Why you should be rooting for Oppenheimer
Christopher Nolan's epic gives moviegoers a chance to send a message to Hollywood and (maybe) secure a future for challenging, meaty films
Film Features Oppenheimer
In director Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, the stakes are clear: freedom and democracy are on the line as the titular physicist and his colleagues at the Manhattan Project face thorny moral, ethical, and existential dilemmas in the race to develop the atomic bomb that will hopefully put an end to World War II.
This weekend, and in the weeks ahead, moviegoers face a far-less complex, but still existential choice. In a theatrical environment caught in a chokehold by superheroes, decades-old franchises, and all-powerful IP tentpoles, Oppenheimer is a rare outlier; an intellectually weighty, emotionally rich, historically important, and socially relevant would-be summer blockbuster directed with stylish, uber-cinematic panache and aimed at mature, discerning ticket buyers. And if it underperforms at the box office, it may serve as an extinction-level event for future high-minded fare in the summer multiplex.
That’s not to say we don’t or shouldn’t continue to shower attention on enjoyable, summer-centric blockbuster-style fare—definitely go see still-top-of-form franchise films like Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part One and especially go see IP-driven movies like Barbie, which subvert its source material as much as it celebrates it.
But if you value films that seek to thrill and challenge audiences who crave having their intellect and emotions invested in heady, meaty material, Oppenheimer presents a critical opportunity to vote with your wallets and send a message to the studios that, as much as you love superheroes, spies, souped-up cars, and toys, you’re still hungry to think and feel and luxuriate in well-crafted stories that revolve around elements other than explosions (Okay, so Oppenheimer actually revolves around a really, really big explosion, but you get the drift …)
Otherwise, cynical, bottom-line, corporate decision-making may result in fare with substance being excised from the summer moviegoing experience, and Hollywood permanently ceding the beach-going months to an endless onslaught of safe, easy-to-market, and in many cases, uninspired films, as the industry concludes that franchises and IP are the only things theater audiences will still show up for.
In a worst-case scenario, the studios—which have already all but abandoned mid-budget productions and traditionally popular genres like the romantic comedy—may even push the blockbuster mentality into a year-round agenda, encroaching on fall territory that’s still reserved for prestige films by important filmmakers. This summer, there have been glimmers that audiences are already sated after years of being force-fed would-be slam-dunks. They’ve opted to not to show up for previously predictable summer hits like The Flash and Indiana Jones And The Dial Of Destiny. Hopefully that will open the door to more unique fare like Oppenheimer and won’t result in audiences spending even more time on the couch watching Disney+.
While the widespread embrace of streaming services and the global pandemic have to be factored into the overall disruption of the film exhibition industry, as a believer in the “history rhymes” credo myself, we should also wonder if we’re not at the threshold of a new inflection point similar to what the major film studios faced in the ’50s and ’60s when, rudderless after the collapse of the studio system and the advent of television, they convinced themselves that audiences were primarily interested in bloated, big-screen versions of popular musicals and stagey costume dramas where every dollar in the budget could be counted on-screen, for good (The Sound Of Music) and ill (Cleopatra).
But then Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda roared onto the scene with 1969’s Easy Rider, a grungy, raw, low-budget, formula-busting, zeitgeist-embracing film that opened in mid-July and became a phenomenon by both reflecting the then-current youth culture and sparking a deep cultural conversation across generations. Easy Rider upended conventional movie wisdom and sparked a filmmaking revolution that led to a halcyon, post-modern golden age that gave audiences everything from The Godfather to Gloria, from Taxi Driver to Jaws, and from Chinatown to Star Wars. And, just as the studios told themselves—then, as right now—that the age of movie stars had passed, an entire new generation of still-iconic, ticket-selling talent was freshly minted, as was a new breed of auteur.
