Barbenheimer: Part 1 of 2
This is the kind of film I really don’t want to criticize, because we don’t get nearly enough other stuff like it. However, mr. Nolan has been in need of an intervention for a while now, and unfortunately all of the issues that have been plaguing his films since The Dark Knight Rises show up to some degree here. Visually it might just be his best film, and there’s some tremendous acting in here, particularly by Murphy and RDJ. However, it makes the common biopic mistake of treating its subject matter like a Wikipedia entry, thereby not focussing enough on character and perspective. As a whole, the film feels more like a long extended montage, I don’t think there are many scenes that go on for longer than 60 seconds. There’s a strong ‘and then this happened, and then this happened’ feel to it, which definitely keeps up the pace, but it refuses to stop and let an emotion or idea simmer for a while. There are moments where you get a look into Oppenheimer’s mind, but because the film wants to cover too much ground, it’s (like everything else) reduced to quick snippets. It’s the kind of approach that’d work for a 6 hour long miniseries where you can spend more time with the characters, not for a 3 hour film. I can already tell that I won’t retain much from this, in fact a lot of it is starting to blur together in my mind. There are also issues with some of the dialogue and exposition, such as moments where characters who are experts in their field talk in a way that feels dumbed down for the audience, or just straight up inauthentic. Einstein is given a couple of cheesy lines, college professors and students interact in a way that would never happen, Oppenheimer gives a lecture in what’s (according to the movie) supposed to be Dutch when it’s really German; you have to be way more careful with that when you’re making a serious drama. Finally, there are once again major issues with the sound mixing. I actually really loved the score, but occasionally it’s blaring at such a volume where it drowns out important dialogue in the mix. I’m lucky enough to have subtitles, but Nolan desperately needs to get his ears checked, or maybe he should’ve asked some advice from Benny Safdie since he’s pretty great with experimental sound mixing. My overall feelings are almost identical to the ones I had regarding Tenet; Nolan needs to rethink his approach to writing, editing and mixing. This film as a whole doesn’t work, but there are still more than a few admirable qualities to it.
Edit: I rewatched this at home to see whether my feeling would change. I still stand by what I wrote in July, though the sound mix seems to have been improved for the home media release. It sounds more balanced and I didn’t miss one line of dialogue this time around. I’m slightly raising my score because of that, but besides that I still think it’s unfocused, overedited, awkwardly staged and scripted etc.
5.5/10
As some have said, this was not what I expected. I expected a film that focused on the actual scientific undertaking and technological achievement as well as the psychological, emotional, and real world turmoil of creating man's worst invention. I expected to come out of this film impressed by the science, but also as horrified as Oppenheimer himself.
I thought this would be an actual biopic of Oppenheimer. I was curious to see what type of life he lived that would eventually lead him to the Manhattan project, its destructive aftermath, and his future work. And I expected to come out of this film with a better understanding of how they even built this crazy thing - which despite its obvious horrific application, is still a scientific marvel that only a small handful of countries have been able to reproduce even nearly 80 years later.
But instead, this stuff was glossed over to give us 3 hours of boring political dialogue outside the scope of anything that truly historically mattered. Oh, and they gave us occasional scenes about his sex life mixed in. Because of course, when it comes to the father of the atom bomb, the first thing people want to know about him is his sex life??
Remember, just because the film overwhelms viewers with intense, suspenseful music from beginning to end doesn't make the accompanying boring political squabble scenes any less boring. Just because it tells the story non-chronologically doesn't make the script more profound, it just makes it frustrating to watch. And just because it had the budget to fill even minor roles with A list actors doesn't mean it should have. Each time another big face popped up, it pulled me out of the film (which admittedly, was not hard to do since the film was so boring).
Ironically, the film multiple times hinted that certain aspects of the bomb and its story are actually important and should be seen by all. For example, they explicitly talked about the importance of actually seeing the bomb and its destruction to fully appreciate, and fear, its power. But then the film ignores its own insight and only shows us short clips of one test while completely ignoring its destruction. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurred off screen! Seriously This film could have used 2023 movie making skills to re-instill fear of nuclear apocalypse (which given current international conflict, wouldn't be the worst thing right now). But it didn't even attempt to. Further, the film even acknowledges in its conclusion that the political drama was almost entirely unimportant compared to the bigger picture of the technology and its impact on the world. So why couldn't they make the film focused on that instead??
They should have just called the film "Straus vs Oppenheimer" since that's really what this film was about. They built a device that killed hundreds of thousands of people in a single strike, and which changed the world forever, yet the film portrays the political stakes of Oppenheimer losing his security clearance and Straus not being confirmed to a cabinet position as the bigger deal worth caring about (and worth a 3 hour runtime).
This was a chore to watch and I had to rewind it multiple times because I kept falling asleep. I finished the film not entertained nor did I even learn anything of value. I feel like I got robbed out of what should have been a deeply impactful film.
I'll start off by saying biopics aren't my go to, history wasn't my favorite subject in school. Oppenheimer isn't an exception. It without a doubt tells the story of an important piece of our history but as a movie it didn't keep me interested for very long. It goes for emotional but I didn't really feel much (except for the historical impact obviously). I wanted more ethical questions and less of the complex politics and law maneuvering.
It's way too long, a lot of it could have been cut out like Oppenheimer's character setup, the love interests and even (that's an unpopular opinion) the whole court room third act which was way too politically convoluted for me and straight out boring! If the movie had ended with the explosion this would have been a way better watch but unfortunately it overstayed it's welcome and lost it's steam. It's basically: buildup, payoff, buildup—.
A fabulous score with impressive sound in the theater but there's too much of it. The score was way too intense for what was showed on-screen a lot of the time and that's just distracting. There's also a few moments where I couldn't hear what was said because it's too loud. The dialogue is super fast-paced too so you can't miss a word or you're doomed not to understand what's going on.
Such a beautiful movie visually I like the WWII period aesthetics and clothes, the black & white scenes and the transition between different aspect ratios was used cleverly. The explosion scenes could have been longer but it looked amazing. The cast is stacked with stellar performances but Cillian Murphy really blew me away. A strong contender for the Oscars. Robert Downey Jr. for supporting role also.
it definitely needs a second rewatch is what i strongly think and need to say;
since the first second this movie started, the sound design was out of this world, and its one of the main things i loved about this movie
i felt like i couldn't clearly understand half the stuff Robert Downey Jr's character kept saying, and i feel like i missed out on a big part of the movie because of it, that's why i strongly feel like i need a second rewatch of the movie, then i'll truly know if i ended up loving, or Loving loving my first ever Christopher Nolan movie on the big screen;
when that explosion finally went off, it literally gave me a scare, they did an incredible job with the movie's sound design
it had some g o r g e o u s shots as well, especially the last one, where it slowly zooms on Oppenheimer's face;
the anticipation & suspense as they're slowly completing the Project, (with the subtle nuclei reactions SFX that is happening in the background) showing it getting assembled piece by piece.. having the countdown... then it finally going off... it truly immerses you into the experience, and leaves you speechless afterwards, and that, that is only the beginning of it all, because the aftermath, and what follows, is the true horrifying stuff, as Oppenheimer slowly realizes what these events and discoveries are truly leading to;
& the way Nolan depicts Oppenheimer's regret, and all the other emotions he's going through, visually and through sound design, was perfect
[Edit] THIS MOVIE IS 3 HOURS LONG???? THREE HOURS???? Dear god one hour felt like an ETERNITY in the theater.
Unfortunately walked out because I got overstimulated cause it was a lot louder than expected, and also really fucking boring.
Visually stunning movie. Absolutely gorgeous. The effects done in camera, the cinematography, the acting, everything is just so much fun to look at. Christopher Nolan knows how to make a damn good looking movie. Hats off to the team that made this thing.
But writing wise... damn, it underperformed.
Other commenters mentioned that this feels like a Wikipedia entry or a montage of 60 second clips, and damn they are right. The writing just did. not. hit. It was hard to follow any of Oppenheimer's personal life and to actually feel anything for him or any of the people in his life. I don't expect a movie to hold my hand. But I do expect pace to be managed well and to have a bit of breathing room to be able to process stuff. This did not give you the time to do it lmao.
Also the characters just... didn't interact in an engaging way. Less than 20 minutes into the movie I was already checking my watch to see how much more of this I had to sit through! I didn't know half of the characters' names, or half of their relationships to each other, or why they were even relevant. Like the best example of this is Oppy and Einstein's interactions. They have beef, but it's hard to understand why? There's like... two interactions before the one hour mark that total less than a minute of on-screen time together. Einstein gets a few words in there and it's just very very unclear why they hate each other, or how they met, or what any of their background is. It's confusing!
