Hasanabi Reviews Oppenheimer
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 лип 2023
- Hasanabi (AKA Hasan Piker) is an American Twitch streamer and political commentator. He is known for covering the news and discussing politics from a left-wing perspective. He also plays a variety of video games, reacts to funny videos and occasionally checks out memes made by the community.
Links to Hasan's socials: linktr.ee/hasanabiproductions
#hasanabi #hasanpiker - Розваги
3 hours for hasan without being able to pause is pretty impressive
he bought the theater out to do just that
Opp just did his job. Like nazi did the job. That's the point.
Even more chairs in his reaction than usual. 🤭🤭🤭
He was in the bathroom 😂
People who wanted to see the Japanese pov are missing the point of a BIOPIC
don’t need to see the POV i just wanted the film to show more of oppenheimer’s grappling with the topic
@@InfinityBladeFans
How much more could there have been? Did you need to be hit over the head with it MAGA media analysis style? You are asking the movie to treat you less than a show whose target audience was middle schoolers treated their audience
@@InfinityBladeFansThe man saw people melting in front of him and every time blame was brought up he has panic attacks and everything started shaking.
What more do you want? Lmaooo
@@Deemo202 yeah and then we cut to an hour of boring ass hearings
@@jloiben12 no i’m asking the movie to seriously grapple with real issues rather than do surface level moralizing
The dynamic between Oppenheimer and Strauss represents mutually assured destruction about how their careers were both ruined
Thought that was a nice thematic touch by Nolan.
Gosh, didn’t even think about that. Even the scene with the Apple (I was surprised they included this in the movie) didn’t really hit me until the next day. The metaphor, anyway.
@@AAMPictureswhat did the apple stand for to you if I may ask?
Okey ok, that's an interesting point of view.
@@otmanh The bomb.
Personally I appreciated not seeing depictions of the bombs being used because it underscored how insulated Oppenheimer, his team, and government officials were from the horror they actually inflicted.
Oppenheimer himself best understood how devastating these weapons would be, but even to him, their use was an abstraction. None of the characters really saw the bombs wreak havoc they way they did-and neither does the audience. We just get to share Oppenheimer’s dread.
My man didn't care tbh, he even kinda flexed on a interview how he was the same person that went deliberately to the bombers and said that they should throw the bombs from a certain altitude to kill the maximum amount of people. He was a monster through and through and from what everyone says the film kinda tries to empathize with the character that is Oppenheimer, the character that irl went beyond means to keep the bombs away from being canceled as a lot of the team that worked on it wanted to shut down the bombing in Japan.
this is not really true, the movie shows Oppenheimer and other horrified scientists watching a slideshow of atom bomb victims
@@takezoman The project wasn't getting cancelled. The way the movie shows Oppenheimer is that he was giving the president an ace (the bomb), but letting him play the hand (make the decision on how to use it).
@@porsche911sbshuh, when was the slideshow in the movie? I don't remember that
@@littlemissmelloyou fell asleep
There are actually people who think the Oppenheimer movie glorifies the usage of the atomic bomb which is utterly ridiculous when Nolan makes it abundantly clear that almost everyone in the movie tells him what a terrible person he is.
I do think Hasan’s opinion is really nuanced and well thought out, although I don’t agree with everything he said, maybe about like 90%
His opinions on anything except politics usually are not very nuanced and pretty useless
@@BurnsyRuns I appreciate that man. Glad I could give some input
@@mr.dirtydan3338 His political takes even from the views of most Leftists is pretty idiotic Ethan Klein recently dragged him for his stupid stereotypical pseudo leftist take of " Imperialism only bad/ exists when the west does it and let's look the other way when everyone else does it"
@@Kman20025 I pretty good percentage of popular leftist media's have that bias as well. I don't agree with the take. But I do understand when american imperialism has caused so much damage and death over the globe.
@@imadepooh I thought it was pretty good
The ending scene of this movie really is chilling and haunting.
It was really surreal seeing the look on other audience members faces after that. Kind of a collective sigh when the credits rolled while everyone processed what they just saw. Heavy shit man
"I believe we did." - That line punched me in the face. Combine it with the score swelling and the modern nuclear arsenals ending the world. I was just stuck there in awe.
@@Bobby-Day agreed. I got chills. And then it just ends on that note, no hope offered. It was so disturbing.
@@joshlarson1252 agreed they didn't sugar coat it at all just left you there with knowing that happening is a real possibility
the sountrack was amazing
I liked how it showed that Oppenheimer never apologized for making the bomb or it being used on Japan. They made it clear his guilt about the situation was that these weapons would now be a part of the world forever, or at least until we decide to end it.
why should he apologize especially alone?
You missed the scene in the oval office?
