i always love when companies see a meme and then think they can "ride the wave" but they don't realize that the second they acknowledge the meme it becomes lame and everyone forgets about it.
Yeah, the reason it became a meme in the first place is because it was a funny *coincidence.* Doing the same shit but on purpose automatically strips it off any comedic value, no matter how good of a portmanteau you can make from it.
It's like they don't get that this is a lightning in a bottle moment, you cannot replicate this without it being blatantly obvious as to what you're doing.
After the success of Barbie, Mattel has already announced their own “cinematic universe” announcing 16 MOVIES: 🙄 Masters of the Universe, Hot Wheels, Matchbox, Barney, Polly Pocket, Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots, Thomas the Tank Engine, Uno, Magic 8 Ball, American Girl, Wishbone, View-Master, Chatty Cathy & Betsy Wetsy, Big Jim, & Major Matt Mason. 😂🤣
What's really funny to me is that Saw X was originally going to release on the same day as the FNAF movie, which unironically would've been a WAY better barbenheimer-esque marketing stunt in my opinion
I can't help but feel like those "18yr olds in suits" _ARE_ the exact target audience. The kids that swarmed Minions. A gorefest being marketed alongside a kid's movie? Just the right amount of edge to catch fire with the edge lords.
It really is nice to have another “event” that isn’t just superheroes or a meme flick. Not saying every other movie was unimportant or stuff but you know, this is HUGE. I appreciate how easy it is to find media I want these days, but I think a lot was lost with the death of monoculture. Some bad stuff thankfully but also a lot of good stuff was lost. It gives randos something to discuss and has a unified feeling to it.
I despise how corporations suck the fun out of every meme. Barbenheimer was such a cool and unifying hype bubble but I just know we’re going to get so many lame attempts to replicate it.
I mean yeah, but that's true of anything. I don't think it sours the experience of this, Barbenheimer will always still be the one big event that audiences themselves planned rather than corporations
Like seriously with barbie it makes sense considering it's a film that can be seen by both children and adults alike but paw patrol isn't something most adults would want to see alone and saw isn't that popular of a franchise to get much hype from the public so this pairing seriously annoys me.
i personally love it. its so much fun to watch corporate meme campaigns crash and burn. what i hate is when their meme attempts actually work. people will see saw patrol memes and ironically pretend to be hyped for it, as if turning it into an ironic meme isnt exactly what the corporations want.
@Shrikusriram1 no shot. The extent to which they did anything was greta and margot posting pics holding oppenheimer tickets and cillian saying "yeah I'm gonna see barbie"
@@troyareyes That might be the extent that YOU observed. @Shrikusriram1 is correct tho, there was plenty of time for the actors to lean into it and lean into it they did. Margot Robbie and Cillian Murphy aren't saddled with meme-killing cringe like some actors are. They're both incredibly charismatic and their Barbenheimer interviews and social media presence helped boost the meme if anything.
Barbie had a massive press run are u crazy, I felt bad for how much Margo had to smile for all that promotion, she definitely leaned into it at some point I think
They have totally leaned into it tho, Cillian Murphy said in an interview he was going to watch Barbie and was photographed in front of a Barbie promotional poster, Margot Robbie and Greta Gerwig did the same with Oppenheimer, Ryan Gosling quoted Cillian Murphy out of context and openly discussed Barbieheimer with Margot Robbie...
Whats annoying about paramount trying to force saw patrol is that they miss the point that Barbie and oppenheimer have a surprisingly overlapping audience. It wasn't just people noticing that these two drastically different movies were coming out the same day but people realising that they wanted to see both.
"He fears the Nazis, builds a bomb, then WAM! Full penetration! Bomb, penetration, bomb, penetration, bomb, penetration, and this goes on and on for about 3 hours, until the movie just sort of ends."
I wish they did that. I actually wouldn't be surprised if the studios decided to try for Barbenheimer 2. I don't foresee Nolan or Gerwig agreeing but one can dream.
@@horace6851 Nolan directs a 3.5 hour movie about Ken going out to discover meaning in his life, several existential crises, confusing explorations of the human identity, and beautiful, well-designed extended shots of Ken crying with synth loudly playing over the scene ensue. Greta Gerwig directs a quirky 2 hour film about Robert and Kitty's retirement on a sailboat in the Caribbean, laced with feminist and/or communist commentary to fit the theme.
