the saddest thing is how low our boy Rekkie`s trolling game has dropped through out the years 
"Oppenheimer" Reviews Discussion
Here's the snippet of the review that just brought the RT score down to 93%:
Also, why in the goddamn shit is Armond White still being counted on review aggregate sites?
Also, why in the goddamn shit is Armond White still being counted on review aggregate sites?
Posts: 1230
Joined:
January 2019
Nice to have proof RT is a garbage website.
Sorry for my french... I don't give a f*** 
Is still at 94%.
Is still at 94%.
I don't care that much either, I just find it a little interesting with so many rave reviews to focus on the negative ones to see what people didn't like. There are some legitimate, understandable concerns in there, but out of a mere 27 negatives, there are at least a few objectively shitty and ridiculous excuses for a movie critic among them.Also, yes, I refreshed shortly after and it went back to 94 lol.
Looking/reading some of the "rotten" reviews and many are not really interested in actually reviewing the movie, but attacking it based on their personal politics.
Also, Rotten Tomatoes needs to have some kind of standards and stop letting any schmoe with movie website post reviews on their site.
P.S. I still say Brody is a pompous ass.
Also, Rotten Tomatoes needs to have some kind of standards and stop letting any schmoe with movie website post reviews on their site.
P.S. I still say Brody is a pompous ass.
Like women saying they look fat in a dress ("Oh, no, no, no, honey...")?
Huh. Sneaky bastard.
Posts: 1439
Joined:
October 2019
Posts: 285
Joined:
March 2022
I came across one VLOG of Oppenheimer that I've gotta break down somewhat because it's been on my mind due to how awful it was. Here's the link for anyone morbidly curious:
Lemme list off the things said:
1. He opens by saying that although Nolan is brilliant, he has been going up his own ass with each film and whilst he tries to say a thing or two about "actors like working with him and they took a pay cut" he also says that Nolan "chose to release Tenet during a pandemic", which is sneaky wording but clearly said as an attack on his character (plus it's very one sided and not even fully true), which in a movie review of this specific film is pretty unprofessional and off the point. But okay, you could maybe argue in favour of this. However, after some compliments about the film and saying it's overall good, he then moves onto his criticisms.
2. He says it didn't need to be 3 hours. But he totally fails at explaining why, with only one argument as to why and that being the Jean/Oppenheimer romance. But he basically makes two different arguments. Argument 1 is "the film didn't need to be 3 hours" and Argument 2 is "I didn't care about this part of the film" He doesn't give any reasons as to why he doesn't care, nor does he explain why this means the film didn't need to be it's length. And again, "I didn't care" isn't enough to back up you saying "It didn't need to be this length" What's also stranger is that there's not even loads of screentime devoted to this aspect, Nolan basically knew that this was just a piece of the puzzle and didn't give it more screentime than needed. If they spent an hour on it I could maybe understand, but there's not. And overall that point totally fails.
3. He wastes time instead talking about the sex scene and he totally fails to connect it to anything else in the video, merely calling it dumb. He had the time to detail his argument and instead just went with a criticism that's easy to do and very insubstantially argued.
4. In maybe his worst point of all, he basically argued that Nolan shooting the film in IMAX was "pretentious" because it A) worked fine for him in a regular showing and B) he saw an image or two of the film's IMAX showing and to him it didn't look like it was worth it. As someone who saw the film in IMAX, I've got more of a grounds to judge it than he does and saying that Oppenheimer didn't need to be shot in IMAX is a strange argument anyway, but I'd be able to let it slide if he actually saw it in IMAX. It very much comes off as disliking a filmmaker's creative choice and doing so from a limited place. It's a big movie that spans many years, it's directed with a sense of energy and propulsion and uses both the editing and the visuals to grip the audience.
5. He then brings up how he felt the film could have addressed the Native American aspect of Los Alamos more than it did. And this isn't really given much backing so it feels a little nitpicky, but I have more of an issue with the fact that he then swerves to say "I didn't like it when Oppenheimer asks Truman to give Native Americans back their land, because it's irradiated so it's not gonna be good for them you jerk!" Which not only doesn't connect to what he said about thinking the film should have addressed it more so, but also is bizzare because not only does that moment have perfect context (being after he's felt a sense of guilt for the bomb's death toll, plus being the opposite of his kinda dismissive attitude about the important of that area to that group earlier in the film) but in his positives about the movie he says the film allows you to make up your own mind about whether Oppenheimer was a good person or not and gives evidence for and against either viewpoint. So why would it be an issue for him to be unsympathetic and clueless? And if it's not an issue, why are you even saying that?