Look, Oppenheimer ain’t Easy Rider—it’s studio-made, lavishly budgeted, massive in running time, packed with famous-name actors and helmed by one of the foremost filmmaking talents of the last two decades—but in success it could live up to Nolan’s oft-Kubrickian ethos by serving, as 2001: A Space Odyssey did in 1968, as a gateway and stage-setter for a more adventurous era in film put forth by an already accomplished director.
And make no mistake: buying a ticket to Oppenheimer is nothing like eating your cinematic vegetables. The film is a feast; a stunning, ambitious, grand, keenly acted, wildly entertaining and profoundly thought-provoking movie that stands high among Nolan’s finest work—perhaps even his masterwork—deserving to be seen on the largest screen available. But there just may be more riding on Oppenheimer than its own commercial success. In the greater scheme of things, the future of smart, savvy, deeply felt filmmaking that deserves a wide, summer release may hinge on a movie about a bomb not bombing.
138 Comments
I can’t wait to see Oppenheimer this Sunday even though it’s 3 hours long. I very likely will have to take at least 1 bathroom break.
“Oh man, you missed the Trinity explosion!”
Why do you hate cinema?
Seriously, wait until after the bomb testing to go. It’s the movies best scene.
Having watched it this afternoon, I will say that at no point was I checking my watch wondering when it was going to be over. It kept me very engaged across the entire running time. (I also made a point of lightly dehydrating myself so that I wouldn’t need to worry about a bathroom break mid-movie, and that seemed to work pretty well.)
Yeah. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a 3 hour movie where nobody in the cinema got up and went to use the washroom. The audience was completely quiet and paying full attention to the movie. There were moments where everyone was on the edge of their seats. Incredible.
I’ll bring a little pennants that says Go Movies when I go see it.
Spoiler alert: Nicole Kidman sits next to you the whole time, telling you that you’re a hero for seeing this in theaters.
I’d py just for the Kidman part.
I feel like the first draft of this article included the sentence “To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Oppenheimer.”
lmfao
“I appreciate Oppenheimer on a much deeper level than you.”
When You Are Ready To Have A Serious Conversation About Oppenheimer, You Have My E-Mail Address
Kitten Thinks About Nothing But Oppenheimer All Day
Walking Barbie Database Scorns Walking Oppenheimer Database
It’s the exact same audience it’s targeting.
It’s a pretty obscure reaction chain. You’ve probably never heard of it.
I still have Oppenheimer left to go watch, but man these past two weeks have been a true bounty of moviegoing as I adored Mission Impossible and was endlessly astonished by Barbie. So ready to sit to be absorbed into this.
It’s worth pointing out that in today’s studio budgets, Oppenheimer ($100M) kind of IS a mid-budget picture.
But I certainly hope that you’re right, and we’re close to a turning point in the industry that allows for smaller, more creative movies to get made and get some attention. Cinema is an art form and an experience that I’d rather not see disappear.
And I have to think much of that budget went into the cast, since from a sets and effects perspective it doesn’t seem like it would be that expensive to produce.Dial of Destiny’s underperformance probably isn’t from a lack of enthusiasm for Indiana Jones, but because it’s apparently kind of a crappy movie. The main lesson to draw there is that IP alone doesn’t sell tickets.
Period dramas are always deceptively expensive on the costumes, hair, production design etc. side of things including needing to CGI out things from the background and sets, but I do think Oppenheimer also has a fair amount of effects in the sense of the bomb itself.
The bomb effects were completely practical. Apparently it was mix of in camera lighting effects and liquid photography effects. Which should be much cheaper than CGI. Aronofsky used liquid photography effects for the end of The Fountain. It’s really quite cool. I haven’t seen Oppenheimer yet so I can’t speak to similarities in how the technique was used. I would think the largest expenses were, as you note, production design related things that come with being a large scale period movie.
Shooting for imax probably contributed a bit as well. Long story short, even if the cast was the biggest chunk of the budget, it was probably a lot less than other movies, tbh.
