DOLLYS BRACES ? 
THE MANDELA EFFECT !

There seems to be a major confusion over whether Blanche Ravalec's character Dolly actually ever wore braces in the original cinematic version of Moonraker or not. 

Yet no evidence of this exists, not on video or Dvd releases. Nevertheless, there are some out there in the internet world, who still remember the theatrical release, who insist that this was the case, despite Blanche Ravalec stating that she never did. 

Regardless of this, forums have cropped up all over the internet in the last few years with numerous individuals concurring that Dolly did in fact have Braces. 

And if you think about it, the scene where they first meet would certainly made more sense (and would have had tons more impact) if she did have braces: and playing back the scene in my own mind where they first meet, Jaws smiles first, revealing those glinting metal chops, then she smiles back with glinting braces but wait ! They're gone! WTF? Could this be the Mandela Effect?

The Mandela effect is supposed to be us remembering traces of alternate time lines, such as certain historical facts being altered (the idea that Nelson Mandela died in prison instead of becoming president) or famous logos like the VW sign that differ today to how we remember them, the changes are usually subtle but enough to make you stop and wonder...
Of course there could be
another reason: 

CENSORSHIP
That's right. Moonraker made tons of money for all concerned and in an age of ever growing paranoia stemming from terrorism and heavily funded witch-hunts over pedophilia, we've seen em bringing down the likes of Jimmy Saville,  Rolf Harris and various top brass at the BBC. 

So its a no brainier that the scene with Dolly and Jaws can only be twisted out of all context, into something conveniently suitable for yet another lawsuit.  

Just look at what happened to Micheal Jackson, yes he was a weirdo but there was not a shred of proof he fiddled those kids and yet he was bled dry in lawsuits.

And when it comes to a very large male hooking up with a very small young girl in pigtails and braces, this is all way too much for today's molly-coddled nanny state, ever too weary to punch the lawsuit button at any given opportunity. 

So it is quite possible that, at some point in the last few years, nervous executives trying to save the dwindling popularity of this movie, most likely had these scenes with Dolly digitally 'altered' for VHS, DVD releases, and later with Blu Ray. 

So roll on 1984. If anything the idea that our history is being erased is not far from the truth, but it is more to do with avoiding (and creating) law suites on a infinite monopoly board, set up by the rich to govern the poor.

ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES -Plot Holes

Filling those plot holes:  

ESCAPE FROM THE 

PLANET OF THE APES 

A Tale of Two Space Crafts. 

Im a big fan of the original Planet of the Apes franchise, particularly part three called 'Escape from the Planet of the Apes', which is one of the best sequels. 

But the rhetoric for how Dr Milo, Zira and Cornelius escaped planet Earths destruction was always a bit fuzzy. 

We get a brief info dump explaining how their pal Dr Milo salvaged Taylors craft (The Icarus) and somehow understood its workings. 

But its still a bit of a stretch. Because up until now, all we've been told about Ape culture is that their technological culture isn't much more advanced than our 16th century Earth with a few nods to the 19th. 

Still, why  let a massive plot hole get in the way of a good franchise? 

So heres my take on all this flaff. 

I guess this is an untold tale about two space crafts, Brents and Taylors, called Liberty 2 and The Icarus. 

Plus Dr. Milo's character is based very much on Leonardo da Vinci and thus a genius.

Just like Cornelius, Milo is a researcher of Apes origins, he's hooked on the idea of an ancient race more advanced than theirs. 

Maybe he's spent years in the Forbidden Zone, studying mans ancient cities and technologies. Maybe some of this stuff still worked and he learned how to use it. Maybe he made human allies there who taught him of mans ingenuity.  

But fearing he would be accused of heresy by the apes, kept quiet about it. 

His biggest find so far however, is Brent's broken space craft, the Liberty 2, laying out in the desert but kept it under wraps in case he got 'disappeared' by Dr Zeus's goon squad. 

Brents ship Liberty 2. 

But then he hears about Cornilius and Zira's 'talking man' and reaches out to them. 

Milo admits he has found a wreck in the desert and shows them photographs. 

They tell him about Brent and Taylor and of Taylors space ship, in the dead lake, that is probably still intact.

And since all three are pursuers of the truth they organise a salvage team, with the idea of putting an end to Dr Zeus's tyranny and clearing their names once and for all.  

The salvage team might have consisted of humans Milo made allies with in the Forbidden Zone and apes of the science caste. 