@@christian2iHe doesn’t really apologize apart from feeling guilty that blood is on his hands. In the video Hasan reviewed two weeks ago about why a movie on Oppenheimer should be made, there is a clip from an interview (around 54:27 in that reaction) in which Oppenheimer himself says that he thinks invading Japan would have been worse and that Hiroshima was far more deadly than it needed to have been, but that it’s “easy to say after the fact.” This tracks with the movie’s argument that he’s more worried about the implication of the bombs further use and development than he really was about Japan specifically
@@spaceface320 Him saying that is an expression of guilt. Lmao
Well the Japanese did that to themselves. They wouldn’t surrender even though we gave them multiple chances. They also planned to unleash to bubonic plague on San Francisco like a month after the first bomb dropped
I thought the whole losing the security clearance plot line was about highlighting Oppenheimers complicated sense of morality. By putting himself through that process I think he was trying to do penance for being the father of the atomic bomb. The plot line was more about exploring the complexities of Oppenheimers moral standing rather than the actual security clearance thing. From a moral perspective, he’s quite possibly the hardest to understand character that I have ever seen.
Agree 100% "You think that letting them beat you like this will cause them to forgive you" or something along the lines, was said
But then that plays into his explicitly stated desire to be a martyr, and ultimately its still ambiguous of whether Strauss was right in Oppenheimers motivations. I see the final act as a microcosm of the nuclear arms race, and the mutually assured (social) destruction is buildup of the final conclusive statement that the world is fucked.
The point of the security clearance was that if he lost it, there was a genuine worry that he'd lose his job and be shunned from all academia. That didn't really happen. The real world point of it was to show how the governemnt didn't like how he wouldn't tow the party line and was desperate to get rid of him and his pacifist opinions
I think his stance is that he's not sorry for making the bomb because allowing Nazi Germany to do it would be worse, but he regrets how it was used and how it now presented a danger to the world in a nuclear arms race
I missed so damn much in this movie because it was so fucking confusing for no reason. I’m a smart gaL ok. But I could not follow so many important plots, so I just missed out
I’m not sure that the Japanese people would want to see a depiction of the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki either
they don't have any issues showing it. Barefoot Gen might be animated, but god, the scene when the bomb drops, it's graphic.
I bet China would like to see it
Either way its not going to be played in Japan.
They imply it quite heavily but I would be interested if they had a cut with the bomb showing the atrocities. Most people across the world dont know the atrocity in too much detail.
no they love. hype up their oppression meanwhile downplaying their own horrific actions
Dunkirk is part of the oppenheimer universe
so Oppenheimer was the shivering soldier in Dunkirk?
@@julianbufarull7602 yea
That Casey Affleck scene was so good he was just radiating evil and only on screen for like a minute
That truly surprised me. The subtile but not subtile at all acting. And I loved Emily Blunts scene for the same reasson. When she was talking about her/our past, war, ideology. She was right. And played it beautifully.
Gary Oldman's scene was iconic too. so impactful from just one scene lol. Casey was surprisingly sinister too top notch scene for sure
Why didn’t they show the bombs being deployed?
Because (1) Oppenheimer was the pov character and he didn’t experience the dropping of the bomb and
(2) it is a thematic tool to demonstrate the… theorist in him. Like with the line that ends the movie about the consequences of Oppenheimer’s and Einstein’s science. Theory doesn’t stay theoretical. Anything that can be turned into a weapon will be. Yet Robert “sucks in the lab” Oppenheimer, one of the top theorists in the history of science, effectively abdicates his responsibility for the application of his theory. At least at the time when it matters. It is like giving a Jew a gun, training them how to be perfect shots, and then tying up a baby Adolf to a chair and then walking out of the room. Sure, I didn’t kill baby Adolf but I sure as hell am a cause of his death.
I think not showing the use of the bombs hits an important theme of the movie far better than showing it
But even as an Oppenheimer pov it fails a bit, in that Oppenheimer clearly knew what damage the bomb did. There's a scene in the movie where a bunch of scientists are shown slides of what's going on on the ground there. All we as an audience see are him and others wince and cringe at what's being shown. The audience is spared that horror, but for what purpose? I think the movie's biggest failing was it's attempt to keep the bomb's destruction abstract while still trying to serve as a cautionary tale surrounding its use. The result is that the last hour of the movie and its focus on the Strauss political intrigue plot feels unnecessary. In general, I also think the film was far too charitable in its portrayal of the scientists involved. There was a clear pro-bombing camp in the group but the film makes it seem like Oppenheimer was the only one who felt the bombing was necessary, and as a deterrent. This neglects the reality that there were some psychos who just wanted to know what the bombs could do. Bit of a missed opportunity not to highlight that element of the ideological conflict rather than focus so much on Strauss and Oppenheimer's legacy imo.
@@yourstrulytheartfuldodger
(1) For what purpose? The theme. There is a reason why I used the word “and.” Because neither on its own is sufficient.
(2) Viewing the consequences of Oppenheimer’s work on a piece of paper furthers the theme. Oppenheimer’s a theorist. A theorist would see the consequences of their theory through a piece of paper, but not the actual consequences. This is a far better way of showing how theory doesn’t stay theory for long, especially since THEY DID SHOW THE CONSEQUENCES OF NUCLEAR BOMBS. Just not the actual bombs that were dropped. Which is a furtherance of the theme.