Dial of Destiny’s underperformance probably isn’t from a lack of enthusiasm for Indiana Jones, but because it’s apparently kind of a crappy movie. The main lesson to draw there is that IP alone doesn’t sell tickets. So, this one has been analyzed to death, but I guess I’ll throw in my $.02 worth:1) It wasn’t “crappy,” but it sure wasn’t Raiders of the Lost Ark or Last Crusade either.2) Indy Jones isn’t like Star Wars, with nearly as extensive a merchandising operation and fan base that keeps it going even when the cinema franchise is dormant.3) Maverick and The Force Awakens aside, sequels made more than 5 years after the last installment seldom do very well.4) The last movie, though fairly profitable, has developed a bad reputation over the years, so the brand was somewhat tarnished.
I do plan to see it at some point but I agree it both had to stand on its own as a good movie AND make up for the lost goodwill from the last one, which isn’t entirely fair.
I loved DoD cuz I thought it played into the ham-fisted action style of its day with him covering foes eyes with his hat than punching and saying a catchphrase at a camera. My screening of it was on a Saturday night in a pack theatre of seniors. It looked like the people it was for enjoyed it. My theory is that they shouldn’t have thrown superhero tent pole money at it for the de-aging stuff.
“Dial of Destiny’s underperformance probably isn’t from a lack of enthusiasm for Indiana Jones, but because it’s apparently kind of a crappy movie.”Love it when movies get called crappy by people whose posts read like they haven’t even seen them. Never change, AV Club.
I haven’t seen it, and by all accounts it’s pretty crappy. Which is why I haven’t wasted two hours on it. Didn’t realize I was saying anything remotely controversial here.
I’m guessing “all accounts” doesn’t include 69% of critics on Rotten Tomatoes.
“by all accounts”What a complete load of shit. How long did it take for you to talk to absolutely everybody who has actually seen it? How many hours have you spent here spitting complete loads of shit like that when you could have been watching movies and actually formulating valid opinions about them?
I’ll put it this way. I know a number of people who have seen it, and not one has been “oh man you need to go check it out right now!” It’s been shrugs at best, which is disappointing given the franchise. And surely you are aware “by all accounts” is a figure of speech?
And I’ll put it this way – you’re still shitting on a movie you haven’t seen. Doesn’t really need to be put any other way than that.Sorry it took me so long to respond, but I was out actually watching movies before I talk about them. Weird, I know. I’m quirky like that.
What do guys like Pete want? “Attaboy for giving your money over for something terrible and validating it”? I mean, congratu-fuckin’-lations for feeding the shit machine.
It also cost a bazillion dollars to make. Of course it “underperformed”.
You’re probably not wrong, though if someone told me that actors take significantly smaller salaries to be part of a Nolan movie, that wouldn’t surprise me either. Don’t get me wrong, $100 million is a plenty big budget, and lots of superhero movies get made for that (the first Wonder Woman, for example). It’s just become a comparatively small budget for a big summer studio film.
DoD’s underperformance is a lot of things. It’s not a great film, but it’s not bad, either. It’s way better than KoS. Some of it is probably lack of enthusiasm for the character- I mean, Harrison Ford IS 80 years old, whether you want to admit it or not, we’re as far from Raiders now as Treasure of the Sierra Madre or Casablanca was from Raiders when it was first released. I doubt that audiences would have rushed to see Humprey Bogart reprising Rick Blaine in 1981 either. But as you say, the main thing is that DoD just isn’t going to get great word of mouth- certainly not enough to push it into hit status, if it even breaks even after taking marketing into account.
But it’s kind of an underperforming summer all around. Even the new Mission Impossible isn’t really doing all that well. It’s been out over a week and it still hasn’t cleared $100M domestic. We’ve only had one $1B movie this year, and that’s Super Mario Brothers. I’d expect to see a bunch of “is cinema dead” panic articles at the end of the summer. Except this time, they might have a little more weight behind them, with the strikes already threatening the lineup for next summer. It’s looking a little grim for studio films. That might not be a bad thing, if they pivot to smaller, more nimble movies the way they did in the 60s and 70s… but now that they’re all part of corporate congolomerates…? That’s what really worries me.
