Support NeoGAF

[EviLore]

'Oppenheimer' premieres in Japan. Some Hiroshima survivors, Japanese residents are distressed.

The Oscars' best picture winner "Oppenheimer" premiered in Japan amid concern over how victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings would react.

www.usatoday.com

Images on social media showed signs posted at the entrances to some Tokyo theaters, warning that the movie featured images of nuclear tests that could evoke the damage caused by the bombs.

Former Hiroshima Mayor Takashi Hiraoka, who attended an earlier media screening of "Oppenheimer," criticized the absence of humanity for Hiroshima residents. "From Hiroshima’s standpoint, the horror of nuclear weapons was not sufficiently depicted," he told Japanese reporters, according to The Associated Press.

He added: "The film was made in a way to validate the conclusion that the atomic bomb was used to save the lives of Americans."

From a filmmaking perspective it was arguably the right call to not show the Hiroshima bombing, but it's a reasonable criticism.

Hiroshima resident Kawai, who would only give his family name to Reuters, made similar criticism, telling the news agency, "The film also depicts the atomic bomb in a way that seems to praise it, and, as a person with roots in Hiroshima, I found it difficult to watch."

"I'm not sure this is a movie that Japanese people should make a special effort to watch," Kawai concluded.

A character praising the bomb, to a historically accurate degree, is not the same as the film advocating for it. To the contrary, the film is very much anti-bomb.

Yujin Yaguchi, a professor of American studies at the University of Tokyo, told The New York Times the film "celebrates a tiny group of white male scientists who really enjoyed their privilege and their love of political power" rather than giving a voice to victims in Japan and America.

"We should focus more on why such a rather one-sided story of white men continues to attract such attention and adulation in the U.S. and what it says about the current politics and the larger politics of memory in the U.S. (and elsewhere)," Yaguchi added.

I see Studies department professors are also racist imbeciles in Japan too...

Toshiyuki Mimaki, a co-chair of Hidankyo, an atomic bomb survivors group, was left disappointed after leaving the theater, he told The Guardian.

"I was waiting for the Hiroshima bombing scene to appear, but it never did. It’s important to show the full story, including the victims, if we are going to have a future without nuclear weapons," Mimaki said.

Maybe we can get Roland Emmerich in there to shoot a few atomic bomb destruction scenes for the Japanese edition. But, again, a reasonable criticism.

Speaking to Reuters before the movie opened, atomic bomb survivor Teruko Yahata said she was eager to see it, in hopes that it would re-invigorate the debate over nuclear weapons.

Yahata, now 86, said she felt some empathy for the physicist behind the bomb. That sentiment was echoed by Rishu Kanemoto, a 19-year-old student, who saw the film on Friday.

"Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where the atomic bombs were dropped, are certainly the victims," Kanemoto said. "But I think even though the inventor (Oppenheimer) is one of the perpetrators, he's also the victim caught up in the war."

Masao Tomonaga, an atomic bomb survivor and honorary director of the Japanese Red Cross Nagasaki Atomic Bomb hospital, called the lack of survivors a "weakness" in The Guardian. However, "Oppenheimer’s lines in dozens of scenes showed his shock at the reality of the atomic bombing. That was enough for me."

The actual atomic bomb survivor understands the movie, at least.

Moviegoer and Nagasaki resident Koichi Takeshita similarly told NPR, "The last look of Oppenheimer in the film was that of pain. It was a look of either regret, because he was the person who made the A-bomb, or he didn't know what to do and was sad, as tens of thousands of people died."

I wonder how well the Japanese subtitles are conveying the film's subtleties, to be honest.

 

[Hugare]

They didnt get it at all. The movie is 100% anti-bomb

I see Studies department professors are also racist imbeciles in Japan too...

This

People that are already biased will say the sky is green no matter what color it really is

 

[E-Cat]

Yeah, you're a fucking idiot if you came out of this movie thinking it celebrated the bomb.

 

[DKehoe]

I've been curious to see what the response from Japan would be. This is a longer delay than usual for a western film being shown over there, right?