(3) I reject that notion about the cautionary tale bit as well. It showed how all three sides, pro-, anti-, and neutral, all lost. Maybe it could have been better done. Sure. I think that’s a fair argument. But Strauss was the only real pro-nuke person in the movie to have actually faced consequences. Truman didn’t. The Sec. of War didn’t. Teller didn’t. Groves didn’t. Strauss was the only one who was able to show that all sides lost.
@@jloiben12 I would agree to disagree on the degree to which the movie succeeded in demonstrating the consequences of the bomb. It's a bit more of a personal gripe on my part because Nolan got the R rating and shows very little in terms of graphic representation of what the bomb actually did. It didn't need to be another Grave of the Fireflies, but I left the theatre feeling a bit underwhelmed, though I agree with Hasan's view on the final scene being powerful. I also entirely agree with his general view on the Strauss narrative.
@@yourstrulytheartfuldodger
If what you mean is that they could have done better at showing the consequences, that’s a reasonable position to take. That’s fine. Don’t take what I am saying as a denunciation of that. Just don’t neglect that they did show the consequences. Just you think they could have done better at it. That’s all.
It would be sus if two people have the exact same views on a movie (unless someone has the objectively correct take that The Last Jedi is such a trash movie that the only redeeming non-vfx quality of it is that it is follow by Rise of Skywalker)
@@jloiben12 oh for sure, I ain't trying to invalidate your view, just expressing my divergent interpretation.
Was worried about the movie's politics but Nolan nailed it. Oppenheimer's portrayal was nuanced and he came out more as a coward than anything else. Nolan's best imo.
Why aren’t more conservatives crying about Oppenheimer since it portrays USA as in the wrong for dropping the nukes?
@@beckembrown7002 Because not everything in pop culture needs to be politicized. Stop riding your high political horse and just enjoy stuff as it is. No need to add spoiled flavor of politics and sides of stuff into normal things
@@doktorhypebeast I mean considering what they did with Barbie it was a fair question to ask. Especially since this movie's premise invokes more intellectual political discussion.
@@RawNoLimits Not really, the political aspect (commmunist sympathy) wasn't even really the main premise of the movie. The main premise was Oppenheimer's struggle for moral compromise and where he tilted in this entire ordeal. The whole security clearance and questioning his communist connections (which were none anyway) was simply a vessel in which Oppenheimer's contradictory turbulence is focused on.
@@doktorhypebeast it doesn't have to be the main premise, it was still an important theme and to say "not really" is being obtuse. Not to mention I was comparing it to Barbie, which had no obvious political undertones but still got a massive overreaction.
You know a movie is good when you shiver hearing him speak of the last beat of the money and the chain reaction that was started.
IMO the third act is important because Nolan shows both Strauss and Oppenheimer to be narcissistic in their own ways. Strauss and the board assessing Oppenheimer are not presented as incorrect when they say Oppenheimer wears his guilt like shield, it just doesn't absolve them of their own flaws that he's also in the wrong. Remember the scene where Kitty finds Oppenheimer crying in the woods over his affair as if he wants to be seen as repenting. His dread is sincere but he has a malign streak that is more human than monster. The film's about the hubris and human ego it took to develop this thing that may have already predetermined our species's fate so the direction it takes makes perfect thematic sense to me.
The true horror of the atomic bomb is better left abstract and a nightmare.
Oppenheimer was incredible. One of the best movies I’ve ever seen. Not a lot of movies have made me ball… but Oppenheimer got the tears rolling multiple times for all different reasons.The cast was unbelievable too. It’s as perfect as a film can get.
"Oppenheimer" is, indeed, about far more important things than a politician’s job interview and the concerns of his nameless aide. The Manhattan Project exacerbated humanity’s inevitable self-annihilation, but for rooms full of suits and cigarettes, it was just another day at the office, another tool to be wielded less for destruction than personal bartering. It’s the aide, the one without a name or background or tangible connection to Oppenheimer’s work, who exposes that reality with a crooked smile and killer one-liner. Like a great scene-stealing supporting player, the aide is the one who cuts through the crap to seek the truth. Ehrenreich has long been great at that, and "Oppenheimer" is a welcome new zenith of his career. Here’s hoping there will be many more in the future.
Honestly, I thought he had one of the most powerful lines in the movie. For a "nameless" character, he sure left quite the impression.
I think Nolan touches on Oppenheimer’s limited culpability with the Truman scene - “Hiroshima has nothing to do with you.” “You built the bomb, I dropped it.”
The movie was INTENSE FOR THREE HOURS..... I GOT TIRED. PLEASE, LET OPPIE SMELL FLOWERS, SLOW IT DOWN
The inevitability of everything was what really depressed me. Obviously 250k people were going to die for no justifiable reason, but also I felt the film did a very good job explaining it was a race to the atom bomb. If Oppenheimer’s team hadn’t completed it, someone else would have 5-10 years later.
Yeah. I see no one talking about this. I only truly realized its inevitability when the scene showed Rabi and Oppenheimer talking about how the choice was between the Nazis finishing the atom bomb, and simply choosing not to do anything at all.