Also let's talk about Oppenheimer's motivations. As a literal communist, I should empathize with Oppy and understand where he's coming from. But I don't! Because he's a fucking idiot! When he's talking with other leftists, he mentions "Isn't ownership theft?" and the person in the communist party is like "It's property, actually" and he's like "Well sorry I read all three volumes of Capital in original German" and he's like... just a dick??? But also no fucking leftist who is going around having read all three volumes of Capital talks about that shit! That's just dumb! And the entirety of his leftist politics are portrayed in a way that make him look like an egotistical maniac with dumb politics! One minute he's starting a union and pro-labor, another minute he's dropping all of that in order to be a dog of the US government! There's obviously an enormous jump happening there. Like something very, very clearly and very, very majorly changed for Oppenheimer there, and the film spends a grand total of 30 seconds in a single scene having him transition from brilliant labor activist to US government dog.
Also there are time jumps! Lots of them! The choice to jump back and forth between the McCarthyist interrogations of Oppenheimer and the past do. not. make. sense. They are hard to follow, extraordinarily boring, and absolutely ruin any sort of pacing the movie might have! There are several points in this movie where Oppenheimer starts to be fleshed out a bit more as a character or starts to be given more space for us to see what he's really like. And then it's randomly cut off and flashed forward to these utterly irrelevant black-and-white interviews. Oppenheimer has a leftist past! Of course he does! The movie literally shows us that! And instead of just telling things in a regular narrative way, the movie splits things up confusingly for absolutely no good fucking reason, and ends up showing us and telling us the same information twice! That is shit writing! If you cut all of these scenes you would be missing nothing from the movie, and you'd have more time to actually tell us about the characters, instead of them feeling like one-dimensional caricatures.
I don't know any of Oppenheimer's history, and I left this not understanding any more of it! I left after an hour because it felt like two and a half because it was just this firehose of information. And Nolan didn't present it in a way that actually made a story! He just shat this all out on the screen (and it's a beautiful shit, don't get me wrong!!), and expected the audience to love it! His characters are one-dimensional, they aren't given the space, the motivations, or the background really for us to understand where they're coming from or why they do what they do. And that ends up with this being a visually stunning but really fucking boring movie that I just walked out of because I couldn't take it anymore lol.
I cannot stand seeing visually gorgeous movies produced by people who clearly have god-level talent that seem to have a complete and utter inability to get the basics of movie-making, story, correct! I have ADHD. For a lot of people, sitting through a boring movie is just boring. For me, it is exhausting. It is excruciating. I can't fidget in a movie theater, I can't move, I can't pause the movie and come back later when I'm feeling more focused. And so if a movie is boring, I just leave! And it is so fucking annoying to miss out on a chance to see a movie that is, outside of its story, fucking beautiful because its director and writer couldn't do the extremely basic job of making a movie that holds people's interest and communicates things in even a slightly clear way. God what a waste.
[8.0/10] There are two sequences in Oppenheimer that are a metonym for the rest of the film. Early on, a young J. Robert Oppenheimer is given a hard time by his teacher, essentially punishing him for his human struggles by denying him the chance to see a lecture from his hero. So Oppenheimer, filled with frustration and a chance bit of inspiration, fills his professor’s apple with an injection of cyanide. He does the deed coldly and methodically, attends the lecture, and doesn’t seem the slightest bit perturbed that he’s essentially committed an act of attempted murder on someone who made his life miserable.
But when he wakes up in the morning, he is wracked with guilt and stricken with an urgency to undo what he’s done. He rushes to steal back the apple before the worst consequences of his choices take hold, something made all the more desperate when it’s his hero, Neils Bohr, not his jerk teacher, who’s about to take a bite. Spurred by his regrets, he snatches it out of Bohr’s hand before it can do its damage.
It’s a microcosm for how to account for Oppenheimer’s behavior for the building of the first atomic bomb. For so much of the film, he is single-minded to the point of being myopic on achieving his goal. To him, the United States needs nuclear weapons, and they need them now, because the Nazis are building them. Hitler and his goons are threatening Oppenheimer’s fellow Jews, and if he can help stop them, use his physics to prevent the Third Reich from gaining the upper hand, he feels he has a responsibility to do so.
So he ignores his good friend and fellow Jewish physicist, Rabi, who tells Oppenheimer he doesn’t want to participate in something that would wreak death upon the world. He dismisses the growing contingent of his Los Alamos workforce concerned about the ethics of what they’re building. He brushes off his colleagues from Chicago who want him to tell the American leadership not to act. He is full of justifications and rationalizations.
There is something workmanlike, methodical about his goal to produce the atomic bomb. He gently raises the objections of his colleagues, but presents himself as a vessel for communicating the views of others rather than injecting his own opinions. He is a man with a job to do, deadlines to meet, villains to defeat. And even when Germany is defeated, he’s still under orders, still anxious to see his work come to fruition, practically pacing when the day of the bombings arrives.
Only then, at his moment of triumph, once the job is done, he feels naught but the blood on his hands, the rot in his souls, the feeling that had been tucked away into a dark corner until the job was complete. The most bravura sequence in the film sees him in the moment of his greatest triumph, being cheered on by his fellow scientists, reveling in their victory, whilst being haunted by the gravity of what he hath wrought.
The sound, the light, the visions of blighted flesh and communities turn to ash, overwhelm his senses and drown out the singing of his praises. His ra-ra speech seems awkward and uncomfortable -- lacking in genuine fervor from someone whose emotional reckoning with what he’s done hits on a delay, like the time-displaced sound wave from his own bomb. Only after he’s done it, does he feel it, and start to wish he could take it back.
It is the apple again, a piece of nature poisoned, only now amplified in magnitude beyond comprehension. And it is the peculiar psyche of this astonishing man, suddenly made to feel the weight of destruction and history, wondering what he’s unleashed upon the world.
Writer-director Christopher Nolan has the audience feel that weight too. Clocking in at over three hours, Oppenheimer plays appropriately epic, not just as the story of the creation of the atomic bomb, but encompassing the life of its father that serves as a prelude, the regretful aftermath that leads him beyond that seminal moment, and the public clashes that consumed his life afterward.
In that, Nolan and company hit a number of the standard biopic beats. The early portions breeze through relationships and foundational experiences that, while specific to Oppenheimer, will feel familiar to anyone who’s seen a cinematic accounting of a historical figure. Grand speeches are given. Famous faces are introduced with suitable fanfare. The names of notable people and places are dropped with the freighted, portentous importance of an MCU post-credit scene.
And yet, there is a greater artfulness to what Nolan and his collaborators set out to do that sets Oppenheimer above its standard prestige comparators. Some of that is the pure aesthetics. If ever there were an argument for big screen viewing, it is the film’s grand atomic test -- a wash of light, columns of all-consuming flame, the straightjacket of silence that envelops all gazing upon it, and the sonic boom that punctures the moment. Theatrical viewing is a boon, maybe even necessary, to feel the full strength of that awe.
At the same time, Nolan’s team goes for more impressionsitic sequences amid their otherwise stately production. The aforementioned victory celebration gone awry is an achievement in using the cinematic form to contrast the external mask with the internal state. The way the trappings of the nuclear explosion intrude on Oppenheimer’s interrogation proves a creative way to show how the bombings haunt him as he struggles to reconcile his past fervor with his present regret. And in a similar vein, the transposition of his ex, depicted in full passionate lovemaking as his infidelity is laid bare on the public record, foregrounds the guilt and the anger between him and his wife in visceral terms.
There’s also more formal creativity at play. Beyond the nonlinear presentation, that juxtaposes past and present in canny ways, Oppenheimer offers not one but two frame stories. One is fission, the recollections that turn out to be part of Oppenheimer’s adversarial hearing on the renewal of his security clearance. The other is fusion, with still more recountings channeled through the Senate confirmation hearing of Lewis Strauss, Oppenheimer’s colleague and erstwhile admirer.
The tangle of the two gives the film leeway to play the contrast and compare game wherever necessary when it wants to put two meaningful moments side-by-side. It allows Nolan and his team to disorient the audience, lose them in the timeline to where the tumult of events washes over you. And it allows him to hide the ball, bringing the two storylines into jaw-dropping clarity right when it will have the greatest impact.
The choice to tell Oppenheimer’s story in color and Stauss’ part in black and white helps distinguish them so the viewer can keep some track. But it also helps code that we’re seeing these events through each’s differing perspective. That helps color their different takes on what happened, and shield the twist that Stauss is not one of Oppenheimer’s defenders suffering unfortunate guilt by association, but rather a bitter, resentful and conniving rival, prepared to throw Oppenheimer under the bus to feather his own nest.
Therein lies the grand turn and irony of the film. When Oppenheimer is willing to do the dirty work of powerful men without question, he is given everything he asks for. They build towns in the desert. They give him billions in resources. They push through his security clearance despite his occasional dalliances with communism and, worse yet for the times, with communists.
