I thought the sex scene in front of all the interviewers was really well done. It showed how Oppenheimer being literally dressed down and humiliated. The interviewers purposefully brought up his infidelity on the day his wife accompanied him, dragging him through the mud for his mistakes.
It's a testament to Christopher Nolan's immense directing talent that he made a three hour movie mostly composed of dialogue, and managed to make it compelling throughout the extensive running time.
The movie plays so much better on a second viewing imo. It was somehow so much more tense, so much more engaging, so much quicker, so much more emotionally effective the second time around knowing exactly what every character was doing and why. It gave everything this opressive sense of inevitablity watching these events unfold knowing that once the "nuclear genie was out of the bottle" there was no going back
I watched Barbie first. Absolutely loved it. It was a morning show so there were only like 5 people in the whole theatre. I enjoyed the movie a lot more than I thought I would. After the movie ended, I went for a bathroom break, took a walk for 10 mins just to stretch my legs and then went back into the theatre for Oppenheimer. I was transfixed for the next 3 hours. After Oppenheimer ended, I tried to recall Barbie and I couldn't remember half the movie even though I enjoyed it immensely. A lot of people are meming and comparing both movies but for me, they are on completely different levels. Oppenheimer absolutely blew me away. 5:10 I agree with Jake on the watch order, I think Barbie should be watched before Oppenheimer. Watching it the other way around would seriously lessen the impact of the movie.
My favorite movies are the ones that get better the more I keep thinking about them. I can't stop thinking about Oppenheimer, and fortunately, it can't seem to stop getting better in my estimation. Unless Marty REALLY knocks it out of the park with Killers of the Flower Moon and earns that second Oscar (which he should've gotten decades ago, let's be honest), I really hope Nolan sweeps the Oscars this years.
This movie will be nominated for all of the awards. Will win for sound and editing. Cillian Murphy will be nominated for Best Actor and Robert Downey Jr. and Matt Damon for supporting actors.
The Prestige has long been my favorite Nolan film, and it still is, but after a second watch of Oppenheimer I feel confident placing it at #2 ahead of Dark Knight. The themes, characters, and overall vision of Nolan’s original films often get a bit bogged down in Nolan’s goal of achieving a certain concept, whereas The Prestige and Oppenheimer already have their overarching themes and goals laid out in source material so Nolan can focus on telling that story in his own way. Other than some pacing issues, it’s a masterpiece and I would be shocked if he doesn’t get a best director nomination.
I think that the style in which the movie was presented and edited can either be seen as very good or very bad. It’s impressive that he could make a 3 hour movie of mainly people talking feel very fast paced and entertaining, but at the same time I think it stripped away a lot of moments that could have been very emotionally impactful and intriguing. I think that it’s unfortunate that a lot of scenes with really impressive subtle acting and dialogue were drowned out by the score, either because it was so loud that you literally couldn’t hear what they were saying, or because it’s so prominent that it insists the emotion of the scene and distracts from the acting and dialogue of the scene. I think a lot of these scenes could have been far more emotional and impactful if he had just either gotten rid of the score or made it more subtle and allowed for the acting and dialogue to be the focal point, I think he could’ve let it speak for itself instead of blaring dramatic music so we know it’s serious, silence could’ve felt very serious, built tension, and felt unnerving and somber, and put more focus on the characters and what’s going on in their heads, but instead it feels like it’s all presented like an action movie montage. The score itself is great, I just think it was overused, and could’ve been reserved for scenes that actually benefited from it in terms of setting tone and building tension (it was used masterfully in the buildup to trinity test), but I don’t think putting it over intimate conversations and character moments does anything except distract from those moments. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that a lot of the best scenes in the film have little to no score and just allow for the scene and the acting and the dialogue to speak for itself.
Yea I found the endind kinda funny cause it felt like it would have been really effective had there not already been at least 15 ultra loud thumping music crescendo moments just like it already.
Exactly my thoughts. I even can say something similar for TDK. It's a great film, but I have mixed feelings about the editing. The fast pacing really helps to make the movie as intense as it is, but it also makes it feel like some scenes and moments are taken away to fast. Also, once you have watched the movie so many times, you start to realise that the fast pace editing does wonders with hiding the many plot contrivances and weird stuff, but at the same time it makes me wonder if maybe is actually a bad thing having to hide all those contrivances on the first place?
The book is incredible. Highly recommend it. And the changes they made make sense for the characters and the story. There isnt anything in the book about oppie ruining strauss' intro with einstein, but it is true that straus held grudges and was super petty. Its also true that einstein and oppie worked together at princeton for a number of years. And oppie was very anti arms race anti global nuclear armament post ww2. So that pivotal convo with einstein, tho its likely apochryphal, works really well.
