Movies: Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer

[GabeTravels]

3rd act is arguably the most essential act in the film. Its concerning Oppenheimer reckoning that his world destroying technology is now at the hands of faceless petty bureaucrats/politicians - the pettiness and vindictiveness of Strauss is used to illustrate this. Sure its lighter on "action" but thematically its the soul of the film

After sitting with it I agree. The shift from Act 2 to 3 is stark and jarring at first...I want to see it again and appreciate the third act more.

 

[Shareefruck]

The subject, look and feel, and performances are intriguing me, but the fact that it's Nolan is making diving in difficult.

 

[StreetHawk]

So that's $18M for the top star cast you've listed, on a movie that cost $100M total to produce, and going by the numbers in here projected to open at $80M (domestic?) but hit $174M globally. I know they're taking pay cuts here but that's not breaking the bank either way, and not the same thing but consider that in pro sports the athletes tend to take home 50% of revenues.

In pro sports, you know what the majority of your revenues will land for the year before the season begins, from TV, advertising, season tickets, and estimates based on historical data for F&B, merchandising, etc.

Movies are harder to predict the outcome. We have had a few actors offered a % of the box office in exchange for their fee. Daman famously turned down Avatar and a 10% stake. Risk and reward at the end of the day.

 

[The Note]

Personally, if there was an act of the film I struggled with, it was act 1 more than any other. It felt kind of manic which I thought worked in an odd way since we were being introduced to this frenzied individual in Oppenheimer. Kind of just got tossed into the fire and introduced to a lot of characters very quickly. Overall I thought the movie was very good and was certainly one best enjoyed on the big screen. Even though it was three hours (which I usually hate) I never felt it bogged down, personally. There were certainly scenes that could have been cut throughout that wouldn't have any major bearing on the overall plot.

 

[alko]

Anyone saw Oppenheimer in an IMAX 70mm film format?

I heard, it is something very special. But there are only 30 theaters in the world (USA, UK, Canada, Australia and the Czech Republic), that can use this new technology.

I want to go to the low-resolution IMAX, but dont know, if it is worth of the money.

 

[Peasy]

Seeing it in any theater over your home will be an improvement on the experience no matter what. Some of the sounds in it, could feel the ground shaking.

 

[Mario Lemieux fan 66]

7.3/10 one of the weakest Nolan if not his weakest. Great sound, great explosion, good acting but 3 hours was too much for the pace and rythmn of the movie.

 

[PK Cronin]

I thought it was very good. Not sure I'd call it a masterpiece as some critics have but definitely one of Nolan's strongest works.

I'm putting my two big gripes in spoiler tags, not really to hide some big spoilers because it's a bit of a blurt of my thoughts that I'd rather just leave for anyone who cares to read but TL;DR: 1) I understood the whole plot but the pace was so frantic that I barely hung on for the ride 2) as worthy a story as the Strauss and Oppenheimer stuff is for people to know, I didn't find it to be the most compelling part of the movie though it was the most exposition heavy.

Spoiler

I also don't know that I agree that the movie lacks pacing issues but it's not in the sense that it drags or has senseless bloat. There'3 distinct acts and even some of the scenes you could objectively cut or shorten without suffering much all serve their purpose well. I think the inverse is the problem that there are times where the plot is moving almost too fast to build out everything the story is trying to accomplish. With so many relevant characters and moving parts to the Strauss v Oppenheimer stuff...I didn't feel like I lost the plot but it felt like I was barely holding on by my fingertips. By the conclusion I understood just fine what was going on but throughout the movie it felt like my brain needed time to process exposition I just heard but the movie wasn't giving me the time to breathe (but that's fairly common with Nolan).

And with that I echo the sentiment that the Strauss v. Oppenheimer stuff was just not as inherently compelling as the race to build the bomb. That's not to say it wasn't, but the movie feels a fair bit less meaningful once the bombs had been used. The most compelling stuff to come in the third act to me was the human impact the bomb had on Oppenheimer, but that wasn't the main scope until the end. It's a lot of scenes, with some great moments that turn out to be a battle over Oppenheimer's legacy and reputation. But instead of how the world and history might view him for what he brought into the worlda, it's how the American public in the days of McCarthyism may have viewed him as a hero or a communist traitor because of his associations and dabbling in advocacy. And that really doesn't matter today with how it played out.

All that said, there was certainly value in telling the full story this way. I just didn't find it as compelling for cinematic storytelling as I would prefer but that's just me. I likely would never have learned of this side of the story if not for it being a focal part of a Nolan film, and I'm not upset that I have now.