Given the weekends that Barbie and Oppenheimer just had, I wouldn’t hold your breath on any ‘cinema is dead’ articles. Fourth-biggest box office weekend ever.
Certainly hope you’re right.
It’s been kind of energizing to see people this fired up about going to a movie. I know at least half a dozen people who did the Barbieheimer thing.
Same.
This is just the set-up for the Oppenheimer Cinematic Universe (OCU), with Opp in an Iron Man role and General Groves as Nick Fury:- Oppenheimer II: The Adventures of Fat Man and Little Boy
– Oppenheimer III: The Rise of J. Edgar
– Nuclear Avengers: Doomsday Clock
– Herr Doktor Rocket vs. The Moon Nazis (Werner Von Braun TV show)
– Nuclear Avengers II: Operation Castle
– Big Trouble in Bikini Atoll (animated short)
– Nuclear Avengers III: Tsar Bomba’s Revenge
– Oppenheimer IV: Doctor Atomic
someone on twitter said, “Oppenheimer mid-credits scene is Godzilla rising out of the waters”
Even Barbie is only budgeted at $145 million. I hate using the word “only” there, but when you look at stuff like Indiana Jones, Elemental or even Guardians, that’s a conservative budget.
Not really. It’s still a huge budget.
Of big studio releases this summer, it’s one of the lowest. It’s still a ton of money, but looking at the actual releases for this summer, it’s on the low end.
JFC, I just looked up Dial Of Destiny’s budget, and it’s almost 300 million for the production alone! The whole point of an Indiana Jones movie is that you’re not reinventing the wheel which helps keep the budget down. No wonder it flopped.
Yep, that’s why I’m like $145 mil is a ton of money, but it’s not that…Like, there’s no world, even a pre-covid world, where Dial of Destiny would have been profitable on its own. Maybe they were booking on toys and lego sets.
Yeah, $125-150 seems like the average for a studio tentpole nowadays. Superhero films and big action movies like Mission Impossible seem to be ticking in at 200M or more pretty regularly. It’s nuts.
It’s length alone has driven me to wait until I can view it at home with a pause button and convenient bathroom/snack access.
bUt nOLaN iS pREtEntiOuS
Pretentious? More like portentous.
Maybe not pretentious, but definitely a bit of a wank.
Maybe not pretentious, but definitely a bit of a wank.
They threw me out of the theater when I tried that during Dunkirk.
You got lucky. You avoided the rest of the film.
I’d argue that he IS pretentious (dude still doesn’t have a cell phone); I just don’t care. He makes good movies.
He wishes he were pretentious. He’s just boring.
He wrote the script in first person. That is the fucking *epitome* of pretentious.
Counterpoint: who gives a shit? I’m going to see a movie, not read a script.
Countercounterpoint: He and his actors talked about it in interviews. Why? You’re right, nobody going to the movie would read the script. So why bring that up?(Although FWIW I’m a professional reader and I teach screenwriting. So me. I would read it.)
People talk about things that you don’t see in the final film during interviews all the time. They’re there to talk about the movie.FWIW, I never once thought, “Man, this movie would be a lot better if it had been written in third person.”
Well that’s how they are written.Dude, this is the comments section of an AV Club article. I made a comment. We done?
I know. I’ve read and written screenplays before. My counterpoint was, if the final product is good, I don’t really care what person the script was written in. It could’ve been written in Sanskrit. Who gives a shit?You replied to me. We’re done whenever you feel like it.
1) I give a shit. That’s not how you write scene description and him and the interviewees pretending that it’s some impressive feat of connecting with the character makes me worry that some impressionable student of mine will do it. Or I’ll start seeing it in contest scripts when I judge.2) If you’re right and it doesn’t matter then it didn’t need to get brought up in hype interviews. But it DID. Which tells me that he and possibly the cast think it’s impressive or interesting rather than pretentious and stupid.3) Fair enough.