I really think Ryan gosling is underappreciated is a comedic talent. He was hysterical in "the nice guys", which is part of the reason it's one of my favorite comedies.
I agree!! I was shocked the first time I saw him in an interview and he was hilarious! He has that RBF that made me originally think he was a bit of a blockhead, but he's a lot like Steve Carrell with his ability to keep a straight face and dry humour no matter how ridiculous the conversation gets. His comedic timing is surprisingly on point and I'd love to see him in more comedies. Adum's right, he completely stole the show from Barbie and I loved it!
If you know the meaning, history, and controversy surrounding Matchbox Twenty's "Push", its use in the film - right as the barbies are actively exploiting the Kens' insecurities in order to put them back in their place - is nothing short of brilliant.
@@Impiedoothe song was heavily criticized when originally released for seemingly being about how men treat women in a toxic way, when the song is actually about how a WOMAN treats a man in a toxic way The use in the movie is that all the Kens sing it literally, so it makes it seem like the Kens are misogynistic, when in reality the song is a double entendre. They all sing the song while the Barbies plot to use their feminine wiles to manipulate the men to free the women from their influence after Ken corrupts everyone with the concept of patriarchy, which is what the song originally was commentary on (as an isolated case, the song doesn’t declare are women are like that)
@@Impiedoo haven't watched barbie or listened to push, but the rumor is the song was criticized for being "misogynistic" / abuse - EXCEPT it was actually done by the women towards the men ( ever read something and then at the end, the author write - now reverse the gender ?) . you can read the wiki about the song. so now a song about women abusing men are being played at a scene where the barbies are abusing / exploiting kens. so it kind of brilliant, except for people who missed the point - which I'm not quite sure where Greta is.
I almost laughed out loud when he was in bed with that girl, she randomly picked out a book and just so happen to open it on THE LINE, and had him quote it while "exploding" in her. JUST LIKE THE BOOOMB. Seemed like something that would be in a parody movie.
Yeah that part was really goofy. Not sure what the intention was there - kind of lessened the impact of when he says it later on in the film. It almost reminds me of that awful new Pinocchio movie where they keep on explaining why he has the name "Pine-ochhio" (because he's made of pine hur dur). Like I don't think anyone was dying to know where he got the phrase from, especially in the middle of a sex scene.
I love how Barbie and Oppenheimer are the most anticipated movies of a summer with new Spider-Man, Indiana Jones, Mission Impossible, and Transformers movies. This meme is unironically saving the cinema experience
@@quantumblauthor7300maybe not quickly but I'm hoping this year of movies will knock a little bit of sense into studio execs that they need to leave their damn creatives alone.
And then there’s Killers of the Flower Moon in October along with Napoleon in November. Are they gonna be good? I don’t know. But both have creative talent behind them that I’m willing to go in blind opening night.
@@GayIncel It won't. The decision of the suits is based entirely around money, not respectability or quality. Unless "creatives" band together, unionize and vote for the right people while sabotaging the movie industry as a whole, nothing will change. People keep thinking that quality will eventually shine through and win the day, just like how people think "justice" or "truth" wins in the end. This is brainwashed bullshit. You either fight for what you want or you give the snakes at the top exactly what they want, and what they want is money and power.
Celebrity cameos? They're actors dude. If you have a lot of characters in a movie, you're gonna have a lot of actors, and good actors are more often than not celebrities.
@@Triplicata It was a joke... Some of those famous actors pop up for one short scene (like Gary Oldman, Casey Affleck, James Remar), so yeah, those felt like cameos.
My favourite moment in Barbenheimmer is when Albert Einstein sacrifices himself to fight Ken and give time for Oppenheimer and Barbie to disable his stolen atom bomb that he planned to drop on Washington DC. Also, the reference to Doctor Strangelove with Barbie riding the nuke in the cowgirl outfit was pretty nice.
I find it odd how the mentality around noise and phones in theaters has changed so much in the past 4-5 years. I remember going to the theater half a dozen years ago and strangers would say something if you checked your phone and had the brightness distract them or if you did much more than an occasional whisper. If a kid cried during a movie, their parents dragged them out of there in a few seconds. It was so taboo to make noise or even emit light during a movie. Sure, most people are respectful enough to not talk at full volume or something like that, but every other time I go to the theater, there's someone texting with their phone unsilenced and brightness cranked up, or whispering for half the movie, or some kid who probably is too young to be watching the film bawling their eyes out for 40 minutes.