The JFK comparison is great. I was saying after I saw Oppenheimer that it is pretty unique in that it is a historical epic, but rather than being about a big historical event or war, it is about the little details. It's unique in that it can be epic and exciting while essentially just being about scientists and physicists and their thought processes as the story and bomb development unfolds. Even though I think Oppenheimer is really good, but not quite great (the last half hour, the RD Jr. part of the story, the story developments and character arcs that mirror other Nolan movies too closely, all took me out, making it an 8 out of 10), I thought that it was unique in how exciting and excited it was about what could be very boring subject matter. And this was an accomplishment. BUT yes, you nailed it with the JFK comparison. It is very much like it in that sense. Perhaps there are other movies that do that too that I just couldn't think of - a big epic picture that is actually not about something all that epic for the most part and instead presents events and developments in an absolutely epic, exciting way.
saw it on IMAX in Providence, RI and it cut out about halfway through because there was an issue with the projector, but I loved the break! 😂 the IMAX seats weren't great so I think everyone was actually grateful for the chance to go to the bathroom and stretch. I loved it!
how are you gonna start that smooth ass beat at the end and just end the video?? that aside, loved the commentary from you two, I'll definitely need a second watch
Its funny because in my country we had an interval at 2 hr mark ,so i was able to stretch, go to the bathroom ,do a drug deal . It did improve the experience
I agree with you both, mostly. I think a half an hour, at least, could have been trimmed and still have the same effect. I saw it on an Imax screen. This is my first theater movie in over a year and I have to say, the Imax screen was a lot smaller than I remember them being. My biggest criticism though is the sound design. At times I felt it was excruciatingly loud and it took away from the experience for me.I would still recommend this film but with a warning; always be reading to cover your ears.
Theres different sizes for imax screens. People call most. Imax screens Liemax cause theyre usually not actual Giant Screens. Like my area only has one actual Giant Imax screen and then like 15 other theaters that have an "Imax" that are all like half as big.
I was in cinema yesterday; I quite enjoyed Oppenheimer, I must say. Great movie. However, I plan to watch a recording of "Doctor Atomic" this evening. We'll see which one is better...
I have just finished watching it now. Though both mediums are too different to justify a direct comparison (I should have anticipated that!) it was still fascinating to see how both the opera and the movie pick up the same details about the “Trinity” test - the difficult weather condition, the “gadget’s influence on civilization” debate, the betting on the force of the bomb by scientists, the glasses that they were wearing and even the sun cream. Also: how on Earth is it possible that an opera about Oppenheimer is actually SHORTER than the movie about him? Crazy times we live in, crazy times...
Loved hearing your thoughts! I am so torn as to whether or not to watch this film. On the one hand I love the cast especially Cillian Murphy. And Christopher Nolan is my jam. On the other hand I had the opportunity to visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum a few years ago and based on how that effected me.... not sure I can do this one. At least not on a big screen. Which sucks because it's a Nolan epic! You have to see those on the big screen. Anyways, this is my delema. Thanks for the review!
Definitely feel like barbie helped Oppenheimer, and Oppenheimer helped barbie. Especially with the whole barbenheimer thing, so many people did double features regardless if they mainly only wanted to see 1 or the other lol. And I know this is a 50/50 thing with some people but personally, as long as I'm loving the movie and it's well made, then I'm happy for it to be 3 hours or more ( but i understand needing a small break just due to body pain and such )
My biggest issue was that I couldn't probably hear what the character's were saying half of the time. Since it's basically 3hrs of dialog, it had a big impact on my enjoyment. I don't know if it's the sound mixing or the cinema setup. English is not my first language but I'm still fully bilingual. I left the cinema frustrated, feeling like I missed a movie I could have loved. Anyone else had a similar experience?
weird that I never managed to sit through the Dark Knight (I tried like three times, but I just don't care) but this is the movie that got me all excited about the plot, the acting, the tension, everything, it's just a really good movie, the score, oh god, the score! People are saying it's too long, but everything in this movie just felt necessary (the sex scenes are debatable, but I see it as Nolan following show don't tell for establishing his relationship with Tatlock), which makes me appreciate the writing, I didn't care about the time jumps, it all felt like it was executed in the best way possible and there was just so much to think about after the movie, I really like this movie, good movie. This is what you get when you give a passionate (and skilled) director freedom, a really good movie. And I like that because I like good movies every now and then.
You totally missed the point of Jean Tatlock, although to be fair, the movie was a little dismissive of her. Jean Tatlock was the love of his life. Kitty was his fallback girl, even though he had to convince her to end her loveless marriage with her 2nd husband to marry him when she became pregnant, because Jean simply would not commit to him. For example, Jean was supposed to go to the ranch in New Mexico but cancelled out at the last minute, leaving Robert to invite Kitty and end up impregnating her. Kitty Oppenheimer clearly understood this relationship, as she was extremely intelligent (sadly, the movie portrayed her as just an alcoholic until the end when she completely took over the security clearance hearing). Fat Man and Little Boy handled this subject of her tacit acceptance of the situation better. The Trinity Test was named that because of Jean. In the end, the project took that love of his life away from him, ultimately forever due to her death. This was a metaphor for the way it took almost everything away from him. In my opinion, Oppenheimer is the best movie of this century so far. Ex Machina, Primer, The Social Network, and Fellowship of the Ring give it some worthy competition, but do not equal it.
The movie doesn't in any way portray kitty just as an alcoholic. She suffers post partum depression and the situation she is in with Robert's infidelity leads to alcoholism, but after the prologue, once they get to Los Alamos, she is uniquely portrayed as a fierce and brutally honest character for the remaining runtime, wrongfully relegated to being the housewife and the baby carrier while Robert cheats on her with multiple other women. The movie is actually way more sympathetic to Kitty than with Robert, a character that is redeemed in some of his actions and thoughts and absolutely condemned in other areas. He is not a positive figure by the end of the movie, he's a human being with many many flaws. I agree with the rest, and I also think this movie is one of the biggest achievements in recent years.
