You'll have to have your wits about you and your brain fully switched on watching Oppenheimer as it could easily get away from a nonattentive viewer. This is intelligent filmmaking which shows it's audience great respect. It fires dialogue packed with information at a relentless pace and jumps to very different times in Oppenheimer's life continuously through it's 3 hour runtime. There are visual clues to guide the viewer through these times but again you'll have to get to grips with these quite quickly. This relentlessness helps to express the urgency with which the US attacked it's chase for the atomic bomb before Germany could do the same. An absolute career best performance from (the consistenly brilliant) Cillian Murphy anchors the film. This is a nailed on Oscar performance. In fact the whole cast are fantastic (apart maybe for the sometimes overwrought Emily Blunt performance). RDJ is also particularly brilliant in a return to proper acting after his decade or so of calling it in. The screenplay is dense and layered (I'd say it was a thick as a Bible), cinematography is quite stark and spare for the most part but imbued with rich, lucious colour in moments (especially scenes with Florence Pugh), the score is beautiful at times but mostly anxious and oppressive, adding to the relentless pacing. The 3 hour runtime flies by. All in all I found it an intense, taxing but highly rewarding watch. This is film making at it finest. A really great watch.
4,125 Reviews
A challenging watch to be sure, but a worthwhile one.
Jeremy_Urquhart20 July 2023
Warning: Spoilers
One of the most anticipated films of the year for many people, myself included, Oppenheimer largely delivers. Much of it's great. I feel like I loved two of its three hours, and liked the other hour.... but it's that fact that stops me from adoring the entire thing. I know with Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk, that clicked on a second watch, so maybe Oppenheimer will need one too. That being said, I don't feel the need to rush out and see it again too soon, because it was a long and exhausting film.
But in many ways, I can't deny it was an exceptionally well made one. It looks and sounds as amazing as you'd expect, feeling as though it accurately captures the time period it's set in, and containing amazing sound design and one of the year's best scores so far. Every performance is good to great, but the film belongs to Cillian Murphy, and I feel like he's the lead actor to beat at this stage, if we're talking (early) awards consideration.
The film's at its best when it focuses on being a psychological thriller featuring a famous historical figure, and at one point, it even turns into a psychological horror film. There's one sequence in here involving a speech that's particularly terrifying. It also manages to have some very suspenseful moments, even though its story is commonly known history at this point.
I did really feel the length in the final hour, though, and maybe I wish that final act had been more of an extended epilogue, rather than a whole third of the movie. I currently feel as though I would've loved Oppenheimer more had it been 2.5 hours instead of 3, but nothing about it was bad by any means; just a little patience testing (this is very subjective - I remember feeling like the similarly long Babylon totally justified its runtime, though others didn't feel that way).
I'm left feeling like I watched a film that wasn't a slam dunk, but was incredible for more of its runtime than it wasn't. And that's still worth celebrating, and makes Oppenheimer worth seeing in cinemas for sure.
But in many ways, I can't deny it was an exceptionally well made one. It looks and sounds as amazing as you'd expect, feeling as though it accurately captures the time period it's set in, and containing amazing sound design and one of the year's best scores so far. Every performance is good to great, but the film belongs to Cillian Murphy, and I feel like he's the lead actor to beat at this stage, if we're talking (early) awards consideration.
The film's at its best when it focuses on being a psychological thriller featuring a famous historical figure, and at one point, it even turns into a psychological horror film. There's one sequence in here involving a speech that's particularly terrifying. It also manages to have some very suspenseful moments, even though its story is commonly known history at this point.
I did really feel the length in the final hour, though, and maybe I wish that final act had been more of an extended epilogue, rather than a whole third of the movie. I currently feel as though I would've loved Oppenheimer more had it been 2.5 hours instead of 3, but nothing about it was bad by any means; just a little patience testing (this is very subjective - I remember feeling like the similarly long Babylon totally justified its runtime, though others didn't feel that way).
I'm left feeling like I watched a film that wasn't a slam dunk, but was incredible for more of its runtime than it wasn't. And that's still worth celebrating, and makes Oppenheimer worth seeing in cinemas for sure.
Quality but exhausting
Bonobo1357921 July 2023
I'm a big fan of Nolan's work so was really looking forward to this. I understood there would be some flipping in timelines and I'd need to concentrate. I didn't find this to be a problem at all and the storytelling was beautifully done. The acting was universally excellent. I saw a review saying Emily Blunt was rather OTT but I didn't find that at all.
I think my biggest gripe with the film may mean that I'm just getting old. I found the direction quite jarring with jump cuts galore. While it did keep things moving along apace, it was all rather exhausting. I also found the music and sound very very loud to the point of intrusion. Much like other Nolan films as it goes: Interstellar that I love, also had *very* loud music.
All in all this is a quality watch. It just left me longing for the days when so called 'cerebral' biopics, were a little more tranquil.
I think my biggest gripe with the film may mean that I'm just getting old. I found the direction quite jarring with jump cuts galore. While it did keep things moving along apace, it was all rather exhausting. I also found the music and sound very very loud to the point of intrusion. Much like other Nolan films as it goes: Interstellar that I love, also had *very* loud music.
All in all this is a quality watch. It just left me longing for the days when so called 'cerebral' biopics, were a little more tranquil.
And the Oscar goes to...
mark-217-30703319 July 2023
I'm still collecting my thoughts after experiencing this film, Cillian Murphy might as well start clearing a space on his mantle for the Best Actor Oscar.
This film is a masterclass in weaving narratives and different time periods while exploring the profound depths of a man whose actions altered the world's trajectory forever, for better or worse. Nolan brings us into the complexities of Oppenheimer, and all the moral conflicts stirring within him.
Murphy's portrayal is so riveting that the long run-time became an afterthought. Robert Downey Jr also offers a great performance and Nolan's push and pull with how he uses sound design throughout is the cherry on top.
Some viewers might need a brief refresher on WWII and Cold War history, but any film lover should be happy to willingly lose themselves in this film for hours on end.
This film is a masterclass in weaving narratives and different time periods while exploring the profound depths of a man whose actions altered the world's trajectory forever, for better or worse. Nolan brings us into the complexities of Oppenheimer, and all the moral conflicts stirring within him.
Murphy's portrayal is so riveting that the long run-time became an afterthought. Robert Downey Jr also offers a great performance and Nolan's push and pull with how he uses sound design throughout is the cherry on top.
Some viewers might need a brief refresher on WWII and Cold War history, but any film lover should be happy to willingly lose themselves in this film for hours on end.
A brilliantly layered examination of a man throughout all of his incredible accomplishments and fundamental flaws
MrDHWong20 July 2023
"Oppenheimer" is a biographical thriller film written and directed by Christopher Nolan ("The Dark Knight trilogy", "Inception", "Interstellar", "Dunkirk"), based on the biography "American Prometheus" by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. Starring Cillian Murphy in the lead role, in addition to Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr, Emily Blunt, and Florence Pugh, it subverts the usual biopic formula to create a brilliantly layered examination of a man throughout all of his incredible accomplishments and fundamental flaws.
During the height of the Second World War, theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) is recruited by the United States government to oversee the "Manhattan Project", a top secret operation intended to develop the world's first nuclear weapons. After becoming acquainted with the project's director Major General Leslie Groves (Matt Damon), Oppenheimer and the General come to an agreement that the best place to carry out such an undertaking is the vast desert of Los Alamos, New Mexico. As numerous other scientists and their families are brought in to this discreet location, Oppenheimer works tirelessly around the clock to build this weapon of mass destruction before the Nazis can devise their own. With the War raging and personal troubles mounting, Oppenheimer continues to push himself to his utmost limits, but soon suffers the consequences of his dedication.
On August 6th, 1945, the atomic bomb "Little Boy" was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, making it the first time a nuclear weapon was used in an act of war. The dropping of this bomb and "Fat Man" in Nagasaki three days later was what essentially brought an end to World War II, and with it, began a frightening new era known as the "Atomic Age". To this day, it remains a contentious topic of discussion among many as to whether the ethical ramifications of these bombings are justified by what subsequently resulted from it. The one man whom most people pin all the blame on is J. Robert Oppenheimer, whose key role in the development of these weapons led to him being credited as "the father of the atomic bomb", a label which he carried as a heavy burden for the rest of his life. In Christopher Nolan's biopic "Oppenheimer", we are treated to an intricately structured and uniquely tragic analysis of this complex man's legacy and how it still affects everyone several decades later.