People bringing children into random movies has seemingly gotten way worse. A mother brought like 3 of her 8 year olds into Dead Reckoning and, of course, they got bored. Yeah, I get it, you have children and you probably don't get out much. But just hire a babysitter for a couple hours.
@@tamatebako_yt I watched both in a packed theatre and didn't have any of these issues. For some reason people love to extrapolate out their one-time personal events into a general trend
Weirdly, despite there being more kids there, I saw less of this at my Barbie screening than my Oppenheimer one. The old woman who sat next to me at Oppenheimer kept taking her phone out and scrolling Facebook-I kept telling her to stop, and she was so mad by the end. There was also an old man a few rows ahead (also at Oppenheimer) whose phone was so bright, it was like a fucking beacon. Meanwhile only one (young) person had their phone out at Barbie, and her friend quickly got her to turn it off.
YMS talking about being excited for SAW is the funniest thing ever once you've watched the reviews of the series in the past. Imagine if they gloss over the 2017 Jigsaw film and jump right back into the convoluted bloated nightmare plot
I went and watched the whole saw series bc of adums reviews 😂 so now I too am excited for Saw X, I am very excited to see which good guys will be back as henchmen, where in the timeline it'll be set... I'll definitely be seeing this one alone in theatres but I won't miss it lol
The fact that Oppenheimer had Florence Pugh naked during the 'Destroyer of worlds' scene had me in stitches. The most famous thing people know about this guy and Nolan decided we needed to see boobs to hold peoples attention.
I made the mistake of seeing Oppenheimer then Barbie. That sht will leave you EXHAUSTED. 5 hours in a movie theater. It's FUN and a great way to beat the heat but not doing it again. WATCH BARBIE FIRST.
It was 100% worth it. It's very fun, I saw Oppenheimer first, had an hour and a half in between to relax with my friend and then we saw barbie. Its a great experience I highly recommend
I love hearing about Adum's experience with people showing up to Barbie in pink and for some reason Spider Man was there twice. Something about that warms my heart and I don't know why.
Loved the deconstruction of the “Barbenheimer” meme at the beginning, I saw people posting Saw Patrol on Reddit like “DUDE ITS JUST LIKE BARBENHEIMER”, and I just felt defeated seeing their lame marketing work on someone.
Don’t feel defeated. Pity then and the companies doing this. This parhetic behaviour doesn’t take away from Barbenheimer. They will have their comeuppance...
Reddit died a couple months ago. Only the dregs are left at this point. (Just like what's left of Twitter.) A lot of the active profiles are astroturfers and bots now.
Hard disagree that you can trim 90 or even 60 minutes off of Oppenheimer. I think if you really triaged you could cut it down 30 minutes and still have the artistic vision intact. It's a decades-spanning biopic that needs an extremely slow burn for the cumulative moment of the bomb drop. You can't do the NM testing scene an hour into a movie and get the same emotional impact. Also, the reason they show you similar dynamics ie Oppenheimer's consistent failure to see those who would take advantage of him is, in itself, an artistic statement, turning Oppenheimer into a tragic hero--a role the movie clearly places him in with other creative choices it makes throughout the runtime!
I agree. At no point did I feel it was too long for what it was trying to cover. It was a very engaging and intelligent movie. I thought that's what we wanted more of from the movie industry these days.
I feel like the way the scenes were edited didn't feel repetitive - they were applying new contexts to moments in his life, from the personal, romantic, logistical, political, and legacy perspectives. The movie doesn't move in a straight line and so calling back to previous scenes doesn't feel repetitive to me.
I think the movie needed all the time. However if anything MAYBE 30 minutes can be trimmed down, 60 and 90 minutes less would just not be a movie that’s as good as we got.
@@theebonymawyeah I don’t think we’re supposed to look at him as a hero, but not really as a bad person either, just someone who was given an impossible task
I agree about the editing in Oppenheimer. At first, I thought they were using the trailer-esque edits to speed through his early life/background and get us to the Manhattan Project & aftermath...but then it just kept going in that style for 3 hours. I found myself wishing we could linger longer in one scene and see it play out in full, that only really happened for the bomb test and even that felt too brief.
