UKC

Oppenheimer has come away with all the awards at the BAFTAs and Barbie has received NONE. I’m baffled because I thought Barbie was the better movie on all counts. Oppenheimer grossly overlength (with very poor, messy first 40 minutes, picked up in the second half), not cinematically great, whereas Barbie was something of a masterpiece, both very intelligent and very witty and entertaining at the same time, and technically exquisite. Oppenheimer a 3-star movie, really (4 if you’re feeling very generous). Barbie for me, a rare thing, a straight 5-star job. Yet it’s being snubbed. I guess people are put off /prejudiced by the subject matter, and so don’t bother to go and see it.

I wasn't as impressed with Oppenheimer as I expected to be. I agree with you that it was overlong, and I don't like the sound mix / heavy score in many of Nolan's movies that make hearing the dialogue quite difficult for me (and I have really acute hearing). I really wanted sub-titles in Oppenheimer, but alas couldn't find any. And in any case, I really shouldn't be having to look for sub-titles in a 21st century movie in my native language.

I loved Barbie, as you say it was very intelligent and witty, with so many homages to other movies, books, culture. And pink!

I just thought it was a very disappointing film; had its odd moment, but generally turgid, tedious and plain naff in parts. And for me it declined into muddled incomprehensibility in the second half - no idea what was going on really. I am baffled by all the fuss about it.

Yes, it sounded as if it would be dreadful, but almost everyone I know seems to have loved it. I really wish I had gone to see it now.

I haven't seen oppenheimer so cant comment on it. I tried Barbie on a recent flight but switched off after 30 mins or so. Perhaps I need to try again when it gets to TV.

Likewise for me, also on a flight. I don't think I lasted more than 20 mins before switching to watch something interesting instead.

Curiously, it gets a score of only 6.9 on IMDB, which is very mediocre indeed for a pop culture blockbuster with Oscar aspirations.

Exactly. Oppenheimer is pseudo-deep and hence allows people to feel clever, despite being nothing of the sort and a bit of a bloated mess.

Barbie on the other hand is pure shameless fun, and actually is a bit clever underneath. Plus it’s the perfect length for a film - under two hours!

It’s on streaming services now FYI

I stayed the distance with Barbie but was bored well before the end. In contrast, Oppenheimer engrossed me from start to finish. 

I knew the story very well so picked up many details that would have passed most people by, I guess, such as Feynman's actions during the bomb test, and was intrigued by others, such as how the relationship between Groves and Oppenheimer would be played. 

As for Barbie, I had no such connection. It just didn't raise a flicker of interest for me, however clever it might be as a piece of cinema.

I see a few films, but I'm not the film buff, and possibly being thick, I don't understand your acronym IMDB, so please enlighten the ignorant amongst us.

I've heard similar things about both films, elsewhere, but actually will try to see Oppenheimer now it's in the headlights again, just so that I can see.

In the last week, I have seen both the Bob Marley film (and unlike some, I will watch it again, as although no non-Jamaican will understand all the patter, I knew that beforehand), and the Jodie Comer film, The end we start from, and the latter left me feeling that it did not hold true, and needed parts blending in, in a better way. Nevertheless, I would watch it again, as it was interesting, and had better reviews than my feelings. The ending, when it came felt like a pause, before the final part.

International Movie DataBase. The most comprehensive and most referenced online film information resource, as far I'm aware.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1517268/

I watched the Oppenheimer documentary a few weeks before which was fine, I think that was on Netflix. The film, was way overlong, like quite a few recently and could have been much better with a keen edit. Barbie was fun and kitsch, the colours were like a budget Wes Anderson copy which was cool. Again, overall it was ok but like Oppenheimer, I doubt I’d watch it again.

Thank you

There's only 1 mature and sensible way to know the winner between the two for sure, that's to get the cast from each and get them to FIGHT!!

Would have been much more entertaining if the first film showed how Barbie developed a nuclear weapon, maybe a pink one? And Mr O married Ken and got into a whole load of just hilarious scrapes....

