guy who was the project leader having to manage A LOT of egos, technical problems, military oversight etc was also still managing on the homefront.  At least get the line right if you're gonna bitch about it.  

God that's somehow worse. Nolan just cannot let anything breathe when he doesn't have direct experience from which to draw, like the father-daughter relationship in Interstellar, which I really enjoyed btw -- not a complete hater, just more disappointed. (know the daughter's name is Murph, can't remember the dad's, won't look it up.) Honestly you know who would've written a great screenplay for this? Dostoevsky. He should've been writing plays instead of novels anyway, as Nabokov rightly said. 

Anyway, bad year for American wide releases, along with those of the British, but who expects much from them these days? Anglo men haven't been able to write well for many years, probably, but I digress. Not that this is ever surprising anymore, since so few directors, writers, etc. can sustain (written) narratives for several hours (in a row/one sitting, but tv is declining before our eyes as well). Probably mostly due to twitter, which by now has been proven to scramble both writers' brains and most everyone else's (not another tired anti social media rant btw, just twitter -- fuck it now and forever). I mean just look at how Rian Johnson basically forgot how to write after perusing it; he let the cat out of the bag when he admitted he cried about people roasting him over his bad Star Wars movie, whose name I don't care to remember. 

Movies' cultural capital has tumbled over even just the past decade, which sometimes I still can't believe, but maybe it's not such a bad thing after all? Video games now (and you'd assume a decade from now to an even greater extent, if they can manage to scale the new hardware they've shown) are the dominant entertainment form, anyway. Whatever, I wrote way too much about this. Food for thought, take it or leave it, etc etc.

[atomheartbevo 89628]

8 minutes ago, WholesomeChungusSocialist said:

Honestly you know who would've written a great screenplay for this? Dostoevsky.

Yes, a Russian who died before the medium existed could have written a great screenplay about events that happened 60 years after he died for a movie that came out 140 years after he died.

 

10 minutes ago, WholesomeChungusSocialist said:

Anyway, bad year for American wide releases, along with those of the British, but who expects much from them these days? Anglo men haven't been able to write well for many years, probably, but I digress. Not that this is ever surprising anymore, since so few directors, writers, etc. can sustain (written) narratives for several hours (in a row/one sitting, but tv is declining before our eyes as well). Probably mostly due to twitter, which by now has been proven to scramble both writers' brains and most everyone else's (not another tired anti social media rant btw, just twitter -- fuck it now and forever). I mean just look at how Rian Johnson basically forgot how to write after perusing it; he let the cat out of the bag when he admitted he cried about people roasting him over his bad Star Wars movie, whose name I don't care to remember. 

[WholesomeChungusSocialist 3]

10 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Yes, a Russian who died before the medium existed could have written a great screenplay about events that happened 60 years after he died for a movie that came out 140 years after he died.

 

Way to take me literally, dipshit. This happens to everyone who's too online/spends too much time on twitter, given enough time. And clearly you give a shit, lol. Americans are so culturally inbred at this point, it's really sad to see.

Always weird to see how many Nolan fanboys are out there, when Tarantino, the true talent with a sense of humor, is right there. God, even worse if you took offense at the little Star Wars sequel dig.

Edited January 8 by WholesomeChungusSocialist

[atomheartbevo 89628]

1 hour ago, WholesomeChungusSocialist said:

Way to take me literally, dipshit. This happens to everyone who's too online/spends too much time on twitter, given enough time. And clearly you give a shit, lol. Americans are so culturally inbred at this point, it's really sad to see.

Always weird to see how many Nolan fanboys are out there, when Tarantino, the true talent with a sense of humor, is right there. God, even worse if you took offense at the little Star Wars sequel dig.

Who the fuck actually writes the sentence "Anglo men haven't been able to write well for many years" when talking about Christopher Nolan, when he's just written a movie that the majority of critics and audiences have enjoyed?  Including Quentin-fucking-Tarantino 

And bringing up Tarantino as "the true talent" makes you sound like some freshman RTF major who just watched Pulp Fiction for the first time.  Tarantino happens to like and respect the hell out of Nolan.

https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/quentin-tarantino-on-the-potent-power-of-christopher-nolan/#:~:text=“It's not just a dollars,was making movies in 1965.

Quote

One filmmaker he’s long appreciated is the British director Christopher Nolan, however, commending his work time and time again, from his early success with 2000’s Memento to 2017’s Dunkirk.

“It’s not just a dollars and cents thing,” Tarantino said of the filmmaker during a 2014 interview with The Guardian: “Christopher Nolan would be just as good of a filmmaker as he is, just as a potent filmmaker as he is if he was making movies in 1975. Or, if he was making movies in 1965. I’d like to see Chris Nolan’s version of The Battle of Bulge. That would be fucking awesome”. 

Quote

A fan of many of his movies, Tarantino made sure to speak about Nolan’s 2014 film Interstellar in great detail, eloquently recalling his theatre experience. “We’re waiting for the movie to start and it hit me. I realised that it hadn’t been since The Matrix that I was actually that interested in seeing a movie even though I didn’t know what I was going to see,” Tarantino explained, “It’s been a while since somebody has come out with such a big vision to things”.

Continuing in his thoughts towards the movie, Tarantino added: “Even the elements, the fact that dust is everywhere, and they’re living in this dust bowl that is just completely enveloping this area of the world. That’s almost something you expect from Tarkovsky or Malick, not a science fiction adventure movie”. 

Quote

Comparisons to the likes of Terrence Malick and Andrei Tarkovsky are, indeed, high praise from Tarantino, with the director presumably linking Interstellar back to Malick’s 1978’s Days of Heaven and Tarkovsky’s sci-fi double-bill of 1972’s Solaris and 1979’s Stalker.

 

[Captainant 27637]

10 hours ago, Homercles said:

Just rented it, and can see why this was an excellent pairing with Barbie…watching it after Oppenheimer would be like a sweet, simple dessert after finishing your shag roll at Uchi.  

In the same vein, Oppenheimer paired well with my on/off fascination with nuclear weapons.  I’ve long been enamored with the assembly, operation and controls surrounding them but cared little for the personalities behind one of the greatest wartime engineering undertakings ever.  

Stuff like Always/Never (Sandia labs video), Swords of Armageddon and Dark Sun fascinate me.  Therefore I’m more fluent on exploding bridge wire vs slapper detonators than I am on Oppenheimer’s role in the Manhattan project…or know more about the Teller-Ulam design than what Edward Teller was like as a person.  

“Oppenheimer” helped fill a void for me.

Regarding the movie itself, I really enjoyed it and it left me with one of those ‘existential dread’ feelings that a smart, dialog-driven drama should.  It also captured, very well, that transitional period where things went from an urgent wartime science problem into one dominated by the massive government/military personalities over their use.  The fact that I missed so many cameos is testament that the story and personalities were the real star.  Bravo.  

Was definitely a Nolan film with non-linear flow, challenging plot points and lack of cgi.  I happen to enjoy that kind of film, but I can see why it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.  I agree with others in that this mostly wasn’t a “gotta see it in IMAX” due to fewer “holy shit” visual/score combos than something like Interstellar.  

Anyways, guess the point of my long cat post here is I’m glad I finally saw it and it’ll fuel my curiosity surrounding the people involved in that whole rodeo…but Interstellar is safely still #1 in my Nolan hierarchy.  