Anyway, all that aside, in all other respects, this really feels like Nolan at his directorial peak. Every scene feels masterfully crafted and it's hammered home by outstanding performances across the board. I mean this felt like just as much of an acting talent showcase as a filmmaking one.

Cillian Murphy delivers a career defining performance and as someone whose been a fan of his for a while, I'm so happy to see him get a major motion picture starring role and just slam it out of the park. Unbelievable performance. RDJ comes in a very close second for standout performances, I mean he just ate up every scene he was in (I'm almost inclined to say Cillian and RDJ were on even footing because most of the latter's scenes are without Cillian and when they share the screen, RDJ steals the scenes but I think that's just as much the direction of those scenes). Emily Blunt is a knockout, Matt Damon (who I find inconsistent) sold every scene he was in, and I think Florence Pugh deserves some serious props for impacting the film so heavily in a relatively limited role. Jason Clarke packed in an outstanding performance in a pretty narrow role and lent the movie a huge dose of tension on his own (arguably one of the best attorney roles I've seen in a long time). But I mean, like I said. There were no passengers in this cast. Everyone was outstanding.

I'm a bit miffed that I didn't notice Sean Avery.

Anyway. Terrific bit of cinema, but I'd say it falls a bit short of a magnum opus. Or at least I hope it does in Nolan's case and hopefully the best is yet to come.

Couldn't agree more about the performances. Everyone carried their own weight and then some. The secondary and tertiary characters were all incredibly strong. People like Jack Quad, Rami Malek, and Casey Affleck were just fantastic but didn't see a lot of screen time.

I saw this as part of the Barbenheimer double feature for myself, this was the second of the two and I didn't think it dragged much at all. It's certainly not an edge of your seat kind of movie and maybe that's why people felt it dragged a bit, especially once the "race" is over, but for a movie where you know a decent chunk of what's going to happen just from history it felt quite captivating throughout.

Anyone complaining about the nudity in this one is a bit of a prude and probably shouldn't be seeing a movie about how humans developed a weapon that vaporizes thousands of people in an instant. There are two sex scenes, one kind of unnecessary and the second was to further a point Nolan was trying to make. There was a third scene with nudity but it wasn't much of anything.

 

[GabeTravels]

Anyone saw Oppenheimer in an IMAX 70mm film format?

I heard, it is something very special. But there are only 30 theaters in the world (USA, UK, Canada, Australia and the Czech Republic), that can use this new technology.

I want to go to the low-resolution IMAX, but dont know, if it is worth of the money.

I saw it in the IMAX Laser 70mm and it was still great.

I actually have a 70mm Film theater about an hour away, but all they have for the next month is 11pm showings.

 

[ps241]

For all the posters with the Sean Avery reaction, he also has a cameo in the new Sheradon project on Paramount “Special Ops: Lioness”. There was a bar fight scene and there was Avery on one side lines just chirping without getting in the frey so in this role he was perfectly cast.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

In pro sports, you know what the majority of your revenues will land for the year before the season begins, from TV, advertising, season tickets, and estimates based on historical data for F&B, merchandising, etc.

Movies are harder to predict the outcome. We have had a few actors offered a % of the box office in exchange for their fee. Daman famously turned down Avatar and a 10% stake. Risk and reward at the end of the day.

If I remember right, wasn't RDJ's money on the first Avengers weighted on its performance?

I thought he had something absurd like a $50M guarantee and then made something like $20M - $30M more based on how it performed.

For all the posters with the Sean Avery reaction, he also has a cameo in the new Sheradon project on Paramount “Special Ops: Lioness”. There was a bar fight scene and there was Avery on one side lines just chirping without getting in the frey so in this role he was perfectly cast.

And then Steven Seagal yanked him back down into his seat and said "You do not talk to the Lioness".

 

[Bruins4Lifer]

Anyone saw Oppenheimer in an IMAX 70mm film format?

I heard, it is something very special. But there are only 30 theaters in the world (USA, UK, Canada, Australia and the Czech Republic), that can use this new technology.

I want to go to the low-resolution IMAX, but dont know, if it is worth of the money.

I was lucky enough to be able to see it in 70mm IMAX film. It was quite the experience, definitely worth it.

 

[Osprey]

You spotted Sean Avery, but did you spot that the U.S. flags in one of the scenes had 50 stars, when they had only 48 at the time? So much for the movie's historical accuracy.

 

[HanSolo]

You spotted Sean Avery, but did you spot that the U.S. flags in one of the scenes had 50 stars, when they had only 48 at the time? So much for the movie's historical accuracy.

My brother made some comment about it in jest and I read about it but I didn't really notice. I guess it's odd that Nolan of all people would overlook something like that but it's a flaw you really have to look for for it to matter.