In true Christopher Nolan fashion, the story is not told as a conventional biopic but rather as a fragmented, non-sequential series of highlights pertaining to the title subject's life. When we are first introduced to J. Robert Oppenheimer, we see that he is an incredibly intelligent man whose sheer commitment to his craft earns him the utmost respect of many of his peers, even as a young student. However, almost immediately after, the film cuts to him on trial for allegedly having ties to communism, an accusation which threatens to completely derail the positive reputation bestowed upon him. As the judicial committee interrogates him with hard hitting questions, Oppenheimer is haunted by the errors of his own judgement, shown to the audience through flashbacks of varying length to pivotal times in his life. These scenes range from his fractured relationship with his wife to the remorse he has for placing his trust in the wrong people. This gives the viewer a first person perspective of what Oppenheimer's mind must have been processing during this intense period of his life, as he contemplates the very real possibility of having all of his hard work mitigated by these powerful government officials. It's hard to imagine any other director trying to convey so much information to their audience in such a fashion, but Nolan manages to work his magic in the best way possible, always striking the perfect balance of showcasing the triumphant rise and tragic fall of an imperfect man.
Another notable thing about Nolan's direction is his resourcefulness in the way he handles certain important scenes. One moment, which I won't speak about in too much detail, literally had me on the edge of my seat as we watch Oppenheimer and the rest of the scientists test out the prototype bombs with each explosion proving to be bigger than the last. Since Nolan has been vocal about his dislike of using CGI in his movies, he instead opts for more practical methods of showing the increasing power of these bombs. By reminding the audience that the Nazis could very well be working on their own weapon of mass destruction, there is a real sense of urgency flowing throughout these scenes, giving the scientists all the more reason to work even faster to beat the enemy at their own game. As each bomb explodes, it can be likened to a ticking clock, with each blast representing progression towards the end goal of perfecting the ultimate weapon. The creative use of editing during these scenes keeps things moving at a brisk pace, something especially necessary considering the film's three hour runtime. Nolan previously exhibited a similar method in 2017's "Dunkirk", which utilised the film's score in a clever way to show the audience how time is truly of the essence. Once again, Nolan has found a clever way around taking the easy route of using CG effects to tell a story, and keeps viewers on their toes by use of good old fashioned directorial proficiency.
For what can only be described as the performance of his career, Cillian Murphy brings everything necessary to the role of J. Robert Oppenheimer, a man so complex that I can't imagine the amount of pressure there was to play him this effectively. The combined efforts of both Murphy's acting and Nolan's direction help make Oppenheimer one of the most fascinating individuals of the 20th century. This is not a man who can be viewed simply at face value, as there are so many layers to his character that it bears an in-depth exploration that only a movie like this can accomplish. The film paints Oppenheimer as neither a hero nor a villain, but rather a complicated man whose human qualities undermine what he will be remembered for in the history books. Murphy approaches him like that of a Shakespearian figure, rife with flaws, haughtiness, and a sense of hubris that ends up sealing his inevitable fate. One scene may have you admiring his remarkable talents in the field of nuclear physics while another might cause you to hate him for his unfaithfulness to his family. He can be viewed simultaneously as a martyr and a scapegoat for the way in which he helped bring an end to the deadliest global conflict in history, while consequently ushering in something even worse.
The rest of the film's cast all did a fantastic job as well, with the standouts being Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr, Emily Blunt, and Florence Pugh. Damon's take on Major General Leslie Groves is more than simply that of a stock military character but rather an important figure who seizes the opportunity to use Oppenheimer's talents to his advantage. We watch as Groves forms an unlikely alliance with the physicist, often questioning the ramifications of the theoretical nature in experimenting with nuclear power. Groves's ignorance to Oppenheimer's extensive scientific knowledge allows the audience to learn along with him when it is explained in basic detail. To that effect, he provides an important third party perspective to Oppenheimer's achievements.
It's also great to see Robert Downey Jr shine as Lewis Strauss, which is not only his best post-MCU role but one of his best roles in general. Strauss is a man who is not viewed favourably by history due to his role in exposing Oppenheimer's ties to communism. He holds such a grudge against Oppenheimer that you can practically consider him the true villain of this story. Downey takes every opportunity to show Strauss's two-faced nature, biding his time for the right moment to strip Oppenheimer from the record books and damage his reputation. Reportedly, Downey considers this his best role to date, and it definitely seems like he is putting everything he has into his performance.
Emily Blunt and Florence Pugh also contributed significantly as Kitty Oppenheimer and Jean Tatlock, respectively. Each of these two women represent something significant in Oppenheimer's life, with Kitty being who he should be with and Jean being who he personally wants to be with. This draws parallels to that of Oppenheimer choosing between acting on instinct or acting on intellect when assisting in the construction of the bomb, which again reminds the audience of his flawed human qualities. It can be difficult to give up following your heart but when the fate of the world rests on your pragmatic decision making, sometimes you have no other choice.
As a biopic and a Christopher Nolan film, "Oppenheimer" exceeds virtually all expectations to become one of the very best in both fields. There are few films that are able to tackle such subject matter in this much detail while also remaining entertaining the whole way through. I guess sometimes all it takes is one brave, risk-taking filmmaker to prove that this really is a possible task. We need more films like this to inspire thoughtful, creative discussion and it is comforting to know that someone like Nolan is here to help keep them in the mainstream. After all, it's a tough job, but someone's got to do it for us.
I rate it a perfect 10/10.
During the height of the Second World War, theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) is recruited by the United States government to oversee the "Manhattan Project", a top secret operation intended to develop the world's first nuclear weapons. After becoming acquainted with the project's director Major General Leslie Groves (Matt Damon), Oppenheimer and the General come to an agreement that the best place to carry out such an undertaking is the vast desert of Los Alamos, New Mexico. As numerous other scientists and their families are brought in to this discreet location, Oppenheimer works tirelessly around the clock to build this weapon of mass destruction before the Nazis can devise their own. With the War raging and personal troubles mounting, Oppenheimer continues to push himself to his utmost limits, but soon suffers the consequences of his dedication.
On August 6th, 1945, the atomic bomb "Little Boy" was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, making it the first time a nuclear weapon was used in an act of war. The dropping of this bomb and "Fat Man" in Nagasaki three days later was what essentially brought an end to World War II, and with it, began a frightening new era known as the "Atomic Age". To this day, it remains a contentious topic of discussion among many as to whether the ethical ramifications of these bombings are justified by what subsequently resulted from it. The one man whom most people pin all the blame on is J. Robert Oppenheimer, whose key role in the development of these weapons led to him being credited as "the father of the atomic bomb", a label which he carried as a heavy burden for the rest of his life. In Christopher Nolan's biopic "Oppenheimer", we are treated to an intricately structured and uniquely tragic analysis of this complex man's legacy and how it still affects everyone several decades later.
In true Christopher Nolan fashion, the story is not told as a conventional biopic but rather as a fragmented, non-sequential series of highlights pertaining to the title subject's life. When we are first introduced to J. Robert Oppenheimer, we see that he is an incredibly intelligent man whose sheer commitment to his craft earns him the utmost respect of many of his peers, even as a young student. However, almost immediately after, the film cuts to him on trial for allegedly having ties to communism, an accusation which threatens to completely derail the positive reputation bestowed upon him. As the judicial committee interrogates him with hard hitting questions, Oppenheimer is haunted by the errors of his own judgement, shown to the audience through flashbacks of varying length to pivotal times in his life. These scenes range from his fractured relationship with his wife to the remorse he has for placing his trust in the wrong people. This gives the viewer a first person perspective of what Oppenheimer's mind must have been processing during this intense period of his life, as he contemplates the very real possibility of having all of his hard work mitigated by these powerful government officials. It's hard to imagine any other director trying to convey so much information to their audience in such a fashion, but Nolan manages to work his magic in the best way possible, always striking the perfect balance of showcasing the triumphant rise and tragic fall of an imperfect man.