7/10 and it's really held up by the performances, not the directing. Nolan did a poor job of giving us an emotional connection to, or meaningful context of, most of the characters. The writing for most of them seems like an afterthought. Just as an example, Oppenheimer's wife is depicted as an inept emotional wreck for the majority of the movie, and then at the end all the sudden she's kicking ass and taking names? What the hell was that? There was no transition, and that's not the only character you could say that for.
@@cashrjr23 This is interesting. I noticed many people in my theater walked out, and also many fell asleep. I wonder why this difference is - location, maybe? (Mexico City) Don’t know, but the way the movie has been received by audiences here vs other places is interesting to me.
I could never understand walking out of a movie, even the most terrible ones. Like, you paid for something, why not get to the end? It's 90 to 180 minutes max of time, how terrible can that be? I think it's something I'll never understand
The first sex scene was definitely going for an ominous feeling. When she gets back on him and he reads the famous quote, he's being increasingly covered by her shadow and the music gets dark and eerie. It wasn't trying to be sexy in my opinion.
During what is essentially a hookup, Jean Tatlock learns that J Robert Oppenheimer has been TEACHING HIMSLEF to read Sanscrit. She picks a book off his bookshelf (The Bagada Vita) and defies him to read a random page from the book. He starts to explain the context of the passage (he is describing the story) and she says 'NO! read it|'. and so Oppenheimer reads the famous quote 'I am become death'. The scene demonstrates his towering intellectualism and foreshadows what is to come. He is about to become the instigator of death. His name is about to become tied to the instrument of complete destruction.
I think it was a very good movie, but not without its issues. First of all I don't like how Nolan writes Women characters, Florence Pugh character is basically a "woman in the fridge" trope, she matters because she dies and we are told that Oppie had a romantic relation with her, and are shown a sex scene with this (cringe worthy imo) bhagavad gita iconic quote -"destroyer of worlds" their relation just dosen't work for me and only actors try to salvage any emotions in this plot thread. Same with Emily Blunts character although she has something to do a least and her peak scene in interrogation room is really good! but the movie compresses her whole character to being either a bad drunk mother, or boss girl shouting at Oppie all the time. I'm not a fan of this. Then there are some characters that similarly needed some build up because there is so little of them, for example after watching the movie i totally forgot that he had a brother, and that there was this small plot thread regarding his connection to communists. Nolan shows as many characters such as this one, but dosen't really care to make them a movie character or more than just a wikipedia note, informing us that these characters were involved in this on that, and sometimes i couldn't care less because there was too many information! this is a movie not a documentary! and my last small issue is with how Nolan treats some more noteable characters, He basically does a movie cameo or an easter egg, just like superhero blockbusters do it, and it feels so funny in such a serious movie, example: Einstein suddenly appearing and giving a motivational speeche or that name drop in the end of act 3. historical fan serivce xD other then that, as I said it's a really good movie imo! but i do have some issues with it and sometimes, a bit more critcal take can be refreshing for some!
After watching this movie twice, i can certainly say that Oppenheimer in one of my favorite Nolan movies ever along with The Dark Knight and Inception. On my first viewing, i thought it was great but i felt a bit tired by the third act (mostly because i watched Barbie beforehand and i was up all day) but after watching it again, this movie moves really fucking quick. By the time they set off the bomb, i realized "Oh shit, there's an hour left". This was one of the quickest 3 hour movie i've seen since Wolf of Wall Street and Avengers Endgame. From the amazing acting to the filmmaking, this was fantastic from beginning to the very, haunting as fuck end. My one little nitpick and this is a small one was some of the sound design was a little too loud in scenes that didn't need to have intense music in it, even though for the most part the score was excellent but i guess that's a Nolan thing. EDIT: I forgot to mention this but i'm glad that both Barbie and Oppenheimer did fantastic in the box office even though i had some issues with Barbie, i still enjoyed that movie.
The exposition during basically the entire 3rd act was unforgivable for me. Took me out of it because I felt patronized. I thought the pacing was too fast for the characters but needed for the plot. The movie prioritizes plot over character which goes against the serious tone they're going for
I think your definition of exposition is a bit off. They’re not explaining the plot or theory in those scenes like Interstellar or Inception, for example. There’s a lot of talking in the two hearings, but it’s certainly not exposition.
I think whats really destructive about Nolan is that he takes all the credit by saying that he doesnt use CGI or VFX. While that isnt true at all, and many VFX artist constantly go uncredited for his films. Media reporting on this doesnt help
@@cashrjr23 It's technically not fully a lie. Yes he tries to use as little CG/VFX as possible. But still ends up using a fuck ton. A great example is him claiming he doesnt use green screens. But as a result of that, VFX artist rotoscope every frame manually which is way more work. It's not really fair to suggest that you dont use vfx artists when they have toiled away at the film and basically get no credit from the director.
I liked the writing, the cinematorgaphy and the last 50 minutes made my palms really sweaty however the editing only works during those last 50 minutes. Overall Nolan's only good film tbh. Maybe the editing is bad in my eyes because it basically works as one objective/subjective stream of conscience. I never noticed any cuts.
That point about length is why I would argue Talk to Me was a better showcase of storytelling talent than either Barbie or Oppenheimer. Whether it’s studio conflict or just director ego, just throwing everything in and leaving the result a bit unfocused has become way too acceptable today (see Aster and Inarritu’s last films for most extreme example). Cutting scenes and telling your story efficiently is part of your job as a writer-director and is a necessity for great storytelling.