You should read (or listen to the audiobook of) "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", it's a much more in depth telling of that history that really gets into the people and the mad dash through the scientific method to build the bomb

[WholesomeChungusSocialist 3]

35 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Who the fuck actually writes the sentence "Anglo men haven't been able to write well for many years" when talking about Christopher Nolan, when he's just written a movie that the majority of critics and audiences have enjoyed?  Including Quentin-fucking-Tarantino 

And bringing up Tarantino as "the true talent" makes you sound like some freshman RTF major who just watched Pulp Fiction for the first time.  Tarantino happens to like and respect the hell out of Nolan.

https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/quentin-tarantino-on-the-potent-power-of-christopher-nolan/#:~:text=“It's not just a dollars,was making movies in 1965.

 

So we should just agree with the majority opinion every single time? And no, I don't care that Tarantino has huge praise for Nolan. He and I are allowed to have separate opinions, after all. Pretty pathetic for an adult to not realize this, but maybe you aren't an adult. 

Also, you do realize every movie of his that Tarantino has praised was either co-written with his brother, who's clearly a much better writer, or contains very little dialogue, like with Dunkirk. I guess with the exception of Memento, but that was an adaptation of one his brother's stories. Tarantino has also been pretty mum on both Tenet and Oppenheimer, not that that would influence my opinion of either one of them. He's never taken to Hitchcock, you know. Or True Detective (season one at least). This ability to deliver critiques with his chest, not just his fingers, is just one of many reasons why so many of us love him and his work.

Nolan just struggles when he tries to either create or parse through written drama that he has not directly experienced. Most do right now; no big deal in the grand scheme of things. Many other ways to tell or depict stories, obviously. Besides, dramatic prose has always been in the wheelhouse of gays/gay-adjacent men or women, with rare exceptions. Again, all just my opinions. Hate that the first person perspective is defaulted as the third person on the internet, but who wants to constantly say "I think" or imo or whatever before every single take?

Edited January 8 by WholesomeChungusSocialist

[mdmost 42999]

Nolan won the Best Director Golden Globe. 

[mchookem 16322]

well deserved.

ftr i thought this was the first year post-covid where the 'movies' finally got their groove back. there were some really good movies for those of us looking for something other than superheroes and comic books. 😁

[atomheartbevo 89628]

1 hour ago, mdmost said:

Nolan won the Best Director Golden Globe. 

And Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey Jr won acting Golden Globes for Oppenheimer, as well as Ludwig Göransson for Oppenheimer's score.

[mchookem 16322]

...and it takes best picture drama. gotta be super heavy Oscar favorite. too bad Nolan doesn't know how to write lol 😄

[wild_turkey 3159]

Just finished watching for the second time. Fantastic movie and the awards are well deserved.

Also, I see this thread has attracted the movie version of ATexanAbroad. Lucky us.

[TrashMaster G 17547]

21 hours ago, wild_turkey said:

Just finished watching for the second time. Fantastic movie and the awards are well deserved.

Also, I see this thread has attracted the movie version of ATexanAbroad. Lucky us.

RTF majors gotta go flex their degree plan somewhere.

[wild_turkey 3159]

Also, you do realize every movie of his that Tarantino has praised was either co-written with his brother, who's clearly a much better writer, or contains very little dialogue, like with Dunkirk. I guess with the exception of Memento, but that was an adaptation of one his brother's stories.

When you say his brother is a much better writer, I assume you are referring to Jonathan Nolan?

Other than the movies they co-wrote, I mainly know Jonathan Nolan from Westworld. Season 1 was fantastic but seasons 2-4 were a complete mess, and that’s his most recent work.

What other Jonathan Nolan writing exists separate from Christopher Nolan that has you so impressed? Are you a big fan of Person of Interest?

[Carl Spackler 3479]

On 1/7/2024 at 3:56 PM, WholesomeChungusSocialist said:

Anyway, bad year for American wide releases, along with those of the British, but who expects much from them these days?

I thought this year was quite a bit better than many recent years.  To each their own.

[WholesomeChungusSocialist 3]

3 hours ago, wild_turkey said:

 

When you say his brother is a much better writer, I assume you are referring to Jonathan Nolan?