I can get thinking they should have shown the direct effect. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were clearly the victims far more than Oppenheimer. But the film is about him and how he grapples with his own legacy. So I think it makes sense to not show it. Oppenheimer sitting around on the day of the bombing, waiting for it to happen and knowing what's to come works much better with the theme of the film. It's about a guy who had his work taken away from him and cast aside when he was no longer useful. The moment the bomb gets shipped away he's then on the outside looking in rather than the key figure he had been. Shifting focus to the bombing crew or someone in Japan for a scene would then take away from that because we're being given insight that Oppenheimer asked for (in the scene where the bombs are being shipped away and he asks Groves to keep him updated) but was denied. To be clear, I'm not saying that the stories of the victims shouldn't be told. They absolutely should and other films can do and have done that. But this film was telling a slightly different story than that.

I also think there's something to showing his reaction to it, we see him watching footage of the results and although we don't directly see the devastation that was wreaked is clear. We also see him imagining the effects on those around him. For me that conveys the horror of the use of the bomb.

I just don't see how someone can come out of the film thinking that it's pro the use of atomic bombs. Again, I'm sympathetic to the Japanese and get that it's a very sensitive topic. Americans making a movie about how Americans dropping weapons of mass destruction on Japanese made an American sad might seem like it's lacking in a broader perspective. But for me, the film isn't about the war as much as it is about the person making the bomb and the system he's interacting with. It's also not exactly a propaganda piece for the US government, which doesn't come out of it looking great.

 

[Badlucktroll]

If the US had the bomb in time, or the war dragged out longer, would the US have used nuclear weapons on Nazi Germany?

 

[EviLore]

All the same quotes from a handful of people are circulating around the entire English language press. I think we can do one better with some direct investigation of Japanese social platforms to see what more Japanese people think.

Yahoo Japan Movies:

オッペンハイマー の映画情報 - Yahoo!検索

『オッペンハイマー』(2023) の映画情報です。評価レビュー 711件、上映中の映画館、動画予告編、ネタバレ、感想など多数。出演: キリアン・マーフィ、エミリー・ブラント、マット・デイモン、ロバート・ダウニー・ジュニア、フローレンス・ピュー、ジョシュ・ハートネット、ケイシー・アフレック、ラミ・マレック、ケネス・ブラナー、ディラン・アーノルド、デヴィッド・クラムホルツ、マシュー・モディーン、ジェファーソン・ホール、Benny Safdie、デヴィッド・ダストマルチャン、トム・コンティ、ゲイリー・オールドマン、他。監督: クリストファー・ノーラン。

search.yahoo.co.jp

3.5/5 with 199 reviews

Showing the machine translation to English.

Some takeaways:

-Many people had a tough time following the fast-paced non-linear storytelling. I'm sure it's a challenge with subtitles and the huge cast of characters.

-The serious film fans seemed to understand the film and enjoy it.

-A significant number of viewers basically have no idea about what actually happened in WW2.

These people enjoyed it.

Definitely a film buff writing that second one.

Funny that the first reviewer there thinks the way Oppenheimer portrayed Kyoto being spared the atomic bomb is ridiculous and must be fake. Welp, about that...

Re: the third person, "it shows how carelessly white people thought about the lives of Japanese people." Phew. We weren't exactly friends at the time!

Might be time to read a wikipedia entry about World War 2, friend!

I like how this reviewer calls him "Oppy." Now I want to see a superdeformed kawaii version of Oppenheimer. Cool to see that they're reading up on history though.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

I left the movie feeling the same dread Cillian was portraying as he contemplates whether his invention really did light the world on fire, but sure, I guess it was a hoora white men movie…even though Truman, Matt Damon’s and RDJ’s characters were all portrayed as some mix of dolt and villain.

Talk about entirely missing the point because you have to view everything through your intersectional/anti colonialist/social justice lens or whatever

 

[E-Cat]

Also, I think it was during an award ceremony or a speech or something in the movie where there was a hallucinatory sequence showing Japanese people buried in ash, or burnt, or something to that effect (sorry, my memory of the scene is sort of hazy) -- I thought that properly conveyed the horror of the effect of the bomb, even though that was not the focus of the movie.

 

[P:axMagellanic]

Imagine if imperial Japan had the bomb... Yeah.