Another notable thing about Nolan's direction is his resourcefulness in the way he handles certain important scenes. One moment, which I won't speak about in too much detail, literally had me on the edge of my seat as we watch Oppenheimer and the rest of the scientists test out the prototype bombs with each explosion proving to be bigger than the last. Since Nolan has been vocal about his dislike of using CGI in his movies, he instead opts for more practical methods of showing the increasing power of these bombs. By reminding the audience that the Nazis could very well be working on their own weapon of mass destruction, there is a real sense of urgency flowing throughout these scenes, giving the scientists all the more reason to work even faster to beat the enemy at their own game. As each bomb explodes, it can be likened to a ticking clock, with each blast representing progression towards the end goal of perfecting the ultimate weapon. The creative use of editing during these scenes keeps things moving at a brisk pace, something especially necessary considering the film's three hour runtime. Nolan previously exhibited a similar method in 2017's "Dunkirk", which utilised the film's score in a clever way to show the audience how time is truly of the essence. Once again, Nolan has found a clever way around taking the easy route of using CG effects to tell a story, and keeps viewers on their toes by use of good old fashioned directorial proficiency.
For what can only be described as the performance of his career, Cillian Murphy brings everything necessary to the role of J. Robert Oppenheimer, a man so complex that I can't imagine the amount of pressure there was to play him this effectively. The combined efforts of both Murphy's acting and Nolan's direction help make Oppenheimer one of the most fascinating individuals of the 20th century. This is not a man who can be viewed simply at face value, as there are so many layers to his character that it bears an in-depth exploration that only a movie like this can accomplish. The film paints Oppenheimer as neither a hero nor a villain, but rather a complicated man whose human qualities undermine what he will be remembered for in the history books. Murphy approaches him like that of a Shakespearian figure, rife with flaws, haughtiness, and a sense of hubris that ends up sealing his inevitable fate. One scene may have you admiring his remarkable talents in the field of nuclear physics while another might cause you to hate him for his unfaithfulness to his family. He can be viewed simultaneously as a martyr and a scapegoat for the way in which he helped bring an end to the deadliest global conflict in history, while consequently ushering in something even worse.
The rest of the film's cast all did a fantastic job as well, with the standouts being Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr, Emily Blunt, and Florence Pugh. Damon's take on Major General Leslie Groves is more than simply that of a stock military character but rather an important figure who seizes the opportunity to use Oppenheimer's talents to his advantage. We watch as Groves forms an unlikely alliance with the physicist, often questioning the ramifications of the theoretical nature in experimenting with nuclear power. Groves's ignorance to Oppenheimer's extensive scientific knowledge allows the audience to learn along with him when it is explained in basic detail. To that effect, he provides an important third party perspective to Oppenheimer's achievements.
It's also great to see Robert Downey Jr shine as Lewis Strauss, which is not only his best post-MCU role but one of his best roles in general. Strauss is a man who is not viewed favourably by history due to his role in exposing Oppenheimer's ties to communism. He holds such a grudge against Oppenheimer that you can practically consider him the true villain of this story. Downey takes every opportunity to show Strauss's two-faced nature, biding his time for the right moment to strip Oppenheimer from the record books and damage his reputation. Reportedly, Downey considers this his best role to date, and it definitely seems like he is putting everything he has into his performance.
Emily Blunt and Florence Pugh also contributed significantly as Kitty Oppenheimer and Jean Tatlock, respectively. Each of these two women represent something significant in Oppenheimer's life, with Kitty being who he should be with and Jean being who he personally wants to be with. This draws parallels to that of Oppenheimer choosing between acting on instinct or acting on intellect when assisting in the construction of the bomb, which again reminds the audience of his flawed human qualities. It can be difficult to give up following your heart but when the fate of the world rests on your pragmatic decision making, sometimes you have no other choice.
As a biopic and a Christopher Nolan film, "Oppenheimer" exceeds virtually all expectations to become one of the very best in both fields. There are few films that are able to tackle such subject matter in this much detail while also remaining entertaining the whole way through. I guess sometimes all it takes is one brave, risk-taking filmmaker to prove that this really is a possible task. We need more films like this to inspire thoughtful, creative discussion and it is comforting to know that someone like Nolan is here to help keep them in the mainstream. After all, it's a tough job, but someone's got to do it for us.
I rate it a perfect 10/10.
Is it just me ?
pdean-4913221 July 2023
Is it just me or did anyone else find this movie... I hate to say it... boring?. I know I know it's a piece of history and don't get me wrong it was a good movie but idk, going in the theater expecting something "Nolanesque" and it never came so I was kind of a disappointed. I was super excited going in the theater and leaving I was like ,yeah it was good buuuuttt. I guess I was expecting something like inception and or interstellar but those are fictional and I get that this is based off of a true story . I think everyone should watch this movie once and it was very eye opening but I won't ever endure the painful 3 hour movie experience again . It's a one and done movie and I do respect Oppenheimer. Extremely good acting with a boatload of good actors . I also do want to say that there was nothing very IMAX about the movie so you could go to a regular theater and be just fine . Also Emily Blunts ending scene was amazing . All in all I would go as far as to say it's the most boring Christopher Nolan movie but it is a very good movie let's leave it at that . I still give the movie an 8.
Nolan touches greatness, falls slightly short
Geekofriendly26 July 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I was familiar with the Manhattan project and the social and political aftermath, so "Oppenheimer" was an excursion into known territory.
Is it Nolan's finest movie to date? Not really. Because I know he can do even better. Does it touch upon greatness? Yes, a couple of times!
THE GREAT +++
THE NOT SO GREAT ---
Is it Nolan's finest movie to date? Not really. Because I know he can do even better. Does it touch upon greatness? Yes, a couple of times!
THE GREAT +++
- Cillian Murphy gives one of the most surprising leading man performances in ages and just might win an Oscar for his excellent portrayal of Robert Oppenheimer. He fully transforms into the highly complex and increasingly conflicted man, his eyes ooze tension, his voice is on point, and his demeanour is congruent.
- The entire 2nd act (the building of the Manhattan Project's Los Alamos laboratory and the eventual detonation of the first atomic bomb) is the best part of the movie.
- Oppenheimer's shaken and stirred speech after the Trinity test is arguably the most engrossing and immersive movie-making of this summer.
- Great Hollywood actors and actresses galore.
- Many poignant time jump edits.
- The scene with Oppenheimer and president Truman in the oval office.
- Hair and make-up department convincingly depicts Oppenheimer (and some of the rest) from student years to the last stages of their lives.
- In (surprisingly) typical Nolan fashion, the very ending is a satisfying (if slightly fizzled by the 3rd act) "twist" that was being built up throughout the movie.
THE NOT SO GREAT ---
- A big portion of the movie is a dissapointing bait-and-switch. It focuses way too much time on Oppenheimer's pre-Trinity political activity and post-Trinity kangaroo trial without a satisfactory reason to do so. The 1st and especially the overly long 3rd act needed tighter editing and the movie would have been better for it. The build-up to the powerful ending could easily be slightly modified and still pack the same if not an even bigger, much needed gut-wrenching punch.
- The pacing is overly dense because it tries to jam-pack too much of Oppie's pre- and post-Trinity life into one movie. Nolan adds a plethora of new characters we can just barely remember and his time jump edits are sometimes unnecessary and hard to follow.
- Not nearly enough of the movie is about the actual technical feat of building the first atomic bomb.
A Masterpiece
mohameddawoud-2601919 July 2023
I may consider myself lucky to be alive to watch Christopher Nolan Works which get better by years.
Oppenheimer is - with no doubt- going to be one of the best movies in the history. Amazing cinematography, Exceptional acting and terrifying Soundtracks.
All the cast are great from cilian Murphy who is going for the oscar with this role to Rupert Downey jr and Emily blunt and finally rami malik who has small scenes but you will never forget them.
I didn't watch it in Imax as i couldn't wait and ran to the nearest cinema but now i will sure book an imax ticket.
Don't waste any time, book your ticket and Go watch it.. NOW.