Why is it bad that he wrote it in the first person?Jay McInerney wrote Bright Lights, Big City in the second person and novels aren’t written like that unless you count choose-your-own-adventure style books aimed at kids. It’s something different, utilized with a certain effect in mind (I assume). What’s wrong with experimentation?
Without going into a very long explanation, screenplays are formatted very specifically because they are transitive works. Someone has to break down the script into shooting drafts so all the production elements can be created and organized. That’s a harder task to accomplish if the scene description is in first person rather than standard third.Outside of the giant pain in the ass writing in first person would create, it’s also fucking absurd to pretend that doing so somehow *meant* anything.Prose writing is not like screenwriting. They are very different disciplines. And there’s no *point* to that kind of formal experimentation.
He is. He also fucking SUCKS at story telling. TDK is one of the worst pieces of shit ever committed to film. If Heath Ledger were still alive today, nobody would give a fuck about Nolan.You should fucking rope, bitch.
We are not anywhere near a turning point against IP. The most successful movies this year so far are all based on pre-existing IP.
After 20 years of training audiences to want to be pandered to, it’s going to take more than a historical blockbuster to re-train them to want to be challenged. I wish studios would do the work to undo a generation of mind-numbing children’s movies pitched at adults, but the craven capitalism of the industry would never allow it.
The only way we escaped the sachrine, sequal-happy populism of the 80s was by 90s indie directors going outside the studios and succeeding without them then studios came and gobbled up that niche.In the same way, I really don’t think it’s major studio fare that is going to save us this time, it’s going to take interesting writers and directors who don’t own or care about IP, doing their own thing and proving that it can be viable.Theaters just have to survive long enough for there to even be a chance of that. I often specifically go out to the theater to see small movies I don’t expect to do well and save big mainstream stuff for streaming. Those movies don’t need my help but the little, weird ones do.
Being challenged is not the be-all end-all of any artistic endeavor and the sooner cinemaphiles give up that ridiculous aim the better.Tell a fucking story. That’s it. That’s all. Unless you’re an experimentalist, in which case do whatever it is you people do.
“The beatings will continue until people’s taste in movies improves”
Man fuck off I just want to go see a movie.
Why do all of the links for the classic movies lead to cast lists and imdb summaries when they say “review”? I was wondering what was so bad about Taylor and Burton’s “Cleopatra” but all I got was credits and cliff notes.
Because this site was sold to a clueless media conglomerate which let this site rot. After a few years , it was then resold to vulture capitalists who gutted the shit out of it.
I will see this movie, but not in a theatre. I can easily fast forward through director’s indulgences that way.
Based on his prior work, if you fast forwarded through Nolan’s indulgences I have a feeling there wouldn’t be much movie left.
Are we really saying this movie isn’t part of the WW2CU, a franchise that’s been coughing out multiple entries per year since before WW2 even officially started? It’s also kind of a remake of a Paul Newman movie. It may well be a good film, but is it really that original/creative?
Without jumping into spoilers for the film (as opposed to just history), it is structured and paced in an interesting way. It’s a very well made movie that deserves the praise it’s getting and it certainly feels like everyone involved in the film really cared about getting it right.That’s not always the norm.
Fat Man & Little Boy (the Newman movie) was really about General Groves, though. Oppenheimer was there, but he wasn’t the focus. Oppenheimer is the opposite.
I don’t even remember who played Oppenheimer in Fat Man and Little Boy. I remember John Cusack and John C McGinley, but I don’t think either of them were Oppenheimer. Granted it’s been like 20 years since I saw it the one time.
Cusack was playing a fictional character, but one who was based on a mixture of the very real unfortunate physicists who worked on the so called “demon core” — a radioactive core that ended up killing two (and injuring other) physicists who worked on it. In separate incidents! In Fat Man and Little Boy Oppenheimer was played by Dwight Schultz, best known as “Howling Mad Murdock” on the A-Team and unfortunately a far-right loon today.
