It's not about the movie(s) in question, it is a general statement. Saying a movie is automatically good because the underlying story is good or worth telling is denouncing so many factors that play into making a movie a good movie. PatFussy was only pointing out that the cutting was terrible (I haven't seen the movie itself so I cannot judge it) and too fast paced. This is something that can absolutely ruin an otherwise great movie and make it unbearable to watch. The story, the script, the dialogue, the acting, the effects, the cutting, the lighting, the sound and soundtrack- all these things (and many more) are individually important and only when everything works well together a movie can be good (doesn't automatically mean it is a good movie). Is Oppenheimer a story worth being told? Probably. Most stories are. Has it been told in a well executed way? I don't know, and also this is a highly personal matter of taste. If someone thinks the cutting is epileptic then that's a valid opinion that has nothing to do with their intelligence, not understanding a movie, or having an unsophisticated taste in cinema.

As a side note, putting "West" Anderson in a category with Christopher Nolan is ridiculous. One makes arty, more indie movies with rather obscure storylines that rely heavily on the script and dialogue, while the other makes grand style blockbuster action movies. Except for both of them being famous and making movies, the difference could not be vaster.