Oppenheimer is - with no doubt- going to be one of the best movies in the history. Amazing cinematography, Exceptional acting and terrifying Soundtracks.
All the cast are great from cilian Murphy who is going for the oscar with this role to Rupert Downey jr and Emily blunt and finally rami malik who has small scenes but you will never forget them.
I didn't watch it in Imax as i couldn't wait and ran to the nearest cinema but now i will sure book an imax ticket.
Don't waste any time, book your ticket and Go watch it.. NOW.
Another Cinematic Masterpiece by Christopher Nolan
Dvir97119 July 2023
After a busy career filled with masterpieces, Christopher Nolan finally succeeded in creating a perfect film. In fact, Oppenheimer might be the best film I watched in a long, long time.
Very different than Nolan's recent films, especially the Sci-Fi ones, but shows that Nolan can master the Biopic/Drama genre just as well as he can any other genre he tried to tackle yet. Personally, I must admit that unlike most of Nolan's previous films, I didn't go into this one with overly high expectations. Based on the genre and material the film is based on, I couldn't see how Christopher Nolan could give it his unique touch, and how it could stand alongside films like "The Dark Knight" trilogy, "Inception," and "Interstellar" in his filmography. The film proved me wrong. While it's not my personal top pick in Nolan's filmography, it's undoubtedly his best film so far.
Anyone who has read the book "American Prometheus" on which the film is based, can attest to the incredible editing work Nolan did to turn it from a long and detail-packed narrative into a compact film that captivated such a wide audience. While the direction of the film is no less than masterful and is considered the strongest aspect of the film by critics and award bodies in the US and worldwide, in my opinion, the writing is actually the strongest aspect of the film - whether or not you consider the complex material it's based on.
Legendary Irish actor Cillian Murphy leads the film with one of the best performances seen on the big screen, with his presence dominating the screen time throughout the film's 3 hours, allowing him to leave a long-lasting mark on the history of cinema. Robert Downey Jr. Also gives an impressive performance, capping off a career of over a decade of roles that didn't demand too much acting prowess from him.
The film is 3-hours long yet goes by very quickly and enjoyably. Without spoiling anything, the film presents important and very relevant subjects, and doing so while being non-stop entertainment and a comprehensive character study and a study of our society on a very high pace.
The way Nolan chose to compose the film, and Jennifer Lame's amazing editing (which unusually resembles more of an action film's editing than that of a drama), make the film very dynamic, with its extended length almost unnoticeable. The other technical aspects also strive for perfection - whether it's the costumes, set design, or cinematography.
Ludwig Göransson's work in the musical aspect of the film in particular is masterful, on par with Nolan's previous works. I'm actually visiting the score on a daily basis. The cinematography is stunning and the editing is cutting edge. As I mentioned, this movie is a masterpiece in pretty much all technical fronts as well.
When watching the film, you can't help but feel it's a collaborative effort of a highly talented ensemble - from the actors to every single person responsible for every small detail in the film's production, all under the guidance of an experienced artist who has honed his craft over a career of more than 20 years. It feels like all of Nolan's previous films and the various genres he attempted to tackle improved his filmmaking abilities in different and diverse aspects, so that ultimately everything converged into this film, in which every aspect strives for absolute perfection, delivering everything we've come to expect from a Christopher Nolan film.
Without mentioning anything specific, there was one scene that caused almost every single person in the theatre to move nervously in the seats, non-stop for a long period of time, being one of the most intense scenes I ever watched in a movie and reminding me of the true power of the cinematic experience like no other movie did in recent years.
After a career filled with masterpieces and amazing films, Christopher Nolan finally managed to craft a perfect film - and to my great delight, he finally received the recognition he deserves. Despite all odds, the film managed to captivate audiences in disproportionate amounts for its genre, proving to studios and audience opinion alike that true cinema will always prevail. The year is only half-way through but right now this is my top pick for the upcoming awards season. Picture, Writing, Directing, Acting, Score-- Oppenheimer is a winner on all fronts. A rare feat for filmmaking and a salient reminder that cinema is not dead.
I highly recommend this film to everyone. Watched it once already, and going back to the theatre for at least a few more times soon.
Very different than Nolan's recent films, especially the Sci-Fi ones, but shows that Nolan can master the Biopic/Drama genre just as well as he can any other genre he tried to tackle yet. Personally, I must admit that unlike most of Nolan's previous films, I didn't go into this one with overly high expectations. Based on the genre and material the film is based on, I couldn't see how Christopher Nolan could give it his unique touch, and how it could stand alongside films like "The Dark Knight" trilogy, "Inception," and "Interstellar" in his filmography. The film proved me wrong. While it's not my personal top pick in Nolan's filmography, it's undoubtedly his best film so far.
Anyone who has read the book "American Prometheus" on which the film is based, can attest to the incredible editing work Nolan did to turn it from a long and detail-packed narrative into a compact film that captivated such a wide audience. While the direction of the film is no less than masterful and is considered the strongest aspect of the film by critics and award bodies in the US and worldwide, in my opinion, the writing is actually the strongest aspect of the film - whether or not you consider the complex material it's based on.
Legendary Irish actor Cillian Murphy leads the film with one of the best performances seen on the big screen, with his presence dominating the screen time throughout the film's 3 hours, allowing him to leave a long-lasting mark on the history of cinema. Robert Downey Jr. Also gives an impressive performance, capping off a career of over a decade of roles that didn't demand too much acting prowess from him.
The film is 3-hours long yet goes by very quickly and enjoyably. Without spoiling anything, the film presents important and very relevant subjects, and doing so while being non-stop entertainment and a comprehensive character study and a study of our society on a very high pace.
The way Nolan chose to compose the film, and Jennifer Lame's amazing editing (which unusually resembles more of an action film's editing than that of a drama), make the film very dynamic, with its extended length almost unnoticeable. The other technical aspects also strive for perfection - whether it's the costumes, set design, or cinematography.
Ludwig Göransson's work in the musical aspect of the film in particular is masterful, on par with Nolan's previous works. I'm actually visiting the score on a daily basis. The cinematography is stunning and the editing is cutting edge. As I mentioned, this movie is a masterpiece in pretty much all technical fronts as well.
When watching the film, you can't help but feel it's a collaborative effort of a highly talented ensemble - from the actors to every single person responsible for every small detail in the film's production, all under the guidance of an experienced artist who has honed his craft over a career of more than 20 years. It feels like all of Nolan's previous films and the various genres he attempted to tackle improved his filmmaking abilities in different and diverse aspects, so that ultimately everything converged into this film, in which every aspect strives for absolute perfection, delivering everything we've come to expect from a Christopher Nolan film.
Without mentioning anything specific, there was one scene that caused almost every single person in the theatre to move nervously in the seats, non-stop for a long period of time, being one of the most intense scenes I ever watched in a movie and reminding me of the true power of the cinematic experience like no other movie did in recent years.
After a career filled with masterpieces and amazing films, Christopher Nolan finally managed to craft a perfect film - and to my great delight, he finally received the recognition he deserves. Despite all odds, the film managed to captivate audiences in disproportionate amounts for its genre, proving to studios and audience opinion alike that true cinema will always prevail. The year is only half-way through but right now this is my top pick for the upcoming awards season. Picture, Writing, Directing, Acting, Score-- Oppenheimer is a winner on all fronts. A rare feat for filmmaking and a salient reminder that cinema is not dead.
I highly recommend this film to everyone. Watched it once already, and going back to the theatre for at least a few more times soon.
This just might be as interesting as this topic can get
EShy25 July 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a big Nolan fan. Maybe this one just wasn't for me.
This movie was promoted as the story of the invention of the bomb. We were told we should see it on the biggest screen. Go out of your way for an IMAX 70mm projection if you can, or at least get a regular 70mm or Laser IMAX.
It turns out, that while Nolan's visuals still look good in this movie, there's nothing breathtaking that warrants those formats. It's like a 1 Michelin star, if your local theater has those formats, might as well go for it, but that's probably true for any movie.
It also turns out that this is mostly the story of political vendettas and the marketing of bombs exploding had little to do with the movie, the whole trailer is really just one scene. I guess there wasn't a more interesting way to approach the Los Alamos part of the story. What could he do, focus on the scientific challenges? Not really the best source for a story.