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

Oooft after living in Nagsaki city for a long time I can imagine this movie being a very sensitive issue there. Even though the city has been rebuilt as is now very beautiful, there's still a lot of sensitivity around it, naturally. Atomic Bomb survivors would visit every school each year, from elementary up to high school and give their account and horror story to the kids. The overall message wasn't anti-US, but anti-war. However there probably exists some animosity against America from a section of the older generation as you'd expect. Regardless of if it was the right thing to do or not targeting high civillian areas to push Japan into submission.

 

[DaciaJC]

He added: "The film was made in a way to validate the conclusion that the atomic bomb was used to save the lives of Americans."

Ignoring the film for a moment, I wanted to highlight how silly his statement is. Obviously the bomb was used to save the lives of Americans. The Imperial Japanese government was prepared to fight to the bitter end in defense of the Home Islands, a battle which was estimated to result in hundreds of thousands of American casualties and untold numbers of Japanese deaths. Debate all you want as to the ethics of targeting civilian centers, but trying to frame the use of the bomb as not primarily for accelerating the end of the war and hence avoiding the otherwise inevitable deaths of many more Americans is foolish.

 

[Lukaku's First Touch]

Funny that the 'professor of american studies' (whatever the fuck that might be) is already indoctrinated with that American originated white bashing bullshit. Is that what his studies entail? Reeeee-ing about white males.

Ignoring the film for a moment, I wanted to highlight how silly his statement is. Obviously the bomb was used to save the lives of Americans. The Imperial Japanese government was prepared to fight to the bitter end in defense of the Home Islands, a battle which was estimated to result in hundreds of thousands of American casualties and untold numbers of Japanese deaths. Debate all you want as to the ethics of targeting civilian centers, but trying to frame the use of the bomb as not primarily for accelerating the end of the war and hence avoiding the otherwise inevitable deaths of many more Americans is foolish.

Agreed. Also they were the agressor. They would've nuked the whole of America if they could've back then. Sadly for them, white male privilige (American studies curiculum) beat them to it.

 

[Cha]

Oh hey, it actually released. Kinda afraid to see it now. The subs better be accurate.

In all honesty I was expecting to see these sort of opinions when/if the movie dropped. As pointed out above, some certainly seem to be vocalisations of harboured resentment to events past (and a bit racey).

But can we just think of how much it must weigh on a Japanese critics' mind to offer genuine praise to a movie that deals with such touchy subject matter. It's gonna be hard to separate the quality of a film from it's historical impact on the people. I think that unfortunately, most Japanese media will play it safe and pan the movie, whether it's good or bad. Hats off to anyone that has the nuts to offer an overwhelmingly positive opinion on the film. Good luck tanking the damage from the comments section.

For context, I am in JP. I haven't seen it yet, but I am a tiny bit nervous about what to expect. Unless another Japanese person brings it up first, and shares the same opinion as me, I'm sure as hell not voicing my opinions about the film with anyone other than my wife.

 

[Trilobit]

As I understand Japanese history they were never confronted with their wrong-doings like German people were. Their atrocities in China for example are not taught in schools. They might even see themselves only as victims due to the atombomb. But I might not have the full picture.

I left the movie feeling the same dread Cillian was portraying as he contemplates whether his invention really did light the world on fire

I had to remind myself that I have the benefit of living in a world where nuclear war never happened between past superpowers. Being born in the 50s and having to live under the shadow of nuclear holocaust must have been horrifying. I wonder what the world would look like today if the Cold War had become hot. The nightmares of Oppenheimer would have been the reality of generations to come.

 

[12Goblins]

Are people reading the article? It seems the Japanese audience have a way more understanding and nuanced view than we would ever have were the circumstances be reversed...

 

[IDKFA]

"I was waiting for the Hiroshima bombing scene to appear, but it never did. It’s important to show the full story, including the victims, if we are going to have a future without nuclear weapons,"

I've read Hiroshima by US journalist John Hersey. Possibly one of the most harrowing books I've read. I'd certainly not be keen to see this sort of horror adapted to film.

Adapting this event into film won't bring us closer to a world without nuclear weapons. The US, Russia or UK etc won't just give up their nuclear weapons because of a historical movie. That's nonsense.

 

[Morrie’s wig shop]

If the US had the bomb in time, or the war dragged out longer, would the US have used nuclear weapons on Nazi Germany?

