• thethirdgracchi [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s good, not great. It’s 45 minutes too long, ends with an irrelevant subplot that retreads the themes we’ve already covered, and has a bunch of needless cuts. The beginning of the film treats famous physicists like Marvel superhero reveals and is unintentionally very funny. The 30 minutes before and after they detonate the Trinity atom bomb are some of the most harrowing scenes I’ve seen in a long time, and capture how horrible the creation of this monster was. It’s not a flattering portrait of Oppenheimer, and is resolutely anti-nuke by the end of the film. The fact that we don’t even see a Japanese person once is uh certainly a choice but overall the politics aren’t completely fucked, and the movie itself is well made (mostly).

    • duderium [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I liked it but the politics are lib and the Robert Downey jr. plot is boring and pointless. Would have been way more interesting if it had focused on where the uranium came from and what happened to the people who got nuked. Even the brief “nuclear horror” scene is nothing compared with a truly disturbing film like Threads.

      • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I think the fundamental problem is that the movie is about Oppenheimer, not the bomb. The only scenes he isn’t in are basically the RDJ ones, he’s in every other one. I don’t know if he ever visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but he definitely didn’t right after the bombs were dropped. They definitely needed to show more of the evils he was complicit in, rather than just making him a tortured genius.

  • EnsignRedshirt [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    There’s something inherently unpleasant about them playing poker on a pool table. You have both the space and the money for a pool table but you don’t have a regular table to sit at? Or you did but you’re choosing to play on the pool table? There’s no good explanation for something like this. Get a real table and stop living on the set of a manopshere YouTube channel.

    • GalaxyBrain [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Also GET YOUR FUCKING DRINKS OFF OF THE FELT! This makes me feel like they aren’t using it as a pool table, which is a shame cause pool is way more fun than poker. And I like playing poker

    • LocalMaxima [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I would guess it’s an AirBnB:

      -Grey/white everything

      -extremely light on decoration and what is there doesn’t match what I would expect thoseguys would like (a framed landscape painting, metal leaf statue)

      -simultaneously clean but a mess due to beverage containers everywhere. The guys can’t have have occupied this space for more than 72 hours

    • edric@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I think it’s practical in a way. The pool table surface is similar to that of a poker table. I imagine it’s also higher than a regular table which makes it easier to quickly check under your cards.