Yeah, the bits with the strings and the insanely loud rumbling that kept popping up periodically throughout the film felt very trailer-y. I think Nolan was going for some abstract arthouse vibe, but it didn't really end up coming across that way. Just felt distracting after the first time
@@skunkjo3195I think that's because the subtle part is subtle and the obvious part is obvious (fucking genius take here I know) what I mean is, female commentary is a bit on the nose and the male commentary is a bit more subtle?..
@@nicknayl0rreading my classmates work in my high school English class was depressing, but my college english class was soul crushing when I saw how the students could barely glean anything off the material, adults in their 20's bumbling like 7th graders.
I'm glad that this happened to be honest. You saw people get out of their comfort zones and experiment and if anything this past weekend has told me that we need more films like this. Movies should be an EVENT should be FUN, should make us THINK, should get us GOING. It shouldn't ever feel exhausting to talk about. But lately, because of the political climate we're in, it IS exhausting to talk about movies. You can't share a damn opinion anymore without everyone clamoring about how WOKE you are or how you're a sell out, or you're just catering to sheep. It. SUCKS. And Barbenheimer reinvigorated my love of talking about movies. So I'm grateful to these films for that.
go off queen!!!! i saw oppenheimer opening night and the audience was v respectful. maybe because they were too sleepy to kick the back of my seat as is the norm for well attended premieres
I feel like politics have become the new watercooler talk with monoculture dying off and I hate that! Can’t leave the house without overhearing people talk about politics from other countries :/ (I’m in Australia, it’s never about politics here unless it’s about taxes or immigration. Lol) I just have to tell people no, I won’t discuss politics, it feels destructive to me and makes my mood significantly worse.
I honestly think even the people who were on their phones the whole time had the right idea - rather, they're taking those first baby steps either back into, or for the first time, public. They very well may have had a problem, social media addiction is real and got worse during the quarantine, but they decided that, instead of staying home and scrolling endlessly on their phone, they were going to go out with friends. Did they still end up scrolling on their phones? Yes, but this event got them motivated to go out and exist in public. It's not a perfect illustration of shedding your addiction, but it's a really hopeful first step. I've become pretty disillusioned with movies in general lately, I stopped going to the theater regularly in late 2017. I don't see Barbenheimer as an immediate, industry-wide change, but, like going out in public and scrolling on your phone, it's a good first step to making movie releases feel like an event worth attending again. I'm gonna allow myself to be hopeful that, maybe years from now, I'll be going into theaters regularly again and actually enjoying myself.
I disagree with Critical Drinker pretty frequently but I especially don't understand how he interpreted Barbie the way he did. He claims it was an attack on motherhood but America Ferrera's character is a mother who wants to get closer to her daughter? I guess the movie acknowledges being a mom is hard? Does that count as "attacking" motherhood?
@@TheChiefOrg13he also accuses it of ripping off 2001, when it’s obviously an homage/parody. The worst part is when he’s like “the audience doesn’t realise that the 2001 reference unintentionally makes the point that toys grow obsolete”. Yes it does you doofus, that’s why it’s in the movie. TCD isn’t a reviewer, he’s a grifter who accepts conservative money to do propaganda for the right wing. His media literacy is worse than even your average conservative
The star-studded cast aside, as a physicist, Oppenheimer felt like an Avengers movie but with early/mid 20th century physicists. If you’re in the know, it’s hard not to fan boy over characters that appear for a single scene.
FR like so many scientists, important people that shaped the way we do things today, like if you paid at least a little attention in chemistry, physics and mathematics, you can appreciate how insane the Manhattan project was when it came to the people involved.
Somehow I felt much more engaged during my second watch of Oppenheimer. The performances and quick pace made the 3 hours fly by, also one of my favorite Nolan endings
Especially since Barbenheimer’s demographics were both geared towards adult people and could be enjoyed by most people, while Saw is niche and Paw Patrol is literally for small children
I really do love that the whole Barbenheimer trend happened. It's just really fun to see the Internet come together for this and I think the fact that the two movies in question are, at the very least, good is really heartwarming, at least for me.