Seeing as Fat Man & Little Boy was dull as dishwater, if all Nolan did was remake that, it would still be an improvement.
There are a lot of stories about the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer is about Oppenheimer. Fat Man and Little Boy was about Groves. Maybe Nolan is ripping off the tv series Manhattan, if this is the rabbit hole you’re going down.
Current projections are a 68-million-dollar opening weekend, which is a win by any measure.
How is that “a win by any measure”…??
How about I root for neither?And for people to stop giving their money to Hollywood’s industry of mediocrity?And for them to lose so much money that their corporate stranglehold on cinema breaks, and the medium thus becomes more diverse, egalitarian, and interesting?
And for them to lose so much money that their corporate stranglehold on cinema breaks, and the medium thus becomes more diverse, egalitarian, and interesting?Because that won’t happen?
And for them to lose so much money that their corporate stranglehold on cinema breaks, and the medium thus becomes more diverse, egalitarian, and interesting? LOLOLOL… Hey, I’ve got a great deal on a landmark bridge in Brooklyn, or some prime beachfront property in Arizona. HMU.You’re like all those people who vote Green, and then say things like, “Well I actually want Trump to win, because if things get really bad they’ll have to change.”
You’re not as funny as you think and your analogy is a joke.
Big Sarandon energy..
So you want good movies, like Oppenheimer (and Barbie for that matter) to fail… to teach the studios not to make good movies?
Dude’s got a Thanos-sized brain.
Here’s the real question: How do we as a people handle this much fist-in-the-air rebellion emanating from just one person? Settle down, John Bender.LOL. Get over yourself. Hollywood’s going nowhere.
Neither what?
Sir, this is an Arby’s.
I get that this article was probably written weeks ago to be released with opening day, but we already know that at least as far as opening weekend goes, it looks like Oppenheimer is about to overperform coming in at $50 million and 2nd place when just a week ago it was being predicted it would do $20 – $40 million and settle for third.I appreciate the premise of this article, but it almost feels like it’s coming out too late.
I came in hot on this, sure, but don’t you find the premise of the article bullying? I really disliked the needling.
It was a bit weird. I can see where you would see it as needling. I feel like I would understand it if Oppenheimer was an exceptionally well-reviewed movie that was struggling to gain traction, but the reporting for the past three weeks has been that the projections were just growing and growing and not we know it massively overperformed so it just seems like either the AV Club being terribly out of sync with reporting or they’re looking to pat themselves on the back for contributing.
Yeah, you make a good point. It does feel out of touch with the reality of the situation. I think I could be more on board if the article was talking about something like Ex Machina, which came out within the same few weeks as Guardians of the Galaxy. Because that WAS a small, indie, niche genre film by a lesser known filmmaker that had something interesting to say up against a huge IP blockbuster. (While I acknowledge that GoG was an oddball choice at the time, it was still a Disney/MCU film with a big budget.) I was disappointed in my film friends at the time for going to see GoG but not Ex Machina (I did both FWIW).But Oppenheimer is a bog standard biopic written/directed by a well-known filmmaker with a sizeable budget for a mainstream studio. Opinions about the artistic merits of the film aside, it’s fucking ABSURD to pretend that that film means ANYTHING to the survival of non-IP film. And this fucking weirdo writer pretending otherwise is annoying. (Obviously, given my dropping of unnecessary f-bombs.)
So when I was growing up, you’d go to the movies and sometimes what you saw was either a continuation or a remake of something you’d already seen, but often times (wait for it) it wasn’t. Crazy, right?
This whole blowback from places like AVClub feels like a millennial writing staff finally becoming their parents and remembering the “gold ol’ days” because they lack any self awareness that a lot of the shit they were watching back then was remakes and IPs their parents grew up on.But instead of coming to terms with the relentless forward march of time that claims us all, they’re trying to make themselves feel better by pretending it’s all part of some noble purpose.