Yeah great point, that's why Lawrence of Arabia is honestly mid. Same goes for Andrei Rublev, The Godfather Part 2, Seven Samurai, Schindler's List, Gone With the Wind, and so many more movies that get rated way too high for how long their runtimes are. Just total wastes of time, really, those directors really didn't know what they were doing.
@@johncra8982 good movies can be long, but they are still focused. The original Godfather and Schindler’s List are two great examples of long movies where every scene was important for the main themes and development of the main character. Neither Oppenheimer nor Barbie was close to that well put together and both had spectacle/fan service for the sake of spectacle/fan service.
Oppenheimer was a complete missed opportunity. I saw a 3 hour film about the most boring part of blowing up a city of people. I feel like a film about the morals and politics and the aftermath of the bomb on Oppenheimer's mind would have been so much better. The best part was Oppenheimers panic attack during the speech, and the contrast of his strong pro-war/pro-bomb speech vs his own guilt, but then the movie forgot about that.
I feel like that’s exactly what I got? Personally the science behind the bomb and the making of it general was interesting. But Oppenheimer was absolutely a character study first imo. And the whole hour or so after the atomic bomb goes off, every second you see Oppenheimer on screen you can tell he’s grappling with the guilt and weight of that event. I wouldn’t say this film, is any one thing really. But by no means was this a general or paper thin telling of this huge point in history. It was dense, and very patient with it’s pacing and storytelling.
@@jamesfurfaro4950it’s kind of hard to get invested in the “character study” aspect when the score is blaring over every scene insisting emotions yet distracting from the subtle acting and dialogue, and when the movie of people having conversations is edited like an action montage. The quieter more intimate scenes with the characters are easily the best moments in the film, I just wish Nolan would’ve presented the majority of this film in a way that was more concerned with focusing the attention on the characters and the acting and the dialogue instead of trying to edit it like an action movie just so people wouldn’t feel bored, but I guess that’s just his style so it is what it is.
I have to agree. Biopics tend to have too much material, and it takes a really talented screenwriter to determine what slices of a person’s life to focus on. I don’t think Nolan managed to do that here. It covered too much of Oppenheimer’s life. I think there’s a great movie somewhere in here, but all the extra stuff makes it just an okay one. And it wasn’t that I thought it was boring or too long, exactly, but more that the point of the movie became muddled by all the extra material. At least, beyond some vague statement about being a “character study,” I’ve yet to hear someone explain how the Strauss, Pugh, Kitty, etc, storylines augmented the film’s themes and message. IMO, they simply muddled them. I’d love to hear someone explain how all the story threads are meant to fit together. But from where I’m sitting, a lot of stuff is only in the story because it (somewhat) happened, and that’s not a good enough reason.
It was boring. Three hours of depositions, confirmation hearings, dudes talking in rooms, and a very underwhelming bomb sequence unworthy of an IMAX screen. Oh my goodness, is Oppie keeping his security clearance by the end?!?! Riveting stuff 🙄 tack on another topless scene in the middle of an interrogation to make it more interesting, please.
If you were expecting numerous bomb sequences to entertain you for three hours, this movie is DEFINITELY not for you. Every scene in this movie whether before the Trinity Test and after, the hearings and the dialogue about the ramifications of what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki without showing the actual bombing of those two places in Japan needed to happen to understand where Oppenheimer, Strauss, Katherine Oppenheimer and everyone else in this movie was coming from in their point of view. As for the sex/nude scenes, they don't feel unnecessary at all if you paid attention to Katherine's reaction to Robert while it was his turn to talk in the hearing.
I thought the sex scene in front of all the interviewers was really well done. It showed how Oppenheimer being literally dressed down and humiliated. The interviewers purposefully brought up his infidelity on the day his wife accompanied him, dragging him through the mud for his mistakes.
I thought it was uneeded and was only there for shock value. We already had the first sex scene after all. To each there own I guess
It's a testament to Christopher Nolan's immense directing talent that he made a three hour movie mostly composed of dialogue, and managed to make it compelling throughout the extensive running time.
Never have 3 hours felt shorten than when watching this movie
And shoutout to Ludwig's score.
Thanks to the power of MUSIC and SCORE throughout
he never misses, an absolute legend!
The movie plays so much better on a second viewing imo. It was somehow so much more tense, so much more engaging, so much quicker, so much more emotionally effective the second time around knowing exactly what every character was doing and why. It gave everything this opressive sense of inevitablity watching these events unfold knowing that once the "nuclear genie was out of the bottle" there was no going back
I watched Barbie first. Absolutely loved it. It was a morning show so there were only like 5 people in the whole theatre. I enjoyed the movie a lot more than I thought I would. After the movie ended, I went for a bathroom break, took a walk for 10 mins just to stretch my legs and then went back into the theatre for Oppenheimer. I was transfixed for the next 3 hours. After Oppenheimer ended, I tried to recall Barbie and I couldn't remember half the movie even though I enjoyed it immensely. A lot of people are meming and comparing both movies but for me, they are on completely different levels. Oppenheimer absolutely blew me away.
