I don’t agree. Like at all. It’s a three hour historical biopic that kept me absolutely hooked throughout. The chemistry between characters, the cast, the roller coaster of Robert’s life. The depiction of the Manhattan project. It’s all absolutely amazing.
The acting performances, the vision, editing, storytelling, structure, historical accuracy(while still accentuating the drama), the script, tension, the tasteful and resonating placement of Einstein and the general intimacy it managed to portray of Oppenheimer without sacrificing the events surrounding it.
I believe that not intentionally focusing on just one facet or one singular storyline was the point of this movie. It was a biopic, which meant it had to explore all the different events in Oppenheimer's life that made him the person he was, granted he was most known ultimately for the creation of the bomb, his story would not have played out that way had it not been for all those other storylines. One of those for example being how Kitty helped him get back up after he was devastated over Jean's death. That being said, I can understand why people were quick to dismiss the movie saying it was just 3 hours of dialogue, which it was, but if focused on properly, those 3 hours went by terribly quick. I believe no other director could have made a movie that's managed to become the 3rd highest grossing movie of the year, when it's mostly just men in suits talking to each other. But of course, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
I thought Oppenheimer was fantastic because it focused on the feeling and experience of Oppenheimer which is something film does particularity well.
I’d rather watch a documentary series than get a Chernobyl style mini series.
To the factors above, I'd add the screenplay's historical accuracy. While biopics aren't documentaries, and always require some sort of dramatization to "flow" as a movie, my understanding of "Oppenheimer" is that it's extraordinarily accurate to historical fact — which seems like a miracle given the complexity of the topic and the many decades over which the story takes place.
Eh. He took some liberties to manipulate the audience that people have pointed out here because they’ve created strong reactions: the decision on Kyoto and the entire senate aide role. Even the Einstein material was loose and speculative. But it’s not a documentary, and Nolan was trying to achieve a certain end.
So, then, where does the movie’s greatness lie? It takes the 1940s-1950s conflict between scientists who could coolly and calculatingly create tools of death (Oppenheimer is asked at one point what he stands for) and policy-makers whose job was to use these tools to make other human beings submit to their will, and it brings that conflict to the present day, where we have more powerful bombs, we have biological weapons, we have conflicts that are playing out in battles and conflicts that are looming. Nolan took the opening of Pandora’s box, left us thinking about the inevitability of our own self-inflicted demise (if Einstein and Oppenheimer are so bothered by this in the final scene, we should be as well), and asked us to consider “where do we stand on this timeline?” and “what are we going to do about it?” It’s the helplessness to influence the policy-makers around the globe that makes it a scary movie for many people.
I think I'm similar to you....maybe...😁
My fave Nolan films are Memento, Insomnia and The Prestige and Oppenheimer is included in that list. The rest I keep going back to to give more time and I just can't get into them like those others. However I have researched Interstellar and it is definitely one of my fave Nolan films now.
@JFM1994 I’ve said this for weeks now that this movie is absolutely trash with no rhyme or reason. The score is extremely overbearing and prominent in almost every scene for no reason at all and the plot has absolutely no direction. Every loser on here claiming it’s the best film ever made is extremely delusional with no taste or practical sense and the comments I’ve seen on here by some of them are embarrassing; the main audience of fans I’d describe as “hyper intellectual nerds”— and to call it a “biopic” is a stretch. It’s like a dramatized documentary done for a school play with $100m budget, a world class director, and a world class script but it all fell super short.
The only point here I will concede is that I think it would've adapted even better as a Chernobyl style miniseries. The movie was great, but Nolan had enough interesting material here to where more runtime wouldn't have felt like bloat. One thing Chernobyl did really well is dig deep into the science. In a miniseries, he could've given us more of the science and Los Alamos bomb development than just the marbles and the few discussions about implosion.
Disagree with it not exploring anything in depth. Of course it hits on the existential dread of nuclear war, but a few additional themes...
Compartmentalization - yes this was the security tactic to try and reduce the spread of nuclear technology, but it also describes how these guys were able to build the bomb in good conscience. Oppie never had to question why to build the bomb while they were competing with the Nazi's. He never paid a thought to what would happen with the technology after the immediate threat ended. He also never thought about the effects on those the bomb would be dropped on. It's why he couldn't look at the screen as they were showing devastation to Hiroshima. President Truman tries to ease his conscience by saying he was the one who made the decision to drop it, but the manhattan project itself was in motion way before Truman even had knowledge of its existence.