The time frame for all this suggests this entire operation took place in a matter of weeks.

They raise the Icarus from the lake using inflatables and the desert heat dries it out, which meant it is essentially fully operational again.

And with his notes collected from Brent's ship (and his experiences in the Forbidden Zone), Dr Milo has a basic understanding of how to the Icarus works. 

The only remaining issue was probably the missing hatch, blown off when Taylors crew evacuated the Icarus. Either they found it at the bottom of the lake or used the one off Liberty 2.

Amid its vast array of controls, Milo discovers the "automatic return" button. He has a suspicion this button will do most of the ships thinking for him. 

All he has to do now is strap-in and press it.

Finally the ship is ready to go. All they need now is the courage to test it. 

By this point war has already broken out. All able bodied apes are required to join the troops marching into the Forbidden Zone. 

Taylors ship The Icarus 

Maybe some soldier apes discover Milos group and in the ensuing shoot out, Milo, Zira and Cornelius clamber aboard the Icarus. Dr Milo presses the 

"automatic return" button and the ship takes off into orbit. 

A few moments of brief awe behold them, as they see the Earth from space. Then horror as the planet suddenly lights up in a blaze of light and is destroyed.

Meanwhile the Icarus flight plan sends it back into the time eddies (which I guess surround the solar system in these movies) that sent Taylor and Brent's ships into the future in the first place. 

A few moments later, they see the Earth again intact, by which point the automatic guidance system lands the ship in the pacific coast 1973.  

The rest is history.   

Take it or leave it. Thats my take on how to fill a massive plot hole. 

Or just read “Conspiracy of the Planet of the Apes” by Andrew Gaska.

Which I only found out about five minutes after writing all this. 

DR WHOS GOLDEN GOOSE: THE DALEKS

DR WHO'S GOLDEN GOOSE: 

THE DALEKS 

Isn’t there some saying about killing gooses laying golden eggs? Take the Daleks of Dr Who, for instance.

Dr Who’s bread and butter was the Daleks. It’s a fact. Without them, there would be no Dr Who. But a combination of red-tape, apathy and Spike Milligan, had reduced them to a laughing stock, that caused the series to be cancelled for 15 years. And here’s why.

PAKISTANI DALEKS

The problem stemmed from Spike Milligan making the Daleks the butt of all jokes. Something Dalek creator Terry Nation tried very hard to avoid but was hampered by BBC interference.

Milligan used a genesis Dalek for his Pakistani Dalek sketch in 1975 and likely without Nations consent. But since the BBC owned half the Dalek rights, there was little he could do about it. 

This seemed to have a knock-on effect on future Dalek appearances. By 1979 they were no longer taken seriously.

Several years before Terry Nation had attempted to make the Daleks super-international commodities across the pond, with the idea of launching the Daleks into their own Tv series and get the Americans on board.

But again he was hampered by archaic BBC rules and regulations. Convoluted red-tape meant that the BBC wouldn't release the Daleks from contract.

Yet Spike Milligan could do with them as he pleased.

DOUGLAS ADAMS

Throughout the 1970s, the Daleks were already being reduced to mere dustbins on wheels. And nobody seemed to give a shit.

Destiny of the Daleks is a notable turning point, which gave way to sloppy Daleks throughout the 1980s. Watch any 80s Dalek story and they just looked terrible. Lit badly, shot badly and generally shoddy in appearance due to disrepair. Plus the operators seemed half-asleep.

Gone were the heady days of Dalek Operators such as Robert Jewell, a veteran of the Dalek movies, when Dalekmania was at its zenith.

By the time Destiny Of the Daleks rolled along, Nation was pre-occupied with other projects and showed little interest in Dr Who. 

He submitted a rough unfinished script to the BBC and washed his hands of the affair, leaving it all up to Douglas Adams, who used the opportunity to ‘re-invent’ the Daleks as comical robots. However this idea backfired.

Subsequently, a whole new generation thought Daleks were just machines, only adding to the parody they had become. Overall, the Daleks became stereotypes of themselves.

Not dissing Douglas Adams. He did a great job of Terry Nations story but his comical approach to the Daleks was the shows biggest blunder.

UNPOPULAR WITH ACTORS

Most actors hated working with them, in particular John Pertwee and Peter Davidson. I once trundled up to a red-faced Colin Baker in a Dalek at a Comic Con, where he told me to Bog Off! Peter Davidson was even worse.

