Rules: explain why

Ready player one.

That has to be one of the cringiest movies I’ve seen, is tries so hard, too hard with it’s “WE LOVE YOU NERD, YOU’RE SO COOL FOR PLAYING GAMES AND GETTING THIS 80S REFERENCE” message and the whole “corporation bad, the people good” narrative seems written for toddlers… The fan service feels cheap and adds nothing to the story.

Finally, they trying to make the people believe that very attractive girl with a barely visible red tint spot on her face is “ugly”… Like wtf?

Yet it received decent reviews plus being one of the most successful movies of that year.

  • Agent641@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    Oppenheimer.

    It’s probably an interesting movie, but holy shit each shot is less than 3 seconds long and it just cuts around to different camera angles every 3 seconds for 2 hours…

    Not only was this making me feel physically sick and disoriented, but this erodes tension in the film and is completely unnecessary. You don’t need 14 shots of someone walking down a damn hallway or having a think, you need one (1).

    Take all that shit out and you’re probably left with a story worth actually telling.

    • wildcardology@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      They must have learned from cocomelon where in order to retain a toddler’s attention they have to switch scenes every 3 seconds.

    • blarth@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      I love Christopher Nolan.

      Interstellar and Inception are my two favorite movies.

      Oppenheimer and Dunkirk are the two most boring movies I’ve ever seen.

    • Tedesche@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I agree. It succeeded as a history lesson, but part of that success was it being boring as fuck.

      Felt the same way about Contagion. Very realistic depiction of how a pandemic plays out. And I cared about exactly zero characters and can’t even really remember what happens because it’s narrative was totally un-gripping.

    • Sir_Premiumhengst@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Hear hear. And the explosion was so fucking lame. Like why was the soot in the flames? We know what a plasma looks like. Heck, we even know exactly how that very bomb looked like when it exploded (cf. picture attached). It could have been an otherworldly experience akin to the well researched and well simulated black hole in Interstellar…

      But no. We got gasoline. On fire. In an otherwise dizziness inducing and plain boring movie.

      Edit. Looks like in struggling to attache a screen cap so I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to googelidoodeli “atomic bomb plasma”

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah, he supposedly wanted to make sure the bomb was a practical effect because he thought that would look better. Neglecting the simple fact that you cannot do a practical atomic bomb explosion for your movie, and that gasoline is not a nuclear bomb.

        • Sir_Premiumhengst@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Don’t know how feasible, but I would have loved the idea of licensing the original footage and “restoring” it as best as possible with some tasteful CGI…

    • LotrOrc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I agree with this. I went to see it with my dad and girlfriend. Brighter than a 1000 suns is a phenomenal book about the entire project and both my dad and I were excited to see it

      The science and history were poorly handled and the movie did not need to be 3 hours long. Could have been an easy 1:45 and it would have hit the plots