5:10 I agree with Jake on the watch order, I think Barbie should be watched before Oppenheimer. Watching it the other way around would seriously lessen the impact of the movie.
they should have intermissions for longer movies, just like with plays T_T
Lawrence of Arabia literally has one in the middle of its run time. Would be really interesting to have return to feature films.
Funny you mention that, cause in India they do have intervals for every movie
more advertisements!! thanks for giving these assholes in the theater ideas
2001: A Space Odyssey also had an intermission midway through I think.
@@rouveyNow that is something I did not know, thanks for the info.
My favorite movies are the ones that get better the more I keep thinking about them. I can't stop thinking about Oppenheimer, and fortunately, it can't seem to stop getting better in my estimation. Unless Marty REALLY knocks it out of the park with Killers of the Flower Moon and earns that second Oscar (which he should've gotten decades ago, let's be honest), I really hope Nolan sweeps the Oscars this years.
Dune 2 too coming this year let's see
@@dollytanwar4918Hans Zimmer vs Ludwig Goransson for music. Ludwig made a statement with this score
This movie will be nominated for all of the awards. Will win for sound and editing. Cillian Murphy will be nominated for Best Actor and Robert Downey Jr. and Matt Damon for supporting actors.
Rdj is winning that oscar
The Prestige has long been my favorite Nolan film, and it still is, but after a second watch of Oppenheimer I feel confident placing it at #2 ahead of Dark Knight.
The themes, characters, and overall vision of Nolan’s original films often get a bit bogged down in Nolan’s goal of achieving a certain concept, whereas The Prestige and Oppenheimer already have their overarching themes and goals laid out in source material so Nolan can focus on telling that story in his own way. Other than some pacing issues, it’s a masterpiece and I would be shocked if he doesn’t get a best director nomination.
I think that the style in which the movie was presented and edited can either be seen as very good or very bad. It’s impressive that he could make a 3 hour movie of mainly people talking feel very fast paced and entertaining, but at the same time I think it stripped away a lot of moments that could have been very emotionally impactful and intriguing. I think that it’s unfortunate that a lot of scenes with really impressive subtle acting and dialogue were drowned out by the score, either because it was so loud that you literally couldn’t hear what they were saying, or because it’s so prominent that it insists the emotion of the scene and distracts from the acting and dialogue of the scene. I think a lot of these scenes could have been far more emotional and impactful if he had just either gotten rid of the score or made it more subtle and allowed for the acting and dialogue to be the focal point, I think he could’ve let it speak for itself instead of blaring dramatic music so we know it’s serious, silence could’ve felt very serious, built tension, and felt unnerving and somber, and put more focus on the characters and what’s going on in their heads, but instead it feels like it’s all presented like an action movie montage. The score itself is great, I just think it was overused, and could’ve been reserved for scenes that actually benefited from it in terms of setting tone and building tension (it was used masterfully in the buildup to trinity test), but I don’t think putting it over intimate conversations and character moments does anything except distract from those moments. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that a lot of the best scenes in the film have little to no score and just allow for the scene and the acting and the dialogue to speak for itself.
Yea I found the endind kinda funny cause it felt like it would have been really effective had there not already been at least 15 ultra loud thumping music crescendo moments just like it already.
Exactly my thoughts. I even can say something similar for TDK. It's a great film, but I have mixed feelings about the editing. The fast pacing really helps to make the movie as intense as it is, but it also makes it feel like some scenes and moments are taken away to fast. Also, once you have watched the movie so many times, you start to realise that the fast pace editing does wonders with hiding the many plot contrivances and weird stuff, but at the same time it makes me wonder if maybe is actually a bad thing having to hide all those contrivances on the first place?
Second channel doing numbers!
"I think it's Based"
Well said Nadia!
The book is incredible. Highly recommend it. And the changes they made make sense for the characters and the story. There isnt anything in the book about oppie ruining strauss' intro with einstein, but it is true that straus held grudges and was super petty. Its also true that einstein and oppie worked together at princeton for a number of years. And oppie was very anti arms race anti global nuclear armament post ww2. So that pivotal convo with einstein, tho its likely apochryphal, works really well.
hey Jake, I loved your performance as Ernest Lawrence! Can't believe you got a speaking role in the movie. They really did cast everyone...
The JFK comparison is great. I was saying after I saw Oppenheimer that it is pretty unique in that it is a historical epic, but rather than being about a big historical event or war, it is about the little details. It's unique in that it can be epic and exciting while essentially just being about scientists and physicists and their thought processes as the story and bomb development unfolds. Even though I think Oppenheimer is really good, but not quite great (the last half hour, the RD Jr. part of the story, the story developments and character arcs that mirror other Nolan movies too closely, all took me out, making it an 8 out of 10), I thought that it was unique in how exciting and excited it was about what could be very boring subject matter. And this was an accomplishment. BUT yes, you nailed it with the JFK comparison. It is very much like it in that sense. Perhaps there are other movies that do that too that I just couldn't think of - a big epic picture that is actually not about something all that epic for the most part and instead presents events and developments in an absolutely epic, exciting way.
Just bring back intermissions. Seriously, for 3-4 hour movies it makes them watchable and worthwhile to make. I want intermissions back soooo badly.
Thanks for the review Woman, Man and doggo. However, I believe you should do a rewatch.
Anyways, Can You Hear The Music ?