Ironic since their entire success was purely because of the Daleks. Without them, there would be no autographs for them to sign.

STEADY DECLINE

Without serious attention paid to the Daleks, Dr Who took a steady decline in the 1980s. Yet nobody considered fixing the problem. Instead, the producers and stars of the show figured celebrity status over Daleks was more important.

In their final screen outing, Remembrance of the Daleks, the Daleks were so so utterly banal, that it made Destiny seem like a blockbuster by comparison.

By now Dr Who was sinking into the abyss and nothing could save it. Not even the Daleks.

By 1989, the decision was finally made to pull the plug. Dr Who was finished.

SHORT SIGHTEDNESS

Being a children's program, there wasn't much call for attention for detail, (at least as far as Daleks were concerned) as these stories were never intended to be televised again.

Typical BBC policy meant a large bulk of early Dr Who stories were actually taped over with Gardeners World. 

Nobody felt that these stories had artistuc value or should be preserved. 

Nor did they think anyone might want to buy a copy of Dr Who episodes on VHS or DVD. 

And no one would have imagined that by the 21st Century, the Daleks would regain stardom after Russell T Davis’s reboot or that Daleks would appear at the Royal Albert Hall.

CONCLUSION

Always look after them geese laying golden eggs.

RFID IMPLANTS

 RFID IMPLANTS 

Imagine the future. No physical cash. No more having to carry loose change around or wallets or credit cards. No more waiting at check outs. No fumbling in your pockets for change. Doors everywhere open automatically as you pass through them, readers read your digital RFID implant and off you go. 

How convenient would that be? 

DOWNSIDES

Perhaps the biggest reason of all. Full government control of your money? To turn if off at will?

Look at it this way.

What does the gas company do if you don't pay your gas bill? They turn it off.

Now imagine you're behind with your mortgage repayments. They turn off your life. Literally. With no access to your bank you wont be able to pass through those automatic doors anywhere. No money to buy food or clothing or pay those bills.

CASH VS E-CASH

Horses for Courses:

CASH VS E-CASH

Why getting rid of physical cash is a really shit idea 

So what have horses got to do with e-cash? Nothing. At least not on the face of it. But on the other hand, one day a horse might be more important than your Ferrari, which you might have to sell for scrap. 

And will you except credit cards? Probably not. And heres why:  

Banks say we will be cashless by the end of this decade.  But only if we let it. 

Cashless might work for the high-flyers of the world, those on the hop, who don't want to flap with the tedium of finding a cash-point or catching germs off dirty coins. 

I must admit that the tap & go system has its merits. But its not convenient for everyone to use. Old folks for example, those who lived through the 2nd world war and the Cuban Missile Crises and beyond, struggle with keeping track of their finances unless they can physically see them. 

Internet banking is another issue for them, because they are less inclined to use computers. 

And why is that? Because bank tellers are becoming a thing of the past. More and more physical banks are disappearing on the high street, as redundancies are made to save overhead costs. 

Small towns are suffering the most. Forcing locals (with the luxury to drive combustion based cars further afield) to do essential banking transactions elsewhere. 

Meanwhile the twenty something tech-savy swipey-whipey youth shrug and don't see any problem. 'Jeeze Granmar, get with the fricken program' 

The irony being that at some point advances will overtake them as well. And we have no telling what the youth of today will struggle with in say 80 years from now. 

But you can guarantee that the youth of 2100 will look back at the swipey youth of today with candid humour, much as we look back at the youth of the 1900s. 

But I digress. 

Its unlikely a cashless world would completely happen anytime due to a number of factors. 

BAD RECEPTION 

The reception for tap readers is unreliable. So cash will always be a good alternative. 

I had a friend who uses those square card tapper things at book gatherings and it wouldn't work so he couldn't sell his books. It was fucking annoying because purse strings don't simply open on queue. And after spending most of the night entertaining patrons, only for his card reader to fail and come out broke. Had his patrons had cash on them, this wouldn't have been such a problem. 

TETCHY COMS 

A cashless system can easily be shut down for any reason. This is major issue for those travelling abroad. Its bad enough when Facebook thinks you've been hacked just because you went online in another town. Now imagine having your bank account turned off while you're on holiday in Spain or Moscow?  

NO SAVINGS 

You can’t save electronic cash, draw it out and put it in a jar, like you would real money. Thus its hard to keep track off spending. You then have to rely on credit which inevitably leads to high interest and the poverty cycle of debt. 