But when his conscience reemerges and he is a hindrance, not a help, to the cause of nuclear weaponry, men like Strauss turn that same infrastructure against him. He is dragged down by those jealous and scornful of his refusal to keep helping. He is written off by the President who championed him. He is torn asunder by forces greater than himself that, as none other than Einstein warns him, are ready to minimize and punish him once he’s no longer useful. And worse yet, Oppenheimer wants it; he thinks he deserves it.
There is something elemental, even Shakespearean in that. And yet, the grandest flaw of the film is that you do not always feel it.
Oppenheimer has its pitfalls. The film is remarkably brisk for a three-hour runtime, but you can sometimes feel Nolan trying to cram anything and everything into his feature, whether it’s truly essential or not, because it fascinates him. At moments, particularly after the big turn, we don’t need to be so deep in the weeds. Likewise, the script indulges in some of the corniest biopic tropes, from a Senate staffer casually dropping the name JFK, to the same staffer delivering a Sorkinesque speech about doing the right thing and matters bigger than one politician’s aspirations.
But the biggest of them is that despite Oppenheimer centering itself on one man’s growing guilt, questioning, and eventual self-flagellation, it often feels cold, lacking in feelling. Perhaps that’s appropriate for one anchored on scientists who are irregular around the margins, but who can be clinical in their work. The thing about Nolan’s filmography is that he’s often better at crafting characters who feel like avatars for big ideas than he is at developing them as three-dimensional people.
The same affliction permeates this movie, with the sweep of history and provocative notions about responsibility, myopia, urgency, and regret keenly felt, but the emotions of its central players, so key to the film, not always coming through with as much visceral clarity.
And yet, if there’s something that helps cover for that, it’s the downright relentless pace of the film. Part of how Oppenheimer makes the time fly by is the fact that it never stops. Clock the dialogue scenes. There’s barely a moment between retorts. There is a continual chugging in the film, conveying the urgent need to complete this task and the restlessness in Oppenheimer’s thoughts and history that led to it. The same goes for the score, which pounds, rich with sonic beauty and the ticking of geiger counters, making the broad jump across years culminating in the bomb’s deployment feel like one grand movement.
Until it stops. Two-thirds of the way through the film, the pace suddenly slackens. The score drops away. Freed from the irresistible pull of the mission for once, both Oppenheimer and the audience are given a chance to stop and reflect, and it’s then that the gravity of what’s been done truly starts to sink in. The way Nolan uses the pacing of his film to drive its central change of heart is masterful.
Because then it picks up again. Between the machinations of Stauss in his committee hearing, and the futile maneuvering of Oppenheimer and his allies before the body sent to rob him of his security clearance, and with it, his credibility, the rhythm kicks up anew, selling the controlled chaos that ensues to match the controlled chaos that preceded it. But in between is that quiet moment of clarity.
The rub of Oppenheimer is that the eponymous protagonist wants his punishment, no matter how unjust the source of it, because he wants to atone for his sins. He believes that, contrary to the warnings that the chance to destroy the world is near zero, he’s set off the chain reaction that will invite the apocalypse. He hopes this will be his penance, his chance to pay for his sins.
Because that’s the other sequence that serves as the metonym for Oppenheimer. Once he told his tempestuous lover, Jean Tatlock, that he would always answer. Then, when his life took a different turn, with a wife and children, he told her he couldn’t anymore. And in the absence of his intervention, she killed herself, her worst demons spiraling out toward destruction.
That is the reason Oppenheimer acts so swiftly and so gravely in trying to put a stop to this hell he has unleashed upon the world. Because he knows, in ways personal and devastating, what happens when he sits by and doesn’t intervene to stop the worst from happening, to blame yourself for the blood that’s spilt when you could have stepped in but instead shut yourself off. He has felt that loss, and in his post-Hiroshima activism, he feels it once more.
What if you didn’t get to the apple in time? What if you couldn’t stop what you’d started? What if the best and worst of your nature caught up to you at once? For a troubled world, much as for a troubled friend, J. Robert Oppenheimer fears that it’s already too late.
This film gave me somewhat of an existential crisis afterwards. It's very hard to explain a film that hit you hard on a personal level. But what I will say is that the film scared me just to think about the world that we live in today. The movie takes you through so much content throughout the 3 hour runtime and is able to cram it all in without feeling like too much information is being shoved down your throat. The third act was my personal favorite because of the intense scenes and the sudden change of the film. The soundtrack is obviously top notch and the cinematography is absolutely outstanding. The performances by Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey Jr felt very emotional. By far Robert Downey Jr's best performance. All of the other performances were great as well and it was cool to see actors that you don't normally see in films anymore (Devon Bostick, Matthew Modine, Josh Peck, etc.). I had a great time with this one but one complain I do have is about the amount of nude scenes, which often felt like they didn't need to be there. Overall, it was a joy to see on the big screen.
After Inception, Interstellar, Dunkirk and Tenet, this is the first time coming out of a Nolan movie, not feeling amazed.
I expected a very different movie, maybe I avoided the trailers too much or they gave the wrong impression, but I was expecting a movie about the creation of the bomb and the emotional impact it made.
It would have a been a perfect ending to me, if it ended after the bombs dropped and the war ended. But then the movie continues for about an hour longer and it just didn't keep me interested all that much.
There were also a lot of unnecessary loud scenes that made me feel stressed in a way.
I didn't really care about the spy, if that's what happened then this is a great movie for history buffs but it made it feel like that was the most important thing in the movie and not the bomb itself.
Einstein felt like an MCU cameo and mentioning JFK made me expect a "JFK WILL RETURN" after the credits.
I still give it 4 stars cuz it's beautifully shot, seeing it in IMAX was amazing, the soundtrack is great, acting is good as ever and the story is interesting but it's overshadowed by the final hour that I couldn't really connect with.
While watching "Oppenheimer," I wondered several times whether the entire subject may not be better suited for an HBO prestige miniseries. With a three-hour runtime, the film is definitely too long for my taste, and especially in the first two hours, some scenes certainly could have been cut. However, some strong visual moments and an incredibly compelling final act made the movie-going experience an exciting one for me in the end.
There is little to criticize besides the somewhat bloated plot. For example, the female roles are written far too thinly, as is typical for director and screenwriter Christopher Nolan, and they are hardly existent at all. Just take a look at the Wiki entry for the film; there are currently 50 actors listed, with only five of them being female. In my view, the fact that it is historical material can only partially account for this. And if you have only a few actresses, then at least the characters of Florence Pugh and Emily Blunt should get something more to do.
The performances themselves, however, are almost all very strong. Cillian Murphy is, unsurprisingly, a convincing leading man. Matt Damon and Robert Downey Jr. also put in strong performances. Only in one scene with President Harry S. Truman, who is played by a notable actor I won't spoil, did I have massive problems acting-wise. Looking at the script, meanwhile, I would say that Nolan doesn't exactly get too deep. You shouldn't expect an analytical character study of Robert Oppenheimer. Furthermore, it is rather obvious who Nolan believes to be "the good guys" and "the bad guys." But I don't want to criticize that too much, as it makes the movie more accessible to a larger audience.
Ultimately, I can't give this movie anything other than a strong recommendation, if only because of the thrilling last hour. Those who have no problems with Nolan's style will certainly enjoy "Oppenheimer". However, I would also very much like to see a miniseries about the "father of the atomic bomb".
I feel like a lot of movies, especially this one, could be improved if directors would put themselves in the audience's shoes rather than just making whatever bloated, overwrought film that they envisioned from the start. I imagined that the film was going to be more about Oppenheimer and the making of the bomb itself, his personal struggles with it, etc, and the movie did get into that, but then it went into a whole giant secondary storyline about Oppenheimer's supposed Communist ties and whether he was actually loyal to the United States. Nolan needed an editor because I thought it was just too much ground to try to cover in a single film, and it was a real challenge from a viewer's standpoint to stay engaged for the duration. Of course, it seems like the content of the movie was just too straight forward for Nolan's liking, so he had to give us all this choppy storytelling, cutting from scene to scene and timeline to timeline, which made the film hard to follow and gave it a disjointed feeling. Sometimes directors are their own worst enemies in that way. I loved the cinematography. I will say that while the almost silent, surreal scene just after the test bomb went off, was a really nice touch, when the audio came back in full force, and we heard the bomb go off, it scared the shit out of me. I'm glad I went and ponied up the money to see it in the theater, but it was long. and Nolan and Co. tried to fit too much into the film. The highlights for me acting wise were Robert Downey Jr, Cillian Murphy and Gary Oldman as Truman.
