MovieChat Forums > Oppenheimer (2023) Discussion > Over hyped disappointment

Over hyped disappointment

posted a year ago by JS114 (46)
46 replies | jump to latest

In South Africa, we drove 100km to see this on a big Imax screen (as recommended by the Director) - I fail to understand the hype or reason Nolan shot it on 65mm film as the cinematography was nothing exceptional, the dialogue was frequently drowned out by the loud 'music' and I gradually lost the use of my legs. I was ready to give up half way and walk out to beat the traffic home but the bomb-sequence brightened things up a bit and I stuck it out. The last hour was a struggle. I have a fair grasp of the history of the period but still struggled a bit with following the story. I really wanted to like the movie but the toasted peri-peri chicken sandwich that we ordered on the way in (and which was delivered to our seats) was the highlight of the day. Sorry

reply

[–] Truthtalker (1975) a year ago

typical boring stuff by Nolan, his fans are snobs

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18075) a year ago

Interstellar is his masterpiece.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8719) a year ago

No way! Interstellar was problematic at the script level.

His masterpiece is The Prestige.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18075) a year ago

The script is fine. Most people just dont understand time travel and multi-dimensions. The 4k version explains a lot of the script.

reply

[–] maul (1635) a year ago

I swear Nolan fans can't go one second without bringing in the "you just didn't understand it" nonsense. The more you understand about science the more bullshit this movie becomes, not the opposite (which is a separate issue to script/dialogue problems, btw). It's the classic dumb person's smart movie.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18075) a year ago

Seriously, the 4k version has a lot of great info that may help you enjoy the movie. It has interviews with Kip Thorne.

reply

[–] Pete314 (3018) a year ago

Seriously, if a movie requires additional interviews to be understood, it FAILED.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18075) a year ago

If you don't understand Interstellar then you have F41LED.

reply

[–] Pete314 (3018) a year ago

I understand Interstellar even without additional interviews. Not Nolan's best (for me The Prestige), but way better than Tenet.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18075) a year ago

Interstellar is his masterpiece, case closed.

reply

[–] Pete314 (3018) a year ago

Case re-opened, irrelevant opinion noticed, case closed again.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18075) a year ago

Its the correct opinion of my opinion.

reply

[–] pjl69 (2647) a year ago

My problem wasn't understanding time travel and multi-dimensions. The movie explained everything after all. I was more bothered by the childish robots and the technology turning into star trek in the middle of everything: a sturdy launch vehicle was needed to leave Earth, but after the wormhole, the shuttle landed and took off several times even from planets heavier than Earth. The best thing in Interstellar was Hans Zimmer's score and even that was influenced by Philip Glass' work.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18075) a year ago

How was the robots childish? What should have they looked like? The space shuttle was reused multiple times, not sure what your gripes are. Its a science fiction movie.

reply

[–] pjl69 (2647) a year ago

"The space shuttle was reused multiple times, not sure what your gripes are. Its a science fiction movie. "

They landed and took off WITHOUT REFUELING and without a massive launch rocket which was needed when they first left Earth. The movie didn't follow it's own rules, even a science fiction movie needs to have some inner logic and rules. Either you have a realistic Apollo-like launch rocket to take off from planets or you have Star Trek-like antigravity technology, but it doesn't make sense to have both.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18075) a year ago

Maybe the ship had nuclear power? Submarines already have this technology and can remain underwater for years.

You are over thinking a science fiction movie.

How would you design the robots? Their design would also need to interface with the ship.

How does a light saber work? How does light cut anything?

reply

[–] pjl69 (2647) a year ago

"Maybe the ship had nuclear power?"

It gets you nowhere. It was established first in the movie that you need a massive launch rocket to get you out of Earth's gravity well. Nuclear power is useless in taking off. You need massives and massives amount of fuel (propellant). I'm not overthinking anything, because the movie's illogicality was so obvious and rubbed to your face. So, now you think I shouldn't think too much of this movie? What happened to thinking man's scifi masterpiece? By comparing Interstellar to Star Wars you're just digging a deeper hole for yourself. Even Star Wars type of fantasy world needs to have rules established and logic to follow. Interstellar broke those rules it first established.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18075) a year ago

Which ship are you talking about? Just watched the beginning again and they use a 2 stage rocket to get to outer space. How is that illogical?

You are ok with light sabers but a rocket going to outer space is illogical? lol

Star Wars had rules? Like an X-Wing turning in space? You would need 100's of thrusters to do that since there is no gravity or friction in space.

Interstellar is a masterpiece and I highly recommend getting the 4k version. It explains of lot of the stuff you are complaining about.

reply

[–] pjl69 (2647) a year ago

"Which ship are you talking about?"

The small shuttle which they used to land and take off from planets after the wormhole. One of the planets was even heavier than Earth, so you would need even more fuel to take off there.