We get the review of Oppenheimer for a security clearance, which leads to his retelling of his history in flashbacks, which is why the story of creating the bomb is told as well as his personal relationships (I guess because she was a communist party member, the character played by Pugh is naked all the time, not sure why that was necessary) while at the same time we get a much shorter story of the confirmation hearings of Strauss, with a few flashbacks to a couple of meetings he was involved in with Oppenheimer .
It's a political drama, with not much drama. There isn't enough emotional connection to the characters to care about it. Will Oppenheimer lose his security clearance? Will Strauss get served by karma at his cabinet confirmation hearing? Who cares? If you're not invested in any of the characters, why would you care about what happens to them in the end?
Maybe this is the best one can do with the source material. Maybe the mistake was wanting to tell that particular story. Maybe better writing and staying away from the gimmick of two timelines of flashbacks intersecting could've told the story better. Maybe it's time for Nolan to let go of those gimmicks in his movies and trust his subject matter.
Unlike previous Nolan movies, I won't be thinking about this movie much or wanting to watch it again to understand it better. There's just nothing else in there.
For me, this isn't one of his top movies. Technically it's great, the acting is also great, the writing and editing just isn't there.
Also, IMAX is great, but not every movie benefits from it. This one really didn't. Maybe if Nolan wasn't so focused on the technical side he'd be able to get me emotionally invested in this story.
Edit:
I had to come back and add a comparable movie that does a much better job and shows you can tell this story with real tension.
The Imitation Game.
A movie about a genius trying to solve a problem during the same war. That topic is just as science heavy and the movie goes into his personal struggles, relationships and the personal consequences he suffered because of the politics of the time.
The tension is focused on the task of breaking the German code. Not on what will happen to the lead characters years later. It's a lot easier to be invested in that (even though we know who won that war) vs. The results of some political hearing.
This movie was promoted as the story of the invention of the bomb. We were told we should see it on the biggest screen. Go out of your way for an IMAX 70mm projection if you can, or at least get a regular 70mm or Laser IMAX.
It turns out, that while Nolan's visuals still look good in this movie, there's nothing breathtaking that warrants those formats. It's like a 1 Michelin star, if your local theater has those formats, might as well go for it, but that's probably true for any movie.
It also turns out that this is mostly the story of political vendettas and the marketing of bombs exploding had little to do with the movie, the whole trailer is really just one scene. I guess there wasn't a more interesting way to approach the Los Alamos part of the story. What could he do, focus on the scientific challenges? Not really the best source for a story.
We get the review of Oppenheimer for a security clearance, which leads to his retelling of his history in flashbacks, which is why the story of creating the bomb is told as well as his personal relationships (I guess because she was a communist party member, the character played by Pugh is naked all the time, not sure why that was necessary) while at the same time we get a much shorter story of the confirmation hearings of Strauss, with a few flashbacks to a couple of meetings he was involved in with Oppenheimer .
It's a political drama, with not much drama. There isn't enough emotional connection to the characters to care about it. Will Oppenheimer lose his security clearance? Will Strauss get served by karma at his cabinet confirmation hearing? Who cares? If you're not invested in any of the characters, why would you care about what happens to them in the end?
Maybe this is the best one can do with the source material. Maybe the mistake was wanting to tell that particular story. Maybe better writing and staying away from the gimmick of two timelines of flashbacks intersecting could've told the story better. Maybe it's time for Nolan to let go of those gimmicks in his movies and trust his subject matter.
Unlike previous Nolan movies, I won't be thinking about this movie much or wanting to watch it again to understand it better. There's just nothing else in there.
For me, this isn't one of his top movies. Technically it's great, the acting is also great, the writing and editing just isn't there.
Also, IMAX is great, but not every movie benefits from it. This one really didn't. Maybe if Nolan wasn't so focused on the technical side he'd be able to get me emotionally invested in this story.
Edit:
I had to come back and add a comparable movie that does a much better job and shows you can tell this story with real tension.
The Imitation Game.
A movie about a genius trying to solve a problem during the same war. That topic is just as science heavy and the movie goes into his personal struggles, relationships and the personal consequences he suffered because of the politics of the time.
The tension is focused on the task of breaking the German code. Not on what will happen to the lead characters years later. It's a lot easier to be invested in that (even though we know who won that war) vs. The results of some political hearing.
Nolan delivers a powerfull biopic that shows the dark side of human nature!
and_mikkelsen20 July 2023
This movie is just... wow! I don't think I have ever felt like this watching a movie! Its like a blend of being sad but also scared! I read that Christopher Nolan said it kind of had themes of horror, and watching the movie i think I knew what he meant! Very few movies can make you feel quite like this one can!
Nolan once again shows he is an expertly craftsman in filmmaking! This stands as perhaps one of his more humble movies but also one of his greatest! Reminds me of his earlier movies!
The cast is also AMAZING with Cillian Murphy delivering the performance of his carrer as Oppenheimer, esentially becoming him, and pretty much securing himself an Oscar nomination for best lead actor! Robert Downey Junior also gives one of his best performances, reminding us all that despite 10 years as Iron man, he can still act!
The soundtrack, sound and editing is also masterfull and further creates a cinematic experience like no other!
Overall an esential viewing experience about historic events that still remains very relevant to this day! One of my favorite Nolan movies!
Nolan once again shows he is an expertly craftsman in filmmaking! This stands as perhaps one of his more humble movies but also one of his greatest! Reminds me of his earlier movies!
The cast is also AMAZING with Cillian Murphy delivering the performance of his carrer as Oppenheimer, esentially becoming him, and pretty much securing himself an Oscar nomination for best lead actor! Robert Downey Junior also gives one of his best performances, reminding us all that despite 10 years as Iron man, he can still act!
The soundtrack, sound and editing is also masterfull and further creates a cinematic experience like no other!
Overall an esential viewing experience about historic events that still remains very relevant to this day! One of my favorite Nolan movies!
Breaks all filmmaklng rules, but not in a good way
timmyhollywood23 July 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, Nolan fans, get your fingers poised to downvote what I'm about to say. That's the only way I can understand the high rating for this film - thousands of devoted Nolan fans inflating the score. Because if you're honest, there's no way this mottled mess of a movie is an 8.9. Not in any sane universe.
I've seen all of Nolan's films. Memento was a brilliant calling card for a young director and The Dark Knight elevated superhero movies to something amazing, gritty and crackling with verisimilitude. But Inception was a long slog of exposition, and Interstellar, while offering some good moments, also imploded under the weight of the writer-director's ego.
Nolan likes to tackle big ideas. Dreams and outer space. Here, he delves into quantum physics, but it's relegated to a line, really, that Oppenheimer offers Kitty before marrying her. He explains quantum physics as mostly space in which particles have an "attraction" to one another... and then they hold hands.
For the first two hours of Oppenheimer, I was lost in a blizzard of short, disparate scenes, constant musical score, actors chewing through endless dialog. You are never allowed to rest, never really sure where or when you are. Nolan offers only two cryptic title cards at the very beginning: 1. Fission and 2. Fusion. (Or maybe it was the other way around.) He separates the time period of public hearing, with Robert Downey Jr. As the main character, by desaturating to black and white. But other than the make-up used to age or de-age Cillian Murphy's Oppenheimer, you never really know quite where you are, or where it fits in sequentially or contextually into the story.
There is the public hearing, and there is a closed hearing with a wolf pack of hungry prosecutors, and then there is some semblance of Oppenheimer's backstory - his love life, his gradual involvement in government, leading to a general (Matt Damon) for some reason hiring him to be the head of Los Alamos. All of this is mashed together, scenes never really more than a few seconds long before cutting to somewhere else, something else, often interpolated with macro shots of things fizzing and roiling and exploding. I assume that's supposed to be some sort of visual metaphor for the work Oppenheimer is doing, his theorizing and contemplating, but that's it, for any demonstration of the actually "work" Oppenheimer does, save one scene near the beginning where he inadvertently shatters a beaker in class and we hear he's terrible in a lab.