The bomb making bit was ok (though I never even registered Feynman), but the love story and the psychological stuff seemed so shallow and unconvincing. As for all the post war stuff, I just had little idea what was going on (the whole black and white strand was completely lost on me and I was left with absolutely no idea of the significance of the scene by a pond with Einstein which kept getting repeated). Part of the problem was that I often couldn't work out who was who when they reappeared in different strands of the film.

So maybe it would have made more sense if I had known the post war story in advance (though if I had known how much of the focus of the film was going to be on all that stuff I might not have bothered seeing it at all!).

And as for comically wasting the "I am become death....." speech on a sex scene, WTF was Nolan thinking? Farcically awful.

Since  John Cena was in Barbie, I'm not sure Cillian Murphy stands much of a chance

I haven't seen either but was amused to hear from the set designers that Barbie completely cleaned out supplies of pink paint. My other observation: what a CV Samantha Morton has.

As Austen wrote: “One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other.”

As it happens, I might see my only fully paid-up luvvie BAFTA member climbing friend this weekend - I’ll ask him!

Probably a contender for oldest continuously running website. I remember looking at the site in the mid '90s when it was run on Cardiff University web servers as an amateur operation. 

Impressive. I just looked it up and it started back in 1990!

I also need to correct the name of it, which I got slightly wrong earlier:

IMDb - Internet Movie Database

we shouldn't underestimate Barbie.  I believe she is distantly related to Ada, Lady Lovelace who pretty well invented computer programming single handedly.  Barbie was the brains behind the Apple II and the BBC Micro as well, and wrote DOS as a summer project.

Oppenheimer, I preferred by far the rather more detailed and well paced BBC series around 1980

Yes remember it fondly, I've still got the book published by the BBC to accompany it.

The recent film, a lot of dialogue inaudible, very annoying although overall I thought it worthwhile. The postwar bit was necessary given that it was called Oppenheimer not the Manhattan Project. 

I also enjoyed Barbie, especially the set designs and the colour grading of the whole project. Maybe I'm channelling my Kenergy a bit too much and the whole film frightened the male dominant film world and they probably got the meaning of mansplaining which hit a nerve or two?

Not seen Oppenheimer as I don't want to spend several hours of my life when I nkew the bomb went boom. Its like getting those three hours of my life back from watching the Titanic. I knew it sunk. Big spoilers.

Darn you!  you just plot spoiled that film for everyone else 🤣

best you don't watch "snakes on a plane" then either

Why?

What's the film about?

Mainly how you can use the word "motherf*cking" in 700 different ways

The BBC Oppenheimer was on the iPlayer (may well still be there) at the time the film was out.  Excellent and repaid rewatching.

Funny year 2023, only two films were released?

I haven't seen Oppenheimer but I have seen Barbie and enjoyed it. What we're really talking about here though, is what films win awards. I know these two were paired against each other because they opened on the same weekend, but beyond sales, I find making other comparisons quite tough. Please pardon my lack of knowledge in the world of cinema, as I've never worked in the film industry. However, for what its worth I do have an opinion. Although Barbie is a social commentary and touches on serious topics, upon first glance it's quite superficial. The headline is that this is a film about a child's toy, and therefore almost automatically not awards material. The kinds of films that win these types of awards are usually required to cover serious historical topics, and Oppenheimer obviously puts this front and center, and therefore given it's budget and no one messed up is almost a shoe in for nomination at least. Other types of films that tend to be nominated for the biggest awards are considered ground breaking in some way, Jurassic Park for CGI say, or are about the film industry itself, The Artist for example. I feel it's also important to look at what personnel were involved in Oppenheimer and Barbie, and although neither could be considered a British film, both being produced by big Hollywood studios, Oppenheimer is lined with Brits in prominent positions, whereas Barbie not so much. This is an issue for Barbie as Bafta have long since favored their own in championing the best of British within the industry. Also the timing of these awards is worth a mention, Bafta positioned as it is before the Oscars, has the opportunity to sway opinion over the pond, which to my mind it attempts most years.

