Spoilers Oppenheimer - Review thread
- Thread starter PlainSimpleJoel
- Start date
I'm seeing it Sunday afternoon on (the supposedly world's tallest) IMAX!
...and then seeing Barbie that evening, thus completing Barbieheimer.
I cannot wait.
...and then seeing Barbie that evening, thus completing Barbieheimer.
I cannot wait.
I’m seeing it tonight. Couldn’t find a good imax screen but I’m still excited.
So was it really helpful to see it on Imax... or could a regular or tv screen suffice?
Haven't seen the movie yet. It'll be interesting to compare with the 1980 TV series also called Oppenheimer. I gather Nolan has done his usual slice and dice temporal reordering - I hope it makes sense in context. The trailer includes shots of Nixie tube numeric displays, which weren't introduced until 1955. However, it's hard to tell if their inclusion is an error. There are apparently also instance of 50-star US flags being shown, but again I don't know of the date in context. There might be a metalevel reason given both of these supposed anachronisms occur during colour sequences, which are meant to represent Oppenheimer's subjective viewpoint.
Last edited:
I saw the film back on Sunday (along with Barbie!) and it's a vastly intense, complex, and devastating rumination on the development of the atomic bomb and how that affected the man who led that effort, not just morally but also public and private repudiation.
There are a few unexpected twists and surprises along the way, with a level of complexity that I wonder how reflective they are to reality. I guess I'll need to read The American Prometheus to find out.
Either way, much like all Nolan films, this one will need several rewatches to fully appreciate.
The one thing I would be critical of is the use of music. I'm a massive fan of film scores and I'm usually blown away by how Nolan utilizes them in his films (most notably Interstellar), but I felt that the Oppenheimer score was overused and even overpowering. There were too many times where it was playing along with dialogue instead of letting the moments breath on their own.
Some of the audio tricks Nolan used, particularly the loud stomping that was eventually revealed to be Oppenheimer's conscious reflecting on the post-Trinity test celebration, worked really well, but the score's usage was a bit much. Maybe it'll work better for me in rewatches but the initial viewing felt like one time Nolan used a score to drive the scene instead of enhancing it (which is a big bone for me with scores in general).
One last musing, one that's been sitting in my head since Sunday:
I think pairing the film with Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb would be a fascinating experience.
That said, I didn't see it on a 70mm IMAX screen which is the set-up Nolan recommends the most because he considers that format to sharpest medium to shoot a movie on.
There are a few unexpected twists and surprises along the way, with a level of complexity that I wonder how reflective they are to reality. I guess I'll need to read The American Prometheus to find out.
Either way, much like all Nolan films, this one will need several rewatches to fully appreciate.
The one thing I would be critical of is the use of music. I'm a massive fan of film scores and I'm usually blown away by how Nolan utilizes them in his films (most notably Interstellar), but I felt that the Oppenheimer score was overused and even overpowering. There were too many times where it was playing along with dialogue instead of letting the moments breath on their own.
Some of the audio tricks Nolan used, particularly the loud stomping that was eventually revealed to be Oppenheimer's conscious reflecting on the post-Trinity test celebration, worked really well, but the score's usage was a bit much. Maybe it'll work better for me in rewatches but the initial viewing felt like one time Nolan used a score to drive the scene instead of enhancing it (which is a big bone for me with scores in general).
One last musing, one that's been sitting in my head since Sunday:
I think pairing the film with Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb would be a fascinating experience.
As someone who saw it on the (supposedly) world's tallest IMAX screen possible and as someone who loves everything Nolan has done (Tenet included), I don't think so. There are some visuals that look absolutely breathtaking on that screen (and not just the explosions and the representations of subatomic particles), but unless you're really keen on the IMAX experience, I would hold off.
That said, I didn't see it on a 70mm IMAX screen which is the set-up Nolan recommends the most because he considers that format to sharpest medium to shoot a movie on.
He died of lung cancer.
Even more sad….was the suicide of his daughter Toni:
https://oldtowncrier.com/2014/07/01/oppenheimers-legacy-on-st-john/
Nutters
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-nukes-fake-camera-conspiracy-rogan-742805510402
Early tests
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...old-nuke-test-films-offer-new-insights-video/
Even more sad….was the suicide of his daughter Toni:
https://oldtowncrier.com/2014/07/01/oppenheimers-legacy-on-st-john/
Nutters
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-nukes-fake-camera-conspiracy-rogan-742805510402
Early tests
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...old-nuke-test-films-offer-new-insights-video/
Last edited:
Spoilers man. Not all of us have seen it yet
Not in the film. Maybe in Oppenheimer II.
I saw it on Monday (on a regular screen), and personally I had too many issues with it to fully recommend it. I have a love/hate relationship with Christopher Nolan movies though. I feel when he's on his A-game, he can really make a great movie. Other times, I feel his brand of timelines can get out of hand. I personally feel this movie is one of his weaker ones.