Yet, without exaggeration, by an hour into the movie, we've been told at least ten times that Oppenheimer is brilliant, or a "genius." We're just never shown why. And this is Nolan's chief sin - he is a teller, not a shower. A writer, not really a director.
Take "A Beautiful Mind" for comparison. In that movie, director Ron Howard regularly visualizes the work of John Nash. He shows him, for instance, watching pigeons gather crumbs, and in his mind's eye he maps their pattern. Or on a window overlaying the view outside of some young men playing sports, he uses a piece of white pastel to draw a diagram of them. Film is a visual medium.
Consider "Schindler's List" (or any Spielberg movie, really), and observe the blocking of the actors, the placement of the camera, all in service of telling the story visually. An actor may dominate the frame, or maybe have his back turned. Characters may move and create an entirely new frame (blocking). Their relationship to each other and to the camera help tell the story.
In Nolan's filmmaking, where the camera goes is really arbitrary. And where he cuts the shot has to do with his writing, not the actors reaction or the blocking of the scene, so that the editing feels off, clunky, the shot moving off of an actor at the start of a reaction, or coming back with an actor already in motion. This is because Nolan is cutting for the script, relying on dialog to tell the entire story. Even plays have blocking.
True, he decides to tell the story of the "Father of the A-Bomb" chiefly through these two hearings, the public one and the closed one, so there's going to be lots of talking. But then he doubles down on the talking - on the telling - even further. In one scene, Casey Affleck sits beside Oppenheimer in some room somewhere (I don't even know who Affleck was playing, really, it was very short) and while he's talking to Oppenheimer, Nolan cuts back and forth to another scene with Matt Damon on a train with Oppenheimer, and Damon is telling us about Affleck and who he is and what he wants.
Character should be revealed through action. Not some other character explaining everything off to the side.
There are a great many cameos in Nolan's film - it is "star studded." But rather than the appearance of a name actor helping to clarify the character portrayed, they distract. At one point, a woman near me in the theater said "Oh, look who that is," when Remi Malek appeared. We're focused on the actor and their previous roles, not the character.
Everything in this movie, especially the first ninety minutes, bounced me off, like a stone skipping over water. The scenes are too short, the music never stops, there are too many characters, we're always changing time and place, I'm not really sure what's happening, famous faces keep popping up. And I don't understand why everything is so frantic.
Once we get to about the halfway mark, and the Trinity project gets that infamous test, the movie sinks in a little. That's because Nolan finally slows things down, lets us exist somewhere in the film for a moment, lets us be immersed.
After that, for the most part, he's back a it, whisking us from one quick scene to the next at a pace that tries so hard to be breathless and exciting and just ends up distracting and frustrating. Still, I felt more in tune for the second half of the film, because I could now sense the dilemma, the emotional conflict in Oppenheimer after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In one of the best scenes in the film, Oppenheimer is giving a speech to toast the success of the American empire, but the room turns white, and rumbles, and woman's skin flays.
And finally, another scene with Emily Blunt, as Kitty Oppenheimer, giving one of those wolf pack prosecutors a piece of her mind in the closed hearing, really steals the show. Blunt was truly an enjoyable part of this movie, though she had little screen time.
There's not much else to say. I feel like I just listened to some hyperactive child try to tell me a story that I thought I already knew, but became unnecessarily convoluted in the telling. I didn't really learn anything new, not about the physics of the A-Bomb, nor did I really get a sense of the McCarthyism of the era; they were just after Oppenheimer for no real reason I could grasp, until very close to the end, apparently it was all because he had some reservations about using the H-Bomb.
Nolan tries a twist, too, holding back on a brief conversation between Oppenheimer and Einstein by a pond. Because several of Nolan's films have had a big twist, this one felt kind of paltry as twists go, but drove home the underlying grief and sadness of the whole A-Bomb project, and what it meant for the world.
6.5/10.
I've seen all of Nolan's films. Memento was a brilliant calling card for a young director and The Dark Knight elevated superhero movies to something amazing, gritty and crackling with verisimilitude. But Inception was a long slog of exposition, and Interstellar, while offering some good moments, also imploded under the weight of the writer-director's ego.
Nolan likes to tackle big ideas. Dreams and outer space. Here, he delves into quantum physics, but it's relegated to a line, really, that Oppenheimer offers Kitty before marrying her. He explains quantum physics as mostly space in which particles have an "attraction" to one another... and then they hold hands.
For the first two hours of Oppenheimer, I was lost in a blizzard of short, disparate scenes, constant musical score, actors chewing through endless dialog. You are never allowed to rest, never really sure where or when you are. Nolan offers only two cryptic title cards at the very beginning: 1. Fission and 2. Fusion. (Or maybe it was the other way around.) He separates the time period of public hearing, with Robert Downey Jr. As the main character, by desaturating to black and white. But other than the make-up used to age or de-age Cillian Murphy's Oppenheimer, you never really know quite where you are, or where it fits in sequentially or contextually into the story.
There is the public hearing, and there is a closed hearing with a wolf pack of hungry prosecutors, and then there is some semblance of Oppenheimer's backstory - his love life, his gradual involvement in government, leading to a general (Matt Damon) for some reason hiring him to be the head of Los Alamos. All of this is mashed together, scenes never really more than a few seconds long before cutting to somewhere else, something else, often interpolated with macro shots of things fizzing and roiling and exploding. I assume that's supposed to be some sort of visual metaphor for the work Oppenheimer is doing, his theorizing and contemplating, but that's it, for any demonstration of the actually "work" Oppenheimer does, save one scene near the beginning where he inadvertently shatters a beaker in class and we hear he's terrible in a lab.
Yet, without exaggeration, by an hour into the movie, we've been told at least ten times that Oppenheimer is brilliant, or a "genius." We're just never shown why. And this is Nolan's chief sin - he is a teller, not a shower. A writer, not really a director.
Take "A Beautiful Mind" for comparison. In that movie, director Ron Howard regularly visualizes the work of John Nash. He shows him, for instance, watching pigeons gather crumbs, and in his mind's eye he maps their pattern. Or on a window overlaying the view outside of some young men playing sports, he uses a piece of white pastel to draw a diagram of them. Film is a visual medium.
Consider "Schindler's List" (or any Spielberg movie, really), and observe the blocking of the actors, the placement of the camera, all in service of telling the story visually. An actor may dominate the frame, or maybe have his back turned. Characters may move and create an entirely new frame (blocking). Their relationship to each other and to the camera help tell the story.
In Nolan's filmmaking, where the camera goes is really arbitrary. And where he cuts the shot has to do with his writing, not the actors reaction or the blocking of the scene, so that the editing feels off, clunky, the shot moving off of an actor at the start of a reaction, or coming back with an actor already in motion. This is because Nolan is cutting for the script, relying on dialog to tell the entire story. Even plays have blocking.
True, he decides to tell the story of the "Father of the A-Bomb" chiefly through these two hearings, the public one and the closed one, so there's going to be lots of talking. But then he doubles down on the talking - on the telling - even further. In one scene, Casey Affleck sits beside Oppenheimer in some room somewhere (I don't even know who Affleck was playing, really, it was very short) and while he's talking to Oppenheimer, Nolan cuts back and forth to another scene with Matt Damon on a train with Oppenheimer, and Damon is telling us about Affleck and who he is and what he wants.
Character should be revealed through action. Not some other character explaining everything off to the side.
There are a great many cameos in Nolan's film - it is "star studded." But rather than the appearance of a name actor helping to clarify the character portrayed, they distract. At one point, a woman near me in the theater said "Oh, look who that is," when Remi Malek appeared. We're focused on the actor and their previous roles, not the character.
Everything in this movie, especially the first ninety minutes, bounced me off, like a stone skipping over water. The scenes are too short, the music never stops, there are too many characters, we're always changing time and place, I'm not really sure what's happening, famous faces keep popping up. And I don't understand why everything is so frantic.
Once we get to about the halfway mark, and the Trinity project gets that infamous test, the movie sinks in a little. That's because Nolan finally slows things down, lets us exist somewhere in the film for a moment, lets us be immersed.