I really love big theatrical events like this that are 100% audience-ran. No corporate pandering involved, just people all agreeing to have a good time in their own chosen ways. It's like when A Quiet Place came out and all the theaters were intentionally dead silent (still kinda bummed I didn't see that when it came out)
@@TheStanishStudiosOh 100%, I know it's a cliche at this point to bring this up, but given how divided things are now, it was nice to completely ignore stupid culture war discourse and just have a good time with people
I think Oppenheimer using big actors in small roles was kinda smart, because it helps keep the audience interested, which was needed in a movie as long and fast paced to prevent me from losing track on who was who lol
Keeping track of who's who's was SO much easier with all recognizable faces, I'm honestly so bad at that shit and I wsd surprisingly not lost or confused during this film
i get using it to help people remember characters, but in terms of keeping people interested just randomly throwing big celebrities on screen is like the laziest way to do that ever lmao
@@twod0ves If you're this devoted to making a fast-paced movie that still crams in almost every person relevant to the real story, then I think it's a smart move.
Oppenheimer really benefited from a 2nd viewing for me. You might not agree, but i was able to see so much more into the film and appreciate its scope and journey. I agree it's pretty long but I just feel like you have to stay with it and it'll reward you. Repetitive? Only a little, I'd think? It's planting a lot of seeds and setting a lot of wheels in motion for a deep character payoff. I dunno, i might be biased but it's hard for me not to see this as a master at his craft, employing so many simple yet tasteful film techniques and film language to create an immersive, gripping, historical insight into this twisted character and story.
I was going a bit mad in Oppenhiemer, because prior to the bomb scene I could see somebody playing games on their phone in the front row. Just one very distracting light poking through all the head rests. All they wanted from the movie was an explosion!
The lack of subtly is what made it popular among women, they want to be taken seriously but then the most milquetoast, hit you over the head messaging of the movie gets them to clap like seals because the Daddy Issues Incarnate agree with The Message (TM). No problem with exploring the subjects of matriarchy vs patriarchy, various waves of feminism, etc, just do it in a clever, thought-provoking way
@@Hiphop618 well I won't say it was top notch clever however I must admit even when a show is clever, if the audience is not on the same wave...you will get the same mindless response
I honestly felt the opposite way in terms of runtime for Oppenheimer. I felt the 3 hours felt like 2 hours personally and I loved the film overall. Interesting to hear Adum say it was too long and boring but then again I was also interested in the history of Oppenheimer while he wasn’t so fair enough
the piano piece in that scene was a version of "Kitty Comes to Testify", a track that plays during her defense of Oppenheimer during his security clearance hearing. It's a track that plays when the two of them are united against hardship and it fits the scene excellently without being overbearing.
For me it detracted, I couldn't refer back to the characters in film because I only knew the actor. Immersion breaking to say josh peck pushed the bomb cuz I have no idea who he was. Especially when they name drop character who are integral to the plot, like so and so was the spy? I remembered the face but the name meant nothing
I was having trouble articulating why Oppenheimer felt so showy when it starts, and the description of it feeling like a trailer is so spot on! I think of other Nolan movies where the opening of the movie is meticulously arranged to throw you into the deep end of something, usually anchored by a character defining experience supported by strong sound and visuals, and here it was being thrown headfirst into a crosscutting montage that didn't really say much about any one thing, and did more to take me out of the movie than pull me in. Fortunately I eventually could settle in and enjoy large swaths of the movie quite a bit, but the opening felt like a missed opportunity.
I did actually feel bad for the parents who brought their kids to Barbie when I saw it. I wouldn’t be surprised if they thought it was like those god awful direct to video Barbie movies that you put on to just entertain your kids for an hour, then half an hour in realized it was NOT that at all. I mean, you’d have to be kinda dim or oblivious to think that, but I can feel bad for dim and/or oblivious people.
When I was about 10 (almost 11) or so, I went to see *The Dark Knight* at the cinema with my parents. I remember there being a lot of moms with their kids, a lot even younger than me; I'd seen Batman Begins so I knew (more or less) what I was in for, but I guess they hadn't. I guess they expected a campy film "for the whole family" like the Schumacher ones, they were pretty shocked at the violence of the film, during the interval.
something i loved about openheimer was that horrible rumbling noise that played before the test bomb was detonated. it was a really, really cool way to set tension and the tone, totally immersed me.
i just saw barbie the other day in a super small local theater, the only one on its island. they only show one thing at a time/ per week so the whole place was dressed to the nine's in balloons, ribbons, fuzzy and glittery shit. almost everyone had an outfit for it, too. really one of the greatest theater experiences ive had even if i couldnt hear over all the cheering and laughter sometimes
The thing that puzzles me is how he'll do a review of a movie where he'll have nothing but positive things to say about it but then he'll give it a 6 or a 7 when it sounds like it's going to at least be an 8 lol.