6. Finally he brings up the sound mixing and this is the thing I can disagree least on since for me it wasn't an issue but it could be for others. There's nothing substantially bad about this argument but it again feels overtaken by personal bias.
I like the guy who made the VLOG, I think most of Sean's reviews are well done and well argued, but fucking hell was this just a really poor video (it's also clearly scripted and edited too, no excuse that he's speaking off the cuff and even if it was improvised then edited together, the end result is still poor) regardless of whether you like the film or not. Yes he makes some compliments towards the film but they just aren't enough to salvage it.
TL;DR This Vlog of Oppenheimer makes a set of incoherent arguments as to why it's not a "great" film. It feels very poorly worded and overtaken by a rather negative bias that leads to points that make no sense.
Lemme list off the things said:
1. He opens by saying that although Nolan is brilliant, he has been going up his own ass with each film and whilst he tries to say a thing or two about "actors like working with him and they took a pay cut" he also says that Nolan "chose to release Tenet during a pandemic", which is sneaky wording but clearly said as an attack on his character (plus it's very one sided and not even fully true), which in a movie review of this specific film is pretty unprofessional and off the point. But okay, you could maybe argue in favour of this. However, after some compliments about the film and saying it's overall good, he then moves onto his criticisms.
2. He says it didn't need to be 3 hours. But he totally fails at explaining why, with only one argument as to why and that being the Jean/Oppenheimer romance. But he basically makes two different arguments. Argument 1 is "the film didn't need to be 3 hours" and Argument 2 is "I didn't care about this part of the film" He doesn't give any reasons as to why he doesn't care, nor does he explain why this means the film didn't need to be it's length. And again, "I didn't care" isn't enough to back up you saying "It didn't need to be this length" What's also stranger is that there's not even loads of screentime devoted to this aspect, Nolan basically knew that this was just a piece of the puzzle and didn't give it more screentime than needed. If they spent an hour on it I could maybe understand, but there's not. And overall that point totally fails.
3. He wastes time instead talking about the sex scene and he totally fails to connect it to anything else in the video, merely calling it dumb. He had the time to detail his argument and instead just went with a criticism that's easy to do and very insubstantially argued.
4. In maybe his worst point of all, he basically argued that Nolan shooting the film in IMAX was "pretentious" because it A) worked fine for him in a regular showing and B) he saw an image or two of the film's IMAX showing and to him it didn't look like it was worth it. As someone who saw the film in IMAX, I've got more of a grounds to judge it than he does and saying that Oppenheimer didn't need to be shot in IMAX is a strange argument anyway, but I'd be able to let it slide if he actually saw it in IMAX. It very much comes off as disliking a filmmaker's creative choice and doing so from a limited place. It's a big movie that spans many years, it's directed with a sense of energy and propulsion and uses both the editing and the visuals to grip the audience.
5. He then brings up how he felt the film could have addressed the Native American aspect of Los Alamos more than it did. And this isn't really given much backing so it feels a little nitpicky, but I have more of an issue with the fact that he then swerves to say "I didn't like it when Oppenheimer asks Truman to give Native Americans back their land, because it's irradiated so it's not gonna be good for them you jerk!" Which not only doesn't connect to what he said about thinking the film should have addressed it more so, but also is bizzare because not only does that moment have perfect context (being after he's felt a sense of guilt for the bomb's death toll, plus being the opposite of his kinda dismissive attitude about the important of that area to that group earlier in the film) but in his positives about the movie he says the film allows you to make up your own mind about whether Oppenheimer was a good person or not and gives evidence for and against either viewpoint. So why would it be an issue for him to be unsympathetic and clueless? And if it's not an issue, why are you even saying that?
6. Finally he brings up the sound mixing and this is the thing I can disagree least on since for me it wasn't an issue but it could be for others. There's nothing substantially bad about this argument but it again feels overtaken by personal bias.
I like the guy who made the VLOG, I think most of Sean's reviews are well done and well argued, but fucking hell was this just a really poor video (it's also clearly scripted and edited too, no excuse that he's speaking off the cuff and even if it was improvised then edited together, the end result is still poor) regardless of whether you like the film or not. Yes he makes some compliments towards the film but they just aren't enough to salvage it.
TL;DR This Vlog of Oppenheimer makes a set of incoherent arguments as to why it's not a "great" film. It feels very poorly worded and overtaken by a rather negative bias that leads to points that make no sense.