I doubt it, honestly. They would probably use the excuse of Germany being surrounded by other countries on the mainland and Japan being an island nation. And let’s be honest, 1940s’ US would have pity on the Nazi before the Japanese, just taking a guess here.

But if the bomb was late/not gonna be used. After the fall of Berlin half the US Army in Europe was on orders to meet the Navy and Marines in the Pacific for the invasion of Japan (Operation Downfall) which was going to be a very real thing.
Estimated casualties.. up to 4 million, fucking mind numbing.

 

[AJUMP23]

Imagine if imperial Japan had the bomb... Yeah.

They would have used it on China first.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

Oppenheimer is our POV character, and he wasn't there when the bombs dropped. Showing them going off in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would've been superfluous to the story the movie was trying to tell.

Arguably it would've been MORE exploitative if they'd shown it, since it's only purpose in this particular story would've been for spectacle or trying to traumatize the audience with an experience Oppenheimer himself never had in order to get us an approximation of what he felt. But the movie achieved that through its acting and other ways. No violent spectacle needed.

 

[Porcile]

I watched it in Tokyo IMAX. The cinema was about 1/10th full if that. Actual bomba.

 

[Porcile]

Maybe I just missed the point but except for that fact that he just loved science and was really good at it (which was never dwelled upon,) the big question for me was why a guy with socialist views, but less concerned with economics and more about the humanist side like Charlie Chaplin, persued building the bomb with such fervour to the extent of designing an entire town to it, and gathering all his mates to help build it too? And they all celebrated each milestone that obviously got them closer to dropping it on people. I know it was originally designed for the Nazi Germany but still their motivations felt razor thin especially when they were all dragged through the mud for being politically left leaning especially Oppenheimer. The only person who put morals above money was Einstein. Perhaps it was just hard to express in a movie, and characters with depth aren't exactly Nolan's strong point.

 

[King Dazzar]

-A significant number of viewers basically have no idea about what actually happened in WW2.

Yet to see this, but its on my 4k wishlist. Regardless, this showing in Japan does remind me of showing my then East German girlfriend Schindlers List. A film she insisted she wanted to watch. I did say, not sure you're going to enjoy this. But she insisted. Having done her education in the 70's & 80's in east Germany, under soviet control she was ignorant to a lot of the war and about the holocaust and Germany's involvement. Anyway, film went down like the Titanic. About halfway into the film she started getting really upset and going mental at me. I just said hey I'm British dont take it out on me. I did use to pick em. She was smoking hot though....

 

[Tams]

Good to see that a significant number of Japanese people are not naïve about atomic weapons.

I didn't really get a chance to discuss the issue despite living in Japan for years. Unless you're calling for nuclear disarmament and naïve world peace or the like, it's a taboo subject.

I've been to both museums. I know it's crass to say this, but while moving and incredibly importantly showing the horrors that happened, there is a complete lack of context and an immense naivety as to, well human nature. Especially given some of the absolute horrors that Imperial Japan committed.

During my time there, I did see one instance of how little they seemed to care or even know of the context. A British war memorial had been moved due to land being developed. Fair enough, but they kept it in 'storage' for years. The British embassy sent a rather stern letter, to all intents and purposes demanding a new site be found, but even after being asked my opinion on the tone of the letter, the local government pretty much blew it off.

Anyway, back on topic. It's a biopic called 'Oppenheimer', not a docu-drama called 'Little Boy and Fat Man'. Either this hasn't been communicated well in Japan, or their ignorance (and perhaps being misled) has led to thing otherwise.

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

Good to see that a significant number of Japanese people are not naïve about atomic weapons.

I didn't really get a chance to discuss the issue despite living in Japan for years. Unless you're calling for nuclear disarmament and naïve world peace or the like, it's a taboo subject.

I've been to both museums. I know it's crass to say this, but while moving and incredibly importantly showing the horrors that happened, there is a complete lack of context and an immense naivety as to, well human nature. Especially given some of the absolute horrors that Imperial Japan committed.

During my time there, I did see one instance of how little they seemed to care or even know of the context. A British war memorial had been moved due to land being developed. Fair enough, but they kept it in 'storage' for years. The British embassy sent a rather stern letter, to all intents and purposes demanding a new site be found, but even after as my opinion on the tone of the letter, the local government pretty much blew it off.