After that, for the most part, he's back a it, whisking us from one quick scene to the next at a pace that tries so hard to be breathless and exciting and just ends up distracting and frustrating. Still, I felt more in tune for the second half of the film, because I could now sense the dilemma, the emotional conflict in Oppenheimer after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In one of the best scenes in the film, Oppenheimer is giving a speech to toast the success of the American empire, but the room turns white, and rumbles, and woman's skin flays.
And finally, another scene with Emily Blunt, as Kitty Oppenheimer, giving one of those wolf pack prosecutors a piece of her mind in the closed hearing, really steals the show. Blunt was truly an enjoyable part of this movie, though she had little screen time.
There's not much else to say. I feel like I just listened to some hyperactive child try to tell me a story that I thought I already knew, but became unnecessarily convoluted in the telling. I didn't really learn anything new, not about the physics of the A-Bomb, nor did I really get a sense of the McCarthyism of the era; they were just after Oppenheimer for no real reason I could grasp, until very close to the end, apparently it was all because he had some reservations about using the H-Bomb.
Nolan tries a twist, too, holding back on a brief conversation between Oppenheimer and Einstein by a pond. Because several of Nolan's films have had a big twist, this one felt kind of paltry as twists go, but drove home the underlying grief and sadness of the whole A-Bomb project, and what it meant for the world.
6.5/10.
Highly overrated
bartlooman25 July 2023
This must be the most overrated film of the year.
Like every other typical American biographical movie, it glorifies its subject. According to Nolan, Oppenheimer is the most important person who ever lived. Really?
The movie contains at least 1.5 hours of uninteresting courtroom drama.
There are far too many characters.
Not a single compelling dialogue about the moral impact of the bomb.
The continuous music propels the film, but as a result there is zero emotional impact when needed.
Excellent acting by all, though, and occasional nice directorial effects.
Most ridiculous moment of the film: While having sex with Oppenheimer, Florence Pughs character randomly selects a sentence in a book in Sanskrit which just happens to be the infamous "Now I Am Become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds" quote.
Like every other typical American biographical movie, it glorifies its subject. According to Nolan, Oppenheimer is the most important person who ever lived. Really?
The movie contains at least 1.5 hours of uninteresting courtroom drama.
There are far too many characters.
Not a single compelling dialogue about the moral impact of the bomb.
The continuous music propels the film, but as a result there is zero emotional impact when needed.
Excellent acting by all, though, and occasional nice directorial effects.
Most ridiculous moment of the film: While having sex with Oppenheimer, Florence Pughs character randomly selects a sentence in a book in Sanskrit which just happens to be the infamous "Now I Am Become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds" quote.
Nolan at his best!
shivamkanodia-9499219 July 2023
As VFX and special effects take over the traditional filmmaking methods, Nolan is among the remaining few directors who still builds grandiose true-to-life sets and reflects cinematic setpieces by filming them instead of digitising them. Oppenheimer is thus a culmination of Nolan's cinematic genius combined with an incredible story that changed the world in more ways than one. It's incredibly intimate and divisive, with the onus of it's justification being put on the audience instead of the narrator.
The cast is just as incredible as you would expect it to be, and the screenplay flows naturally, with a breathtaking score that justifiably draws parallels from Hans Zimmer's profound work in Interstellar. Nolan balances the intimacy between the characters while simultaneously juxtaposing it with some of the most impactful scenes ever shown on the big screen. The movie's runtime takes it's time in setting up it's pieces, with the finale leaving you utterly spellbound at the sheer magnitude and scale of the events transpiring right in front of your eyes.
Lastly, for those who want their daily dosage of immediate dopamine and faster pacing in the theatre instead of experiencing a meticulously guided journey, you could wait a few more months for yet another copy paste Fast and Furious flick or a Marvel movie laden with green backdrops and fan-service.
Because this isn't a film or a flick, this is Cinema.
The cast is just as incredible as you would expect it to be, and the screenplay flows naturally, with a breathtaking score that justifiably draws parallels from Hans Zimmer's profound work in Interstellar. Nolan balances the intimacy between the characters while simultaneously juxtaposing it with some of the most impactful scenes ever shown on the big screen. The movie's runtime takes it's time in setting up it's pieces, with the finale leaving you utterly spellbound at the sheer magnitude and scale of the events transpiring right in front of your eyes.
Lastly, for those who want their daily dosage of immediate dopamine and faster pacing in the theatre instead of experiencing a meticulously guided journey, you could wait a few more months for yet another copy paste Fast and Furious flick or a Marvel movie laden with green backdrops and fan-service.
Because this isn't a film or a flick, this is Cinema.
Severely overhyped
maison-van-cleers27 July 2023
I align with other reviewers here who have found this. Despite the hype surrounding it, Oppenheimer fell short of expectations. The film proved to be tedious and at many times draining to watch.
I liked the cinematography but the beautiful scenes had an overwhelmingly loud background score that drowned out most of the dialogue and made it hard to comprehend what was going on.
The movie also had several disjointed scene transitions which in my opinion, because of lack of character development and loud background music, only added to the confusion, making it hard to follow the plot coherently. Overall, a disappointing experience that failed to live up to its hype.
I liked the cinematography but the beautiful scenes had an overwhelmingly loud background score that drowned out most of the dialogue and made it hard to comprehend what was going on.
The movie also had several disjointed scene transitions which in my opinion, because of lack of character development and loud background music, only added to the confusion, making it hard to follow the plot coherently. Overall, a disappointing experience that failed to live up to its hype.
Simply amazing
bissatadam19 July 2023
This movie is very interesting and very thrilling. Since this movie had no action and was mostly just a documentary and was 3 hours long, I though that it was going to be boring. But, the 3 hours went by very fast and had me at the edge of my seat the whole time. This movie is like no other movie I had ever seen it is very unique and mind blowing. The cinematography is beautiful and the aesthetic of the movie is also beautiful. Anyone who is interested in the history of war and bombs would love this movie but I think anyone would enjoy this movie. Oppenheimer is one of the best movies I have seen this decade.
Exceptional storytelling and Genius Cinametography
Zay-Fee20 July 2023
Just came out of the theater and watching Oppenheimer was such a great experience. I know many people will criticize the movie for some historical accuracy absence but I think Christopher Nolan has made this complicated man's story compelling, engaging, and simple to understand. The actors are phenomenal. Apart from the main leads, Robert Downey has probably done one of his finest work. His expressions, timing, delivery... Everything was on par. The cinematography has been crafted beautifully. I adored and enjoyed the whole three hours with ease and delight. This is the first attempt of Christopher Nolan at biographies and I think we should expect more of his work from this genre since it's not only entertaining but also sparks an interest to know history more. I have read the book earlier so I went to watch it with a little bit of knowledge and still enjoyed the film. I wish I could tell Cillian Murphy in person how stunning his screen presence has been throughout. Hopefully, this movie wins the awards like it deserves.
Cinematic masterpiece
jjqqhnqhg19 July 2023
Nolan is back and delivers a fast paced thrilling biopic that will leave you stunned.the cinematography, sound design, score all exceptional. Every acting performance is perfect with Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey JR standing out. Nolan is experimenting with new styles of surrealist and subjective filmmaking to him which is so incredible to see from such a seasoned writer and director. He's pushing the envelope with Oppenheimer and challenging the audience like never before.
Nolan's character study merges a thematically resonant story with a breathtaking soundscape & epic visuals. The IMAX experience for this one is a must.
You will need to stay focused because the film moves very quickly with sharp snappy dialogue.
Nolan's character study merges a thematically resonant story with a breathtaking soundscape & epic visuals. The IMAX experience for this one is a must.
You will need to stay focused because the film moves very quickly with sharp snappy dialogue.
Good movie, but don't let Nolan fans fool you.
davidpayne-1858624 July 2023
Warning: Spoilers
It's isn't a masterpiece. It's a decent biopic about an interesting person, has some good performances, and it's probably about 30 minutes too long.
Much better than some of Nolan's recent outings where he's disappeared up his own backside trying to be overly "clever" so his fans can feel smarter than they actually are.
The movie does well to take subjects like quantum physics and not become bogged down in trying to stroke it's own intellectual ego.
It will be a surprise if Murphy and Downey Jr aren't front runners for acting awards in 6 months. Others like Emily Blunt are very good but have too little screentime to really get into their roles.
