Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,071
I’ll stream it.
Oppenheimer - 2023 Christopher Nolan & Cillian Murphy (birth of the Atom Bomb).
- Thread starter ianh
- Start date
As @n111ck said this is a totally flawed logic. There's plenty of films that would be in my top 20 that I've probably only seen once. If you thoroughly enjoyed a set tasting menu at a top restaurant would you book it for next week? Probably not, but you've had yourself an excellent and memorable experience to appreciate for time to come. a lot of movies are like that.
I also disagree that it doesn't work well for repeat viewing. I've seen it three times and I was surprised at how much tension it still held on the second and third viewings. That's down to the quality of filmmaking from Nolan.
Both really. That's a bigger argument than just this film. Or are you going to argue that your home cinema environment is comparable to IMAX?
You see it on these forums all the time.. a movie comes out that people rate really well (they watched it at the cinema), then you get some naysayers that are like "Meh, I turned it off halfway through" and it's obvious they haven't given it their full attention because they're watching it on-demand/streaming, or worse a rip. For me, going to the cinema is a blessing where you can dedicate your 100% attention to a film, you practically have no choice. Therefore the experience is much bigger than sitting on my sofa in the same position that I've previously watched 4 episodes of the Office (US) in a row at lunchtime. Going to the cinema elevates every part of the experience.
EDIT: @CaptainRAVE and we'll look forward to your middling review, I'm sure. For the reasons above.
Last edited:
But what exactly will I not get from Oppenheimer?
I like the big screen for the immersion and the assault on my senses.
Dune
Top Gun Maverick
Interstellar
Bohemian Rhapsody
Inception
Das Boot uncut - Wish I could get to see this on the big screen
All the above are ideal for the big screen because they are visually and audibly stunning, but you say 2hr50mins of people talking and 5mins of an explosion is something you can't experience at home?
Oppenheimer IMAX is still people talking, but just in IMAX.
There is nothing in this film that you can't get by watching it at home.
Save your money, folks, spend it on Napoleon and Dune: Part 2
To be very blunt - no-one really cares what either of you think about the internal "flaws" in the logic of another person.
As they stated, it's their logic for them alone to judge whether they like a film. They didn't ask for people to critique them or their choices. By all means put forth your own views on how you enjoy media, but telling others "they way you enjoy it is wrong" is pretty poor to me.
Have you actually seen the film? A good photographer can take a visually stunning picture of a person in a room. A painter can paint one, and by following that a cinematographer can do the same. Blow it up to IMAX and you can appreciate it even more. Just because it's not wizz-bang-boom doesn't mean you can't be overwhelmed by something.
As any that has seen the film will attest, the last 30mins or so is an assault on the senses. It's overwhelming in the cinema, it's intended to be. It practically puts you in Oppenheimer's shoes to realise at one point what he's "done", and another point how is life is getting ripped away from him. I doubt you'd get the same effect at home.
Well actually he did ask to be critiqued when he posted it on a discussion forum. I'm not saying it's wrong, just pointing out it's a flawed logic to abide by. I gave my perfectly valid reasons.
Oppenheimer - 2023 Christopher Nolan & Cillian Murphy (birth of the Atom Bomb).
Glasgow Film Theatre is showing the 70mm version but not an IMAX
forums.overclockers.co.uk
Oppenheimer - 2023 Christopher Nolan & Cillian Murphy (birth of the Atom Bomb).
Glasgow Film Theatre is showing the 70mm version but not an IMAX
forums.overclockers.co.uk
I reckon October before it hits streaming. Long time to wait, I'll probably end up going to see it at a quiet showing in a couple of weeks. Quite a few people I know went to see it this weekend/ Even though it's not my usual type of film, I'd rather pay 5 euros to watch it in the next few weeks, to see what all the hype is about, rather than wait till October to watch it for free, regardless of the screen size or sound wattage!