It was really late into the film when i realized that the black and white scenes were all from Strauss's perspective.
saw it on IMAX in Providence, RI and it cut out about halfway through because there was an issue with the projector, but I loved the break! 😂 the IMAX seats weren't great so I think everyone was actually grateful for the chance to go to the bathroom and stretch. I loved it!
I'm sorry but Barbie over this is absolutely insane and I had a really fun time at Barbie
how are you gonna start that smooth ass beat at the end and just end the video??
that aside, loved the commentary from you two, I'll definitely need a second watch
3:15 “so I think it’s based” excellent review
Its funny because in my country we had an interval at 2 hr mark ,so i was able to stretch, go to the bathroom ,do a drug deal . It did improve the experience
😂😂😂 "do a drug deal"
I agree with you both, mostly. I think a half an hour, at least, could have been trimmed and still have the same effect. I saw it on an Imax screen. This is my first theater movie in over a year and I have to say, the Imax screen was a lot smaller than I remember them being. My biggest criticism though is the sound design. At times I felt it was excruciatingly loud and it took away from the experience for me.I would still recommend this film but with a warning; always be reading to cover your ears.
Theres different sizes for imax screens. People call most. Imax screens Liemax cause theyre usually not actual Giant Screens. Like my area only has one actual Giant Imax screen and then like 15 other theaters that have an "Imax" that are all like half as big.
I had an incredible experience watching this film. I cried twice
I was in cinema yesterday; I quite enjoyed Oppenheimer, I must say. Great movie. However, I plan to watch a recording of "Doctor Atomic" this evening. We'll see which one is better...
I have just finished watching it now. Though both mediums are too different to justify a direct comparison (I should have anticipated that!) it was still fascinating to see how both the opera and the movie pick up the same details about the “Trinity” test - the difficult weather condition, the “gadget’s influence on civilization” debate, the betting on the force of the bomb by scientists, the glasses that they were wearing and even the sun cream. Also: how on Earth is it possible that an opera about Oppenheimer is actually SHORTER than the movie about him? Crazy times we live in, crazy times...
Loved hearing your thoughts! I am so torn as to whether or not to watch this film. On the one hand I love the cast especially Cillian Murphy. And Christopher Nolan is my jam. On the other hand I had the opportunity to visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum a few years ago and based on how that effected me.... not sure I can do this one. At least not on a big screen. Which sucks because it's a Nolan epic! You have to see those on the big screen. Anyways, this is my delema. Thanks for the review!
A bunch of people went crazy at my showing when Einstein shows up.
Definitely feel like barbie helped Oppenheimer, and Oppenheimer helped barbie.
Especially with the whole barbenheimer thing, so many people did double features regardless if they mainly only wanted to see 1 or the other lol.
And I know this is a 50/50 thing with some people but personally, as long as I'm loving the movie and it's well made, then I'm happy for it to be 3 hours or more ( but i understand needing a small break just due to body pain and such )
I simply don't understand the runtime complaints. Not just with this film, but in general. On any level.
My biggest issue was that I couldn't probably hear what the character's were saying half of the time. Since it's basically 3hrs of dialog, it had a big impact on my enjoyment. I don't know if it's the sound mixing or the cinema setup. English is not my first language but I'm still fully bilingual.
I left the cinema frustrated, feeling like I missed a movie I could have loved.
Anyone else had a similar experience?
It is a little mumbly. Seems to be common in modern movies. I think the soundtrack was a little too loud.
Not me...I like verbal judo
I watched this movie on opening day and it was amazing and so impactful.
weird that I never managed to sit through the Dark Knight (I tried like three times, but I just don't care) but this is the movie that got me all excited about the plot, the acting, the tension, everything, it's just a really good movie, the score, oh god, the score! People are saying it's too long, but everything in this movie just felt necessary (the sex scenes are debatable, but I see it as Nolan following show don't tell for establishing his relationship with Tatlock), which makes me appreciate the writing, I didn't care about the time jumps, it all felt like it was executed in the best way possible and there was just so much to think about after the movie, I really like this movie, good movie.
This is what you get when you give a passionate (and skilled) director freedom, a really good movie. And I like that because I like good movies every now and then.
Now I am become deaf
You totally missed the point of Jean Tatlock, although to be fair, the movie was a little dismissive of her. Jean Tatlock was the love of his life. Kitty was his fallback girl, even though he had to convince her to end her loveless marriage with her 2nd husband to marry him when she became pregnant, because Jean simply would not commit to him. For example, Jean was supposed to go to the ranch in New Mexico but cancelled out at the last minute, leaving Robert to invite Kitty and end up impregnating her. Kitty Oppenheimer clearly understood this relationship, as she was extremely intelligent (sadly, the movie portrayed her as just an alcoholic until the end when she completely took over the security clearance hearing). Fat Man and Little Boy handled this subject of her tacit acceptance of the situation better. The Trinity Test was named that because of Jean. In the end, the project took that love of his life away from him, ultimately forever due to her death. This was a metaphor for the way it took almost everything away from him.
In my opinion, Oppenheimer is the best movie of this century so far. Ex Machina, Primer, The Social Network, and Fellowship of the Ring give it some worthy competition, but do not equal it.