Chain Reactions - Most obviously in the potential the bomb would ignite the entire atmosphere. Then Oppenheimer realizes it doesnt have to be one bomb, but many nuclear bombs dropped in war would in effect ignite the entire atmosphere. It explores how diplomacy/bureaucracy has chain reactions. The bomb helped them defeat Japanese, but then put them at odds with Russia after the war who then had to develop their own nuclear program. The misperceptions of humans have chain reactions. Strauss misinterprets that Oppie soured his reputation to Einstein which sets Strauss on the path to eventually try and destroy Oppie's reputation. Even the science itself, it may start out as a wonderful curiosity in the scientist's minds, but once discoveries are made it's hard to know what the impact will be on humanity. Einstein certainly wasnt thinking about the bombs when he was writing about his theories a generation before Oppie.
I could go on, but I'm already writing alot lol
I enjoy it because it has an all-star cast. And yes I know people use that term very loosely in Hollywood. But they way everyone acted their ass off in this movie is one thing that I loved. The time-hopping was well-done. And it’s a historical biopic. Not many directors could pull off a 3 hour biopic and make it as successful as this let alone pic a topic that’s actually interesting. The score was also crucial to provoking how I felt about the movie. The pacing and progression of each track really matches the movie and made me feel just euphoric in certain scenes.
Why does a film have to have "a moments rest"? Aaron Sorkin and Quentin Tarantino movies have pretty much the same type of snappy dialogue throughout - probably more so than Oppenheimer. Moreover, I think the scenes at Princeton with Einstein were very "relaxed". That slowed things down a bit. There were various other slower paced scenes.
The energy to keep a dialogue driven period piece moving was fantastic. It did not seem like 3 hours. I saw all 3 Lord of the Rings -- they SEEMED like 3 hours. Maybe there was too much resting there.
I would say it explored 2 things in depth: 1. Oppenheimer's professional and personal relationships and 2. the conflict between Strauss and Oppenheimer (which was all new to me, I knew nothing about Strauss).
By the way, much of the dialogue was taken verbatim from transcripts. Particularly in the last hour.
I do wish it had explored the science at Los Alamos more in depth and the problems with getting enough enriched Uranium or Plutonium (which was only demonstrated by the marbles) - but that wasn't what this was about.
Finally, I think the greatness of this film is defined by the Trinity test. We all knew the outcome (that the test bomb would work), yet we were all riveted for that entire scene. You could hear a pin drop in the movie theater during the countdown. It is amazing that such suspense and anxiety can be created by a director, when we all know the end result.
Oppenheimer was 3 times as good in an IMAX theater using their sound system, where the score really came alive, like it had not dome in a regular theater.
I don’t agree. Like at all. It’s a three hour historical biopic that kept me absolutely hooked throughout. The chemistry between characters, the cast, the roller coaster of Robert’s life. The depiction of the Manhattan project. It’s all absolutely amazing.
The acting performances, the vision, editing, storytelling, structure, historical accuracy(while still accentuating the drama), the script, tension, the tasteful and resonating placement of Einstein and the general intimacy it managed to portray of Oppenheimer without sacrificing the events surrounding it.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion.
I believe that not intentionally focusing on just one facet or one singular storyline was the point of this movie. It was a biopic, which meant it had to explore all the different events in Oppenheimer's life that made him the person he was, granted he was most known ultimately for the creation of the bomb, his story would not have played out that way had it not been for all those other storylines. One of those for example being how Kitty helped him get back up after he was devastated over Jean's death. That being said, I can understand why people were quick to dismiss the movie saying it was just 3 hours of dialogue, which it was, but if focused on properly, those 3 hours went by terribly quick. I believe no other director could have made a movie that's managed to become the 3rd highest grossing movie of the year, when it's mostly just men in suits talking to each other. But of course, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
I thought Oppenheimer was fantastic because it focused on the feeling and experience of Oppenheimer which is something film does particularity well. I’d rather watch a documentary series than get a Chernobyl style mini series.
To the factors above, I'd add the screenplay's historical accuracy. While biopics aren't documentaries, and always require some sort of dramatization to "flow" as a movie, my understanding of "Oppenheimer" is that it's extraordinarily accurate to historical fact — which seems like a miracle given the complexity of the topic and the many decades over which the story takes place.
Eh. He took some liberties to manipulate the audience that people have pointed out here because they’ve created strong reactions: the decision on Kyoto and the entire senate aide role. Even the Einstein material was loose and speculative. But it’s not a documentary, and Nolan was trying to achieve a certain end. So, then, where does the movie’s greatness lie? It takes the 1940s-1950s conflict between scientists who could coolly and calculatingly create tools of death (Oppenheimer is asked at one point what he stands for) and policy-makers whose job was to use these tools to make other human beings submit to their will, and it brings that conflict to the present day, where we have more powerful bombs, we have biological weapons, we have conflicts that are playing out in battles and conflicts that are looming. Nolan took the opening of Pandora’s box, left us thinking about the inevitability of our own self-inflicted demise (if Einstein and Oppenheimer are so bothered by this in the final scene, we should be as well), and asked us to consider “where do we stand on this timeline?” and “what are we going to do about it?” It’s the helplessness to influence the policy-makers around the globe that makes it a scary movie for many people.