Once I was done watching this, part of me was surprised about the high average rating, but as I read comments from viewers who gave it 8/10 stating they found the movie boring or underwhelming, understanding ensued. At some point in his career, Nolan must have hit the jackpot with mainstream audiences, such that they—thinking he can do no wrong—will view any of his work through rose-tinted glasses, compelling them to hand out a higher grade than one matching their perceived entertainment value. His 2000s titles feel like passion projects, and although Inception is the only one I'd call myself a fan of, most indeed deserve high praise. Something happened later, the Marvelization movement I suspect, and authenticity went out the window to be replaced by pandering.
It's funny to contemplate that a three hour movie feels rushed, yet this did. As others have mentioned, it is a messy burst of snippets allowing little time to connect with the characters, or draw any emotion. By the end I still didn't have the main character pegged down, and this Oppie even comes off as unpleasant, which I'm sure was not the intent. While RDJ was delivering his lines I found myself thinking "good job man, you really nailed that! Show them you're not just Iron Man", almost applauding. You know you're getting bored with the narrative when your focus starts to shift on an actor's performance.
Many reviews point out there are too many characters and I can only concur. Some are briefly introduced out of nowhere, then briefly reappear a while later and you're like "wait who's that guy again?". And Florence Pugh's boobs—why? Gratuitous nudity isn't something I associated with Nolan, and just further highlights the pandering approach he's been reduced to.
As someone interested in quantum physics, I thought I could at least derive some enjoyment out of that and maybe learn something. Unfortunately, that aspect of the movie was glossed over and dumbed down, to avoid patronizing viewers I suspect.
With Oppenheimer, his first biopic, writer/director Christopher Nolan once again proves he’s up to the challenge of balancing a difficult subject matter with a very tricky character piece. The slow, careful process of scientific discovery is rarely friendly to film, and shy, socially-awkward introverts do not often make for compelling leads, but in this case Nolan juggles both and steps away smelling like roses. As he’d already done on more than one occasion, in decidedly different flavors.
Here we track the career of a famed theoretical physicist, thrust into the limelight as the so-called “father of the atom bomb” during the crush of World War 2 and then dismissed by an ungrateful government after he’d outlived his usefulness and started asking difficult follow-up questions. Oppenheimer’s frustrated early career, meteoric rise to fame and equally rapid fall from grace are depicted almost simultaneously, in a rush of confused, overlapped memories. This style of all-at-once storytelling, in which foreshadowing coexists with its own outcome, is reminiscent of the time-blurred motifs we’ve already seen in Tenet, Inception and Dunkirk. Here it serves as a compelling way to digest a lot of information in a very short amount of time, especially when paired with a head-spinning series of metaphorical visual effects and an entrancing musical score. I’ve read the book this film was based upon, a daunting 800-page tome, and after the first hour I felt like I’d just read most of it all over again. This time with a little extra dramatic pizazz.
It’s an impressive display of top-notch filmmaking, proficiently depicting a historical scenario in which everyone already knows the ending and climaxing with a tense, powerful visualization of the Trinity tests which first loosed the power of violent nuclear fission upon the world. I loved every moment, but then, I was already deeply invested in the subject and had done some homework. My wife, far less prepared, was also far less enchanted. I think this may be more of a knock on Oppenheimer the man than Oppenheimer the film. A complicated, often misguided individual who, for all his brilliance within the hidden world of molecular physics, was inherently flawed and broken in a human sense. Nolan makes no apology for this, baring the person (and his many blemishes) to the screen with no filter, and the results aren’t always pretty.
Perhaps a bit too long, especially in the painfully bitter, sixty-minute postscript, but I’m not sure where I’d want to see a cut. Certainly not a feel-good audience pleaser, Nolan’s latest is an exhausting experience, but also rich, thoughtful and rewarding.
“I believe we did.”
Final review of 2023
Out of all the movies I saw in 2023, this movie has not left my mind since leaving the cinema auditorium when I watched it back in July.
After giving it a long thought and consideration, this might be Christopher Nolan's best movie. It’s not an easy watch with the subject matter and pacing, but that didn’t stop it from being a massive hit with critics, audiences, and, surprisingly, the box office. This three-hour-long talky movie managed to beat out every single blockbuster this summer. I have never seen anything like it. I worked at my cinema on the opening day of this movie and Barbie, and I have never seen it so packed since Avengers: Endgame. Everybody dressed up for the double feature event of the summer. The atmosphere was electric, and everyone was happy. It was a good day.
Oppenheimer is fantastic! It is a three-hour-long historical drama that is dialogue-heavy, which may sound off-putting, but I found it all engaging. People have best described it as a mixture of Oliver Stone's JFK and David Fincher's The Social Network.
It won't be for everyone, and that's all right.
I have to say, this is the best I have seen from Cillian Murphy, whose expressive face can convey so much fear and painful regret. His eyes are his most powerful tool as an actor, and Director Christopher Nolan knows this. It is one of my favourite performances from 2023, and nothing that I have seen has topped it. I try not to care about the Oscars because I don’t like to be disappointed, but I hope he gets nominated and wins. He has my vote.
However, it’s not only Cillian who deserves the credit, as the entire cast did a brilliant job despite their small screen time.
This is also the best I have seen from Robert Downey Jr. in a long time, as he delivered a superb performance. He plays Lewis Strauss, a narcissistic cry-baby whose facades he puts on slowly crumbs as the film progresses. He delivers an utterly fantastic monologue midway through the film about ego, loss of power, and fury. He has played Iron Man/Tony Stark for so long that you forget what an actor Downey can be. Same with Cillian, I hope he gets nominated and wins.
It's a huge cast, and there wasn't a single bad or mediocre performance in sight. Everybody showed up to work and gave it their all.
Emily Blunt is terrific as Kitty Oppenheimer. The Testimony scene is one of the best scenes in the film, where she stops being the victim housewife, collects herself, and commands the room. But another scene that doesn’t get mentioned is when Oppenheimer and Kitty meet for the first, then ride together on horses, and have a special connection. It was a sweet and memorable scene.
The rest of the supporting cast - Matt Damon, Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett, Benny Safdie, Jason Clarke, Rami Malek, and Alden Ehrenreich were all stellar. Also, this might be random, but Jason Clarke reminds me of Gene Hackman. It’s just a thought I had.
A special mention to Gary Oldman as Harry Truman, Tom Conti as Albert Einstein, and Casey Affleck as Colonel Pash, who made an impression on me in the little time we had them. Oldman is excellent at playing sinister and cold subtly, where we see President Truman drop the act and tell the hard truth about his role as President and what his decisions can do to them, mentally and emotionally. It was a chilling and eye-opening scene. Conti is phenomenal in his six minutes of screen time, where the bond between Oppey and Albert is adorable and heartbreaking. I say heartbreaking because we see the horror and disappointment on Einsten’s face from the outcome. But Casey Affleck made me feel so uncomfortable, as he had a dangerous air in his scene. He brilliantly plays a ruthless and remorseless Cold War intelligence agent. He gives the vibe of “if you are lying, you’re dead.”
It’s mind-blowing (to me) how massive a cast can be, and nobody was wasted or forgettable. It’s one of the best ensemble cast for any movie ever.
The score by Ludwig Göransson is so powerful to listen to. The sheer weight of this theme that it almost brought a tear to my eye. I had goosebumps all over my body when ‘Can You Hear the Music’ and ‘Destroyer Of Worlds’ started playing. It’s the perfect score to listen to if you are studying. Ludwig Göransson is one of the best composers working today.
The Trinity (nuclear test) scene is one of my favourite scenes of the year, with masterclass directing and pacing. The build-up to it, the dread, and the anticipation of the bang was an otherworldly experience. My hands were sweaty, and I was leaning so far back into my seat; it was so tense. I never felt that in my 24 years of life. And the silence in the room was defying until the bang eventually caught up.
Or how about the gymnasium scene after the Trinity Test? It might be the most impressive scene in Nolan’s filmography. It’s a horrific scene where you feel the horror that Oppenheimer is experiencing, knowing what he had done. It scared me more than any horror movie tried to do. Everything from the haunting visuals, the sound work, the editing, and Cillian's acting made the scene effective.
And the ending, the best ending to a movie this year. It ends on a chilling and terrifying note that is relevant today. The last frame is unforgettable.
Director Christopher Nolan is one of the best filmmakers working today. The story is not told as a conventional biopic but rather as a fragmented one, often circling the timeline of events. Nolan delivers a meaningful and riveting visual feast with rich characters and dialogue.
Everything on the technical side is an achievement. The visual effects and cinematography were stunning and inspiring for any upcoming filmmakers to learn from. The makeup and hair team also deserves a shout-out, especially towards the end, with some convincing old-age makeup.
Beautiful direction, acting, writing, and score. The best of the best!