Other than the movies they co-wrote, I mainly know Jonathan Nolan from Westworld. Season 1 was fantastic but seasons 2-4 were a complete mess, and that’s his most recent work.

What other Jonathan Nolan writing exists separate from Christopher Nolan that has you so impressed? Are you a big fan of Person of Interest?

 

Gotta be honest, I wrote all of that while on uppers, but still believe what I’ve said, generally. I’ve never seen either of those shows — even as TV became much more ambitious starting with The Sopranos, I just haven’t had much interest in it aside from the aforementioned, Mad Men, etc., — but I’m guessing Jonathan checks some of Christopher’s more overwrought literary tendencies, or maybe both of them check one another. Idk. Again, just my opinion.

 I still maintain that Chris Nolan is otherworldly visually talented, but just doesn’t quite have the flesh of a great (or probably even good) writer. So few do, though, and we — in the Anglosphere, at least — are in an era of journalistic snark, literary sincerity (unfortunately maybe thanks to David Foster Wallace), and fantastical fixations, most likely because of the shifting digital sands that so few (if any) can really make sense of just yet. That, or increased anxiety and hysteria (and narcissism) brought on by a slowly declining empire. Again, just my opinions.

 From what I know about him, he seems amiable and sincere. A genuine family man. Unfortunately, great artists are most often the opposite of that, at least when they create their best work(s). Again, just my opinion.

[WholesomeChungusSocialist 3]

3 hours ago, Carl Spackler said:

I thought this year was quite a bit better than many recent years.  To each their own.

Won’t argue with you, and if you’ve read through my comments in full for whatever reason, you can probably tell I like being a contrarian. Like I thought Blonde was one of the best releases of 2022, for example. Just wish our culture would be less hive minded above all else, not that you necessarily are yourself.

Edited January 9 by WholesomeChungusSocialist

[WholesomeChungusSocialist 3]

6 hours ago, TrashMaster G said:

RTF majors gotta go flex their degree plan somewhere.

I have no arts education whatsoever. If I did, I probably wouldn’t be alive rn, given the disenchantment that surrounds them, and how above all else, Americans are by and large fearful of distinct, hostile voices. I’m just an observer who’s thankful to be alive.

[DDD Dad 14325]

5 hours ago, WholesomeChungusSocialist said:

I have no arts education whatsoever. If I did, I probably wouldn’t be alive rn, given the disenchantment that surrounds them, and how above all else, Americans are by and large fearful of distinct, hostile voices. I’m just an observer who’s thankful to be alive.

You’re an observer of Americans, comrade?

[Eskimohorn 5630]

Gotta be honest, I wrote all of that while on uppers, but still believe what I’ve said, generally. I’ve never seen either of those shows — even as TV became much more ambitious starting with The Sopranos, I just haven’t had much interest in it aside from the aforementioned, Mad Men, etc., — but I’m guessing Jonathan checks some of Christopher’s more overwrought literary tendencies, or maybe both of them check one another. Idk. Again, just my opinion.
 I still maintain that Chris Nolan is otherworldly visually talented, but just doesn’t quite have the flesh of a great (or probably even good) writer. So few do, though, and we — in the Anglosphere, at least — are in an era of journalistic snark, literary sincerity (unfortunately maybe thanks to David Foster Wallace), and fantastical fixations, most likely because of the shifting digital sands that so few (if any) can really make sense of just yet. That, or increased anxiety and hysteria (and narcissism) brought on by a slowly declining empire. Again, just my opinions.
 From what I know about him, he seems amiable and sincere. A genuine family man. Unfortunately, great artists are most often the opposite of that, at least when they create their best work(s). Again, just my opinion.

Are you AI?

[WholesomeChungusSocialist 3]

5 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

You’re an observer of Americans, comrade?

Way to take my username seriously lol. But really, the real comrades are like the one above/in this thread, hammering the “correct opinion”, unable to live with contradictions. Whatever.