HACKING. 

Even if it is stored on a virtual cloud, your banking information is open to hackers. 

USELESS IN AN EMERGENCY

Imagine you're stuck somewhere and you've lost your mobile. No problem.  Just find a phone box right? But dang-it. I need change. But thats ok because the phone box no longer exists because everyone uses mobile phones. Fuck. 

See where I'm going with this? 

Now imagine the internet (that supplies the signal to your cashless world) has gone kaput. Now you have jack-shit. And not just you. Everyone else is in the same boat and its sinking fast. 

Cashless, relies on electricity duh, which in turn needs people to run more power to keep servers running day and night. As a result electric costs could sky rocket. Not to mention said servers are vulnerable to power outage. A few weeks ago Facebook crashed for several hours. Putting everyone at inconvenience. Imagine the inconvenience of not accessing your bank account?

How long would it be before the first shot is fired? Mad Max Director George Miller noted the fuel crises of 1977 as a pivotal landmark that inspired his post apocalyptic movies. 

HORSES FOR COURSES 

So yes, a cashless world is likely inevitable and will affirm the gulf between the haves and have nots. But those high-flyers cant fly forever as the very foundation of cashless living, teeters on a huge fundamental flaw that nobody wants to face. 

Much like the sudden jump between the Horse & cart to the automobile revolution, the rapid escalation of vehicles happened in a only a few decades. 

And why? Because people saw the benefits of cars and not the downsides. Horses crapped everywhere, needed stables, grooming, petting, black smiths etc. And when they died, owners left them to rot in the streets.

Then with the introduction of combustion engine cars, the horse industry was killed off overnight. Suddenly everyone had a car and you could drive almost anywhere. 

However, this created a whole new set of problems, stemming from fossil fuel dependency and the reluctance to switch to electric cars before exhaust emissions took their toll on our atmosphere. 

And with the fuel crises unresolved, and prices sky rocketing, this might well have a knock on effect on other things, such as cashless transactions. 

And we may actually see cashless come and go, in the wake of the world fighting over fuel reserves. For without fuel, we cant run machines and if we cant run machines then we cant have a cashless society. 

So in the end physical cash is probably gonna win out. And the horse will have the last laugh. 

2001: A Space Odyssey

 

Remembering

2001: A Space Odyssey

I think I must have first seen this film on late night TV when I was like 7 years old. Compared to Star Wars it was dreadfully sssslow and the plot felt confusing and discordant.

But wait - isn't that Leonard Rossiter straight out of Rising Damp?

So I stuck with it, even tho the ending made no sense.

Years later at School our English teacher showed the film to our class, none of which had seen it before or understood it. So at least I had one up on them.

I can say that with confidence because those kids had never watched a sci-fi film in their lives. You could tell just by looking at their gaping mouths and confused looks. Like their mothers had just turned up dressed as sexy Jabba Slave girls.

Up until that point it was all about foot ball, football and more football. I was like the class geek because I knew all about this movie.

So we're deep in The Dawn of Man and we finally get to the Monolith scene and all the monkeys are freaking out to the discordant polyphonic sounds of Ligeti's 'Requiem' .

The class are horrified.

'Whats that funny singing all about miss?' Asks one snotty nose kid. Good point. What is all that singing about? I kind of know the answer already but I cant articulate it.

'Its to show the monoliths power' explains the teacher. Though I don't think that blew anyones mind. Would any of these kids grow up to be movie directors or composers? Fuck no. Most these kids will be kids will be mothers and fathers by the time they are 21.

Watching it now as an adult, its still dreadfully sssslow and the plot still feels confusing and discordant.

But as a film maker I get all that. And now I've come to love its idiosyncrasies.

However one cant watch this film in a vacuum. Reading various articles over the years has helped me understand this movie a whole lot better. But still, a few self explanatory scenes wouldnt have gone a miss surely. It bothered me when I was seven and it still bothers me now.

Like a quick shot of Daves pod entering the Star Gate thing.

Something like this :

After deactivating the Hal 9000, Dave discovers the mission directives.

He takes a pod out to investigate the giant monolith floating over Jupiter...

As Dave fly's over the monoliths surface, his pod becomes engulfed in arcing electricity and is pulled towards it.

Dave is somewhat concerned about all this.

The pod is pulled thru the star gate.

And there's nothin Dave can do about it.