The movie doesn't in any way portray kitty just as an alcoholic. She suffers post partum depression and the situation she is in with Robert's infidelity leads to alcoholism, but after the prologue, once they get to Los Alamos, she is uniquely portrayed as a fierce and brutally honest character for the remaining runtime, wrongfully relegated to being the housewife and the baby carrier while Robert cheats on her with multiple other women. The movie is actually way more sympathetic to Kitty than with Robert, a character that is redeemed in some of his actions and thoughts and absolutely condemned in other areas. He is not a positive figure by the end of the movie, he's a human being with many many flaws.
I agree with the rest, and I also think this movie is one of the biggest achievements in recent years.
7/10 and it's really held up by the performances, not the directing. Nolan did a poor job of giving us an emotional connection to, or meaningful context of, most of the characters. The writing for most of them seems like an afterthought. Just as an example, Oppenheimer's wife is depicted as an inept emotional wreck for the majority of the movie, and then at the end all the sudden she's kicking ass and taking names? What the hell was that? There was no transition, and that's not the only character you could say that for.
Seeing it tomorrow but lemmie guess, he builds the bomb?
I walked out of it… but your review has made me consider trying it again 😊
I did not even see anyone even go to the bathroom in our theatre
@@cashrjr23 This is interesting. I noticed many people in my theater walked out, and also many fell asleep. I wonder why this difference is - location, maybe? (Mexico City) Don’t know, but the way the movie has been received by audiences here vs other places is interesting to me.
@@justjuanreader sleep...much to loud to sleep...but...
Dude's mind has been melted by Marvel films
I could never understand walking out of a movie, even the most terrible ones. Like, you paid for something, why not get to the end? It's 90 to 180 minutes max of time, how terrible can that be? I think it's something I'll never understand
They saw Oppenheimer.
The first sex scene was definitely going for an ominous feeling. When she gets back on him and he reads the famous quote, he's being increasingly covered by her shadow and the music gets dark and eerie. It wasn't trying to be sexy in my opinion.
During what is essentially a hookup, Jean Tatlock learns that J Robert Oppenheimer has been TEACHING HIMSLEF to read Sanscrit. She picks a book off his bookshelf (The Bagada Vita) and defies him to read a random page from the book. He starts to explain the context of the passage (he is describing the story) and she says 'NO! read it|'. and so Oppenheimer reads the famous quote 'I am become death'. The scene demonstrates his towering intellectualism and foreshadows what is to come. He is about to become the instigator of death. His name is about to become tied to the instrument of complete destruction.
I think it was a very good movie, but not without its issues.
First of all I don't like how Nolan writes Women characters, Florence Pugh character is basically a "woman in the fridge" trope, she matters because she dies and we are told that Oppie had a romantic relation with her, and are shown a sex scene with this (cringe worthy imo) bhagavad gita iconic quote -"destroyer of worlds" their relation just dosen't work for me and only actors try to salvage any emotions in this plot thread.
Same with Emily Blunts character although she has something to do a least and her peak scene in interrogation room is really good! but the movie compresses her whole character to being either a bad drunk mother, or boss girl shouting at Oppie all the time.
I'm not a fan of this.
Then there are some characters that similarly needed some build up because there is so little of them, for example after watching the movie i totally forgot that he had a brother, and that there was this small plot thread regarding his connection to communists. Nolan shows as many characters such as this one, but dosen't really care to make them a movie character or more than just a wikipedia note, informing us that these characters were involved in this on that, and sometimes i couldn't care less because there was too many information! this is a movie not a documentary!
and my last small issue is with how Nolan treats some more noteable characters, He basically does a movie cameo or an easter egg, just like superhero blockbusters do it, and it feels so funny in such a serious movie, example: Einstein suddenly appearing and giving a motivational speeche or that name drop in the end of act 3.
historical fan serivce xD
other then that, as I said it's a really good movie imo! but i do have some issues with it and sometimes, a bit more critcal take can be refreshing for some!
It's incorrect that Stimson spared Kyoto because he honeymooned there. I assume nolan put that in the script to enhance the dissonance
After watching this movie twice, i can certainly say that Oppenheimer in one of my favorite Nolan movies ever along with The Dark Knight and Inception. On my first viewing, i thought it was great but i felt a bit tired by the third act (mostly because i watched Barbie beforehand and i was up all day) but after watching it again, this movie moves really fucking quick. By the time they set off the bomb, i realized "Oh shit, there's an hour left". This was one of the quickest 3 hour movie i've seen since Wolf of Wall Street and Avengers Endgame. From the amazing acting to the filmmaking, this was fantastic from beginning to the very, haunting as fuck end. My one little nitpick and this is a small one was some of the sound design was a little too loud in scenes that didn't need to have intense music in it, even though for the most part the score was excellent but i guess that's a Nolan thing.
EDIT: I forgot to mention this but i'm glad that both Barbie and Oppenheimer did fantastic in the box office even though i had some issues with Barbie, i still enjoyed that movie.
The exposition during basically the entire 3rd act was unforgivable for me. Took me out of it because I felt patronized. I thought the pacing was too fast for the characters but needed for the plot. The movie prioritizes plot over character which goes against the serious tone they're going for
I think your definition of exposition is a bit off. They’re not explaining the plot or theory in those scenes like Interstellar or Inception, for example. There’s a lot of talking in the two hearings, but it’s certainly not exposition.
I think whats really destructive about Nolan is that he takes all the credit by saying that he doesnt use CGI or VFX. While that isnt true at all, and many VFX artist constantly go uncredited for his films. Media reporting on this doesnt help
Why should he lie?