 

[RandV]

For all the posters with the Sean Avery reaction, he also has a cameo in the new Sheradon project on Paramount “Special Ops: Lioness”. There was a bar fight scene and there was Avery on one side lines just chirping without getting in the frey so in this role he was perfectly cast.

You know at this point it isn't Sean Avery doing a 'cameo' but rather he's just working as an actor. I mean here's his imdb page.

With all the labour talk going on at the moment that's just what it's like for a lot of union members, if you consider from a hockey perspective the players union extending from the NHL all they way down to ECHL Avery is something like an AHL tweener. He just stands out in roles because we know him from the NHL.

 

[Boris Zubov]

Saw this today & was completely underwhelmed. Visually, the cinematography is well executed & the cast was impressive, but those were the only high points. I thought the IMax sound mix was actually really poor. The dialogue vocal levels were way too low & often completely lost among the background soundtrack.

The overwhelming reaction I had while watching this movie was disbelief. In terms of; this is as pivotal an event as you can think of in human history & this is how Nolan decided he wanted to tell that story?!? The film literally starts with Oppenheimer trying to poison his professor, but it's barely glanced over with zero explanation. WTF?! Then it gets into some love triangle with his first wife killing herself, but then it for a brief second we see someone's hand pushing her head into the tub. Was that a mindf*** or were the writers insinuating she was murdered? Regardless, none of the main characters were developed & it all felt so hollow. The jump in timlines made this a complete jumbled mess.

The bar for Hollywood has been set so low when movies like this are universally lauded. Personally I found it to be entirely forgettable.

 

[PK Cronin]

Saw this today & was completely underwhelmed. Visually, the cinematography is well executed & the cast was impressive, but those were the only high points. I thought the IMax sound mix was actually really poor. The dialogue vocal levels were way too low & often completely lost among the background soundtrack.

The overwhelming reaction I had while watching this movie was disbelief. In terms of; this is as pivotal an event as you can think of in human history & this is how Nolan decided he wanted to tell that story?!? The film literally starts with Oppenheimer trying to poison his professor, but it's barely glanced over with zero explanation. WTF?! Then it gets into some love triangle with his first wife killing herself, but then it for a brief second we see someone's hand pushing her head into the tub. Was that a mindf*** or were the writers insinuating she was murdered? Regardless, none of the main characters were developed & it all felt so hollow. The jump in timlines made this a complete jumbled mess.

The bar for Hollywood has been set so low when movies like this are universally lauded. Personally I found it to be entirely forgettable.

I don't think any of those things really need an explanation. It was pretty clear to me what Nolan was getting at with both of those spoilers. The first is to show the type of person we're watching and establish he isn't some comic book hero but a real person with his own issues, to put it simply. The second is exactly what you think they were insinuating. There's historic skepticism about that event and Nolan is acknowledging it without spending a ton of time on it. If you're aware of the story beforehand it's easy to pick up and if you're unfamiliar it still works because it ultimately doesn't matter. Oppenheimer's emotions surrounding that event would be the same in either scenario, further adding to the internal conflict he's having.

The dialogue was hard for me to to pick up at times and I know Nolan has been criticized for that in the past so I wasn't sure if it was me, the theater, or the mix. Still, wasn't bad enough to hinder the movie for me.

 

[kihei]

Dazzling technique by Nolan but, with the exception of Matt Damon's Army Colonel Leslie Groves, I found Oppenheimer more intellectually stimulating than emotionally engaging,

(full review on movie page)

 

[Gordon Lightfoot]

You spotted Sean Avery, but did you spot that the U.S. flags in one of the scenes had 50 stars, when they had only 48 at the time? So much for the movie's historical accuracy.

 

[Mr Rogers]

I was a little underwhelmed with it, and thought they could've done something with his early life potentially. Just left me wanting more, although interestingly the scene of Oppenheimer addressing the crowd at Los Alamos i believe might've been the single best scene i've ever scene in a movie, everything they did with that was phenomenal and i felt like the movie really hit a crescendo at that point. the final scene with Einstein was really cool too. Movie had a lot of potential but i don't think Nolan got as much out of it as he could have.

 

[Kahvi]

I was a little underwhelmed with it, and thought they could've done something with his early life potentially. Just left me wanting more, although interestingly the scene of Oppenheimer addressing the crowd at Los Alamos i believe might've been the single best scene i've ever scene in a movie, everything they did with that was phenomenal and i felt like the movie really hit a crescendo at that point. the final scene with Einstein was really cool too. Movie had a lot of potential but i don't think Nolan got as much out of it as he could have.