It is quite likely that a lot of these scenes were never filmed or cut out. Or that they simply ran out of money and time and just had scrabble together what they had. I guess a lot of the ending was improvised with heavy editing.

Who knows.

The point is I was seven and largely understood the bulk of the movie but the ending kinda went off the rails due to a lack of quick A to B scenes. Had they just spent a little more time on these, the movie might have grabbed more laymen into the fold, rather than the higher echelons of movie academia.

But thats cinema folks.

Oppenheimer - review

 

Big Fat Dud ?

OPPENHEIMER 

AKA 

YAP-FEST 23

A little less talk and a little more action

My opinions will probably get me a stoning offence. But as a frustrated film maker, I look at such movies and just wish I could steer them in the right direction. But never mind. Here goes. 

Ask anyone, I hate giving bad reviews. Not that anyone cares. I hate critics that slam movies for being a breed apart, for going that extra mile, for being different. However Oppenheimer is not that movie. 

I couldn't believe I was actually duped by the idea that this film could be something worth my time. Afterall, an all star cast lead by the robust Cillian Murphy, Robert Downy Junior and Matt Damon, what could possibly go wrong? 

Well plenty it seems. And like the Emperors New Clothes, I suspect most critics will praise it for all sorts of academic reasons. 

But it simply didn't grab my attention. And heres why. 

TOO MUCH YAPPING. 

Don't get me wrong. I like a dialogue heavy film as much as the next movie buff. But sometimes you just want to be wowed by some gratuitous sex and a big explosion. And on the face of it, this movie has all that to offer. Altho, those sex scenes are kinda ruined by all that yapping. 

Put it this way, if you like nothing more than talking heads for three hours then this is your movie. Because that is pretty much what you'll get. 

LOUD YAPPING. Quiet Yapping. Frenzied Yapping. YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH type yapping. But as the audience, we're not really connecting with any of this. Oppenheimer yaps to this guy, then it cuts to Oppenheimer yapping to that guy. Then it cuts to Oppenheimer yapping with some girl. Then it cuts to Oppenheimer having sex with said girl and they're still yapping. Yap-yap-yap.  Jeeze. Get to the friken bomb already. 

And that is essentially this movie. Just a series of talking heads cut from one scene to another. And nothing much in between. Anything of interest (like showing us the bomb being built) is all quickly mulled over because Oppenheimer is suddenly at the centre of some McCarthy-ish witch hunt.  

And who's this movies primary audience anyway? Nuclear Physicists? Academics? Because it feels like a film that excludes a lot of useful exposition in favour of just getting to those talking heads. Of which this movie has in abundance. Literally. Its all Cinéma vérité American Style, cerebral, yap-yap-yap. Thats what movies have come to these days. I guess.  

TOO MANY CHARACTERS 

And who the hell are all these people anyways? There's just too many side characters. None of which are really given any real validity. Its like this movie has no focus. 

That said, Robert Downy Junior ingeniously plays the bad guy Strauss,  hell bent on taking  Oppenheimer down. But its all done in such a elongated fashion, with so much happening in between, that his intentions are seldom noticed by us, the audience until way too late. 

Its not like theres any mystery to Strauss. Its just not made clear either way why he hates Oppenheimer because every scene in this movie is riddled with too many characters who all want to be centre stage.

Even the goddam secretary wants her 15 minutes. By which point we've forgotten all about ole' Strauss and his evil plot to undermine Oppenheimer. 

Put it another way. In the Mozart film Amadeus, its perfectly obvious that Mozarts foil, the enigmatic Antonio Salieri (played by F Murry Abraham) is out to get him. A trick that Oppenheimer seems to have missed. 

Even with JFK (which also had a hell of a lot of side characters milling about), one could still keep up with the plot. 

RUNS LIKE A TRAILER 

If you've seen the trailer, you might think wow this movie looks awsum!  That is until you actually watch it and you realise that the entire movie is essentially edited just like said trailer. You could say it is a three hour long trailer. The longest movie trailer ever made. 

You know like when you watch movie trailers, theres those talking heads (again), and one guy says something profound to the other guy. Like:  'We gotta do this thing first before the Nazis do.'  

Then it cuts to something intense. A sex scene, a fight scene, whatever.  Shit like that. This is Oppenheimer in its entirety. 

But I guess thats Nolans approach to film making. It kinda worked with his Batman movies but as a serious bi-op based on real events, I think we as the audience need a more linear approach. 