They definitely died for a reason. They wouldn’t surrender. We would have invaded Japan and killed many more Japanese people as they would have been ordered to fight to the last man like in Germany. The bombs saved lives
Why aren’t more conservatives crying about Oppenheimer since it portrays USA as in the wrong for dropping the nukes?
@@beckembrown7002 You put your message everywhere... The movie never "portrays the USA as in the wrong for dropping the nukes".
I don't think you saw the movie.
No reason? The invasion of the main Japanese islands had a projected cost of over 500,000 US casualties. Japan is basically mountains with cities built into the valleys, that's clearing out fortress after fortress with a population that's scared and probably going to kill invaders. The bombs cost 250k people to die, yes. But without them, the war would have cost millions of more lives.
"CUBE-RICK" - Hasan
This explanation of Nolan's talent perfectly explains my feelings about Tenet. I don't think it is a fantastic all-timer of a film, but I also love to rewatch it. It is consistently fun and engaging despite the fact that it doesn't really hang together all that well on reflection.
I saw a guy point out that Strauss and Oppenheimers battle is an allegory of mutual assured destruction, which I didn’t catch while watching the movie, but it is a great point.
On paper that's amazing, I just wasn't convinced of anything Nolan presented in the film. And I'm a huge Nolan fan, to point of even liking Tenet. I'm also in STEM and read QM research and books all the time and not for school.
Saw a really good review on the Japanese absence: “Though I do support the focus on Oppenheimer's hagridden trauma; I actually think the omission of the Japanese perspective heightens the horror of their tragedy and cause for moral sympathy. Representation through* erasure.)”
I can only speculate on how the lovely audience of 2023 would have processed an attempt at depicting what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They would have thought it's there for "shock value entertainment", just unbelievably stupid and tasteless an opinion, yet it would have been expressed in the same manner some "special" individuals expressed their thoughts about this film being some inspirational story.
This isn't something to be mocked, nor is it "shock value entertainment". I can never in good faith say that that should have been in the movie. The horrors the Japanese had to endure during those bombings are not to be depicted while neck beard Kyle and his GF Karen are stuffing their faces with popcorn.
I am very serious about this.
You realize Japan instigated a world war that killed millions.
Oppenheimer says that he doesn't understand why we needed to use the bomb, the Japanese had already lost. He was right, and that was all that needed to be said. History books have been littered with the lie that using nuclear bombs on civilians was "unavoidable" for the past 80 years. Just by showing a character that is confused, the movie did more to show the horrors of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki than any political figure since they were used.
That is a really good point
@@jacobmoretz3243 welp you can keep coping commie
The colour was Oppenheimers POV, his subjective view of World and Black and white is how he's seen objectively by others in the world.
It doesn't mean semi fiction vs truth. It's the POV of his vs ours.
It's clearly labelled as fission (what he made bombs of) for colour and fusion (the H bomb he opposed and others wanted to make, the reason his clearance was denied)for black and white
I mean the fact that they did not show what happened in Japan, is sorta representative of the POV of the people responsible for the tragedy. While 225k innocent people perished, the powerful were busy arguing about policy, bureaucracy and EGO. That is the whole point for me at least.
Bruh I also laughed and said “omg he said the thing” when that line was spoken. ☠️
Dunkirk was also not in chronological order, which sometimes made it confusing, but on rewatch it all made better sense for me. Great Movie.
The story of Oppenheimer is by nature flawed. The story of the aftermath could be told one way, and it has been shown in other films. But this was a very personal story. His securities clearance is what kept him legitimate, regardless of his status. There really is no way to tell Oppenheimers story better, but a lot of people want it to be about the bomb. It’s not. It’s the moral quandaries the character faces
I can't believe that was Gary Oldman playing Truman!
My favourite little detail was the silhouettes of the americans while they talked to James Remar's character about the Japanese Bombing targets.
I loved the apple parallel with the bomb. I thought it was just obvious movie symbolism so to find out it actually happened is crazy.
“They had a really bad age gap between the actors”… LMFAO 🤣… dude, the hilarious thing is I freaking twitched with a little rage just as Hasan rebuked them, but when I realized it was a joke I actually did appreciate that and laughed..
That was low key brilliant, absolute king button pusher.
10/10, would laugh again!
Also important to note that the movie is based on the book American Prometheus
If there is a follow up to this I would like it to cover atomic veterans, like my grandfather, and what knowledge Oppenheimer had of those tests.
Schools won't tell this story but we did learn how my desk would protect me from the blast. Every Tuesday at noon an alarm would go off and under the desk we went. That's what we learned
it will snatch all the oscars but ryan gosling deserves one too!
I mean he can get it, as good as Oppenheimer is, there is no supporting actor that shines through the way Gosling does, in Oppenheimer it is more that the entire supporting cast is what makes the movie tick, not individually great support actor. Most people praise RDJ while I personally thought Emily Blunt did insane job with the material she was given, Matt Damon is his usual amazing self, and everyone else was sensational, so when you have that many good outings from many supporting actors, it is hard to shine through as much, and to justify giving it to one in particular, so Id rather see it being given to someone else rather than anyone from Oppenheimer as it would defeat the purpose of the whole team effort. So Gosling can definitely take it
May actually not. If the take here is that this is some inspirational story about the man who made the atomic bomb, I am pretty sure the academy wouldn't consider it because there would be riots in the streets.