I am probably in the minority here but I despised Barbie. I hated everything about it. I managed to get through it but found it irritating and annoying. I was surprised it was nominated for anything. Maybe something to do with the fact I hate the colour pink. 

Oppenheimer on the other hand was an absolute masterpiece. I loved everything about it. I saw it at the cinema and the film flew by and I was surprised when it ended. 

Each to their own view I guess. 
 

Absolutely spot on. The award givers need to show how very intelligent they are so the smiley wit and dialogue of pink toys was never going to trump a bunch of mumbling physicists. 

We also know that the public's choice rarely coincides with the awards. I remember being bored rigid by Oscar winner Moonlight. 

So we keep getting told. But what actually was good about it?

Helpful if you fancy a nap (yes I saw it at the cinema, on 65 mm film no less, and it dragged)

Well it was better than Napoleon!

1) The acting, particularly Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey;

2) The cinematography;

3) The sound and the score;

4) The complex narrative structure typical of Nolan.

Apparently, for some viewers (3) translates to "I couldn't hear the mumbling" and (4)  equals "I couldn't understand what was going on"

ETA: I was relieved I could hear the dialogue in Oppenheimer despite my advancing years as I'm heading off to Lundy again in September. I wouldn't want to be run out on a windy sea cliff with the waves crashing below while my partner bellowed up at me  if I'd been struggling in Cineworld.

As you know, I very much enjoyed Oppenheimer. Maybe it's only good if you're interested enough in what it has to say and know enough about that to appreciate being reminded of all the nuances in the tail being told, while finding that the details by and large concur with what you know, so that nothing jars. It's more that than any abstract appreciation of cinematography or whatnot. And vice-versa for Barbie, while others may find it the other way around.

As to why Oppenheimer sweeps the  awards while Barbie doesn't, well I don't know why, or whether it is fair. It depends what they are looking for anywho is doing the looking. I don't really care about who wins what at awards.

Robert I honestly recommend The Holdovers it's truly excellent. Paul Giamatti plays a grumpy old teacher.

You’re right I think that the main reason an Oppenheimer-type movie wins these awards is all to do with it having “serious content”, as judged by critics. BAFTA members are predominantly critics and movie buffs (i.e. spectators), as opposed to film makers (i.e. creators) - I think. The former are mostly concerned with content and have little interest in cinema as art/cinematography as such i.e. the film form. For me, as a film-maker, Barbie was a piece of pure cinema in the full sense whereas Oppenheimer was undistinguished cinematographically. (Mundane, plodding and unadventurous as a piece of visual story telling) I suppose that’s simply another way of saying it’s a matter of taste.  i.e. film content v film form (I’m not saying one viewpoint is superior to the other). For me a movie can be about almost anything, as I’m really only interested in how good it is as a movie.

PS. Also, if I remember rightly, I found the Oppenheimer score pretty dreadful and overwhelmingly relentless.

So is what you are saying is that it is great story telling? I admit I knew nothing about all the post war communist stuff and really have little interest in it, but I went to see it because I know a bit about and was interested in the physics and the Manhattan project. But all that bit left me cold too. I suppose what I want from a film is emotional impact; I wanted to see a man struggling with the having created the bomb, but that side of it was just so disappointing. To be generous, I thought the film just tried to be too many things and so ended up shallow on all of them. Maybe another couple of hours and it could have been good!

Have you seen Maestro, which seems to be missing out on all the awards? The only film other than Oppenheimer I saw in the cinema last year (though that was largely because of a slight family connection; my parents, as members of the Edinburgh Festival Chorus, took part in the celebrated performance and recording of Mahler's second symphony in Ely Cathedral in 1973 which forms the musical centerpiece of the film, and I vaguely remember being looked after by my grandparents during the days of rehearsal and the performance). I thought it was great, infinitely better than Oppenheimer. I did wonder whether it would ring true with people who really know about music,  but my sister who is a proper musician says that her musician friends really rate it.

