Ved Anand

Despite the film being an incredible three hours long, every scene feels like it was meant to be there and not added simply for the purpose of adding more content. The jump-cuts are able to create a beautiful tapestry of scenes that aren't in order yet are still very easily understandable, everything building up to the climax in the Trinity Test. The latter half then adds layers of political intrigue and spectacularly depicts Oppenheimer's fears on what exactly he has released into the world and the development of the hydrogen bomb. It also questions governments and how patriotic citizens should be knowing that the moment they are discredited, the government will turn on them. The film caps off with a captivating ending scene that flows through a message that must be understood, especially in today's modern day political climate.

Conclusions made by the film are made based off of largely anecdotal evidence with glaring omissions of data that goes against the author's point. Creator Matt Walsh already had his mind up before he tried to make this film, and thus the entire argument made is flawed. If someone gathers evidence just to prove their already preexisting notion and not actually see if their mind is changed, then how can we be sure of the veracity? Just as it is impossible to win an argument against a flat earther as they will only take in that which supports their opinion and reject everything else; the means of evidence gathering fails when we take into account everything is done only to reaffirm the argument the film's author wishes to make. But as mentioned earlier the anecdotal evidence is put on full display when considering the comparison between transgender people and sex offenders. Horrible people like sex offenders exist among all facets of people - from cis gender to transgender. One cannot simply just place these two groups together when they are all separate - such conclusions are done purely anecdotally and thus have no water. And once we realize that, the bathroom issue largely falls apart: the problem is not trans individuals, it's the sex offenders who are abusing the system. We can target sex offenders without banning trans people; this is a separation the film fails to make. All in all the film is well designed but suffers when we consider pre-existing notion, bias, and anecdotal evidence used to prove a point that doesn't make sense when we consider that for example, sex offenders are not exclusively transgender (and rather trans individuals are disproportionately by capita are targeted by them). I give it a two stars because at some rare points the arguments made are fluid (iirc the children surgery and sports point) - although even these arguments fail to really have depth. For example the children surgery point doesn't address suicide incited by depression without a transition which if we prioritize maximum life under consequentialist framework is a huge issue. The sports point is more nuanced and I think one of the better parts of the film but it's still very dismissing. The fact of the matter is as a society we need to find a way to keep sports competitive while also not excluding an entire group. Now whether the solution to that is just dumping every "trans" athlete into the male sport group or making a separate trans group or whatever it is, that question needs to be had in a kind, courteous way. That can't be had through the backlash the film wishes to spawn.