The good news though is that it's not, it's not that at all. But only if it generates enough discussion about contemporary topics, like:
1. The never ending nuclear arms race.
2. The fact that (At the end of the day) we have been subjected to American propaganda, and should maybe consider admitting (To ourselves, as well as the world) that we occasionally F up big time.
Then a serious consideration for "all the awards" would take place. If people don't go there, then the movie would be just another "pretty" Nolan movie, starring pretty people, that side steps the ugly topic it was supposed to explore.
Also, that "Just Ken" song is everything, but Gosling is up against RDJ who's 57 years old and has had an amazingly prolific career.
Killers of the Flower Moon, Napoleon, The Killer, Ferrari, Dune 2 are also scheduled to release lol
@@samf.s.7731 f rdj, some people should search him more. and marvel is mid so not much career
@@nbassasin8092
De Niro already has Oscar buzz as supporting in Killers of the Flower Moon.
I don’t even understand how people can leave the theater and be like damn they made Oppenheimer as a good person. He came off as a flawed human being and wether it’s true or not it showed his regret and his struggle. Not to mention his attempt to either poison his professor or kill him which is up for debate still. It made me wonder whether in the beginning he did it knowing he would go down in history as the man who created the bomb. Idk if I buy that he was completely oblivious of the possible consequences of a bomb of that magnitude. Yet again who knows maybe he fooled himself into believing the world would realize that it’s powerful to use. What’s not up for debate was his regret after it was all done because it’s well documented.
oppenheimer showed a flawed, complicated human being make something terrible and grapple with the consequences. It was truly personal, you aren't supposed to necessarily root for him, you're supposed to just sigh and observe. There's a scene where oppenheimer was watching a presentation of the after-effects of the bomb, and he just refuses to look. He's a coward at the end of the day. We're watching this movie through his eyes. If you want a movie that really shows the horrors, there are many japanese films that talk about it
People say it's not communicating the horror of atomic bomb. IMO there's already more than enough communication of that in the film.
i hate this 'they glossed over' ..this is just a biography of a scientist, not the 'history of nuclear weapons' movie
The movie is about the guy Oppenheimer. He didn’t see the bong get dropped.
Robert "Gun to my head had to do it" Oppanaheimer
I remember saying the Kyodo line at the same time the dude said it in the movie. There were audible gasps in the theater. 😢
Yeah in my theater there was literal like ugh type responses in disgust of that historical fact. I'm glad it was in the movie.
Hasanabi Out of context clips is gonna have a field day with this one 😂
i don’t really understand the criticism about nolan not showing the nuked effects because 1 if you really want to see that shit you can google it and 2 i think most people know what happened when you get nuked like you might not see it but i think showing it doesn’t make it more horrific at least imo
I feel like if Nolan did actually show the H&N bombing it would have to be CG, because as far as I’m aware there is no footage of the bombing itself, just the aftermath.
Which I can’t imagine would go over very well (and that’s not even getting into the fact that the film doesn’t delve into the Japanese perspective as is, so literally the only visual reference to the Japanese would be them getting bombed and/or the aftermath as pure victims, which, again, I don’t see going over very well).
The premise of the film is polarizing alone, this issue was going to crop up no matter how Nolan went about it.
Structurally it just cant work as it would undermine the trinity test and also not fit thematically with either perspective as they were not there
It was weird that it was 3 hours long but seemed to be just flying through everything. There was just so much that they wanted to pack into it that instead of a series of scenes it felt like a concatenation of one-liners
You might even call it a chain reaction.
@@javiercortes814you won.
@@kaptainsalty7335Who’s gonna tell them? 😂
@@raingirlcat2245 ?
Tenetheads in full defence mode.
The vibe of the movie reminded me a lot of Thin Red Line, the WW2 film from the 90s. Huge ensemble cast, very prominent score, lofty dialogue; all contributing to sweeping the audience off their feet and distracting them from the horrific perspective of the opposition, until the last act where "the mission is successful" and you're left grappling with the feeling that it was all for nothing and shits about to get worse.
The part where he quotes Capital saying "property is theft" is so painful like Marx famously wrote an essay DISSAGREEING with Proudhon saying that
I'm ordering it this weekend on AMC. I can't wait to watch it in my living room with no one to harass me.
I've seen so many people complaining that the film didn't depict the scenes on the ground at Hiroshima & Nagasaki, claiming that not doing so sanitises history. As if showing the bombing in this movie wouldn't be both totally on the nose and disrespectful to the hundreds of thousands of real people who suffered in the most brutal way possible.
I truly think empathy is just lacking in people with this complaint and they actually just want to see nuke-inflicted gore. Watch Threads if thats what you're looking for. I say this as someone who has always admittedly been very fascinated by nuclear weapons and their effects. There's a time and a place for depicting this stuff. A biopic about Oppenheimer, who wasnt even there, is not it.