Overall rating: Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.
I hope you all had a great 2023, and I will see you in 2024! Take care!
"Oppenheimer" is a cinematic tour de force that showcases the best of what film can offer. Directed by Christopher Nolan, the film is a masterclass in storytelling, performance, and technical prowess.
The film's narrative is both dense and intricate, weaving together elements of courtroom drama, romantic liaisons, laboratory epiphanies, and lecture hall personality cults. It's a testament to Nolan's skill as a director that he's able to balance these disparate elements into a cohesive and compelling narrative.
Cillian Murphy's performance as J. Robert Oppenheimer is nothing short of extraordinary. He captures the complexity and torment of the character with a nuanced performance that is both restrained and expressive. Robert Downey Jr. also delivers a titanic performance, further cementing his status as one of the most versatile actors of his generation.
The cinematography, courtesy of Hoyte van Hoytema, is a visual feast. The film uses the large-format IMAX film system to capture the splendor of New Mexico's desert panoramas and contrast the external coolness and internal turmoil of Oppenheimer. The film's photography is a testament to the power of visual storytelling, with each frame meticulously composed to convey emotion and narrative information.
The film's score, composed by Ludwig Göransson, is a haunting and evocative soundscape that perfectly complements the film's narrative and visual elements. The music underscores the film's themes of creation and destruction, adding another layer of depth to the film.
In conclusion, "Oppenheimer" is a film that showcases the best of what cinema can offer. It's a testament to the power of storytelling, performance, and technical prowess. It's a film that will undoubtedly be remembered as one of the highlights of 2023's cinematic offerings.
Got to see it in IMAX and Man I have to say that I'm just in awe of Christopher Nolan's storytelling. This movie had me at each and every second, not a single second went by where I felt that I was getting distracted or felt out of sync with the movie. And it's a pretty long movie, about 3 fucking hours. But those 3 hours went by so fast. This movie is much less about science, i mean it does have its fair share of science but the main focus is much more on drama, and politics. Also the main attention of the movie is Oppenheimer and you can definitely see it. Most of the movie is just him, we don't deviate a single second away from Oppenheimer in the movie. The first is geared more towards the discovery of the atomic bomb, journey of getting it done and the second half deals with the aftermath of the actions.The movie paints Oppenheimer as a really gray person. And the fact that the movie is about an atomic bomb and that's not even like the main centre of attention to the movie was just awesome. The main attention centre of the movie is the injustice of this world, governments and military and Oppenheimer's conscience. I just love movies or webseries with intense court scenes, it's one of my favorite genders in movies. Coming on to the acting of the cast, I mean hooof every actor saw their character and just fucking smashed it out of the park. Cillian Murphy as Oppenheimer, bruh Cillian just drowned in that role, not a single point where I felt like this was someone acting, it actually felt like he was Oppenheimer BUT this wasn't the real standout for me in the acting department. IT was RDJ who blew my mind with his acting as Andrew Strauss, bro he absolutely buried my expectations of him as an actor. I didn't feel like RDJ could be this intense of an actor cuz I haven't really seen him out of the MCU. but holy fuck man, I wouldn't be surprised if RDJ bags and Oscar for that role , it was that good.
And ofc Rami Malek, mf had a 5 MINUTE ROLE and just changed the course of the whole movie like a chad. What a fucking impactful performance.
And diving deeper into The message of this movie, it is true yes, Scientists are never respected enough for their work i mean just look at history. They are just used as mere tools for the government and then given awards as sort of pity by them for making themselves feel better in their own mind which was Beautifully quoted in that whole sequence of Einstein and Oppenheimer.
and Also Oppenheimer just staring into oblivion thinking that he started a chain reaction that's gonna destroy this world was just priceless.
Nolan's style of storytelling is breathtaking man, his way of communicating a story in a non-linear way and just putting different pieces together as the movie progresses is just beautiful.
and the Score, oh God it was amazing. Ludwig did a great job
All in all, I loved this move. It felt like true Cinema and I had a really nice experience of watching this in theatres with my friends :)
I went prepared for a long film, a dense story, many great actors, good scenes and great sound. I left in awe. It is that great.
Don't go see it if you think this is a quick action flick about a bomb, it's not. Just check the source material for this movie and you'll get an idea of what Nolan did in this movie.
"The bomb is NOT the only thing this movie is talking about and in my opinion that makes this so much more profound." I agree with https://trakt.tv/users/seanmsu, read his comment, it is very good.
The storytelling is well adapted, with dialogues and monologues well written and better delivered!
The mixture between personal, political and scientific information while the movie was going was perfectly balanced for me.
The emotion and the enthralling is achieved, which was to be expected with such a great cast.
I do see Oscar material here, but I'm not well versed to point out those things. Still, I would risk Cillian for acting; Matt or Robert for support; and sound, cause it delivers!
My 9/10 comes exactly from the sound. I would say music, sound and speech are 90% excellent. The other 10% is when sound effects go over the top, I get the idea is to bring emotion, but in IMAX you burst your ears. Same sound effects kill or disturbe some dialogues, which will make me go a second time, cause it was near imperceptible.
With all these complaints I still give it a 9/10 cause the use of sound/silence in this movie is masterfully done.
The visuals are very good, and greatly combined with sound and perspectives.
The light burning white and the gradients in many scenes, give the right feeling to the moment and take you through the story adding up to the context that is ongoing in the moment.
Contrary to many opinions I read here and elsewhere, I do love the back and forth in time; the usage of black & white to portray the past/future. The stitching of each scene kept me hooked and the story advances and drops curiosities to discover later.
Story well told!
Oppenheimer's rise to American hero and subsequent fall as alledged communist... covered in 3 hours of intensity and suspense.
The first 2 hours of this movie cover the race to achieve the atomic bomb, a race initially started because Nazi Germany was working on it, and also the rather flimsy excuse to bomb Japan once Germany surrendered ("you have to use it at least twice, once to show you can, the second time to show that the first time wasn't a fluke"... paraphrased, of course). Especially the sequence surrounding the first testing of the bomb doesn't fail in having an impact: the score, the race against time (Potsdam was around the corner, and the bomb had to be ready by then), the question marks surrounding its efficacy, also the possible destructive sideeffects... then the silence while watching the detonation, the mushroom and endless seconds later comes the soundwave of the whole thing... honestly, that was well done.
The second part of the movie deals with Oppenheimer's fall during the McCarthy era, his close ties to communist ideas, the confidence in his own brilliance... and quite honestly, his failure to stroke the right egos. This is where Nolan's choice to mix black and white sequences into the movie comes into play, as those sequences are the point of view of his adversary who wants to become secretary in the Eisenhower administration. In the end, nobody wins which is maybe the most surprising twist (well, it was to me as I didn't exactly know what happened after Oppenheimer led the Manhattan Project, and politics started).
Cillian Murphy did a great job with Oppenheimer - even if at some moments I was so reminded of Cumberbatch's Turing in "Imitation Game" that I started to see Cumberbatch in Murphy's acting (and incidentally, the person I watched the movie with said exactly the same...). Downey was great as the sleazy politician Strauss, and honestly, the movie, in the end, was about those 2 characters.
Overall, Nolan managed to uphold a level of tension and intensity throughout most of those 3 hours - which is a feat in and of itself. And it wouldn't be Nolan if there weren't different levels within the movie which come together in the end. But he does a bit shy away from the underlying question - a question that all those face who explore new technologies, who expand humankind's knowledge, and whose work can easily destroy the whole world: Are we ready? What if technology doesn't go hand in hand with morality? Do we have to explore technologies just because we can? And does everything really have to be used at least once (or twice)? Does the end justify the means? And who determines what end justifies the use of weapons of mass destruction? But again, there's just enough discussion of that so that the audience are encouraged to ponder these questions for themselves.
Anyway, a well spent evening - a feast for eyes, ears (although at some points the music drowned out the words) and thought.
Christopher Nolan delivers an emphatic characterization of the most dreaded scientists in history with aplomb
My Rating : :star::star::star::star: (85/100)
Oppenheimer is a deep, engrossing and captivating piece of cinema, powered by a remarkable sound design , intense drama and strong performances. It delivers a sense of horror and tension which binds the entire narrative of 3 hours, with powerful people people talking most of its runtime. This Nolan film apologetically as usual packs in a lot of information, names and complexity which might need a second viewing to get a complete understanding and may be overwhelming for people watching a Nolan film for first time. Cillian Murphy gives a performance which gives him the oscars next year. He just sinks into the character with a facile demonstration of how well versed he is with his craft. Oppenheimer might not be Nolan's best work but its one the best biopics I have seen in recent years.