The 2 stage launch rocket wasn't illogical per se. What was illogical was that they abandoned one technology (realistic Apollo-like launch rocket) and replaced it with another (magical Star Trek antigravity tech) in the middle of the movie. In fact I'd have less problems with this movie if they had gone full Star Trek and had magical antigravity technology all the way. But no, Nolan obviously wanted an impressive and powerful Apollo-like launch sequence in the beginning of the story.

There's no point in comparing the rules established by different scifi or fantasy movies. They have all their own rules. What matters is that how the storytellers follow the rules they establish themselves and in this regard Nolan and Interstellar failed. I'm starting to agree with maul, that this movie is indeed a classic dumb person's "smart" movie.

What comes to robots you asked previously. They contributed nothing to the story if I recall correctly. They just wanted to add in something cute for kids and Star Wars audiences.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18075) a year ago

If we are following rules and logic of a Sci-fi movie then we will need to know the capabilities of the shuttle they used. Whats the ratio of weight to thrust? Whats the power source? Has the shuttle taken off from Earth before? What kind of engines does it use? Are there afterburners? How long have they been in service?

So you are saying Tars and Case did nothing in the movie? Who saved Brand on Millers planet? Who controlled the joystick when they were docking with the main ship after Mann almost destroyed the main ship?

You are just saying stupid stuff because you dont understand the movie and you obviously dont like Nolan.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18075) a year ago

Interstellar is a masterpiece and should be treated as such.

reply

[–] Kowalski (75736) a year ago

I LOVE INTERSTELLAR...IT IS VERY ENTERTAINING...THAT SAID...THE SCIENCE IS HALF ASSED AND THE FILM IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18075) a year ago

Which science is half assed? And what is flawed about the movie? Maybe I can help.

Its one of my Top 5 movies.

reply

[–] NukeDude (796) a year ago

It's a freakin' movie FFS.

Just get over the nitpicking BS.

Sheesh.

reply

[–] pjl69 (2647) a year ago

Its not nitpicking. Interstellar was about space travel, so the problem I pointed out was very much a core issue. You nolantards should make up your mind, is Interstellar a thinking man's scifi masterpiece beyond any criticism or is it just a movie with faults. You can't have it both ways.

reply

[–] NukeDude (796) a year ago

Every movie has faults or is beyond criticism. I'm not a "nolantdard" in the least, nor am I a movie snob.

reply

[–] maul (1635) a year ago

I remember reading Jonathan Nolan's original script years before the movie came out, and it was a lot better. Chris totally screwed it up with his rewrites.

reply

[–] Bateman (601) a year ago

I was dragged by family into watching it this past weekend, even though I was ambivalent at best about it... I came away with pretty much the same impression.

I think it might have worked better as two separate films - one about the Manhattan Project and the bomb, and another about the hearing. As it was, it just felt way overstuffed.

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

I agree, I couldn't hear all the lines properly in the first third and dozed off a few times, and it was explosions (like the ship exploding) that woke me up!

If I'd seen this movie with subtitles, I might've appreciated it more. But it was all artsy-fartsy, and Nolan doesn't even know what a nuclear mushroom cloud looks like.

reply

[–] John Kyle (680) a year ago

I saw it yesterday on 70mm Imax. And was disappointed. Was too loud, I missed a lot of dialogue and 99% was not worth seeing in Imax.

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Over hyped disappointment

That can be a recycled tagline on all Christopher Nolan movies.

reply

[–] Burgershmurger (1365) a year ago

Nolan's British accent paired with his slow promounciation and dandylike getup makes people believe he's some intellectual giant. He made a "realistic" Batman movie? Yeah, because we've all seen the Dark Knight in action in real life. Because superheroes are real. To this day, I just don't get how the Dark Knight has a 9.0 rating when it's just plain boring.

reply

[–] Kowalski (75736) a year ago

💯

reply

[–] Thaisticks (3064) a year ago

300,000 voters on IMDB have given it a rating of 8.7. It's too bad for you that you found the movie disappointing, but most people would disagree with you. Does it help with your "disappointment" that you have a place to whine?

reply

[–] John Kyle (680) a year ago

As for my disappointment. It was not the movie, it was seeing it in Imax. I will watch it again in my home theater.

reply

[–] DickusBiggus (218) a year ago

Nolan is not going to let you give him a rimjob just because you are simping for him on MC

reply

[–] jk90us (7281) a year ago

You just described every Nolan borefest.

reply

[–] Thaisticks (3064) a year ago

Non-sequitor alert! I just related some stats on how popular this movie is. Also it's made 229 mil, and still #3 at the box office, so I don't think word-of-mouth is calling it how you see it. But keep whining if it makes you feel good. What do you think of Barbie?

reply

[–] jk90us (7281) a year ago

His films are still boring as hell in my opinion. Screw your stats.

reply

[–] spock (41) a year ago

Glad I wasn't the only one who couldn't understand the dialogue, believing I had developed hearing problems. At best I understood 50% of the dialogue due to the drowned out music. I became irritable and wrestles half way through, wondering how much more pain I was willing to endure.

reply

1
2