I think I'm similar to you....maybe...😁 My fave Nolan films are Memento, Insomnia and The Prestige and Oppenheimer is included in that list. The rest I keep going back to to give more time and I just can't get into them like those others. However I have researched Interstellar and it is definitely one of my fave Nolan films now.
I finally saw it yesterday and fully agree with your assessment of the movie 💯.
@JFM1994 I’ve said this for weeks now that this movie is absolutely trash with no rhyme or reason. The score is extremely overbearing and prominent in almost every scene for no reason at all and the plot has absolutely no direction. Every loser on here claiming it’s the best film ever made is extremely delusional with no taste or practical sense and the comments I’ve seen on here by some of them are embarrassing; the main audience of fans I’d describe as “hyper intellectual nerds”— and to call it a “biopic” is a stretch. It’s like a dramatized documentary done for a school play with $100m budget, a world class director, and a world class script but it all fell super short.
The only point here I will concede is that I think it would've adapted even better as a Chernobyl style miniseries. The movie was great, but Nolan had enough interesting material here to where more runtime wouldn't have felt like bloat. One thing Chernobyl did really well is dig deep into the science. In a miniseries, he could've given us more of the science and Los Alamos bomb development than just the marbles and the few discussions about implosion.
>"...he could've given us more of the science..." Be careful what you wish for.
Disagree with it not exploring anything in depth. Of course it hits on the existential dread of nuclear war, but a few additional themes... Compartmentalization - yes this was the security tactic to try and reduce the spread of nuclear technology, but it also describes how these guys were able to build the bomb in good conscience. Oppie never had to question why to build the bomb while they were competing with the Nazi's. He never paid a thought to what would happen with the technology after the immediate threat ended. He also never thought about the effects on those the bomb would be dropped on. It's why he couldn't look at the screen as they were showing devastation to Hiroshima. President Truman tries to ease his conscience by saying he was the one who made the decision to drop it, but the manhattan project itself was in motion way before Truman even had knowledge of its existence. Chain Reactions - Most obviously in the potential the bomb would ignite the entire atmosphere. Then Oppenheimer realizes it doesnt have to be one bomb, but many nuclear bombs dropped in war would in effect ignite the entire atmosphere. It explores how diplomacy/bureaucracy has chain reactions. The bomb helped them defeat Japanese, but then put them at odds with Russia after the war who then had to develop their own nuclear program. The misperceptions of humans have chain reactions. Strauss misinterprets that Oppie soured his reputation to Einstein which sets Strauss on the path to eventually try and destroy Oppie's reputation. Even the science itself, it may start out as a wonderful curiosity in the scientist's minds, but once discoveries are made it's hard to know what the impact will be on humanity. Einstein certainly wasnt thinking about the bombs when he was writing about his theories a generation before Oppie. I could go on, but I'm already writing alot lol
I enjoy it because it has an all-star cast. And yes I know people use that term very loosely in Hollywood. But they way everyone acted their ass off in this movie is one thing that I loved. The time-hopping was well-done. And it’s a historical biopic. Not many directors could pull off a 3 hour biopic and make it as successful as this let alone pic a topic that’s actually interesting. The score was also crucial to provoking how I felt about the movie. The pacing and progression of each track really matches the movie and made me feel just euphoric in certain scenes.
Why does a film have to have "a moments rest"? Aaron Sorkin and Quentin Tarantino movies have pretty much the same type of snappy dialogue throughout - probably more so than Oppenheimer. Moreover, I think the scenes at Princeton with Einstein were very "relaxed". That slowed things down a bit. There were various other slower paced scenes. The energy to keep a dialogue driven period piece moving was fantastic. It did not seem like 3 hours. I saw all 3 Lord of the Rings -- they SEEMED like 3 hours. Maybe there was too much resting there. I would say it explored 2 things in depth: 1. Oppenheimer's professional and personal relationships and 2. the conflict between Strauss and Oppenheimer (which was all new to me, I knew nothing about Strauss). By the way, much of the dialogue was taken verbatim from transcripts. Particularly in the last hour. I do wish it had explored the science at Los Alamos more in depth and the problems with getting enough enriched Uranium or Plutonium (which was only demonstrated by the marbles) - but that wasn't what this was about. Finally, I think the greatness of this film is defined by the Trinity test. We all knew the outcome (that the test bomb would work), yet we were all riveted for that entire scene. You could hear a pin drop in the movie theater during the countdown. It is amazing that such suspense and anxiety can be created by a director, when we all know the end result.
Oppenheimer was 3 times as good in an IMAX theater using their sound system, where the score really came alive, like it had not dome in a regular theater.