Yes, I’ve seen Maestro. Thought it a pretty good film; maybe worthy of 4 stars. Very good performances, etc. And probably a fairly true picture of Bernstein. Snag with the whole picture, though, for me was that Bernstein was quite an unattractive character really. So it was a movie I couldn’t enjoy much, even though it was very well done. (And pretty good as a movie. )

I have explained twice it was called Oppenheimer NOT The Manhattan Project, it was about a talented man, deeply disturbed by what he had helped develop and then crucially, the bit you keep telling us you couldn't follow, his shabby treatment by the political right and his ultimate redemption as attitudes changed.

The music was too loud, my German girlfriend benefited hugely because we saw it in Koln in English with German subtitles.

Yes, but I thought it was quite well balanced about him; perhaps the whole point of the film?

Yes, I get that now, but, as I said, I thought all the bomb stuff and its effect on him was dealt with poorly anyway.

Yes, it was the point of the film, and of course someone with two sides to them is more interesting than a straight nice guy. I just wish I could have warmed to him a bit more.

I just checked with my sister who is also a musician and played in the Ely Cathedral Mahler performance for the movie. She says most of her musician friends think it's good, though she wishes there had been a bit more on Bernstein's musical genius.

Shamefully I haven't actually seen it yet, but given that Mahler 2 is one of my favourite symphonies and there is a brief glimpse of my sister in it, I really need to!

100% agreement from me. 
Against my better judgement I went to this film with some friends. Anticipated a problem hearing dialogue so, in view of the film’s ridiculous length I put a Kindle in my pocket. 

There was a point in the movie where I thought ‘That’s Feynman!’, but sadly the film didn’t follow him 😂

Seriously though, and I know I’m not very highbrow when it comes to films, the last Mission Impossible, John Wick 4, ok Fitzcarraldo, are all pushing on to the 3 hour mark. Same for my GOAT, Apocalypse Now which is almost a whole day long in some cuts and releases 😍😂. I’ve sat through them all more than once and never thought they were too long.

And, of course, Lawrence of Arabia; nothing wrong with a film being long if it is good enough.

In view of your experience with All of Us Strangers I fear you may have run out of drying paint to watch. This should keep you going for a few more long cinematic hauls:

https://youtu.be/PLOPygVcaVE?si=E-YRHZzXeNyko_kq

'tis but a mere commercial interlude

youtube.com/watch?v=BZvsrOciU_Q&

A captivating film score doesn’t hurt either

Lawrence of Arabia could sustain its length because a) it had a superb script, b) it was superbly cast, c) it had a superb director (Lean), on his top form, d) to suit the grandeur of the subject and locations it was (superbly) shot in 70mm by Freddie Young. OK, I’ve used superb 4 times, but it deserves it.

Yes, it does help being the best film ever made.

I plead guilty to all charges.

However, I do think more films need to help out with old gits like me whose hearing is impaired. There is too much mumbling (seems to pass for acting these days), too much gabbling (at my age I just can’t process very fast speech), and above all too much over loud and over intrusive music. In my opinion film scores are a bit like wicket keepers - it’s not a good thing if you notice them.

To be fair some cinemas do a fair bit to help. Have you asked?

Did you adore Alec and Anthony doing “Arab-face” ?

look out for “closed caption” or “cc” screenings 

I assume you merely mean it’s not winning at Baftas etc, as it as at least nominated for seven Academy Awards (and my money is on Carey Mulligan for Best Actress in a Leading Role) 

As this has turned into a cinema thread rather than a Oppenheimer-Barbie fight, I'll throw Zone of Interest into the ring. I'm not long in from seeing it. Bloody hell. I think it will take me a few days to digest it. It's an absolute masterpiece, in an extremely bad way.

Sorry, yes, it is that Oppenheimer seems to be actually winning all the awards even though I found Maestro the better film in every way.

Got barbied out after 30 minutes. Oppenheimer engrossed  me completely on the other hand.

I've given up on Nolan's films. I don't get to the cinema very often, when I do I'd rather not be struggling to hear the dialogue. 

Thanks for the clarification (sorry for the delay in acknowledging your reply)