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.
Not necessarily hate, but did not like as much as the rest of the internet: Oppenheimer
The moment I left the theater, I thought it should have been longer. Yes, I think an already 3hr film should be even longer. Just torture the audience at this point. But I thought that there was just so much stuff to cram into that 3hr length, there was not enough room for the story to breath, even if those stories were needed to paint a better picture of Oppenheimer’s life, morals, and conflicts.
I’d still recommend it to people. If anything, it’s still a visually well directed film. But if you aren’t a physics/history buff, you might not enjoy the story as much.
In my opinion, a better history based movie would be The Imitation Game. Much more focused story, even if some aren’t historically accurate.
Admittedly I haven’t watched it, but at this point wouldn’t it be a better idea to divide it into two parts?
It would, but it also probably would be a bad idea to do so. How many people would come back for a part 2 of a documentary film? I think not a lot.