@@luigiwiiUU I never said it did lol. Just the way he talks about movies sometimes it sounds like it's going to get a much higher rating because of how little negative things he has to say about it. I know we all have different metrics as far as our own personal rankings go, but when I hear someone be so positive about a movie and have very little to say that's negative, I'm just shocked when it's not much higher than a 6 lol. It's just funny
@@WoahLookAtThatFreakthere was a booktubers I use to watch who did this 😂😂 threw me every time, she'd talk up a book, about tropes it used well, tropes it subverted, well made plot, etc. Then give it a 3/5 😂😂
There’s genuine commentary about the Barbie brand that goes beyond feminism 101, how a brand targeting women that simply imagines a world without patriarchy could be empowering and subversive, but with the passage of time, it’s become disempowering because it has failed to confront it and has even been appropriated by it. And that’s just the main message of the film. There’s so much detail and nuance about what the film is saying that for the first time in a long time, I felt the need to just think about for a while to truly get all of its meaning.
Spoilers for barbie I really like the movie but I think the message of the movie has been ruined for me just by the internet and social justice being popular alone. Its not at all the fault of the movie but I've been inundated with feminism talks from all angles of the discussion, that the message didn't do anything for me. Especially as a woman. I've been told routinely by my mom, cousins, youtube channels, dove soap that I need to confront the patriarchy. I feel like the movie would have hit harder in 2005 or something but sadly i was 4 then so... I will say though that I did like the part where the mom character told barbie that things could suck for women but that was life in general and that you learn to make the most of it and do what you can, regardless. That's something I rarely hear in this sea of playing the blame game, so I appreciated that. Learning to take control of your own life because you owe yourself that much, is what more people need to hear I think. Men and especially women.
Bruh so weird how people can have the exact opposite takes. If anything, I feel like Oppenheimer was a little rushed (especially the first hour). That shit flew by in what felt like 10 minutes, never did I get the feeling of the movie dragging. And I thought Barbie was absolute dogshit lmao
I'm honesty surprised that Adum didn’t go harder on Barbie. It's a good movie but personally, I think it's way more flawed than his review made out. I laughed at a few scenes but I think it's a bit too preachy and the pacing was uneven. I enjoyed Oppenheimer much more even though I'm not a big Christopher Nolan fan.
I agree but he probably has to talk about Barbie carefully since it has a bigger message than some random feminist movie. There were some things I wanted him to trash on but I get that he probably can’t
I kinda love how Barbie was able to take a movie made by a corporation to promote a corporate product, and then proceed to use that opportunity to make fun of corporations and consumerism as much as possible. And they can get away with it because it makes the corporation billions of dollars. Some could call it hypocritical, but I say it's genius
@@UltimateLegoFan324 Both are great movies, no need to compare imo. I don't really think the Lego Movie was as much of a commentary in the way that Barbie was
@@whatastandupguy3050 How though? The very nature of it being a movie means that the people making it are looking to profit, but that doesn't do anything to the actual story of the movie. It's a silly take. So what, a movie can't criticize consumerism unless it's free to watch?
A note on Oppenheimer: There is a 8 minute sex scene where the girl gets off of Oppy, grabs the Bhagavad Gita, makes Oppy say the line "I am become death" before she puts him back inside of her. That actually happened. Nolan is hack
I always thought that Christopher Nolan movies feel like "theatrical trailers" and most of the issues you pointed out are issues that I have with most of his movies (in terms of editing)
I think the Barbie/Oppenheimer thing taught us which people watches a variety of different movies, which people exclusively watches serious movies, and which people exclusively watches movies with jokes.
Thought the same thing about the Oppenheimer score. I walked out going “wow another amazing Hans zimmer score, sounds a lot like the one from inception.” Only later realized it wasn’t him lol
glad you mentioned the editing choices in Oppenheimer, particularly the way dialogue was edited together, because I've seen nobody else mention it. I liked the film a good bit overall, but I couldn't get over how fast paced the dialogue was. It gave a very unnatural vibe to a lot of the conversations, as there was never room to breath between lines and everyone felt like they were firing off clever one liners, which really took me out of it. One of my favorite scenes is right before they test the bomb, and Oppenheimer and Damon's character are quietly sitting in a room contemplating on what they're about to do. The editing in this scene is way slower paced, and thus the conversation carries a lot more weight and feels more genuine.
I felt that was kind of the point though. Being so swept up in the moment, naive, no time to stop and think about what the work you're doing is leading to and whether or not you *should* be doing it. I agree to an extent about the quippy dialogue at times, but I felt the pace of the dialogue was there to keep you in the same headspace of rapid change, progress.
Remember the scene where they're debating which cities to drop bombs on, and one of the guys vetos Kyoto? That was literally the first scene in the movie where Nolan just let the onscreen action speak for itself, without needing a bombastic musical score to make his point. I couldn't believe we were this far into the movie to get a scene without overbearing music.
@@stevedomique9278 I hadn't thought of this as being intentional as a reflection of the getting swept up in the moment. I picked up on the strange editing without noticing that it was the cuts during dialogue in particular that I was picking up on. While if intentional, this is a decision with good thought behind it, I think it still took away from my enjoyment of the movie. Again, it feels like a film to be appreciated, not enjoyed. The cuts made it feel less like a movie and more like a collection of scenes. To me, at least. They needed to breathe in order to feel like a whole.
@@ryanguy9000 Absolutely fair, and it could easily be me reading way too much into things haha. The people I went to see it with felt the exact same about all the cuts so you're not alone for sure!
I just love how Oppenheimer made this huge deal about his relationship with Strauss and specifically about the first time the two met only to end the movie essentially saying it didn't really matter at all. Like, we bookend the film with that scene and Strauss is like "Oppenheimer said something to Einstein that poisoned him against me!" only for the aid he is speaking to say something like "Maybe he didn't mention you at all, maybe what he said to Einstein was actually important." And you can tell it's supposed to be this mic-drop moment when all I could think was yes, Strauss is unimportant. In the grand scheme of things he is just a footnote in history. He and Oppenheimer didn't have a close relationship, he might have set things in motion but he was not wholly responsible for revoking his security clearance, he does not really matter. So why, exactly, did the movie feel the need to dedicate so much time to him? You could cut his character out of the film entirely and I don't think much would change. It doesn't matter who tattled on Oppenheimer, all that matters is the US turned its back on him.
Historically yes. But what many people don't get is that he is basically the _villain_ of the movie. In the classical sense. And that is a brilliant decision on the writers part.
"So why, exactly, did the movie feel the need to dedicate so much time to him? You could cut his character out of the film entirely and I don't think much would change." It's because Strauss was the main reason Oppenheimer was demonized by the political machine. He was the catalyst. Saying anyone could've been doesn't erase the fact he was. This is a historical film, not fiction.
wow! i was honestly glued to the screen for the entire 3 hours of oppenheimer. I found it really engaging all the way through, personally. Maybe it’s just because i’m a history buff. Nonetheless, i respect your opinion YMS!
For Oppenheimer I felt the snappy editing style was to help get across they were in an arms race, and that time is of the essence. Maybe when I rewatch in imax I'll feel differently. My favorite detail from the movie was that the speech he gives and is feeling the guilt of his actions was LOUDER than the scene where a literal atomic bomb goes off.
But there was no arms race in the beginning of the film and this editing was used throughout the film for no apparent reason. It's basically the first thing you experience while watching the film and it's very off-putting.
@@srsjackson it was if to show the lead up to the project and how he tied onto it. I thought it was fine due to the fact there was many characters to introduce. if he'd not done it that way it would have to have been 4 hours. basically a cut had to be made somewhere.
I really respect that Adum avoids the divisive culture war nonsense while still not shying away from actually discussing and giving his take on the gender issues that seem to be quite central to the film (though I haven't seen it myself so I don't know). The right way to do it. Discuss without trying to shill for outrage.
Interesting perspective. For me I wasn’t bored once during Oppenheimer. Was locked in from beginning to end and didn’t feel the length. But I can understand how if you’re not into history that you can easily get lost and not care
That's such a lame argument I'm seeing, that if you "aren't into history" it explains why you're bored. I was bored because the editing was utterly awful, the script sucked, and the music was blasting the whole time - basic fundamentals of filmmaking failed. Not because I'm not peeing my pants that JFK made an appearance.
@@fakenamerealchungus9851 I’m sorry you have the attention span of a 2 year old. But if you’re into history, you will not be bored. The editing is challenging but you can piece together the sequence of events if you have a functioning brain
@@fakenamerealchungus9851 agree, films about historical events ought to MAKE the content interesting, not the other way around. if oppenheimer was about literally anything else it'd be such a stinker. feels the same to me as disney milking star wars content for fanboys who will watch no matter what - except since it's about smart intellectual alpha science men it's suddenly a "masterwork". and likewise just because i think barbie was the objectively better movie doesn't mean i'm a tiktok zoomer lmao (if anything, oppenheimer was edited like a compilation of youtube shorts)
While the constant music did make the film feel almost the same throughout, I found Cillian Murphy to be so reserved that he comes across as blank. It was three hours of a very tense man frequently with pursed lips.
Another few things to note about the whole “Saw Patrol” thing failing is that whoever’s trying to push it didn’t realise that there kind of needs to be an overlap in audiences for it to make sense. It’s not JUST “haha cute thing contrasting dark thing” Like take Doom and Animal Crossing for instance, you have the contrast in tones there, but then you think about it for two seconds and you realise it’s two highly anticipated games, that had an equal overlap in playerbase. With Saw Patrol, it’s like, two completely different demographics.
I'm young, stupid, and haven't honed my critical eye yet so instead of fighting it, I'll just admit Oppenheimer was my favorite movie-going experience ever. I didn't feel the time at all, and I totally bought in to every bit of drama even if it wasn't earned. 10/10 out of pure enjoyment.
You gotta understand Adum isn't really a history buff so when looking at as just a movie I can understand why someone wouldn't be so into it but as a biopic it was pretty fantastic and since I was interested in the subject matter the pacing was super quick for me
There’s a bell curve for adums taste. On the one side, you hate his taste because he doesn’t like the movies you like. On the other side, you love his tastes because he hates the movies for the same reasons you do. On the other side, you hate his tastes because you think the reasons he hates certain movies are fucking stupid. He’s still a good reviewer with conviction tho so it’s always fun to listen.
Animal Crossing x Doom Eternal was the same type of hype that Barbenheimer was. Both were highly anticipated, and heavily contrasts each other. To my knowledge, nothing like that happened again since in gaming, so seeing that Saw Patrol thing was just...yeah. Pain. One was a getting together of communities, the other is a marketing gimmick
Pretty sure its more that both old and current understandings and beliefs in feminism are problematic, and then presenting a different view centered around issues of personal identity and stress within people in general.
Surprised you didn't bring up the fact that for a feminist movie Barbie does nothing but paint women in an absolutely horrible light. It's no wonder a lot of people started to see it as a red pill movie rather than a feminist one. I love it but it's certainly super weird.
How so? The main character barbie is incredibly driven and introspective and the mother is literally just some regular lady. The daughter is mean towards barbie but she apologizes later on and also she’s a teenager The film isn’t really mean towards any group besides real life sexists, which I think is a good group to treat less kindly. All the Barbies and kens are treated like ignorant dumbasses because they had no way not to be. The main ken is presented as incredibly insecure and trying to satisfy that insecurity by enforcing what he thought the patriarchy was in barbieland, but it took 1 (preachy but not incorrect) speech and a musical number and he realized he was wrong, felt more secure in himself and his masculinity without needing barbie, made amends and the film treats him like a friend who had a stupid moment more than anything. I have not seen anyone tell themselves this was in any way a red pill movie besides people who believe saying that men shouldn’t have to feel insecure and shouldn’t force that onto women is somehow misandry
Well to be honest- a movie that is so incredibly unsubtle about the subject matter relating to gender issues and sexuality probably would be far more controversial in todays society than one about the creation of the most catastrophic weapon in history
Barbie and Opp are both for the same age range. Paw Patrol and Saw have narrow target audiences in several ways of which age is one. I guess it's like, it can't hurt to try, but it's just wasted time.
Whatever gets people excited to go to the theaters and have a good time, I'm fine with. It could fail everytime from here on, but as long as people are making the effort to to support movies in theaters amidst the actor and writers strike, it's still a positive in my book.
Huh? Any repetition is just the result that it’s telling a real story, any scene about the same thing in a previous scene is just advancing to the conclusion of that idea