I was really excited for this one, had been waiting for it ever since it was announced, and I knew the subject matter would make for an entertaining movie. I was honestly hoping it would be straightforward and to the point, that Nolan wouldn't bother with his brand of confusing timelines. That is one of my issues with the movie. Just needlessly confusing with the color and b&w. My main issue however would have to be the length. It's just way too long for what it is. Did the trial really need to be part of it? I feel that the movie ran out of momentum after the bomb test for that reason. The way Nolan then focused on the trial for 30 min made the movie feel very unbalanced. If he really wanted to include the trial, then I'm sure it could have been shortened and viewers would have gotten the gist of it, but 30 min! Get a better editor, Nolan! But I guess we know you really want to remake 12 Angry Men!
I suppose I have more of an issue with the overall direction and how bloated it was. But the cast itself was great. I think casting Cillian Murphy as Oppenheimer was inspired casting, and lots of cameos. The audio was also an improvement over many of his other movies, as you could actually hear the dialogue most of the time.
I suppose I have more of an issue with the overall direction and how bloated it was. But the cast itself was great. I think casting Cillian Murphy as Oppenheimer was inspired casting, and lots of cameos. The audio was also an improvement over many of his other movies, as you could actually hear the dialogue most of the time.
Oppenheimer 2: Atomic Boogaloo
I didn't look up much about the movie before seeing it. From the trailers I had expected it to be more of a tense film, focused on the development of the bomb. I dunno if that was the fault of the marketing or me (It is called Oppenheimer after all, not Manhattan or Trinity). Instead, it was a slick bio flick with two framing devices. I agree with the other posters that that was a little much. I really didn't give a crap about either hearing - what do they matter, when most of the films content was the development of the thing that very well might still end all life in Earth? Who gives a shit about political manuevering over a security clearance and commerce secretary when the possibility of human extinction is 2/3 of the movie?
Anyway, overall I liked it.
Anyway, overall I liked it.
The
But I'm currently in love with 40s-50s US politics so the trial scene was alright. So around a B.
The point of the Trial was that Oppie wanted some influence post war to push for control over the bombs and nuclear energy, the trial is the summit of his failure to keep and maintain political pressure and that dream dies with him being side-lined (in part - I may be overinflating his role in this idealism). I'm already sorta forgetting how the movie handles this, it focuses more on some rivalry right?, but there was the dream of the UN and a international agency of control that was at stake, if fleetingly, if a smalllll percentage, that the world could had gone another way. Oh, right, they tell Oppie they're making bigger bombs and putting them on Rockets, that sort of simplifies the 'argument' of the '45-'49 period, which started with even wider eyed idealism that the film doesn't go into.
Sure some rogue state might make their own nukes, or more likely the US would keep a few of their own, the reds would make a few, and that might become a crisis later, but it might had averted the nuclear arms race - though whether or not that is a good thing depends on your personal view. I don't think the nuclear arms race has yet been bad, because despite these tens of thousands of nukes and nearly a handful of states with them, we haven't yet used them at each other and I do believe their power has kept the Reds from tangling with the Yanks directly (and vice versa) other than foreign pilots and supplying proxies, and averting a big war thereof is a win.
Yes, the sword of damocles still hangs over the global north, but as long as it does that - hang - it's acceptable. The day it drops and knocks out two powers (India and Pakistan, north korea and south korea+whatever the NKs hit of Japan or the US), or the northern hemisphere, sure, that'll be a high price to pay, but only if that day actually comes.
hype about making a analog bomb fell flat. It would had been better with CGI. Trinity had this huge dome and this sort of flowering affect at the ground normal explosives can't hope to replicate.
Typical nolan minimalism also hurts the film, I feel.
Like at the end with the dialogue with Einstein. There's wow, thee ICBMs. Sure, more come through the clouds. Then he's in a bomber cockpit and I can't see what's flying past - ICBMs?
That scene should had gone all out. The camera should pan left to right and the screen absolutely gets swarmed with the evolution of ICBMs. The launch sequence is fine. But Oppie shouldn't be in a cockpit, at least, there should be shots of :subs launching missiles, bombers opening bays, and the last shot of Earth with just NA under a red-orange blanket felt off...have epicenters, not all over the world, but at least over the northern hemisphere, and those radii eventually link up.
And not showing Hiroshima and Nagasaki? At all? Just a reaction shot from the scientists? I'm not saying Nolan should had reproduced Hiroshima: BBC History of World War II to a T, but show the Artiste and Gay over it, show (and follow the five miles that) the bomb f(e)ll, show people vaporizing and end with a shot of like, that tram-driver lady surviving, getting up, and surveying hell, burning people, burnt corpses, show the fat of bodies running down the cobblestones, camera pans up over the surviving dome and to the mushroom cloud.
Do the same for Nagasaki. Do these in 30 seconds, a minute, most each. Show the viewers what is actually happening. Making it just a reaction shot of Oppie and the Scientists felt a little disingenuous. Wow, YOU had it so bad, but the bomb just killed tens of thousands in an instant, I think the latter deserves more of a pity scene than most-of-you-who'll-enjoy-comfy-safe-careers-with-the-US-and-UK.