They don't have to listen to the British Embassy. My two cents..

 

[Tams]

Personally that's their own country, they don't have to listen to the British Embassy. That's my two cents..

They don't, but if you want to maintain and nuture good diplomatic ties, it's perhaps, just maybe, a good idea to respect memorials to people your forebears tortured and humiliated.

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

They don't, but if you want to maintain and nuture good diplomatic ties, it's perhaps, just maybe, a good idea to respect memorials to people your forebears tortured and humiliated.

And when the British was an Empire, they didn't do the same? But I'll just drop the subject since this goes under politics

 

[Tams]

And when the British was an Empire, they didn't do the same? But I'll just drop the subject since this goes under politics

Show one instance where the UK has 'put into storage' a memorial or the like in the UK or abroad to British atrocities.

And then think about if the UK, or any other country apart from Nazi Germany, has committed horrors like Nanking, the Burma Railway, Unit 731, Okinawa, etc. in the 'modern' age where they absolutely knew better.

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

Show one instance where the UK has 'put into storage' a memorial or the like in the UK or abroad to British atrocities.

And then think about if the UK, or any other country apart from Nazi Germany, has committed horrors like Nanking, the Burma Railway, Unit 731, Okinawa, etc. in the 'modern' age where they absolutely knew better.

 

[EviLore]

Yet to see this, but its on my 4k wishlist. Regardless, this showing in Japan does remind me of showing my then East German girlfriend Schindlers List. A film she insisted she wanted to watch. I did say, not sure you're going to enjoy this. But she insisted. Having done her education in the 70's & 80's in east Germany, under soviet control she was ignorant to a lot of the war and about the holocaust and Germany's involvement. Anyway, film went down like the Titanic. About halfway into the film she started getting really upset and going mental at me. I just said hey I'm British dont take it out on me. I did use to pick em. She was smoking hot though....

We all want to be the good guys at the end of the day, huh.

 

[bender]

We all want to be the good guys at the end of the day, huh.

 

[King Dazzar]

We all want to be the good guys at the end of the day, huh.

Hmm, maybe. At that particular moment, I was glad not to be German lol. I look back on it with a sense of humour too, but more seriously it was my first really eye opening moment as to how unaware people can be of their own countries history. And of course the parallel with some of what you were covering/discovering with Japan. Which I'm surprised by tbh. But also for me, interestingly how much the then soviet controlled Eastern side of the wall, clearly was busy simply erasing uncomfortable major elements of the past by just ignoring it all together. A reminder I guess too of how much we can take for granted, open education.

Cheers for the glimpse into Japan's reaction...

 

[wondermega]

Maybe I just missed the point but except for that fact that he just loved science and was really good at it (which was never dwelled upon,) the big question for me was why a guy with socialist views, but less concerned with economics and more about the humanist side like Charlie Chaplin, persued building the bomb with such fervour to the extent of designing an entire town to it, and gathering all his mates to help build it too? And they all celebrated each milestone that obviously got them closer to dropping it on people. I know it was originally designed for the Nazi Germany but still their motivations felt razor thin especially when they were all dragged through the mud for being politically left leaning especially Oppenheimer. The only person who put morals above money was Einstein. Perhaps it was just hard to express in a movie, and characters with depth aren't exactly Nolan's strong point.

Those men were building what they believed to be "the end of all wars" essentially. The atomic bombs were seen as "mutually assured destruction," and once that breakthrough would occur (development of a weapon so powerful that it would mean potentially the absolute obliteration of everything), it would signal the end of an arms race since each side would have (by that point, or eventually) the ability to do that, effectively nullifying the potential that it would ever come to that (if a superpower ever fired a weapon of such destructive capability, it would mean the end of the world for EVERYONE, and no one logical wants that).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

"Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy which posits that a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by an attacker on a nuclear-armed defender with second-strike capabilities would result in the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.[1] It is based on the theory of rational deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.

The result is nuclear peace, in which the presence of nuclear weapons decreases the risk of crisis escalation, since parties will seek to avoid situations that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. Proponents of nuclear peace theory therefore believe that controlled nuclear proliferation may be beneficial for global stability. Critics argue that nuclear proliferation increases the chance of nuclear war through either deliberate or inadvertent use of nuclear weapons, as well as the likelihood of nuclear material falling into the hands of violent non-state actors."