A gripe for me was the use of Bhagwat Gita while a character is having sex, this demeans the spiritual beliefs of Hindus to a certain extent. I could be more critical of it considering that scene wasn't necessary in the entire context of the film or it could have been hidden from the final cuts running in India. However a filmaker as huge as Nolan, could have been more sensitive to deliver such a scene. Oh I get it, its just a movie but there a difference between usual cinema and Nolan's films. We learn a lot from him filmography hence a concern. However, special mentions to Robert Downey Jr, Matt Damon and Emily Blunt for their fantastic support performances in the film.
Overall, Oppenheimer delivers a biopic with great and overwhelming detail, scorching score and powerful visuals of the chain reaction it lead to. There's no denying how dangerous the power could have been if it was only in the hands of the US. Now 9 countries including India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. If you want to understand the origin, then don't miss this film. Recommended.
Instagram, Threads, Twitter : @streamgenx
I'm not going to lie...the Trinity test left me a little underwhelmed. Which is a bit of a problem, because that was the payoff to the first two hours of build up. Overall this movie's structure and pacing were just a bit odd to me. Everything leading up to the test feels primarily character driven, almost slice of life-esque. And for such a long movie, the slices are actually quite thin. Things move fast, with whirlwind character introductions that don't leave much of an impression in many cases. Only a couple of character names stuck with me, which did raise some issues in later sequences when characters are being referenced by name alone. Of course, that doesn't apply to Oppenheimer himself. Cillian Murphy doesn't disappoint, delivering an incredible performance. In fact, all of the performances are excellent, benefiting from strong dialogue that kept me engaged even through the sections when the conflict felt somewhat thin. There's only so much tension that can be extracted from the actual efforts of the Manhattan project, as the conclusion is largely known to the audience. Yes, there are secondary/tertiary conflicts throughout the opening hours, interpersonal and political, but they don't drive the story. It's not until the final hour when Nolan reveals that the movie will have an antagonist and more traditional conflict after all. It's set up as a twist of sorts and for the most part it works. I do think I enjoyed the final hour more than the first two. Technically speaking Nolan never disappoints. The production design is excellent and the cinematography/directing includes some fantastic shots. I probably won't go out of my way to re-watch this anytime soon, but it was still an engaging watch built on a central performance that will likely be an Oscar contender.
This one is definitely going to be a hot take, i didn't find the film to be masterpiece, in a cinematic sense, but it was indeed a masterpiece for me in an intricate way of how subjectively they've portrayed the character study of J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER. The film solely focuses on the titular character and the hardships, emotions, trauma he had to go through whilst making one of the biggest arsenal that'd change history's course forever and what happened after. The 3rd person POV in B&W & the 1st person POV in color gave rather an amusing perspective. While Nolan has indeed veered away from his usual "cerebral - gimmicky" way of storytelling, the audience must be focused on the film so that they may get what is happening and when it is happening, and maybe brushing up on the whole Manhattan Project history and the aftermath trial would also be nice as i noticed that the majority of the audience were infact bored off of their asses during to not getting the history right or the realisation of the impact the event had. I did felt like the chemistry between Cillian & Blunt was off in many places and even her accent came out of hiding in many places, while Cillian & Pugh's one-off interactions were interesting but that was that. Yes indeed Cillian spurned out a masterful performance but it was RDJ who knocked it out of the park for me. His portrayal of the polarized Admiral Lewis Strauss was nothing short of a wonderful performance. What the film lacks is not the starcast, or the perfectly woven screenplay or character study, but it was the hype that all the so-called Christopher Nolan fans who'd only seen mostly THE TDKR TRILOGY & INTERSTELLAR & INCEPTION were actually expecting something like that from him. I think it's due time that Nolan pivot into making more notarized drama's like this where the performance & screenplay can be hard-hitting instead of just giving out thrills & cerebral storylines. OPPENHEIMER is indeed a film that i believe will stay relevant for years to come.
The world forever changes.
Cinematography wise, Amazing. So immersive. Nolan knocked it out of the park as usual. So story wise, there were some moments where my heart thumping, smart dialogue etc.
But it felt more like a documentary than a biopic. I would've love to know more about Oppenheimer as a person rather than seeing a sequence of events that unfolded. He's such a complex character put into a unique situation, I really wish Nolan dived more into that part. Also, there's always so much happening, you can't miss a single dialogue or you'll be like: 'wait wth is happening who's that guy again now". You will know when you see it.
What truly sets Oppenheimer apart is its exploration of profound moral questions. The film delves into the ethics of scientific discovery, the consequences of playing with unimaginable power, and the weight of decisions that can shape the course of history. It leaves the audience pondering the moral ambiguities surrounding Oppenheimer's work and its lasting impact on humanity.
In conclusion, Oppenheimer is a tour de force in film-making. It combines exceptional storytelling, outstanding performances, and thought-provoking themes that resonate long after the credits roll. If you're a fan of historical dramas or simply appreciate outstanding cinema, this movie is an absolute must-see. It deserves every accolade and stands as one of the finest films of our time.
Definitely worth a watch, but make sure you brush up on your WW2 history knowledge or else you might not get the full context.
Pros
+Acting all around. I am not a huge fan of Cillian Murphy but he delivered big time, Downey Jr of course did his thing, Damon was great, Safdie was the surprise hit imo, Florence didn't even have much screen time and she made a big impression, Blunt was good (her character is a terrible bitch but she filled the role well). And these are only a fraction of the main cast, but then every other scene has a major actor filling in a minor role, with of course Gary Oldman's Truman being the most notable.
+Sound design was phenomenal with the train going off it's tracks as both a fitting metaphor and a believable match for so many different scenes/sounds
+cinematography was excellent, the way it tied the sound with the events being a highlight as well as the visions where the moral self analysis of Oppenheimer was substituting reality with his mental state (the naked section of the interrogation, skin peeling off a cheering crowd, the missiles flying past his car). The visuals at the beginning are also wonderful, the moving electrons Oppenheimer visualizes to make his theories make sense were gorgeous. Lighting was great as well
+This movie nailed the tension maybe better than any other movie I've seen. This was something that made me concerned before watching because 3+ hours seems too long to maintain tension while also creating interesting events surrounding a science project in the desert but the early life, days as a professor, start of the Manhattan project, and the finale all bleed into each other incredibly well while mostly using metaphor and recurring themes to convey how Oppenheimer views his responsibilities, how others react to them out of his control, etc. in a way that makes a movie about the creation of a bomb complex but entirely worth every scene it contains. The bomb is NOT the only thing this movie is talking about and in my opinion that makes this so much more profound. Everything being interrupted by the "trials" of Oppenheimer and Strauss breaking down the complex questions for both the characters speaking and for the audience, both allowing anyone to be able to understand a very complex series of events but also using that time not to explain but to expand the characters and force them to address their actions which is the core of what this movie is about.
+It was never preachy, which is extremely hard for a movie about a highly political series of events. They address very interesting involvements Oppenheimer has with the Communist party but are sure to accurately portray them as more tangential than defining his beliefs and to address his continued work on a weapon he knew could destroy the world and the pride he takes in that work while also making it clear he is not a chud robot trying to blow up every enemy the US has. They had an excellent metaphor near the start where he explains how light is both a wave and a particle and it is contradictory but it still is the truth. People change their minds, you can associate with those without believing the same things as them, your work is not an encapsulation of your entire being, etc.
+Set/costume design was great, I'm not going to pretend like the 1930s/40s are the hardest era to replicate but they did their job
+Dialogue was above average but there were a number of weird bits
Neutral
*Kind of mis-portrayed Truman considering he literally almost ended his presidency to stop MacArthur from glassing China/Korea with nukes but the scene was fucking hilarious so it gets a pass lol
*You could put this in the negative section but it's more of an interpretation I have than necessarily a fault in the movie itself. The conversations this story had where phenomenal and they way they drove home the themes about the consequences of our actions is done in an exceptional way however one thing that rubbed me personally the wrong way was the entire time Oppenheimer (and his cunt wife) are continually placing the entire blame on him but that kind of goes against the story because he is just the catalyst and there are so many competing/cooperating forces that are determining the creation, use, and further development of the bomb. It feels like the last scene with Einstein is starting to get to this solution with all of these people praising him/Einstein to attempt to forgive themselves but the very end is just Wide eyed Cillian Murphy being like "Nah bro I set off a chain reaction that's going to destroy the world" so it works against itself. No of course you can interpret this multiple ways and maybe I'm reading this scene against its intention but it does really come off that way to me and with the friend I saw it with
*Midwit Nolan fans are going to bitch about this movie not being eventful because they can't appreciate an actually good film
Cons
-Smooth brains will think it's too long (this is not an actual criticism)
-Smooth brains also will not like that they don't show the use of the bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (This is also not an actual criticism)
-The big twist in the trials is extremely predictable and almost everyone could see it coming from a mile away (The good thing is that it isn't really a major linchpin, at least in terms of you needing to be surprised for it to affect the viewing experience
-I think there is a fair argument against the use of black and white in the Strauss hearings. Yes, it kind of makes it look like a 1950s news story but it goes against the traditional psychology of film that says "Black and White=Older, Color=Newer" Since it is some of the last stuff to happen chronologically in the story
"Oppenheimer", a cinematic masterpiece, shows Christopher Nolan at his best. This film is more than just entertainment - it weaves deep dialogue with historical background knowledge and groundbreaking production. Nolan confronts us with the most fatal stage of human creativity: the potentially devastating weapon. Here cinema becomes a platform for reflection on betrayal, death, time and progress.
