Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings2.6K
tonosov-51238's rating
Reviews164
tonosov-51238's rating
Altogether outrageously bold in its concept yet timid in execution. There is a lot to say about Hays Code and its effects on cinema, but for the purposes of this movie, one thing is for certain: Ellen would not tolerate separate beds. It's very hard to justify her obsession with keeping Richard for herself when their relationship seems so sexless and dispassionate. How would Danny even read the room when it got frozen overnight?
Conflicting with Code are insinuations of what made her this way. Certainly such an escalation could not have passed unnoticed by other members of the family. If she projects her father onto Richard, then surely she would have been as possessive of her dad. I'm not implying some incestuous underbelly. God knows even a hint of Electra complex wouldn't fly, but it sure feels like something was stricken from the script even if it wasn't the case.
Someone would have noticed something for sure and be able to point at it. Beyond "she loves too much." Regardless of the murky origins of her psychosis, it is fascinating to watch. It's also mesmerizing to read feminist interpretations of her actions. That it's some dissatisfaction with gender roles, a rebellion, and not a simple, selfish desire to possess someone. It is really akin to claiming Buffalo Bill exemplifies MtF. What kind of relatable affection can you even feel towards a person who thinks killing someone's brother will just switch his attention to you? That's not even a sociopath. They wouldn't be this clueless.
The trial part stifles the film in my eyes. Too melodramatic and makes Richard convict for no reason other than it would have been more dramatic if he got martyred by the end.
The choice of being in technicolor sure creates amazing contrast between the beautiful and picturesque environment and what actually occurs. Not to mention how pretty Gene Tierney actually is and how this perfection is more terrifying when you consider what kind of gears are turning behind those gorgeous green eyes.
Conflicting with Code are insinuations of what made her this way. Certainly such an escalation could not have passed unnoticed by other members of the family. If she projects her father onto Richard, then surely she would have been as possessive of her dad. I'm not implying some incestuous underbelly. God knows even a hint of Electra complex wouldn't fly, but it sure feels like something was stricken from the script even if it wasn't the case.
Someone would have noticed something for sure and be able to point at it. Beyond "she loves too much." Regardless of the murky origins of her psychosis, it is fascinating to watch. It's also mesmerizing to read feminist interpretations of her actions. That it's some dissatisfaction with gender roles, a rebellion, and not a simple, selfish desire to possess someone. It is really akin to claiming Buffalo Bill exemplifies MtF. What kind of relatable affection can you even feel towards a person who thinks killing someone's brother will just switch his attention to you? That's not even a sociopath. They wouldn't be this clueless.
The trial part stifles the film in my eyes. Too melodramatic and makes Richard convict for no reason other than it would have been more dramatic if he got martyred by the end.
The choice of being in technicolor sure creates amazing contrast between the beautiful and picturesque environment and what actually occurs. Not to mention how pretty Gene Tierney actually is and how this perfection is more terrifying when you consider what kind of gears are turning behind those gorgeous green eyes.
This is one of those rare types of movies with a runtime of three hours that doesn't feel like that at all. Granted, this was achieved by submerging the movie in the barrel of obtrusive scoring and snappy editing. Don't get me wrong, it's good music, but I don't think I was closer to believing that Nolan pictures are edited like an unending movie trailer than after Oppenheimer. It never stops. It's just the matter of it being louder or intensifying. There are very few points where the movie doesn't try to whip up tension by aggressively pumping the score, making it feel like this is the most significant scene in the film, completely overwhelming you. To be fair, there is an upside to this. When during the test scene the movie finally shuts up, it is more effective in contrast. Too bad the explosion itself doesn't back up the supposed epochal scene. It really looks like a gas station going up. The buildup is stellar though. Everything is. I have no other complaints about anything. From acting to dialogue. Even Matt Damon, who from the trailers made me really anxious about what kind of level of hammy stuff we are going to deal with.
A lot of people are somewhat upset that the bombings were not shown. To that end, I have to ask, What movie have you been watching? The entire film is from two points of view. Oppenheimer and Strauss. All that you see is either what they saw or, in the case of Oppenheimer, his thought process in the abstract imagination. Even in the scenes where, seemingly neither are present, it turns out Strauss was in the room the whole time. There is one other scene where this rule was broken, when Kitty was imagining how he was cheating on her with Jean Tatlock. Another, supposedly, highly controversial scene, where the intended humiliation of Oppenheimer during the entire security clearance sequence was supposed to skip the actual humiliation, which happens to include the fact that he was cheating on his wife with a communist.
Strauss, on the other hand, is an aspect of the movie I do not know what to make of. It is a dynamic way of presenting information about Oppenheimer's downfall in a non-linear way. On the other hand, boy, is his character underwritten. The attempted rivalry akin to Amadeus falls flat. His inferiority isn't convincing and feels incredibly contrived. Uniquely when you consider that the entire affair is pretty accurate. Who doesn't help is Alden Ehrenreich. His "Aide" character really feels like a person in the room for Strauss to yell at so that he doesn't sound crazy talking to himself. Especially when this aide was supposed to embody the audience's contempt of Strauss by the end.
Mainly, the titular character is treated in a very nuanced way. There is clear pity for him, and the opening quote about Prometheus implies the unraveling events are his rock he is going to be chained to. Forever to be known as the man who turned invisible threads of matter into weapons and the man who (event pending) destroyed the world.
A lot of people are somewhat upset that the bombings were not shown. To that end, I have to ask, What movie have you been watching? The entire film is from two points of view. Oppenheimer and Strauss. All that you see is either what they saw or, in the case of Oppenheimer, his thought process in the abstract imagination. Even in the scenes where, seemingly neither are present, it turns out Strauss was in the room the whole time. There is one other scene where this rule was broken, when Kitty was imagining how he was cheating on her with Jean Tatlock. Another, supposedly, highly controversial scene, where the intended humiliation of Oppenheimer during the entire security clearance sequence was supposed to skip the actual humiliation, which happens to include the fact that he was cheating on his wife with a communist.
Strauss, on the other hand, is an aspect of the movie I do not know what to make of. It is a dynamic way of presenting information about Oppenheimer's downfall in a non-linear way. On the other hand, boy, is his character underwritten. The attempted rivalry akin to Amadeus falls flat. His inferiority isn't convincing and feels incredibly contrived. Uniquely when you consider that the entire affair is pretty accurate. Who doesn't help is Alden Ehrenreich. His "Aide" character really feels like a person in the room for Strauss to yell at so that he doesn't sound crazy talking to himself. Especially when this aide was supposed to embody the audience's contempt of Strauss by the end.
Mainly, the titular character is treated in a very nuanced way. There is clear pity for him, and the opening quote about Prometheus implies the unraveling events are his rock he is going to be chained to. Forever to be known as the man who turned invisible threads of matter into weapons and the man who (event pending) destroyed the world.