Typical nolan minimalism also hurts the film, I feel.
Like at the end with the dialogue with Einstein. There's wow, thee ICBMs. Sure, more come through the clouds. Then he's in a bomber cockpit and I can't see what's flying past - ICBMs?
That scene should had gone all out. The camera should pan left to right and the screen absolutely gets swarmed with the evolution of ICBMs. The launch sequence is fine. But Oppie shouldn't be in a cockpit, at least, there should be shots of :subs launching missiles, bombers opening bays, and the last shot of Earth with just NA under a red-orange blanket felt off...have epicenters, not all over the world, but at least over the northern hemisphere, and those radii eventually link up.
And not showing Hiroshima and Nagasaki? At all? Just a reaction shot from the scientists? I'm not saying Nolan should had reproduced Hiroshima: BBC History of World War II to a T, but show the Artiste and Gay over it, show (and follow the five miles that) the bomb f(e)ll, show people vaporizing and end with a shot of like, that tram-driver lady surviving, getting up, and surveying hell, burning people, burnt corpses, show the fat of bodies running down the cobblestones, camera pans up over the surviving dome and to the mushroom cloud.
Do the same for Nagasaki. Do these in 30 seconds, a minute, most each. Show the viewers what is actually happening. Making it just a reaction shot of Oppie and the Scientists felt a little disingenuous. Wow, YOU had it so bad, but the bomb just killed tens of thousands in an instant, I think the latter deserves more of a pity scene than most-of-you-who'll-enjoy-comfy-safe-careers-with-the-US-and-UK.
But I'm currently in love with 40s-50s US politics so the trial scene was alright. So around a B.
The point of the Trial was that Oppie wanted some influence post war to push for control over the bombs and nuclear energy, the trial is the summit of his failure to keep and maintain political pressure and that dream dies with him being side-lined (in part - I may be overinflating his role in this idealism). I'm already sorta forgetting how the movie handles this, it focuses more on some rivalry right?, but there was the dream of the UN and a international agency of control that was at stake, if fleetingly, if a smalllll percentage, that the world could had gone another way. Oh, right, they tell Oppie they're making bigger bombs and putting them on Rockets, that sort of simplifies the 'argument' of the '45-'49 period, which started with even wider eyed idealism that the film doesn't go into.
Sure some rogue state might make their own nukes, or more likely the US would keep a few of their own, the reds would make a few, and that might become a crisis later, but it might had averted the nuclear arms race - though whether or not that is a good thing depends on your personal view. I don't think the nuclear arms race has yet been bad, because despite these tens of thousands of nukes and nearly a handful of states with them, we haven't yet used them at each other and I do believe their power has kept the Reds from tangling with the Yanks directly (and vice versa) other than foreign pilots and supplying proxies, and averting a big war thereof is a win.
Yes, the sword of damocles still hangs over the global north, but as long as it does that - hang - it's acceptable. The day it drops and knocks out two powers (India and Pakistan, north korea and south korea+whatever the NKs hit of Japan or the US), or the northern hemisphere, sure, that'll be a high price to pay, but only if that day actually comes.
Last edited:
I agree, and it also isn't helped by the fact that the movie doesn't really give much context for what's happening at critical points, which is further fueled by the timeline switching.
Just been to see it on IMAX and frankly I thought it was incredible. Not quite perfect but pretty darn close to it.
@Owain Taggart I thought
Oscar predictions...
Best picture, best director, best (adapted?) screenplay, best actor, best supporting actor (Downey Jr) and best supporting actress. I initially thought Blunt was wasted but she really came into her own towards the end. The whole cast were incredible though.
As @The Nth Doctor said I think this will get better with rewatches.
And I thought not showing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the best creative choice because I don't think you could ever do it justice. And showing dozens of ICBMs and submarines et would would have been (pardon the pun) overkill. Oppenheimer's imagination was based on Borden's flashback.
Took me a few moments to realise who was playing Truman!
@Owain Taggart I thought
the trial made the film, I found the final act in many ways more interesting and tense than the test.
Oscar predictions...
Best picture, best director, best (adapted?) screenplay, best actor, best supporting actor (Downey Jr) and best supporting actress. I initially thought Blunt was wasted but she really came into her own towards the end. The whole cast were incredible though.
As @The Nth Doctor said I think this will get better with rewatches.
And I thought not showing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the best creative choice because I don't think you could ever do it justice. And showing dozens of ICBMs and submarines et would would have been (pardon the pun) overkill. Oppenheimer's imagination was based on Borden's flashback.
Took me a few moments to realise who was playing Truman!
Different strokes, I guess... I found it slowed the movie way down and I couldn't wait for the trial to end. My parents who lived through the era and visited Los Alamos in the 80's, found the same thing. In fact, my Mom came away not really liking it.
They nuked Japan. Sorry to ruin the ending
Definitely adapted screenplay since it was based on a specific book. Even it weren't, being based on a real-life figure and event would make it an adapted screenplay.
Similar threads
- Poll