The intellectual challenge of the profound dialogues in "Oppenheimer" stands out from superficial action scenes and makes it possible to understand the historical epoch in a new way. This dense storytelling is reminiscent of Nolan's previous works and combines the themes of betrayal, death, time, love, thirst for knowledge and progress into a cumulative whole. The heart-penetrating scenes of the atomic bomb tests and the dropping on Hiroshima are highlights of cinematic art.
This "hard fare" includes education and reflection. Nolan manages to engage the audience and make them think about historical context and the consequences of decisions. "Oppenheimer" breathes new life into cinema and shows that it can be more than just entertainment. Amid superficial content, the film is a reminder that cinema can be a platform for deep themes and intellectual stimulation.
In an age distracted by fast-paced content, "Oppenheimer" is a gem. The film imparts historical knowledge and encourages intellectual debate. This masterpiece manages to captivate the audience with detailed staging and deep dialogues. It is a film for those who are interested and those who want to become one, an outstanding balance between aesthetic pleasure and an existential challenge.
8.5/10
To be upfront, I didn’t understand a lot of the dialogue in this movie. I think that’s partly because my listening comprehension isn’t the best, but others also said they had some issues so I think the sound mixing might also be partly at fault there. However, I still had no issue following the narrative, understanding the characters, and so on. I think the movie is just really well structured, helping me follow along even though we have multiple plot threads in different points of time. And well, sometimes the little physics knowledge I have helped me, for example when Strauss and Oppenheimer referenced Einstein’s “god doesn’t roll dice” quote, I immediately understood what they talked about. But I think as it is the movie is just well constructed.
Nolan is good with the tension and at building immersion and Oppenheimer is no different here. The movie really pulls you in with its fast pacing and the tension is built so damn well. The three hours honestly flew by and I never felt bored, it was consistently exciting to watch. The music is also incredible, aiding to the immersion along with Nolan’s direction. And while the sound design is not that good at making you understand the dialogue, there are scenes which literally burn into your mind. It’s been a while since a movie felt so cinematic and real.
Of course, the actual narrative is also interesting. Oppenheimer’s story turned out to be much more interesting than expected, and gave a lot of insight into America back then and Oppenheimer’s guilt and his emotional struggles. As it turned out the discussion and consequences of the atomic bomb were a much stronger focus than the bomb itself, which fits the overall framing of this movie as a biopic very well. Overall I have no particular issue with this movie - I think it’s very good. And I will rewatch with subs once it hits digital.
Oppenheimer, the 2023 epic biographical thriller film directed by Christopher Nolan, is a masterful and captivating portrayal of the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, one of history's most complex and influential figures. Cillian Murphy delivers an extraordinary performance as the titular character, flawlessly embodying the brilliance, turmoil, and moral dilemmas faced by the renowned theoretical physicist.
Nolan's direction expertly navigates the intricate web of historical events, scientific discoveries, and personal struggles that defined Oppenheimer's journey. The film delves deep into the human psyche, exploring the inner conflicts of a man torn between his passion for scientific advancement and the ethical implications of his work, particularly in the creation of the first nuclear weapons during World War II. This moral dilemma is brilliantly depicted through the character dynamics, especially between Murphy's Oppenheimer and Matt Damon's portrayal of General Leslie Groves, who served as Oppenheimer's military handler.
Emily Blunt's portrayal of Katherine "Kitty" Oppenheimer adds a touching and emotionally charged dimension to the story, offering a glimpse into the personal life of the physicist and the impact of his choices on his family. Additionally, Robert Downey Jr. shines as Lewis Strauss, portraying the tensions within the United States Atomic Energy Commission during this pivotal period in history.
The film's attention to detail in recreating historical settings and events is commendable, immersing the audience in the wartime atmosphere and the high-stakes world of scientific innovation. The supporting cast, featuring talented actors like Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett, Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Tom Conti, and Kenneth Branagh, contribute to the film's depth and authenticity.
Oppenheimer is not just a biopic; it's an exploration of the human spirit, ethics, and the consequences of scientific breakthroughs. Nolan's signature style, combined with the stellar performances of the cast, successfully engages the audience on both an intellectual and emotional level. It's a thought-provoking and hauntingly beautiful cinematic experience that leaves a lasting impact, urging us to ponder the implications of human ingenuity and the responsibility that comes with wielding such power.
I don't think it's Nolan's best film, as some have suggested, but weirdly enough - being an R-rated three-hour film, part black-and-white courtroom-style drama, part dialog-heavy biopic - it may be one of his more accessible stories. It's not a high-concept, mind-bending sci-fi film that outgrows a lot of people's patience, it's not a comic-book film which for a lot of people is still a silly and uninteresting genre. It's not even so much about the atomic bomb and the war itself, which again may put some people off. It's about a real person who was instrumental in the making of a game-changing weapon, and how he had to deal with the fallout of this invention amidst a battle for narrative and control. It's a very grounded and personal story that seems easier to relate to than many of Nolan's previous works. There still is his obligatory non-linear way of telling the story, but it's more streamlined here than even in Dunkirk.
Having said that, I found the first half of the film fairly hard to get into. It moves so fast, skipping all kinds of beats - especially in the student years - the and hardly ever slows down despite not a lot happening on screen plot-wise. It's absolutely doing the groundwork for the second half and maneuvering characters and story elements into position, but instead of a natural part of the story, much of it felt like a recap montage edited to get viewers caught up in a heavily cut-down version of the story in order to not have to spend any more of the already considerable running time to go through everything thoroughly. I felt like yelling "Chris! BREATHE!" at the screen more times than I cared to count, as many scenes seemed like they should have gotten more time and buildup to really communicate their weight, but felt rushed through and quickly moved on from. For parts of this half, the race against the enemies to create the weapon before they do and the horror of what might happen if they get there first could have provided a good reason for this restlessness, but this was reduced to a few brief mentions and not nearly explored as much as it could and probably should have been.
The second half, however, redeemed almost all of that. The Trinity test scene, which really kicks off this second half, is absolutely phenomenal and effortlessly goes from extreme suspense to just pure awe. It feels like both the acting and the creativity in using image and sound in interesting ways are shifting into a higher gear at that point - not that any of it was anywhere near bad in the beginning, but it's the second half where the standout scenes happen for all of them. The victory speech and Kitty's interview are some that spring to mind. And as the trajectory and focus of the movie become clearer, the pace seems to find its stride as well.
While I ultimately thought the portrait of Oppie's personal life wasn't as focused as it should have been, and the story behind the hearings got a little too convoluted, I found the visuals and sound design to be very impressive and I loved the score, even if it can sound like Tenet leftovers here and there. There's even some good humor to be found despite the subject matter, and while just about everyone and their mother being part of the cast may sound distracting, the performances are great across the board and apart from maybe one exception it all came together nicely and seamlessly.
I'm sure the first half will work much better on repeat viewings, but maybe the pacing would have worked out better if Nolan had chosen a Chernobyl-style miniseries format and strong-armed Universal to release it theatrically. As it stands, I think it's a very good film with a lot of excellence in it that's somewhat hampered by an unusually rocky first half. It's not Nolan's best overall film, but it still might contain some of his best work and deserves to be seen with the best picture and sound setup possible.
Yep, a quality film.
'Oppenheimer' lived up to the billing to me. Not that that was ever really in any doubt, with Christopher Nolan at the helm and Cillian Murphy in lead alongside all the acclaim that I have seen this receive since its 2023 release. The near 3hr run time is no problem whatsoever, despite more talk than anything else the film simply doesn't hold any slow/uninteresting moments - 'tis all fascinating.
Ever since I found out about his casting I knew Murphy would deliver a sensational performance and that's exactly what he produces here, which is not even a tiny bit surprising - anyone who has seen television's 'Peaky Blinders', for one, would know that. Loved every single second of him onscreen.
As for the rest of the cast, where do you start?! Emily Blunt is impressive, again not a shock as I'm a fan of her from other things - shoutout 'The Adjustment Bureau'. Matt Damon stars alongside Blunt in that aforementioned great flick, he himself is very good in this. Robert Downey Jr. shows quality too. All others have much less screentime but do a fair bit with it, for example Jason Clarke and Florence Pugh.
