I read the foundation series and honestly outside of Lee pace, dusk and obviously Jared Harris himself it’s pretty bad.
They still have the grace period you give for a large and complex story, and I think I have an idea where they’re going, but holy crap they are taking every bad detour they can find, it’s like “defy all expectations, because”, they could have done much better if they stuck closer to the books or at least didn’t spend so much of the series on literally the most boring planet in the galaxy, Synnax. Gaal Dornick, I hate you so much for dragging me away from helicon to a literally empty planet because you were throwing a tantrum, and ease the hell off on the overacting.
The show was not great, but the epic premise is awesome. So I thought I’d just go read the books, assuming the source material was the good stuff.
But wow, turns out Asimov can’t write a decent paragraph. The story and ideas are buried under page after page of cringeworthy dialogue and pointless descriptions of gee whiz gadgets.
The most moving scene is him finding out about the bombings right after: “Mr. Oppenheimer, you’re not gonna believe what they used your JapDestroyer 5000 for! It’s terrible!”
Oppenheimer was a brilliant physicist. Born-Oppenheimer approximation, incredible contributions to quantum and nuclear physics. Simply an incredible guy. He has my deepest respect
Is the movie actually understandable without subtitles?
The plot and story for Tenet was right up my alley, but my inability to understand the dialog frustrated the crap out of me - and I have a pretty solid home audio setup.
After having seen it, there are some scenes where it is difficult to follow the dialog which I’m sure is intentional. I haven’t seen Tenet but I think Oppenheimer is not as bad in this regard, in part because there’s less exposition – this is all based on real events in the real world and there aren’t a lot of mechanics to have to explain, and also because the story isn’t as plot-driven as many of Nolan’s thrillers. No MacGuffins, no car chases, shootouts or real twists; it’s more about the man, his relationships and how his career plays out. That said, for example there is a scene where he’s talking to his wife outdoors, it’s windy and they’re not facing camera and the fact that I couldn’t follow what they were saying did take me out… instead of being engaged in the conversation I was more aware I was sitting there watching Chris Nolan dialogue, waiting for it to be over.
just watched it in a barbenheimer combo. the dialogue wasn’t as clear as in barbie, but much better than tenet! So still ‘nolany’ dialogue, but well watchable without subtitles.
I get to see this tomorrow night on a massive screen and I’m legit excited. I’m a Nolan fan and I love historical films/shows so that’s a extra bonus.💃🏻
The ending of the NY times review stuck out at me: “François Truffaut once wrote that “war films, even pacifist, even the best, willingly or not, glorify war and render it in some way attractive.” This, I think, gets at why Nolan refuses to show the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, world-defining events that eventually killed an estimated 100,000 to upward of 200,000 souls.”
Nah, that ain’t why. It’s because western audiences aren’t ready to deal with the horror these things cause. That’s it. Or, to put it another way, they’re Chicken Shit.
There’s certain snippets I hope I never see or hear again because they’ve been so overplayed. Here’s my top offenders; the snippet of the Kennedy speech about going to the moon before the end of the decade, the Armstrong quote first step upon the moon, the atomic explosions of WWII, the Bikini Atoll h-bomb test, and any portion of the hymn Amazing Grace. So what they’re doing is avoiding stuff people don’t want to see because it’s played out. I’d say that’s just good movie making.
deadline.com
Oldest