And if you genuinely want to know what it was like for the people of Hiroshima to experience the bomb theres plenty of survivor testimonies out there. If reading those doesn't help you grasp the horror, seeing a recreation probably won't. I think Nolan did an excellent job acknowleding the hell of what was unleashed without having to spoon feed it to us (i.e. victory speech scene).
Anyway, loved the movie. Nolan's best, imo.
For sure his best. White Light, Black Rain is a doc for those who want to really see the level of devastation and suffering inflicted on the Japanese. It's a tough watch though (obviously).
Also the people bringing that up would never actually refer to Japanese media depicting those events, they just want their own version to be told.
I know!! All the people that want a depiction of the Japanese experience / H&N nuked, BAFFLES me. Do they want to just watch straight up torture porn then? (Because there's just simply no way to depict that without it turning out as somekind of sick gore). Is that it?
you're right. There's a huge risk when depicting those horrors--it could come off as Nolan using it for shock value and being disrespectful
I personally think the film focused less on the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and more of the horror that these weapons just exist now, and those uses aren’t a one off case and probably won’t be the end. We gave ourselves the power to destroy the world and everything in it.
aesthetic leftists annoy me. just because there is a protagonist doesn't mean they are a good person
Its just embarrassing how people aren’t intelligent enough to recognize subtext
I just think that it is very real that the only people that get to have moral nuance, or even just be the bad guy protagonist (which still provokes empathy) are white people, while Osama bin Laden or other figures that have provoked white or western deaths will never have this kind of treatment. That clear imbalance is incredibly frustrating. I think it’s a good movie, but for a lot of people, including me, it feels empty because of the wider context.
@@ernestomonge1848 I think that’s a fair point.
@@ernestomonge1848 go touch grass lmao
Actually thought the movies editing was really unique.
I was expecting a 3 hour movie and to feel tired but the editing was good
always shorter scenes back to back with slower longer scenes to give a break. It honestly was well paced but it kept attention and wasn’t considered like too long the scenes had details and plot that really came together within the last 10 minutes
Security Clearance being such a focal point is interesting. It’s beurocratic bullshit and we know it as people watching.
He’s not given clearance because giving him clearance would give him power to work self-autonomously while paid by the government to do so while working at his un-cleared level means he always has to ask questions to higher ups for any any question/reason/complaint/etc. It’s forced compliancy.
His clearance isn’t allowed because of personal bias while also getting the man to do the exact same job to produce the exact same results but with the benefit of him having to beg to do any simple or challenging task and the ability to deny any simple or challenging task/requests purely to mess with the individual and control their actions.
Once located in the city of los alamos a place he designed and built but a place he couldn’t get birth-control too because the government officials didn’t consider it. And all the other men there working 24/7 need to beg to leave the city to get resources-to meet people-to visit friends/family all of it is denied simply put they lack security clearance and proof that they are loyal to the government while working for the government in government built housing on government property where they’re monitored 24/7 where they’re paid by the government and like you know had doctors/dentists/barbers/tailors etc - so like they have a government job for the government but the government didn’t clear them as ‘clean and good staff members’ simply because they weren’t directly military personnel. (Meaning they can work for anyone theoretically even if everything about anything they do shows they are working for the American government and doing so with grace and willingness amongst workplace hostility and beutocratic assholes who want to swing their authority and power around and abuse staff and others below them instead of choosing to work together to reach the common goals (of which were reached anyway but done so with constant threats)
Include watching Doctor Strangelove Hasan mentioned he wanted to sit on the bomb like Slim Pickens character did in the film. Doctor Atomic is an Opera about Oppenheimer making the bomb that makes an interesting viewing experience.
i am loving these movie reviews!
I think the argument is less "why didnt they show Hiroshima" and more "are they treating it too much like a necessary evil to end the war"? The former argument is unserious, the latter is toeing the American party line and not something the movie fully argues against. Like yes they talk about the general horrors of the bomb a LOT, but the question of whether Japan would have surrendered without it is not really discussed in the same way, its left very open and wouldn't upset American sensibilities too much because you can still definitely watch it and think both that the bomb is horrible but that nothing else would've made Japan surrender, in fact thats a much more "real" political discussion than whether they should show little Japanese children crying or whatever.
I'm sure two world ending nuclear weapons never seen in history played zero role in their decision to surrender
This was a good film but I felt a little too dumb for it, I could barely keep up with the dialogue and most of the intense scenes I felt kind of lost. If you’re someone who can catch dialogue easily without subtitles you will love this film.
I’ll have to watch this sometime again but with subtitles.
This movie is an excellent test of who is and isn't ideologically possessed.
In what way?
In the way of understanding things without needing to hear them
Based. Love him or hate him, Nolan has passion for his craft
It's a shame fission was discovered while the world was at war rendering international cooperation virtually impossible
You give the human race too much credit. There might of been some formalities on a public level but every country with the means would be building it in secret....in preparation for the next inevitable war.