 

[near]

Japan and war crime denial go hand in hand. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if this film made no sense to an average Japanese filmgoer.

I don't know why but this had me chuckle: "The three hours of being embarrassed by the erotica that came in between were not painful, but just plain fun." Now I know why that pointless scene is in the film. Tenet level thinking from Sir Christopher Nolan.

 

[Draugoth]

It was a good movie, but i think Christopher Nolan is at hist best when making science fiction.

Imagine if imperial Japan had the bomb... Yeah.

They would bomb chinese villages just because Americans counter attacked, it was horrifying.

 

[Porcile]

Those men were building what they believed to be "the end of all wars" essentially. The atomic bombs were seen as "mutually assured destruction," and once that breakthrough would occur (development of a weapon so powerful that it would mean potentially the absolute obliteration of everything), it would signal the end of an arms race since each side would have (by that point, or eventually) the ability to do that, effectively nullifying the potential that it would ever come to that (if a superpower ever fired a weapon of such destructive capability, it would mean the end of the world for EVERYONE, and no one logical wants that).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

"Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy which posits that a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by an attacker on a nuclear-armed defender with second-strike capabilities would result in the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.[1] It is based on the theory of rational deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.

The result is nuclear peace, in which the presence of nuclear weapons decreases the risk of crisis escalation, since parties will seek to avoid situations that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. Proponents of nuclear peace theory therefore believe that controlled nuclear proliferation may be beneficial for global stability. Critics argue that nuclear proliferation increases the chance of nuclear war through either deliberate or inadvertent use of nuclear weapons, as well as the likelihood of nuclear material falling into the hands of violent non-state actors."

Bro I have played Metal Gear Solid. Don't need a Wikipedia article.

And that's the problem I had with the film, the characters actual motivations at times seemed razor thin but that's biopics in general for you. It's not a problem isolated to just this film.

 

[Dacvak]

I’m just here to compliment that perfect ASCII emoji in the title

 

[cash_longfellow]

You know…I watched it twice, and I feel like there was wayyyy too much filler. The movie was decent I suppose, but this was definitely Nolan’s weakest movie by far. It’s cool to get a more personal view of Oppenheimer, but the direction just didn’t work for me with this one.

Edit - Of course this is strictly my film viewpoint. I would never once consider discounting what happened to those two cities in Japan, and the impact it had on humanity as a whole. It led to scary times, and war will never be the same because of it.

 

[ManaByte]

Imagine if imperial Japan had the bomb... Yeah.

 

[ManaByte]

You know…I watched it twice, and I feel like there was wayyyy too much filler. The movie was decent I suppose, but this was definitely Nolan’s weakest movie by far. It’s cool to get a more personal view of Oppenheimer, but the direction just didn’t work for me with this one.

Edit - Of course this is strictly my film viewpoint. I would never once consider discounting what happened to those two cities in Japan, and the impact it had on humanity as a whole. It led to scary times, and war will never be the same because of it.

I love the movie, but the first 25% can be skimmed through. Basically just skip up until Florence Pugh's character dies and from that point on it's perfect.

The movie literally has a character look into the camera and explain why they had to use the bomb and people miss it.

 

[cash_longfellow]

I love the movie, but the first 25% can be skimmed through. Basically just skip up until Florence Pugh's character dies and from that point on it's perfect.

The movie literally has a character look into the camera and explain why they had to use the bomb and people miss it.

That makes a lot of sense! Both times I watched it just felt like there was way too much filler, especially at the beginning. I know it’s important to paint a full picture of the history and lead up for Oppenheimer, but it just dragged on for too long. Ultimately,
Nolan did paint a good portrait of what is most likely the most important (and one of the saddest) moments in the history of mankind. I’ll probably revisit it after a bit with a clear slate. I mean, I don’t hate it. It just seems off to me.

 

[DKehoe]

I love the movie, but the first 25% can be skimmed through. Basically just skip up until Florence Pugh's character dies and from that point on it's perfect.

The movie literally has a character look into the camera and explain why they had to use the bomb and people miss it.

 

[Winter John]

Has anyone seen the Chinese version? It’s weird as fuck. They added a laugh track.