it’s not about that at all.

my criticisms in brief:

• creating a post-post-modern work but centering the drama around the pre-modern harmartia in a character
• the absolute break neck speed of narrative in an incredibly long work, without intermission is very draining and not enjoyable
• the absence of charisma from the lead character coupled with the inexplicable attraction and support of everyone around him to him
• “who’s story was it?” there were so many conflicting POVs, and about half a dozen endings
• the surrealism wasn’t earned or justified
• the entire thing is about the possible human cost of such decisions but the only victim we see is imaginary
• most of the dialog is essentially exposition of scientific or legal terms
• although what happens - post hoc - was interesting. the actual experience of watching it unfold was just watching a bunch of people bicker about their jobs

Honestly man, have you never heard of atom bombs and nuclear power before that movie? You make it sound like this movie is enlightening humanity about the dangers of nuclear weapons and revealing some kind of secrets that haven’t been common knowledge for decades.

Or to use your degrading language that you seem to like to make us dumb dumbs understand: small thing goes boing, that bad, we deady-dead, just as granny said.