I agree with a lot of this, and what the other poster @Boris Zubov who criticized the movie said. In a way, it was a really well done biopic, and even though 3 hours long, felt more like an 1 hour movie. I didn't feel bored for a moment.

But also, I think Nolan tried too much. Oppenheimer's life story, and personality, is so interesting that you just can't fit everything into one movie. So most of the characters felt quite "empty", they just said or did something and you couldn't really tell why. Characters had one scene where they said something, and that's it. Basically no character development, other than Oppenheimer and maybe Kitty. And the first 30min or so felt like a montage or trailer of an upcoming Oppenheimer movie.

Oppenheimer's family, background, education, life experiences before turning 20 made who he is. And that was barely touched, other than short scenes about poison apple, being unhappy in England, and a mention that he had loved New Mexico since his late teens.

I fully understand why people like this and why it gets great reviews, and I could rate it something like 9/10. It really well done biopic about one the most interesting characters of the 1900's. And I guess he did some work with bombs as well.

But knowing the source material, there is so much potential there for a masterpiece that was wasted. Although it would need to be something like 10-15 hours miniseries to fully tell his story, and that's why I might rate it 5/10 as well.

Anyway, read the book. It's f***ing good and probably gives you a lot of insight into the movie, even if you've already seen the movie.

 

[Boris Zubov]

I agree with a lot of this, and what the other poster @Boris Zubov who criticized the movie said. In a way, it was a really well done biopic, and even though 3 hours long, felt more like an 1 hour movie. I didn't feel bored for a moment.

But also, I think Nolan tried too much. Oppenheimer's life story, and personality, is so interesting that you just can't fit everything into one movie. So most of the characters felt quite "empty", they just said or did something and you couldn't really tell why. Characters had one scene where they said something, and that it. Basically no character development, other the Oppenheimer and maybe Kitty. And the first 30min or so felt like a montage or trailer of an upcoming Oppenheimer movie.

Oppenheimer's family, background, education, life experiences before turning 20 made who he is. And that was barely touched, other than short scenes about poison apple, being unhappy in England, and a mention that he had loved New Mexico since his late teens.

I fully understand why people like this and why it gets great reviews, and I could rate it something like 9/10. It really well done biopic about one the most interesting characters of the 1900's. And I guess he did some work with bombs as well.

But knowing the source material, there is so much potential there for a masterpiece that was wasted. Although it would need to be something like 10-15 hours miniseries to fully tell his story, and that's why I might rate it 5/10 as well.

Anyway, read the book. It's f***ing good and probably gives you a lot of insight into the movie, even if you've already seen the movie.

I went into this knowing very little of Oppenheimer's story, nor did I know much about Lewis Strauss. I didn't see the point of telling the story from the POV of Strauss' obsession with killing Oppenheimer's career, especially when Nolan refused to disclose why or give us any backstory whatsoever. I guarantee you 99% of the audience went into the theatre with less knowledge about this subject than I did & were completely lost wondering who the hell Robert Downey was portraying & what his motives were. That's if they recognized Downey in the first place.

This could've been a brilliant movie about the Manhattan project, or a biopic about Oppenheimer. IMO it was neither because it tried to be both. I'm not a writer, but I know for a fact there were many more interesting ways to tell this story.

 

[Kahvi]

This could've been a brilliant movie about the Manhattan project, or a biopic about Oppenheimer. IMO it was neither because it tried to be both. I'm not a writer, but I know for a fact there were many more interesting ways to tell this story.

Agreed, Nolan tried too much here. Not just interestering ways to tell the story, but also a lot of it was left out.

 

[sdf]

Watched 48 min and still not understand what was the point to make it as movie. Noone of the dialogue and events did not catched yet my interest. And i'm not buy his figure as a genius, he didn't invent anything in the quantum mechanics or qft. His work about gravitational collapse of stars is research of the consiquenses of general relativity equations, that maybe mathematically hard, but it is not what makes some physicist genius in first place

 

[HanSolo]

Watched 48 min and still not understand what was the point to make it as movie. Noone of the dialogue and events did not catched yet my interest. And i'm not buy his figure as a genius, he didn't invent anything in the quantum mechanics or qft. His work about gravitational collapse of stars is research of the consiquenses of general relativity equations, that maybe mathematically hard, but it is not what makes some physicist genius in first place

I don't think the point was that he was a genius. He was the guy who helped the states when the race to build the atomic bomb. He didn't build it himself. Nolan (and I'm assuming the novel the movie is based on) made a specific point to address that he was mediocre at mathematics for his level of science. It's not like they were hiding the ball.