rp2000
rp2000
Hype people up into wanting to see it on the big screen before most of them had a chance to realise it's not really a visual 'shock and awe' type of movie that they'd probably enjoy just as much at home if their AV setup is anything more advanced than a mobile phone
That's pretty much it in a nutshell.Hype people up into wanting to see it on the big screen before most of them had a chance to realise it's not really a visual 'shock and awe' type of movie that they'd probably enjoy just as much at home if their AV setup is anything more advanced than a mobile phone
Watched it earlier today. I liked it a lot. The performances were top class all round. Cillian is getting an Oscar nom for sure. The anxiety it managed to produce was pretty up there, and although I'm sure a few people would've liked a full on Hollywood crying Oscar-bait breakdown scene, I liked the relatively reserved way they conveyed his regret. The final shot in particular is pretty harrowing.
I did have a few minor gripes. Although personally I find the length is mostly justified, there were a few lulls where I was shifting in my seat towards the end. The score was also distractingly present, mostly in the first 1/4 of the film. There were moments where music wasn't really required, or it would've been nice to have scenes of just dialogue to fully digest what was being said.
I'd give it like an 8.5 or 9/10.
I did have a few minor gripes. Although personally I find the length is mostly justified, there were a few lulls where I was shifting in my seat towards the end. The score was also distractingly present, mostly in the first 1/4 of the film. There were moments where music wasn't really required, or it would've been nice to have scenes of just dialogue to fully digest what was being said.
I'd give it like an 8.5 or 9/10.
Last edited:
Just following the ‘need to see in the cinema conversation’, I’m not sure if IMAX itself is essential, but there is no way anyone is getting that kind of headroom volume in their home set up. The film was seriously loud in IMAX with rumbling ominous bass that you really felt.
I mentioned it already, but I think the sound is what you are seeing it in the big cinema environment for, rather than the visuals. But I still loved the large scale visuals.
Worth it, IMO. But no, it’s not a big visual-fest like Inception.
I mentioned it already, but I think the sound is what you are seeing it in the big cinema environment for, rather than the visuals. But I still loved the large scale visuals.
Worth it, IMO. But no, it’s not a big visual-fest like Inception.
This isn't a university safe space - it's a discussion forum - and does anyone really need you being offended on their behalf...
Soldato
wow, just got back
very impressive film on many fronts
a lot to unpack so will sleep on it
very impressive film on many fronts
a lot to unpack so will sleep on it
Ask me 10-15 years ago and I would have completely agreed with you. I had a feeling that certain films deserved an appreciation because of either technical achievements, direction or particular performances. Back when I had a huge huge DVD collection, I bought many films based on how they were revered and as a learning experience to understand cinema history. I definitely had films I thought should be in my top 20 at that point I had only seen once.
I think Avatar was one of the early turning points for me though. It was a technical and visual masterpiece, groundbreaking film making from a revered director, a huge box office success and a film I felt absolutely no connection to at all.
I guess over the last few years I grew tired of having to "appreciate" films and went back to my gut and the way that got me excited by cinema in the first place.
When you talked of a fine dining experience, I think there is an underlying tone that some films are more worthy than others and that it would be easy to cheat and have a top 20 full of popcorn flicks that are easy to watch over and over. I know where you are coming from and again probably would have agreed a few years ago. But I don't care any more, there are absolutely dining experiences that are pretentious, overpriced and overvalued for no good reason, and it's the same with cinema.
I'd also counter it by telling you that HEAT (1996) with a runtime of 2hrs 50 minutes is one of my most watched films and for many people not an easy watch. Videodrome another.
Anyway this seems like a weird rant now but what I want to say to people is just go with your gut more. A film either connects with you or it doesn't, there is no need to try to appreciate it like some kind of modern art installation that does nothing for you compared to a Rembrandt or a Marvel comic strip. The Rembrandt is worth millions, the marvel strip almost nothing, they can be at the opposite ends of the spectrum but grab you in some way the art piece the critics love would never do.