Are we thanking the snyderheads yet by counter-productively boycotting James Gunn in hopes that they’ll get more superhero films lol. Thanks for doing ur part guys! Love Oppenheimer.
Barbie is almost guaranteed to have a bigger opening weekend and that’s fine. It has been marketed as breezy and pretty, and people like that more than “important.” It is also an hour shorter which allows it to have more showings and people like being able to go when they want and not be stuck there for 3 hours. The local megaplex has 15 showing of Barbie tomorrow and only 7 of Oppenheimer. That also suggests the theater expects to sell more Barbie tickets.We are seeing both next week.
You and I had the same thoughts re the number of showings, due to Barbie being shorter etc. Also if you’re taking kids to Barbie, you’re buying more tickets. The kids aren’t going to see Oppenheimer.
well, did you ask the kids if they wanted to go????
I did the double feature this afternoon (Oppenheimer followed by Barbie), and HOLY SHIT were there a lot of people there dressing up for Barbie. Also, a good number of people like me seeing both movies.And yes, the running time is absolutely a limiting factor in how much Oppenheimer can bring in, content aside.
I’ve heard a common plan is a double feature during peak heat during the day. Stay in the AC and watch Oppenheimer followed by Barbie.
In the greater scheme of things, the future of smart, savvy, deeply felt filmmaking that deserves a wide, summer release may hinge on a movie about a bomb not bombing.I’m assuming this article was written a couple days or more ago? Oppenheimer had $10.5 mil domestic preview night, which is absurdly good for an R-rated, 3 hour historical biopic. It should come in on the high end of the opening weekend projections and definetely won’t be a bomb.
“definetely won’t be a bomb”Spoiler alert!
Haha!
I’m not looking forward to the tie-in video game. Hours of grinding to assemble one measly atomic bomb? I mean, I’ll do it, but the Hirohito/Oppenheimer fight at the end had better be epic.
My favorite part is when he says “It’s Oppen-time-er!” and then Oppens.
And the second player option of playing Heisenberg is unbalanced — he has basically no chance of winning despite his amazing power of only letting his opponent know where he is or what direction he is moving in but not both.
“I AM the one who knocks. Or not.”
That’s why I always carry a Heisenberg compensator IRL. Eliminates all that uncertainty.
It works very well, thank you.
The idea that Oppenheimer might be this generation or whatever’s 2001 is interesting since it gives me hope that a new new Hollywood is just a handful of years down the road. But it’s hard for me to see how a big budget sci-fi extravaganza with a famously confusing ending wound up serving as the “stage-setter” for scrappy old Easy Rider and the like. If anything, 2001 was the stage-setter for conceptually interesting but self-serious movies like Colossus: The Forbin Project and Silent Running and THX-1138.
I don’t know who the author was jacking more himself or Nolan
Is it another superhero film or IP tie-in? No. Is it another Oscar bait biopic? Yes. Just because we haven’t seen a million of them this year doesn’t mean we haven’t seen a million of them. Nothing about this material is elevated.
Watch both!
While Ronald
Reagan postulated that “Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about
because the U.S. was too strong,” who can know what may have historically
come to fruition had the U.S. remained the sole possessor of atomic weaponry.There’s a
presumptive, and perhaps even arrogant, concept of American leadership as
somehow, unless directly militarily provoked, being morally/ethically above
using nuclear weapons internationally.I read that,
after President Harry S. Truman relieved General Douglas MacArthur as commander
of the forces warring with North Korea — for the latter’s remarks about using
many atomic bombs to promptly end the war — Americans’ approval-rating of the
president dropped to 23 percent.It was a
record-breaking low, even lower than the worst approval-rating points of the
presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson.Had it not been
for the formidable international pressure on Truman (and perhaps his personal
morality) to relieve MacArthur as commander, Truman
may have eventually succumbed to domestic political pressure to allow
MacArthur’s command to continue.
Counterpoint: Whether this movie is successful or not, nothing will actually change because nothing changes on one note. There are massive things at work in the entertainment industry and the success or failure of one movie will have little to not impact on that trajectory.
But Barbie Vs Oppenheimer drives clicks right now…. so make your bag I guess?
I’d rather read the book. When I want to be intellectually stimulated, I don’t pay $14 per ticket to sit in the dark, I go to the library for free.
“BUT YOU GET TO SEE FLORENCE PUGH NAKED!” – AV Club
…Oppenheimer is a rare outlier; an intellectually weighty,
emotionally rich, historically important, and socially relevant would-be
summer blockbuster directed with stylish, uber-cinematic panache and
aimed at mature, discerning ticket buyers…Bullshit, the whole thing’s played for laughs. There’s literally a scene where Oppenheimer bends over and pretends the blast from the Trinity test is a fart he lit.
That was not Oppenheimer laughing at me, that was God. That was GOD laughing at me!
Fuuuuuuck this. I’m not gonna be brow-beaten into seeing a fucking *biopic* made by a pretentious egomaniac just because some dink on the internet thinks it means something to the industry. Thanks but no. I was not interested before, trying to gin up interest because I care about the art does not move me.
You sure care a lot about letting everyone know you don’t care though.
Yeah, farting out a paragraph in an AV Club article comments section is a heckuva lot of care. Ya got my number.Get bent.
Multiple paragraphs, but yeah, lighten up, dude. No one here is forcing you to see something you don’t want to.
WHAT??? Dude, that is the fucking *entire point of this article*! This article is literally arguing that IF I care about the future of cinema I need to see Oppenheimer. You did actually read the thing, yeah? Agree or disagree about the film itself, I’m not out of line to say that the purpose of the article is pushing people to see it under some absurd Death of Art bullshit.
Hey, KYS you r*tarded f*ggot
Yeah I was uninterested at first and then the trailers and promotion (“You get to see tits!”) just reeked of desperation.I did a report on Oppenheimer back in high school. I’m good. Once it comes to streaming maybe I’ll try to watch it over a few weeks on my lunch break.I don’t have many opportunities to get a babysitter to go to the movies. So when I finally do we’re gonna go have some fun.
Unlike the drooling degenerates here who don’t want to be challenged, I just don’t trust Nolan to do the challenging.
The entire premise of this article ignores how there are PLENTY of low/mid budget movies getting attention on streaming.Since COVID, theaters have become where people go for spectacle. But they’re still watching other stuff at home.Maybe AVClub can focus on those more instead of countless thinkpieces about Chris Pratt as Mario? Otherwise it’s kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fuck you. Nolan sucks. I hope this movie is a commercial disaster, I hope Nolan never makes another movie, and I hope you and your whole family die slowly and painfully. You fucking nonce.
Enjoyable read. I’d hope, probably a bit optimistically, we’re just at the absolute nadir of “cinematic events” post-pandemic, and the Barbenheimer buzz is more than just this novel, nostalgic thing that people would come out for.1) As I think you’ve alluded to, streaming is probably not a sustainable model for any half-decent film release (and I suspect their scope on TV/movies is only shrinking, along with their finances). People will demand better eventually…
2) I still wonder if there are lasting traumas and altered behaviours from the pandemic, which will hopefully mend over the years.
Then again we have screens everywhere now, so maybe the next generation would find it weird to go for a night out where you go and sit in front of another screen which happens to be bigger. (I’m showing my age here)
perhaps if an oppenheimer action figure was available for purchase…
I just saw it. I enjoyed it it. I thought it was good. It didn’t blow me away though (no pun intended), but I went in with very high expectations. I will say I was concerned about the runtime, but it didn’t seem to drag.That’s about all I got right, still need time to digest.
3 hours in a movie theater. Hard pass