Oppenheimer wanted the science to be shared, because he felt like if scientists from other countries had a good grasp on how dangerous it was, they wouldn’t cooperate and make any weapons. There was a part of the movie where they discuss heavy water and how the Germans were basically making a nuclear reactor instead of a bomb, and that “we” were ahead in the race. They acknowledged how useful a sustained reaction could be at that point. It was such a brief moment, and the man that developed the first nuclear reactor actually worked on the project. He was played by Danny Defarrari.
sooner or later during the nuclear weapons would eventually be developed even without oppenheimer so still a lost cause of humanity, best thing you can do is call for nuclear disarmament and nuclear arms control
@@axios7603 Yeah that was my point. You need international cooperation for disarmament but that won't happen if everyone's at war.
there would not have been cooperation only further wars, note that the Japanese would have resigned as Russia waa about to attack them from the north and they could fight a two pronged war, maybe a month or two.
That’s what I love about that movie is the ppl on the left
HBO's Chernobyl is a good example of why telling the story of Oppenheimer instead of the story of the Manhattan Project might feel less satisfying. Imagine if instead of combining multiple perspectives that show had just picked a single scientist or official and told their story start to finish. It wouldn't be a bad story but I think it would be less satisfying than the story they did tell. For me anyway :)
Well its the practical limits of a single movie thats 3 hours and a miniseries thats almost twice the length.
Theres limited time to add more character storylines and give them depth.
A 3 hour cut of chernobyl would mostly center on one character too. Legasov and his pov, mostly.
Such a stupid thing to say. If that were the case it would be a different film. This is this film. This is how it is.
@@ToxicTurtleIsMad holy shit good point, imma email all the media critics and let them know their jobs don't exist. "Why are you talking about how the film was bad? It's already finished, they can't make it better now."
but... chernobyl LITERALLY combined many perspectives into 1 scientist... Not a good
The movie is about Oppenheimer, he's simply not concerned about the nuclear aftereffects, he already know long ago, he's a scientist. He tries to get it out of his head all the time.
“Objective” and “subjective” (I think) are comments on how the story was told, not what was true/untrue. He wrote the script in first person, and I think he wrote the B&W sequences in third person. He’s speaking in terms of literature, not presentation.
exactly, subjective meaning subject of the story perspective, and objective meaning from the perspective of the "objects" of his story, that being othr people and the triačs themselves
I am I Nolan-head. Whatever that is. I mean I love pretty much all of his films. Obviously art is subjective so you can certainly say you didn’t care for some of his films but what you can’t knock him for is that he gives everything in every single film. Tries his best to make a full-meal movie. Not a; shove popcorn in your face & turn your brain off. Never that. He’s always trying to make interesting films, on a big scale & swings hard. Ain’t nobody getting budgets & cart blanche for original work like he does (and Jim Cameron & he’s only making Avatars). So he’s truly a unique artist, one that makes challenging art & somehow has the balance correct between super artsy box office flop work… and committee approved machine blockbusters.
He’s got the balance right.
Watch Glory (1989). I just finished watching after watching Saving Private Ryan (1998) and Schindler's List (1993). Three masterpieces of cinema. I saw Glory many times many years ago in the early-90s. Still an amazing movie after 34 years later.
The music is soaring! Thank you to the late-James Horner and the Boys Choir of Harlem. Now that's a very moving war movie about sacrifice and about two races coming together as one. I still have tears in my eyes because how much emotion I felt watching so many years later.
Listen to Glory's "Charging Fort Wagner" and the closing credits. It's the same unbelievable feeling after you see the ending to The Shawshank Redemption and Top Gun: Maverick. The music absolutely soars!! Glory is the only film I ever liked Matthew Broderick in. But it's a classic.
Why did my comment in chat get put on blast KEKW
Hasan you have to view Tenet this way: It's real life Laser Cats!
Did you guys hear about the crazy story about Chris Nolan's other (3rd) Brother? Apparently he is/was some sort of Hitman. And one of his cover names was...drumroll... Oppenheimer. Look it up. There is a casefile and everything. 😎
PS TeneT is underrated. Look up: Sator Square. You will see the movie different.
Gotta remember that they were being petty and acting like children over a situation that could destroy us all.
It supposed to hammer home that almost nobody was taking it seriously in government.
Agreed about the ending, I almost feel like it could've ended not long after the bombing and the scene in the auditorium and it would've been perfect. I thought the Senate hearings at the end were just trivial compared to what came before.
Yeah the flash of the nuclear blast while the crowd maniacly hooted and weeped was so affecting. I will say, I loved Oldman's protrayal of Truman as this bloviating dickhead, which came after that. Honestly the Truman meeting could've been a great ending too.
You may not have liked the third act but the movie quite literally doesn't work without it.
@@nathwcx8299 of course, but I think there was a way to do it without stretching it out to 45 minutes or however long it was. The awesome power of the Trinity test scene and the scenes that came directly after lost some of their momentum imo, those Senate hearing scenes could’ve been cut in half and you would’ve still gotten the same powerful ending.