Much better than some of Nolan's recent outings where he's disappeared up his own backside trying to be overly "clever" so his fans can feel smarter than they actually are.
The movie does well to take subjects like quantum physics and not become bogged down in trying to stroke it's own intellectual ego.
It will be a surprise if Murphy and Downey Jr aren't front runners for acting awards in 6 months. Others like Emily Blunt are very good but have too little screentime to really get into their roles.
Too loud and too long
andy_c_les3 August 2023
The film looks great is brilliantly acted but there's virtually no actual plot, it's constantly jump back and forward and evey couple of minutes there's unfeasibly loud music trying to build up the tension. This is more a jazzed up documentary than a film and at a painful three hours long it does not hold your attention the entre way. It could easily be forty minutes to an hour less in playtime.
There were good bits, some great but but on the whole the film is dull and drags. I've seen it once now and have absolutely no desire to ever see it again. I'm baffled by everyone saying what a masterpiece it is. I suppose if you like long panoramic shots with overbearing music it's great but if you want a decent story give it a miss.
There were good bits, some great but but on the whole the film is dull and drags. I've seen it once now and have absolutely no desire to ever see it again. I'm baffled by everyone saying what a masterpiece it is. I suppose if you like long panoramic shots with overbearing music it's great but if you want a decent story give it a miss.
A brilliant masterpiece that cuts to the core of human fear
show24studio19 July 2023
Christopher Nolan just stamped his foot print into cinema history as an all time great. It is as if each film he's made has just been a building block leading him to conduct this masterpiece. Oppenheimer is Nolan's finest work. Murphy delivers a sublime performance, reaching a threshold very few actors ever will. Next year's Oscar statue can be put into escrow for Cillian. Nolans three hour plutonium dense genius-of-physics, magnum opus does for the atomic bomb what Spielberg did for sharks at the beach. It seems Christopher Nolan has turned in a tour de force that has vaporized the competition. In fact, Scorsese's 'killers of the flower moon' may be the only threat of a rival for best picture. However, that may be the toughest act to follow since Einstein's theory of relativity.
Nothing special
Hajdudavid-692-27443523 July 2023
If this was not a Christopher Nolan movie, it would not even be noticed. It's hard to understand also why this movie would need to be seen in an IMAX theatre. It is probably mainly down to the subject matter, but I felt it was boring, predictable, and the void of any of the intricate storytelling and uniqueness that I have come to like about Nolan movies. One gets the impression that this movie is getting the attention it does because of the history of its maker, but not on the merit of its own performance. The hype is definitely over done on this one. There was some decent acting, especially from Downey Jr. And Damon.
Overrated by a mile
axelvaldo13 September 2023
I work as an professional editor so from my point of view it was a terrible long movie but funny enough it still was almost too short to tell the full story.. They should and could easily have made it into a series with 5-6 episodes instead of trying to forcefully edit a crazy amount of dialogues from one scene to another - and with no breaks and pauses between the scenes for most parts. We only get the pause to digest the huge amount of fast pace-dialogues when the bomb is about to blow up.. I suspect that the movie was originally longer, and that they were ordered to trim it down to meet the cinematic requirements.. - Or maybe Nolan just lost his touch? Tenet was a complete disaster and know this? Someone working close to him needs to "check him" and tell him to maybe take a step backwards and keep it more simple.. More is not always better.
Oppen-bore-mer
dweston-3866925 July 2023
Cillian Murphy is exceptional in the lead role (Oscar worthy,I'll say) and he's ably supported by a terrific ensemble cast- great to see James Remar again.
The film poses many moralistic questions about the bomb and the repercussions this has on Oppenheimer and this is where the film works best for me especially in the (never seen) moment when it's dropped on Japan, the sound and the nightmarish looks on people's faces are horrific.
However, at 3hrs it's tedious, talky and frankly rather boring.
The sound is good but visually it didn't need to be made into IMAX.
It's better than Tenet and was nice to see it with mum and dad.
The film poses many moralistic questions about the bomb and the repercussions this has on Oppenheimer and this is where the film works best for me especially in the (never seen) moment when it's dropped on Japan, the sound and the nightmarish looks on people's faces are horrific.
However, at 3hrs it's tedious, talky and frankly rather boring.
The sound is good but visually it didn't need to be made into IMAX.
It's better than Tenet and was nice to see it with mum and dad.
Technically superb but...
leestoych22 July 2023
At its core Oppenheimer is a technical masterpiece. The haunting score by Ludwig Göransson is one of the film's most profound highlights. The score acts as its own character in how it builds and arcs throughout the film and peaks during arguably the best moment, the bomb drop. Paired with an aggressive and bold sound design that transports you into the screen, both sound aspects make this film truly remarkable.
There are no faults in the incredible acting of the monumental cast in Oppenheimer. Murphy plays Oppenheimer in a way that enables the audience to feel the gravity of his situation and the historical repercussions that follow. However, Robert Downey Jr., who plays Lewis Strauss, is arguably the best the Oppenheimer cast brings. Downey Jr perfectly portrays the slow spiral and eventual downfall of his character.
The film shines when it shifts into a more psychological element focusing on Oppenheimer and the impact of his actions and their effect on his person. The scene in the small theatre, when he gives the speech on the success of the bomb, is easily one of the film's most haunting and gut-wrenching moments.
I wish there were more moments like that...
If the film had followed this psychological approach more closely, engagement levels would have been higher, making the run time feel considerably shorter. However, the third act and its portrayal of Oppenheimer as the political 'scapegoat' is done well; this is when we see the other actors shine.
However, Oppenheimer has its flaws. The non-linear timeline, used abundantly by Nolan, sometimes struggles with its fast-paced switching. The overload of characters being interviewed, heavy dialogue and the constant time changes does at the time make it difficult to follow the political aspect of the story. Engagement levels during the first and last acts were low, making the story feel dull and sluggish. As stated before, if the script studied the immense impact of this event on Oppenheimer and his family on a psychological level would have helped the meandering political story flow more smoothly. And yes, the three-hour run time could have definitely been cut by at least 15-30min.
To summarise, Oppenheimer is a technical masterpiece. Sound design, soundtrack, cinematography and acting are at the peak of their game. It portrays the political impact that the creation of the atomic bomb had on America and the world. However, its pacing issues, extended run time, and heavy political agenda that steer us away from the effects on Oppenheimer himself provide problems in an otherwise strong film.
8.4/10.
There are no faults in the incredible acting of the monumental cast in Oppenheimer. Murphy plays Oppenheimer in a way that enables the audience to feel the gravity of his situation and the historical repercussions that follow. However, Robert Downey Jr., who plays Lewis Strauss, is arguably the best the Oppenheimer cast brings. Downey Jr perfectly portrays the slow spiral and eventual downfall of his character.
The film shines when it shifts into a more psychological element focusing on Oppenheimer and the impact of his actions and their effect on his person. The scene in the small theatre, when he gives the speech on the success of the bomb, is easily one of the film's most haunting and gut-wrenching moments.
I wish there were more moments like that...
If the film had followed this psychological approach more closely, engagement levels would have been higher, making the run time feel considerably shorter. However, the third act and its portrayal of Oppenheimer as the political 'scapegoat' is done well; this is when we see the other actors shine.
However, Oppenheimer has its flaws. The non-linear timeline, used abundantly by Nolan, sometimes struggles with its fast-paced switching. The overload of characters being interviewed, heavy dialogue and the constant time changes does at the time make it difficult to follow the political aspect of the story. Engagement levels during the first and last acts were low, making the story feel dull and sluggish. As stated before, if the script studied the immense impact of this event on Oppenheimer and his family on a psychological level would have helped the meandering political story flow more smoothly. And yes, the three-hour run time could have definitely been cut by at least 15-30min.
To summarise, Oppenheimer is a technical masterpiece. Sound design, soundtrack, cinematography and acting are at the peak of their game. It portrays the political impact that the creation of the atomic bomb had on America and the world. However, its pacing issues, extended run time, and heavy political agenda that steer us away from the effects on Oppenheimer himself provide problems in an otherwise strong film.
8.4/10.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