@@cashrjr23 It's technically not fully a lie. Yes he tries to use as little CG/VFX as possible. But still ends up using a fuck ton. A great example is him claiming he doesnt use green screens. But as a result of that, VFX artist rotoscope every frame manually which is way more work. It's not really fair to suggest that you dont use vfx artists when they have toiled away at the film and basically get no credit from the director.
Woman Carrying Man Carrying Oppenheimer
This movie didn't feel 3 hours long at all. Felt maybe 2 hours
To say this movir was a disappointment is an understatement. This is probably my least favorite Nolan Film that ice seen
Win for woman! And woman takes!
I liked the writing, the cinematorgaphy and the last 50 minutes made my palms really sweaty however the editing only works during those last 50 minutes. Overall Nolan's only good film tbh. Maybe the editing is bad in my eyes because it basically works as one objective/subjective stream of conscience. I never noticed any cuts.
I'd argue that if you didn't notice any of the cuts the editing is excellent, no?
Fat Man Carrying KaZing
That point about length is why I would argue Talk to Me was a better showcase of storytelling talent than either Barbie or Oppenheimer. Whether it’s studio conflict or just director ego, just throwing everything in and leaving the result a bit unfocused has become way too acceptable today (see Aster and Inarritu’s last films for most extreme example). Cutting scenes and telling your story efficiently is part of your job as a writer-director and is a necessity for great storytelling.
The more the merrier. Bigger is better.
Beau is afraid was great Barbie was great, and they were efficient imo
Yeah great point, that's why Lawrence of Arabia is honestly mid. Same goes for Andrei Rublev, The Godfather Part 2, Seven Samurai, Schindler's List, Gone With the Wind, and so many more movies that get rated way too high for how long their runtimes are. Just total wastes of time, really, those directors really didn't know what they were doing.
@@johncra8982 good movies can be long, but they are still focused. The original Godfather and Schindler’s List are two great examples of long movies where every scene was important for the main themes and development of the main character. Neither Oppenheimer nor Barbie was close to that well put together and both had spectacle/fan service for the sake of spectacle/fan service.
Oppenheimer was a complete missed opportunity. I saw a 3 hour film about the most boring part of blowing up a city of people. I feel like a film about the morals and politics and the aftermath of the bomb on Oppenheimer's mind would have been so much better. The best part was Oppenheimers panic attack during the speech, and the contrast of his strong pro-war/pro-bomb speech vs his own guilt, but then the movie forgot about that.
that's just like, your opinion man
I feel like that’s exactly what I got? Personally the science behind the bomb and the making of it general was interesting. But Oppenheimer was absolutely a character study first imo. And the whole hour or so after the atomic bomb goes off, every second you see Oppenheimer on screen you can tell he’s grappling with the guilt and weight of that event. I wouldn’t say this film, is any one thing really. But by no means was this a general or paper thin telling of this huge point in history. It was dense, and very patient with it’s pacing and storytelling.
@@jamesfurfaro4950it’s kind of hard to get invested in the “character study” aspect when the score is blaring over every scene insisting emotions yet distracting from the subtle acting and dialogue, and when the movie of people having conversations is edited like an action montage. The quieter more intimate scenes with the characters are easily the best moments in the film, I just wish Nolan would’ve presented the majority of this film in a way that was more concerned with focusing the attention on the characters and the acting and the dialogue instead of trying to edit it like an action movie just so people wouldn’t feel bored, but I guess that’s just his style so it is what it is.
I have to agree. Biopics tend to have too much material, and it takes a really talented screenwriter to determine what slices of a person’s life to focus on. I don’t think Nolan managed to do that here. It covered too much of Oppenheimer’s life. I think there’s a great movie somewhere in here, but all the extra stuff makes it just an okay one. And it wasn’t that I thought it was boring or too long, exactly, but more that the point of the movie became muddled by all the extra material. At least, beyond some vague statement about being a “character study,” I’ve yet to hear someone explain how the Strauss, Pugh, Kitty, etc, storylines augmented the film’s themes and message. IMO, they simply muddled them.
I’d love to hear someone explain how all the story threads are meant to fit together. But from where I’m sitting, a lot of stuff is only in the story because it (somewhat) happened, and that’s not a good enough reason.
Did you watch the movie? Cause you just described the movie.
It was boring. Three hours of depositions, confirmation hearings, dudes talking in rooms, and a very underwhelming bomb sequence unworthy of an IMAX screen. Oh my goodness, is Oppie keeping his security clearance by the end?!?! Riveting stuff 🙄 tack on another topless scene in the middle of an interrogation to make it more interesting, please.
What a terrible opinion. Stick to marvel kid
If you were expecting numerous bomb sequences to entertain you for three hours, this movie is DEFINITELY not for you. Every scene in this movie whether before the Trinity Test and after, the hearings and the dialogue about the ramifications of what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki without showing the actual bombing of those two places in Japan needed to happen to understand where Oppenheimer, Strauss, Katherine Oppenheimer and everyone else in this movie was coming from in their point of view. As for the sex/nude scenes, they don't feel unnecessary at all if you paid attention to Katherine's reaction to Robert while it was his turn to talk in the hearing.
WHY MOVIE NO MAKE BIG BOOM 😡😡🤬😤
finally a review i can agree
I walked out of it… but your review has made me consider trying it again 😊