NO BOMB

For a movie that is all about building the worlds first ever atomic bomb, very little interest is directed upon showing the actual bomb itself. Its all Oppenheimer. Hence the title. At least with similar war movies such as The Imitation Game that covers the life of code-breaker Alan Turing, we get a sense of the protagonist grappling with the technology, plugging things in, trying to get his machine to work. 

But Oppenheimer is pretty much Oppenheimer and very little else. 

A few shots of technicians building the bomb might have gone down nicely.  Surely thats a whole five minutes of tension? Handling those radio active blocks, like a deadly game of Tetris? 

But no. And I'm left there thinking,  Wheres the scenes of nervous tech guys covered in sweat, slowly, carefully putting the 'Demon Core'  together?  Despite later claiming the lives of two physicists, at no point is this ever mentioned or even alluded to. 

But we do get marbles. For every ounce of Uranium-235 that is mined and refined, Oppenheimer drops the equivalent of a marble into a large goldfish bowel. Its a neat way to illustrate the hassle to mine this stuff and it really works but the fact that we're kinda lacking the whole building the bomb thing, leaves the audience hanging. 

Nor are the stakes really justified. We get a couple of scenes with nervous scientists and Einstein, here and there and a brief run down by Oppenheimer to the General, that the bomb could possibly set the atmosphere on fire but never mind. 

DUD CLIMAX 

But worst of all is the actual bomb test itself. 

We've all been gearing up to this one moment kids, for a good two and half hours. 

I'm sitting there thinking, this better knock my fucking socks off. I mean its the worlds first ever test of an atomic bomb right? Which could potentially wipe out our entire planet and then some. It better be good.  

So they do the count down. A tech guy presses a big red button. And then pffffff.  Jesus what a dud. 

The screen is filled with a fireball. No sound. Its all for the sake of art of course, for dramatic effect. Like those moments you see in war movies when the chips are down and the bad guys are closing in. 

Like the end of I am Legend. Will Smith is trapped behind a glass door. The king of the infected football yobs is doing his dammdest to head-but his way inside. 

They always cut the sound.  You have to imagine the horror for yourself. I get it. Theres probably some movie term for it. Like 'neo-realist-interplay'.  Who knows.  Answers on a post card please. 

So the bomb goes off. And I'm expecting some spectacular CGI effect feast. What we get is probably one of the lamest explosions ever filmed. Sure It looks real enough. Like they actually got a bunch of TNT and let it all off. In fact thats precisely what they fucking did. And it jars with the expectation. 

What should be a godly explosion, striking fear and horror into the audience, is instead a rather run-of-the-mill bang that you might expect from a studio controlled pryo-tech effect. 

And thats all it is. A small looking explosion. A fireball yes, a mushroom cloud (sorta) but not the crazy wow I should receive for being stuck here for three fucking hours. I felt cheated. 

Thank god I didn't have to pay to see this movie. At least I can spend that money now on coke & hookers afterwards to recover. 

Talking of big bangs, take Indiana And the Temple of Chrystal Skulls. Remember the A-bomb scene at the beginning?  Basically any movie with an Atomic bomb going off is better than what I had to endure with Oppenheimer. I've seen better ka-booms in the A-Team and thats saying something. 

The decision to go for a real explosion was (in my humble opinion) a mistake. Director Christopher Nolan might have thought it was a cool idea at the time but it simply doesn't work in the context of the narrative. 

Its like watching Star Wars and Lucas changing the grand finale explosion of the Death Star to something a little more 'realistic' which would likely be quite boring.  

Take Camerons Titanic movie as another example. If the boat just 'sank' like it did in all the other movies, we'd never be lauding that film up as much we have. Ask any schmuck what was the most memorable scene in that movie and they will most likely say: 'When the boat broke in half.' 

In a few years, I doubt anyone will recall that about Oppenheimer. If they remember anything about it at all. 

ALL IN ALL 

So there you have it. My two-pence on this film. Its not a turkey by any rate. But it takes for granted that the audience are all on the same page. This might keep most film critics entertained but as for yours truly, I barely made it to the end without dozing off. But thats just me I guess. 

What would I change about this movie then? Actually I would change very little bar all the yapping. What this movie really lacked was simple memorable scenes. It needed more building the bomb stuff, tension around the Demon Core and basically a humungous explosion that would have put any Spielberg movie to shame. Oh well. Maybe next time.