It was impossible not to be fully engrossed in this, at least for me. It is not my favourite Nolan movie, 'Inception' and 'Interstellar' surpass but to be honest it's the definition of splitting hairs as his films are of such a high standard. For example, 'Dunkirk' and 'Tenet' move me less but are still ones I rate highly.
Final words on this: Watch it if you get the opportunity. One of the big 'uns!
oppenheimer's life and involvement with the manhattan project are too interesting for this movie to be so boring.
cillian murphy and robert downey jr. have both shown amazing performances in this movie, no surprise there. the videography is great and edited to mute any bright colors. it helps carry the undercurrent of despondency through the film in a visual way and that added a lot of impact to the dialogue and acting in general.
i admire nolan's attempts to tackle a movie written in first person. his choice to show the subjective in color and objective in greyscale was genius and i think this is probably one of his better movies.
however, the complete lack of continuity is very frustrating. i like how one of the reviewers put it: "it makes the common biopic mistake of treating its subject matter like a Wikipedia entry." i couldn't have said it better. this movie feels messy and all over the place. it's incredibly slow-paced while also being choppy and inconsistent. it's hard to pin down oppenheimer's emotions and convictions when the film feels like a mashed up series of webisodes.
my largest complaint about this movie, though, is that it's boring as heck. there's no action, there's no drama, and there's very little emotion. cillian murphy did a standup job of trying to inject as much emotion as he could, but this is really christopher nolan's failure as a screenwriter. if he wanted to write a documentary, he should have just written a documentary.
a large part of this movie deals with oppenheimer's conflicting feelings around the project and use of the bomb, but it's shown in a very subtle way. there are so many moments where he's questioned about his opinions and concerns on the bomb. he's displayed as weak, a traitor, and someone attempting to prevent the progression of building a hydrogen bomb for selfish reasons. through all of this, not once did slotin come up. he's not even in the movie and i can't figure out why.
slotin was a physicist who worked with oppenheimer on the manhattan project. he was the person who built the trinity device for the test explosion (the big tower with the bomb on top of it.) his contributions to the project were crucial to its success, so he was by no means a minor or unimportant person. he died just months before the testing of the bomb from radiation sickness after an experiment went wrong and he was exposed to lethal doses of radiation. it took nearly a month for him to die in a hospital at los alamos.
maybe this is a bit ranty of me, but i don't understand why nolan would choose not to include the gruesome death of a colleague in this movie. i'm sure this strongly influenced oppenheimer's opinions on the project, and it certainly impacted the entire town. seeing the effects of radiation poisoning and how awful of a death it can be is an important factor when deciding if you wanna inflict that suffering on hundreds of thousands of people.
the film is from oppenheimer's pov, and he wasn't present at the accident, but a funeral was held in los alamos and oppenheimer gave speeches about slotin after the fact. there were many times oppenheimer's hesitation about the bomb was interpreted as disloyalty. he was accused of being a soviet spy and of being sympathetic to the japanese during the war. slotin's death was a pivotal moment in the quest to build the bomb and it's dumbfounding to me that this was excluded from the movie despite the emphasis on how oppenheimer's opinions evolved while working on the project.
there were so many other ways to display how and why his opinions changed, but all that's shown is 2-3 seconds of cillian's face while viewing photos from the aftermath. nolan was attempting to be subjective with this film but instead he made oppenheimer seem stale and emotionless.
all that being said, i did still enjoy the film. it was worth going to see, it was worth buying, and i'll probably watch it again. it was good, but it wasn't as great as i had hoped it would be.
i just had high expectations and nolan let me down.
Nolan's penchant for non-linear storytelling somewhat ruined this movie for me.
Don't get me wrong, it is just about short of a masterpiece. Character driven, and oh boy, are there some colorful characters in it. From Oppenheimer himself, Groves, Strauss, Tatlock (Pugh, of whom I'm not a massive fan, shone in her dialogue driven scenes, the "other" ones feeling superfluous), to any number of scientists, soldiers and politicians. It's a massive cast of people you'll recognize, most of whom have small roles but all of whom add that something special to the overall project. Hell, one could tell this whole story from the perspective of any of those characters and it would still be an experience to behold, especially with Nolan at the helm. Cinematography doesn't warrant mention, it's exactly what you'd expect. The movie has it all.
While I love Nolan's approach to telling stories, non-linear wasn't the way to go with Oppenheimer. The movie is still amazing, but it would have been better with a simple linear narrative following Oppenheimer from a young student going from school to school while he compiles his knowledge of physics, his tinkering with communism, his life defining inclusion in the Manhattan Project and the subsequent deconstruction of his persona by politicians playing a game on a completely different field from him. It would have worked just fine.
Whoever said movies are dead need only look at movies like this to realize there are still people out there capable of telling a compelling character drive story without anyone having to wear spandex and land in a way that damages the knees.
Time as an obsession, time you can't remember, time you've lost, time going backwards. Yes, we know, Nolan's cinema has always had clock hands in its compass.
But now, time is up.
Now we are inside a countdown that leads straight to an inevitable horror. So no, it's no longer time to play with the hours, to captivate the public with plot prestige and labyrinthine architectures because now Christopher Nolan has a dirty conscience to explore. A kind of interstellar journey into personal intimate black holes, into which it hurts very much to peek. And so, to accomplish this at best, he gets back to his rigorous and dry times, those of Dunkirk. Because it requires balance, feet on the ground, and dirty hands to tell about Robert Oppenheimer. And he does it with an existential drama in which human horror manifests itself in many ways, not only in the glassy gaze of the inventor of the atomic bomb.
Now personally, I think it has quite too much talking, especially for the first watch you might feel overwhelmed with information, and being 3h long at some point you might stop understanding what's going on. Especially cos after the bomb I thought it was basically over, but it's so not. Not as confusing as Tenet first watch tho, for sure. So it definitely requires more than a watch, and that means it's a good movie. The sound, wow. Acting, top notch. Cillian marry me!
Ps. If you do a Barbenheimer, I'd recommend watching this first. It would not be an easy watch after 3-4 hours of screen time.
A well told story that didn't judge the characters, the politics, or the motivations. For every action, there was an equal and opposite reaction. No one in this film was morally perfect. I don't know that I liked anyone a whole lot, except for Alden Ehrenreich, who played the Senate aide of Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey, Jr.). The gratification his character appears to get from watching Strauss burn was great. Matt Damon's General Groves and Oppenheimer's relationship was satisfying. All of the acting was top notch and the dialog was tremendous.
This is not just a film for nerds. In fact, I was surprised by how little science was actually discussed. There's marbles in a bowl, for Pete's sake! Not to mention the numerous times we see scientists scribble math on a chalkboard. The score, or at least some sort of noise, plays over almost all of the dialogue, which sometimes makes it difficult to hear what's being said. However, it makes the moments of silence much more impactful when they do happen, so there's no doubt it's all very deliberate.
Nolan's direction is unique and creative and makes me want to watch the film again. Many of Robert Oppenheimer's "daydreams" are manifestations of his emotional struggles. There are a couple of moments when the camera is pulled in tighter (than usual) on Oppenheimer's face and you can see the background trembling. It's a really neat effect.
To me, the bloom had been off the rose with Nolan's most recent films, but "Oppenheimer" has helped bring back some of the freshness of his earlier works.
Review by FinFanBlockedParent2024-01-12T18:28:24Z
Maybe I should stop watching movies all together.
There I was, about to invest three hours into a movie about a man I thought to be one of the most interesting characters in human history, and it left me totally underwhelmed. In fact, I quit at the 2:20 hour mark.
This is not "The story of J. Robert Oppenheimer's role in the development of the atomic bomb during World War II." This was more about american communist paranoia, about political intrique then it was about a build up to an event that changed the world. And even that, the Trinity test, was a massive dissapointment to lock at. It didn't look like an atomic explosion but rather just a giant gasoline fire, which it probably was. No fascination or awe or even fear, on my part about the power of nature they just unleashed. Why not make a movie about the project, the challenges, the difficulties when all you can show us of Oppenheimer is - what really ? What did he actually do, what were his contibutions other then sitting in meatings and hearing others talk.
I would like to say the acting was great but I can't as there are hardly scenes where anyone has more then two lines of dialogue in a row. Or longer scenes at all for that matter. You try to put yourself in one scene and it switches to the next, and the next and so on. Add to that jumping throught timelines and you can be left utterly confused. Which will probably be the reason it get's tons of Oscar's.
For me it's a soulless, lifeless and, dare I say it, boring movie stuffed with a massive cast that seemed so wasted on this.