creating a post-post-modern work but centering the drama around the pre-modern harmartia in a character
the absolute break neck speed of narrative in an incredibly long work, without intermission is very draining and not enjoyable
the absence of charisma from the lead character coupled with the inexplicable attraction and support of everyone around him to him
“who’s story was it?” there were so many conflicting POVs, and about half a dozen endings
the surrealism wasn’t earned or justified
the entire thing is about the possible human cost of such decisions but the only victim we see is imaginary
most of the dialog is essentially exposition of scientific or legal terms
although what happens - post hoc - was interesting. the actual experience of watching it unfold was just watching a bunch of people bicker about their jobs
I strongly disagree. Both were middling and forgettable. In a year or so most people will struggle to recall anything about either movie.
cuz maybe you are not smart enough to understand Oppenheimer.
But I guess some people are just simple.
Here I’ll translate, bomb go bombom humanity goes die die. Unstoppable process , no stop.
Simple?
it’s not about that at all.
my criticisms in brief:
XD well I’ll make it simpler, we are all dead men walking. In a society without patience I understand what you mean.
But 3 hours to build up to one sentence is something that I’ve never seen benfore in any other movie.
Considering the sentence, well nah this movie was something else.
You can expres you complaints however you want. But I never saw it as boring at any point…