@@backwardshoenarratively I would have liked the movie to end with oppenheimer walking out of the oval office while truman tells his minister "don't let that crybaby back in here" or whatever the exact line was.
But that's mostly why I don't like biopics. Life is not a narrative and trying to capture it as such is always going to get skewed results.
@@polaroidcaesar I liked it as I experienced it in the theater, but I also accept it in a filmmaking sense because this isn't a story about the bombs, but about Oppenheimer. The security clearance hearings were pretty significant for him, and so they're perfectly suited for the movie's ending - for Oppenheimer's movie's ending.
The movie actually tone down on the many details of this big historical event , like what actually happens to the soldiers after testing the bomb and so on. To be fair , no one really knows what radiation gonna do in that scale. It's a really huge gamble like the movie trying to tell.
didn’t talk about the score:(((((((
Sometimes I wish the made the one had the chain reaction, and everything is on fire
The only thing that I didn't like was the no pushback to the myth of dropping two nukes on Japan was the only way to end the war. It was clear that after Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japan was going to keep on fighting. It wasn't until the soviet union finally declared war on Japan that they surrendered. They knew the allies would allow the emperor to live. The soviets were having none of that. They had just killed their emperor and were willing to do it again in Japan.
yes, I'm sure a soviet invasion which was being threatened by russians for more than a century had a more bigger impact on their decisions than the effects of two world ending nuclear devices lmfao.
Hey just a heads up but theirs weird loud pitched noise on a lot of your videos and it kinda hurts when listening with headphones, idk if you can fix it or if you're aware, thanks for the awesome content as always.
They didn’t use CGI for the Trinity test. They used practical effects, aka a nuclear bomb ;)
It wasn't an actual a-bomb but rather a massive explosion that mimicked the a-bomb blast. Still very impressive
the best movie about nuclear weapons remains Dr. Strangelove.
i just saw the black & white thing as Strauss' perspective on the events that transpired. maybe that was a deliberately done because Strauss has a very black/white view of the world. Or Nolan just did it so it's a bit easier to follow the movie chronologically. if that was the case i still think it was a good choice, otherwise it might've been a bit easy to get confused about when things were happening
Nolan said he did it to differentiate subjective point of view (colored moments being directly through Oppenheimers eyes, the subject of the story) and objective one (black and white being how others, or objects of the movie see different moments)
It was a great movie but I think the last hour after detonation of the bomb took a litle bit to long in my opinion.
The stuff with Robert Downey jr and also the hydrogen bomb was way too confusing and i don’t understand what’s so hard about explaining something. I dont know about what happened in real life, and I feel like that really took away from this movie for me. Opp’s “moral conundrum” - I completely MISSED THAT. It wasn’t fleshed out well for me because I missed over half the context. Made no goddamn sense and I’m mad about it.
I will watch Oppenheimer in 240p
can u turn on subtitles plz
Very fair review! Thanks Hasan
The only thing that matters is the black & white film was developed by Kodak specifically for this movie.
I think I watched the time travel movie he made
Small gripe here
While I got used to the style of the movie going back and forth in time and the short scenes, it was pretty off putting at first. I felt like we were getting previews and given context to what we were about to see, and I kept waiting for the actual story to actually start. Also it felt like maybe 20 minutes too long. The time left after trinity seemed like it should’ve been shorter. Still a great movie
The ‘morality play’ since… uh… humans started telling stories :)
It was shown as Oppenheimer vs strauss as a good v evil because its from Oppenheimer's perspective. Of course his parts are slightly bias.
I don't think it really needed to cover the horrors of the atomic bomb more than it did. That was never really the goal. The film is an adaptation of the biographical novel American Prometheus, which doesn't go over that in any capacity unless it's in direct relation to how Oppenheimer saw it.
To me the security clearance was about multiple things: on one had there is the obvious Oppenheimer situation- they were there to ruin his reputation, and I can understand ppl not caring about that. But there's another layer underneath that: Oppenheimer was opposed to escalating development of nuclear weaponry, the government wasn't. This was about the creation living after its creator, doing terrible things when he wanted none of it. The moral implications didn't matter anymore, only the power, only the arms race, do it to them before they. do it to us. The fact that govetnment agents didn't want to see that he regretted the result of the bomb and didn't want it to happen again says it all.
Tenet is so underrated
Hard agree. It’s probably Nolan’s most confusing movie plot wise and it did release during the pandemic, so that might be why some people just don’t have the same feel for it.
There are other great movies about the nuclear bomb from the perspective of the Japanese. This wasn't that movie, and it didn't have to be.
Nolan takes himself a little too serious imo. That being said I loved Dunkirk it's such great minimalism. Inception, Interstellar and The Dark Knight are also his best because it's a lot more fun and creative
10/10 movie lets keep it a bean
Oppenheimer couldn't have stopped the bomb from being built. Even had he left Los Alamos after Hitler's death, the US would have found scientists like Teller to finish it. The USA and USSR would have found ways to build the bomb once they knew it was possible.
The movie wasnt about the atom bomb