Last edited:
As mentioned quite a few times in other threads, there’s nothing wrong with the people that simply want to watch a movie (any movie) in the cinema. A lot of people enjoy the experience more even if it’s not a “shock and awe“ film, or they don’t have the space or money for a big home AV setup. Sometimes there seems to be a weird humblebrag aspect going on when people are like “oh I’ll wait and watch it at home”Hype people up into wanting to see it on the big screen before most of them had a chance to realise it's not really a visual 'shock and awe' type of movie that they'd probably enjoy just as much at home if their AV setup is anything more advanced than a mobile phone
as if people going to the cinema are somehow old-fashioned. @MookJong I accept your point but I wasn’t trying to start some sort of discussion about fine dining or art house cinema. Simply that some excellent moviegoing experiences are ones that you won’t (or don’t want to) repeat.
Yeah, you can enjoy a film and not want to see it again, but for me, I don't feel I'm being honest if I say a film is one of my favourites and it also falls into that category.As mentioned quite a few times in other threads, there’s nothing wrong with the people that simply want to watch a movie (any movie) in the cinema. A lot of people enjoy the experience more even if it’s not a “shock and awe“ film, or they don’t have the space or money for a big home AV setup. Sometimes there seems to be a weird humblebrag aspect going on when people are like “oh I’ll wait and watch it at home”
@MookJong I accept your point but I wasn’t trying to start some sort of discussion about fine dining or art house cinema. Simply that some excellent moviegoing experiences are ones that you won’t (or don’t want to) repeat.
We absolutely agree on your other comment though. I've fallen in love with films in 4:3 on a 15" portable TV and in HD surround sound at the cinema. If you have to see a film in absolute optimum setting to enjoy it, you probably don't like it that much anyway.
As mentioned quite a few times in other threads, there’s nothing wrong with the people that simply want to watch a movie (any movie) in the cinema. A lot of people enjoy the experience more even if it’s not a “shock and awe“ film, or they don’t have the space or money for a big home AV setup. Sometimes there seems to be a weird humblebrag aspect going on when people are like “oh I’ll wait and watch it at home”
Nothing to do with humble bragging, just responding to the point about why such a big deal was made about IMAX in the films marketing.
It seemed like half the marketing was about the film and half was about the fact it was shot in IMAX - personally I think this was to drum up interest in cinema attendance for a film that your average punter probably wouldn't have been all that worried about seeing on the big screen ordinarily.
Saw it last night.
I thought that it was very good, albeit some of the scenes could have been more brief, and
. I was impressed at how well it distinguished between technical and moral achievements and the clear sense of pride in the physics and horror in the outcome amongst at least some characters.
As to whether or not to see it in a cinema - I'm not a massive cinema-goer, but I would highly recommend it. Oddly, I think the fact that it's not a massive action movie makes the cinema all the more important - when there were "big" scenes, their impact was so much heavier having not had three hours of similar scenes, and they were also brilliantly done - the sound was a huge part.
I thought that it was very good, albeit some of the scenes could have been more brief, and
I felt that it could have done a better job of juxtaposing the "trials" of Oppenheimer and Strauss - that juxtaposition only became apparent in the last third or so
As to whether or not to see it in a cinema - I'm not a massive cinema-goer, but I would highly recommend it. Oddly, I think the fact that it's not a massive action movie makes the cinema all the more important - when there were "big" scenes, their impact was so much heavier having not had three hours of similar scenes, and they were also brilliantly done - the sound was a huge part.
Well just like a big deal was made out of the technology behind Avatar, it’s a similar thing. It was shot on 15perf 70mm which is a super rare thing. The best way to appreciate that is in an IMAX screen. Im not an IMAX lover but I’ve seen the film twice in a top-end screening room (digital projection) and once in IMAX and the difference in quality was massively noticeable.
It’s kind of ironic that a lot of people who humblebrag about home setups and spend hours and hours looking at home technology, projectors, speaker setups etc. will also willingly admit that they can’t actually tell the difference between a 70mm projection and a DCP projection. Or worse, don’t see the point
Anyway, we digress massively. See it on whatever you want. My attitude is that any movie experience is better at the cinema, especially something as good as Oppenheimer.
Last edited: