@@nightshademilkshake1 great movies . Thr wind the Shakes the barley deserve more attention. Especially as they was no script. He made up jis own lines. All the actor's did . ( the director does that with all his movies).
@@GlitchManOmega oh, please remind me again, what race is the group of people who run Hollywood and are trying ever so desperately to narrow the gap between art and pornography? you are on the wrong side, my friend.
If you want to get super meta about it, it’s a film about people trying to comprehend something they don’t fully understand, which is fully reflected in the audience.
Not just comprehend, but also harness this cutting edge science into a practical application that could destroy the enemy... or yourself if you got it wrong. As they all saw the effects of radiation when people got careless and died as a result of that monumental pursuit. The stakes could not have been higher.
Nolan does that frequently. Some of his other movies, like The Prestige and Inception can be interpreted as allegories for some aspects of movie-making.
RUclips critics today: "We need new quality movies that are not agenda driven but put human stories upfront. Also RUclipsr "the movie is three hours. I can only watch a mini series with one hour runtime. Also not to many explosions and action".
I really enjoyed it. The structure and pace of the film felt like a whole metaphor for nuclear fission. It was like a bomb slowly going off in your head you cannot stop. It does have some issues, but so refreshing to see an original movie that isn't a remake, sequel, soft reboot or super hero movie.
Oppenheimer is a great film - for a 3 hour film, I never once felt compelled to check the time, and even though it was telling a true story, I found myself on the edge of my seat as if the outcome wasn't fore ordained - I worried that the test at Trinity might indeed ignite the atmosphere (spoiler - it didn't).
@@oswaldthatendswald5892it’s a reference to a song (I believe). I’ve seen you replying to other people with these same one sentence replies so I ask you: Why are you so compelled to tell people that they can’t like this film?
The ending shot shook me to my core. Cillian Murphy is an actor among actors, I've never seen someone portray so much emotion while doing absolutely nothing. Oscar incoming.
I also think the ending is compelling for the fact that it shows the world slowly getting engulfed in fire, but it never portrays that fire as having come from a nuclear explosion, on top of the fact that the Nuke was confirmed to not ignite our atmosphere like its portraying, and that Mutually Assured Destruction was already claimed in the movie as a way to prevent further uses of the nuke. Yet, Oppenheimer says that we "already destroyed it [the world]" during that shot. And you have to wonder what the movie truly is referring to as destroying the world. Considering the whole bomb project is simply part of the larger story about the government trying to indict Oppenheimer for the belief that he is tied to the Russians (huh, sounds familiar somehow), alongside the depiction of Communism running unopposed in the schools and colleges, AND the fact that the guy manipulating everything to spearhead this attack only loses because of a vote by someone who famously was ASSASSINATED. Well, I have to wonder if the film was trying to say something more. Though I'm not sure what exactly, or if all this is simply coincidence.
@@vociferon-heraldofthewinte7763 didn’t the group who chooses Oscar nominees state you must have a certain amount of “representation if you want your film considered for oscars
I agree that the third act in Oppenheimer was actually the best. The first two acts throw so many characters and ideas at you and it’s so fast paced that it never really slows down until after the bomb drops. Which is when we get the truly spine chilling scenes of Oppenheimer having grasp the true weight of his actions. Between those and Robert Downey Jr. giving us his best monologues ever it makes for a more investing finale
the 3rd act is just as important as the events leading to the trinity test. It talks about the fallout of using atomic weapons and ending it with oppie saying they might have started a chain reaction is a fitting end
I kind of think the movie portrays the creation of the bomb as secondary to the overall story of the indictment of Oppenheimer, and the stuff surrounding that, which is why the 3rd act is actually the most important part, as its tying everything together into something more important. But also, I think there is more to the movie because of this, though I'm maybe reading too much into it: The ending shot is showing the world slowly getting engulfed in fire, but it never portrays that fire as having come from a nuclear explosion, on top of the fact that the Nuke was confirmed to not ignite our atmosphere like its portraying, and that Mutually Assured Destruction was already claimed in the movie as a way to prevent further uses of the nuke. Yet, Oppenheimer says that we "already destroyed it [the world]" during that shot. And you have to wonder what the movie truly is referring to as destroying the world. Considering the whole bomb project is simply part of the larger story about the government trying to indict Oppenheimer for the belief that he is tied to the Russians (huh, sounds familiar somehow), alongside the depiction of Communism running unopposed in the schools and colleges, AND the fact that the guy manipulating everything to spearhead this attack only loses because of a vote by someone who famously was ASSASSINATED. Well, I have to wonder if the film was trying to say something more. Though I'm not sure what exactly, or if all this is simply coincidence.
15:46 Nolan or Oppenheimer? The film shows Oppenheimer as a slightly awkward person who used his intelligence as his charm with women. The first sex scene was as expected, slightly awkward almost like the first time you lose your virginity. Did you guys think Oppenheimer was suppose to be Ryan Gosling in bed? Those scenes were not suppose to be romantic or passionate. The first sex scene is them barley nude with her in-control and dominating him. The later is them both equally comfortable and fully exposed to their core with each other. Like the bomb he’s building…they’re drawn together, attracted to each other, and when connected sensational things happen, but they’re destructive to each other and to those around them. Look at the lightning of the two scenes. Both have a yellow and orange glow, with the first being darker, and the second nude scene being brighter and more fire looking. Just like….the explosion of the bomb. The fact we’re still talking about it, proves it was a psychologically effective visual of seeing Oppenheimer and his mistress both on top of each other in that hearing room with Emily Blunt staring directly into her eyes.
Well said. These two real-life people weren't exactly the most socially graceful of humans that ever existed. The awkwardness was clearly intentional since it probably matched the real Oppenheimer and showed his relationships were pretty damn complicated.
@@kandallman the biopic American Prometheus describes Oppenheimer's first time in bed. His mother came to visit him in the UK brought over a girl for Oppenheimer to hang out with... but didn't want him actually dating her. They went to bed - it's unclear if they had sex but he started crying... and she started crying... and then his mom knocked on the door to ask what was going on. Oppenheimer was an awkward dude. When he had his mental breakdown at Cambridge, one of his psychiatrists simply told him to get laid and gave him a prescription for aphrodisiacs lol.
@@FabrisFanatic have not read the book and the film did a great job on conveying his awkward sexual outlook and how his intelligence and scientific discoveries drove his confidence. His discovery of the atomic bomb and its god-like power went hand-in-hand with this.
Bobvog7123, it’s less than a minute of sex, with maybe a minute of screen nudity in a 3 hour plus film. And adds to the destructive embarrassment the US government exposed of Oppenheimer’s private life for no good moral reason other than to smear his name and discredit his achievement in order to deny him a security clearance. The visual imaginary of them nude in that hearing room with Emily Blunt and Florence making eye contact is something no one is gonna forget. It was a bold move for a Nolan film, and it was highly effective in showcasing its psychological destructive effect. If they simply said, “he cheated on his wife,” I don’t think it would’ve skimmed the impacting surface that Nolan’s visual has. Remember, most historical figures…Einstein (cheated on his wife with his cousin and then married her), John Nash, Stephen Hawking, and many more…all had affairs. It’s nothing new to learn they were this way. Same with historical women. This was also the point where Blunt, who knew of the affair finally allowed it to fully get to her, all because her husband was not fighting the people who were calling him out and discrediting him to his face. Their attack on him, was an indirect attack on her.
@@BreMue No it wasn't. They did censor Pugh's nude scenes and cut out a few profanities in most regions of the country to earn a U/A rating instead of the normal A(R) rating.
I prefer the post bomb stuff too. It was nice to see Emily Blunt act for once. My 14 year old son loved the film too, I think it was compelling throughout.
@@frozenpizza5242 we live in France we don’t have any of that American madness in our schools, at least for now. French women won’t take any BS from perverts in dresses.
@@frozenpizza5242 I hunt wild boar during the season. It gets me outdoors. Lots of food for the family. Hunting is a wonderful way of getting outdoors and connecting with reality.
Man, did you see this with your son ? If so, what the hell is up with western society, absolute lack of shame knowing there is nudity. Might as well watch porn together. If not, please ignore the above.
I'm glad Oppenheimer is doing well, because it tells an honest story about a complex man who built the atom bomb, and fell from grace just as quick. For a 3 hour biopic, it tells a rich story without it being redundant or bloated. And for me, the best part of it is aftermath of the design and use of the atom bomb. Its also my choice for Oscar gold; especially with best lead actor, best adapted screenplay, best director, and best picture. 3 cheers for Oppenheimer. 🎉🎉🎉
I agree, the first 30 minutes were really difficult since you didn’t really know what it was aiming for and what was the underlying thread. But when it gets into the flow it’s quite good, and the last hour was very good.
I enjoyed it even while asking for the first hour, 'I wonder where this is going?' The dialogue was super efficient, so a lot was put out there. But the second and third hour had various payoffs.
This film was masterful. The reaction to the pacing is shocking to me and is really indicative of the lack of attention span in our culture today. I couldn’t look away. I think it would’ve been an absolutely disservice to make this a miniseries. It was incredible on the big screen.
I couldnt disagree more with breaking up Oppenheimer into a mini series. Im so tired of tv shows. Oppenheimer was exactly what i was hoping it would be and we need more movies like that.
I watched Oppenheimer in the Bob Bullock IMAX, screen is 6 stories tall and 84 ft wide. When the nuke went off, the screen was so large that I was looking up at the pillar of fire, literally had to raise my head up to see the top. It was intense.
I actually liked the whole movie, even the court hearing parts. It all felt interesting to see those scenes from different angles each time a new bit of context was added. Of course, the part leading up to the bomb was the best, but I think it was all a very satisfying whole.
i watched it because I am interested in science. But I read a comment saying the half of the movie is just a court room drama before I watched the film. I watched it anyways because I also enjoy court room dramas even I am not really in to laws
People said it before, it’s the Doom Eternal - Animal Crossing of the movie world. The occasion where 2 very different audiences combine and create combined content of the two. It’s kinda neat to see, kinda wholesome
Florence's character was important to have in the film because it is suppossed to be Oppenheimer's true love. Also, sex in real life can be awkward as well lol, not every fu*k is "sexy". I loved the film, the editor did an amazing job packing up over 2 hours of pure dialogue scenes and the ending was brilliant and chilling.
@@DaveTimperley yes, and also when Emily's character realizes through the "trial" that Oppie had been sleeping with Jean even when married it truly makes you question what would be her stance when interrogated. And that pays off immensely when that scene comes, Emily Blunt was amazing.
The movie was freaking fantastic! The performances, the music, the pacing, the message. Hell, I rarely pray attention to editing and noticed how amazing it got towards the end! That one guy might not have liked it, but for me it's a masterpiece! And that's coming from someone who usually hates bio pics.
I was an incredible film. Christopher Nolan did not miss! I wasn't all aware of OPPENHEIMER's story and the film does a great job telling that story from several perspectives (you'll see during the third act). Was sad Zimmer wasn't composing the OST but the composer they used did an outstanding job. The tension could be felt thanks to the acting and the score working together. I'm going to watch this again on Tuesday. Ludwig Göransson's OPPENHEIMER score is his INTERSTELLAR. Songs like Can you feel the music" and "Destroyer of Worlds" remind me of "cornfield chase" and "where we're going" from Interstellar. Both breeming of Hope and tension throughout the scenes and instrumentation. Zimmer uses the clock's tick tock sound to drive the tension of interstellar, while Göransson uses the march sound to do the same. It's pretty fascinating works.
I have finally managed to find a seat to watch the movie in IMAX (the nearby cinema is apparently the only one in central Europe projecting it in 70mm, so all screenings have been regularly sold out), and I very much enjoyed it. The first 20' or so I felt not so sure about the pacing, but then after things started moving, I did not even feel the 3 hours, including the last part with the interrogation and political schemes that I found very much engaging. And stellar performances by pretty much the entire cast, and so refreshing seeing Robert Dawney Jr. finally stretching his acting muscles again in good movies.
Several years ago, one of my favorite theatres replaced all their seats with automatic recliners, and all the tickets became "reserved". I quickly realized the only way to go was to order my tickets online days in advance. Usually, I'm the first one buying a ticket for a given show, so I get the best seat in the place! The exception was when I went to see "SHIN ULTRAMAN", which had an insanely-limited showing here of only 2 DAYS. After waiting months, I got a ticket as soon as I learned they were on sale, and 1/4 of the place had already been sold out-- a MONTH in advance! I was worried about inclement weather (snow) but the night I went, no problems. I also got a surprise when I saw the crowd. Though I bought my ticket 4 weeks earlier, apparently, I was the LAST one to buy a ticket for it. I guess the price was too high.. especially for a Japanese film with English SUBTITLES (heehee). First time in my entire life I ever had to read a movie in a theatre. It was a blast.
As far as the romance subplot goes, speaking as someone who has at one point in his life been a naive young man who fell in love with a narcissist, I think the movie did a very good job of portraying a young man who fell in love with a narcissist.
I actually agree with Mistress here. I enjoyed the heck out of the last hour of Oppenheimer. Robert Downey Jr. really shows off, same as Cilian Murphy and I'm always intrigued by drama like that. It's wonderful!
I might not have been as emotionally invested if I wasn’t in to the history of communism. There was just something so haunting about knowing that literally as his coworkers were convincing him to consider communism, millions were being starved death in Ukraine, being purged, and worked to death labor camps in the name of communism. That same CPUSA they kept wanting him to join, was being funded by the USSR, infiltrating the government, and passing along secrets, which is why Stalin knew about the bomb before Truman. Reminded me of when I first listened to him one of The Shadow pulps written in the 1930s and one character said his organization was considering making a loan to the “fascist government”, he wasn’t a villain, even the author didn’t know what was going to happen, what the word “Fascism” would come to mean. I really appreciated that Nolan had Mrs. Oppenheimer say she realized there was no difference between the CPUSA and Soviet communism, or that Oppenheimer didn’t exactly explicitly renounce and disclose his dealings with the communists before being approached for the Manhattan project.
I had read the book "Bomb: The race to build - and steal - the world's most dangerous weapon" which goes over the total history of the making of the bomb. Including the sabotuers and spys surrounding the Manhattan project. Definitely gave the film context
The Soviets (Russian Bolsheviks / criminal gangsters, really) I've long felt committed possibly the single biggest con-job on the human race. They overthrew a democratic revolution only 2 weeks after it happened, preventing Russia from having any kind of democracy, and they forced a brand of STATE CAPITALISM on their people, while LYING and claiming it was "Marxist Communism"-- when it NEVER WAS. You had millions of people believing in this "cause", this "movement", that was all a LIE. And here in the USA, you have CAPITALISTS increasingly turning this country into one big SLAVE-LABOR camp.
Best movie. Worth the money. While the Trinity test scene was amazing (the calm before the blast was awesome), it felt like a climax, an ending. The part after that was initially weak, but I understood that it's the Oppenheimer movie, not Trinity Movie. But the testimony scene were excellent.
I absolutely love Oppenheimer and am looking forward to seeing it again. That last third of the movie is a different kind of ‘destruction’ caused by the bomb-political destruction and its absolutely fascinating. This was my kind of movie and will go down as a Goat for me
It’s good to see thoughtful ideas driven films do well, maybe people are just bored with flashy superhero stuff. As much as I have mixed feelings about the film, it is a serious piece of cinema.
Agreed, I felt like my brain had been in an intellectual prison for years and suddenly released. It was absorbing having to actually think about a movie, and have it linger afterwards. It was a work of art. Like good art it didn’t spoon feed you, it gave you things to ponder.
Oppenheimer was excellent. I was daunted by the length going in, but I never felt like it dragged and I never got bored. Acting was excellent, cinematography was amazing, and I walked away feeling like I saw something genuinely great. I enjoyed the third act of the movie as well. it got into a lot of really interesting moral and thematic questions about the price of relentless intellectual pursuit and the consequences of one's actions.
Loved Oppenheimer. And honestly it doesnt make any sense. Its a dialog driven drama, there isnt much action or really a lot going on. But they managed to make 3 hours of talking so damn gripping, it really is a piece of art.
I enjoyed Oppenheimer. It told his story. The Manhattan Project story was well told in Manhattan, on whatever streaming service. Nolan didn’t waste time retelling it.
The last 3rd of Oppenheimer is the most important part of the film for me. RDJ gives one of his best performances in this part of the movie. It's also a critical story that needs telling as it gives a higher level view of American politics at the time and also points to the fact that although Oppenheimer was incredibly successful with the Manhattan project he also was not on as assured a footing as you would think with regard to his status. He was a flawed human character for his time and that appeared to have in some cases got him into a bit of trouble.
Hey drinker you missed it bud… when Christopher Nolan covers the same ground it’s because the dynamic has changed and what the audience understands has changed in light of new information. That’s good film making. He did the same thing in the prestige. You missed the mark on this.. otherwise, I enjoy your insight .
I enjoyed the part after the bomb as well. I don't understand why Drinker is being so critical. That part was just as good, even though set in a completely different tone.
The last hour is super necessary the movie is about Oppenheimer not the the bomb him getting fucked over and branded a communist is a massively part of his life and not showing it would have been massive disservice to Oppenheimer life. All I love how when it black and white Oppenheimer is a lot more colder and that his wife is just drinking and being a bad moth because he hasn’t noticed it
The section of the movie after the bomb was the best act of the movie. It was compelling and - considering how close to life it was - incredibly aggravating when you consider the implications it had for nuclear arms proliferation.
I am more than willing to overlook a few issues if it means we begin to stray from the Cape bandwagon and begin to focus more on biopics. There are tons of amazing historical figures that make any superhero look like a mincing sissy.
Are you for real? Capes and Biopics are the only dominant genres anymore and it's foolish to think that Hollywood will make biopics of interesting figures. Amazon released "Air" about the "struggle" to create fucking Air Jordans, I was scrolling through prime and found a biopic called "Blackberry" about the "struggle" of creating the blackberry, I remember seeing a trailer with Greg Kinnear where he plays the inventor of windshield wiper blades and "struggle" to create windshield wiper blades. Capes and Biopics NEED TO STOP. It exposes Hollywood for the lack of talent, stories, or ideas they're willing to have or display. More than that, Capes and Biopics have one thing in common, they're fucking boring and I'm not sure people understand that the Entertainment Industry is supposed to be.... wait for it..... drum roll please.... entertaining.
I agree that the most interesting part for me was after the bomb. I now have a much better feel for JFK's contribution to checking the Military Industrial Complex: 1) scuttling their man Strauss and 2) the Cuban missle crisis (watch 13 Days). I also appreciate Oppenheimer's seing beyond the world he lived in to the future world we live in.
Oppenheimer is brilliant. Unfortunately though, it's probably Nolan's most specialist film to date, so a lot of people expecting the 'Nolan-Spectacle Event Movie' seem to be responding slightly underwhelmingly to it. It really isn't for everyone and not everyone will be able to get the full benefit of it. I'm frankly amazed at how well it's doing at the box office for how dense and talky it is. It's probably his best film for me, neck & neck with Memento.
We went to see this last night. I felt it could have been trimmed down a bit in terms of runtime, but it was a well-made, thought-provoking movie featuring some fantastic performances. And the screening I went to was 90%+ full.
Excellent movie. I´m just glad adults are allowed to go to the cinema again. Looking forward to Dune 2 (and possibly Flowers of the Killing Moon Read the true crime book; horrifying. I hope the movie will be do it justice). And I loved the court hearing parts. Finally a movie that treats us like grown ups.
The thing I was amazed by is that the entire theater was sold out. I went to Avatar and Mario in the same theater, and only two or three rows were filled for those.
Blue Collar Ken made an outstanding point about splitting up the content. Ive been on the "bring back intermissions" bandwagon. It gives people a chance to process, go to the bathroom, stretch and pump some money into theaters through concessions. I know I'm in the minority here and this is NOT for short movies.
What do you think the line should be for length worthy of an intermission, and how long into a showing? Hadn't given it much thought myself but off cuff, 2 hours, and roughly an hour in. For a 3 hour epic like this, 2 hours in seems about right.
@@Sorain1 you don't need intermissions for 2 hour movies. For 3 hours - yes. Somewhere 100-120 minutes in, depending on where you can fit it in the best. Here it would work great after Oppenheimer's speech to his colleagues about the Japan's bombing
Oppenheimer takes me back to a time when films weren't just non-stop quips, CGI overload, and stories that weren't pushed through a continuous ideological purity filter.
@@grandmufftwerkin9037 Predestination Shutter Island Split Unbreakable John Wick John Wick 2 John Wick 3 John Wick 4 Edge of Tomorrow Puss in Boots: The last wish
You guys are missing the narrative paradigm Nolan is telling the story in. Remember, his source material is from a book entitled, American Prometheus, so Nolan has placed Oppenheimer in parallel with the myth of Prometheus. Like that Greek god, Oppenheimer was being "tortured," politically, for his association with Communists, and that's what the 3rd hour of the film was portraying about him.
I actually found the first part(school part, and the last part) the best. I knew ca how the bomb was made and so on, but what happened to Oppenheimer blew my mind and I SO appreciated that that politician got what was coming for him.
I don't get why people dislike the ramification of the invention. It was a brilliant political drama where actors really gave it everything. There is not pre/post bomb section in my opinion, it's all part of the same endeavor.
To me I also enjoyed the last third of the movie. Of course my favorite is the middle portion of Los Alamos up to the bomb, but the first third seemed alright. Just a ton of back story and character introducing, situation setup and plot initiatives---not to say I thought it was useless, it definitely did come back in the end which why I enjoyed the last third, the drama and moral dilemma of the use of the nuke, proving his innocence and the mystery on if there were a spy. Once the nuke test was building up, I became enthralled and was literally palm sweating in my seat---crazy tension! Loved that---and after that I was completely in for the rest of the film.
I have watched this movie three times now, and third time was the best experience because of having had learned all about different aspects of the movie from RUclips commentary videos and review articles. Guys do your research and view it with enlightened eyes - the experience is truly remarkable. I will miss it when it ends its theatrical run.
12:03 I've heard this objective/subjective explanation a lot but I just watched a video where Nolan says the color parts are Oppenheimer's perspective and the black and white parts are Strauss' perspective. So I don't know if he's been perfectly consistent on this point or if the objective/subjecetive thing has just been a misinterpretation somewhere along the way.
I knew going in that the third act takes a bit of a turn away from the Trinity test, but now kind of surprised at some reactions. Aside from a couple of moments where Nolan inserts some on-the-nose dialogue I thought it was great. It's an organic part of the larger film - not only because of the flashforwards, but with the communism/secrecy themes throughout. I really applaud Nolan for resisting the urge to end the film with Trinity, and having the confidence to show this critical subsequent part of Oppenheimer's story.
Agree with MistressKen, the political intrigue and interrogation section after the Trinity test were great! This is a case study in how things like this should be done.
I think that Flo is supposed to be representitive of all the women Op had been with, and that possibly he cared for her more then 'just having a fling' which gives Em's character something to push aganst, and as you guys have stated, gave extra weight to her 'stand by yer man' theme.
I was actually a bit bored until Oppenheimer started teaching in the US. I think the one hour after the bomb scene was crucial for the story. It mirrors the life of Oppenheimer after the success of the a bomb, and it added so many more layers to the scenes in the first 2 hours.
I honestly don't know how anyone can call Nolan's films "clinical and sterile." The ending of The Prestige is one of the most emotional endings to a movie I've ever seen, the deathbed scenes in Inception and Interstellar both made me cry and the father/son scenes between Bruce and Thomas Wayne in the Dark Knight movies are absolutely heartwarming. It feels like I'm watching completely different movies to people when I hear them describe these movies as clinical and cold. The central theme in all Nolan's work (sans maybe Tenet) is family - how can that be devoid of emotion? I guess maybe you could say he's clinical and sterile when it comes to love between a man and a woman, I haven't really noticed but I guess that's possible. But he is absolutely not clinical or sterile when it comes to love between parent and child. I've always seen Nolan as excelling at that and I stand by it.
Watching Oppenheimer was like watching a terrific accident happen where you cannot help it and cannot look away. There's no mistery, we know what happens: Oppenheimer builds the bomb and then gets politically bombed himself. The only thing left for us is to be riveted to the screen and watch it happen almost clinically, step by step. Great respect to Nolan.
And this is an interesting take... I actually enjoyed Oppenheimer MORE the second time I saw it. There is a LOT that comes at you in the first three-hour sitting. You have to digest a lot of it, then go back and see it again. It's better the second time around!
Best Nolan film by far. A film where everything he explored doing in past movies come together into this film. The editing was amazing, the music fantastic, the first hour is not a slog like many claimed, the nudity "controversy" (it wasn't a romantic subplot but rather a character establishing one) is justified as it is used brilliantly as a metaphor moments later, and the acting is fantastic for all. And the three hours flew by. A full theater was glued to the screen the whole time. And the audio (IMAX 70mm theater) was perfectly fine. It is not even close to some suggesting it was like Tenet. And I loved that you could see actual real film grain again.
Honestly the first 30 minutes were the best. It was an all senses experience. It's so hard to explain just how breathtaking and awe inspiring it was The closest comparison I can give was 2001 a space Odyssey.
Without the final act of Oppenheimer, it’s a simple film about the bomb achievement, which we all have common sense about. Post bomb is the most important part. The film is about the rise and fall (assassination w/o firing a bullet) of a flawed genius who changed the course of history. Also, those who point out his marriage flaws. Einstein cheated on his wife with his cousin and then married her. They’re all flawed people (Cillian, Emily, and Florence) and not Mary Sues.
The play on movie titles with Ken is hilarious. I could watch that all day. Very few films deserve three-hour run times, and _Oppenheimer_ is no different. I agree with Convict Ken that Nolan needs an editor. However, I thought it was still a very good film (the sequence where Oppenheimer gives a lecture after Hiroshima is bombed is one of the most brilliant sequences Nolan has ever done). I'm so thankful that someone like Nolan is making movies in this current cinematic climate.
"mini-series" -- The first time I experienced a thing like this was when I was re-watching John Huston's 3-hour epic, "THE BIBLE: IN THE BEGINNING" (1966). It's an anthology, and there's an intermission at the halfway point (right after "Noah's Ark"). The 2nd half consists of only 2 stories: "The Tower Of Babel" (10 minutes) and "Abraham" (80 minutes). That last 80 minutes is a PAINFUL slog, if you're trying to stay awake through all 3 hours in one go! But the last time I watched the film, I decided to deliberately take a break at the intermission, and watch the 2nd half THE NEXT DAY. Man, that was such a good idea. It was the first time I EVER really enjoyed the "Abraham" story (and I'd seen it in a theatre when it came out!), despite George C. Scott playing the title character. The funny thing was, Richard Harris had played "Abraham" in a TV-film decades later, which on its own was 3 HOURS long-- and yet that version I found far more watchable. Go figure.
Lol i love you guys, i really do, hit for me this movie hit all the right notes. My god what a refreshing movie, none of “the message”, no girl bosses, just genuine realism, historical drama etc etc
It is a good movie. I thought that the treatment of the actual Manhattan project was rather slim. They didn't give a good explanation of how the implosion bomb worked, and how it was built. Maybe some more details about the actual Los Alamos work would have been interesting.
The editing at the beginning was hard to understand at first but I think it was done to represent the obsession or the way that Oppenheimer dreamed about the science and space.
I personally like the scene where Oppenheimer’s wife goes hard on the asshole who was dominating conversation and makes him look like a fool. I like to think that happened in real life too. It would certainly be satisfying if it did
I really enjoyed Oppenheimer. My only gripe is more a gripe at modern movie cliches and that this movie had a few scenes where it would have benefited from some long camera shots instead of the near constant jump cuts. Makes the movie feel disjointed to me.
After rings of power there few who haven't seen Tolkien's paraphrased quote about evil not being able to create, only pervert, and it applies to Barbie too. But there's another one that I really like, that's even hopeful, about this movie being an accidental red pill: "A traitor may betray himself and do good he does not intend."
The cast was pretty amazing, and it was nice to watch a film full of talking, but the characters' internal thoughts were communicated without having to resort to ‘emotional exposition’.
Agree with lots of this. Wanted more science, lots of the first 30-40 minutes was extraneous, didn’t need the sex scene or Pugh’s character. Really enjoyed the last hour. Didn’t feel it explored the moral question enough. Great movie, fantastic performances. Not a masterpiece as it couldn’t decide what it wanted to be. Mini series idea could have worked better. Flawed but I did enjoy it.
Развлечения
I’m really happy for Cillian Murphy. He’s sadly been small parts in Nolan’s movies and he’s proven he can be a leading man in them, too.
He is amazing in peaky blinders. H and Tom Hardy are magic.
He has however been a leading man in some amazing films:
Sunshine
The Wind that Shakes the Barely
28 Days Later
@@nightshademilkshake1 great movies . Thr wind the Shakes the barley deserve more attention. Especially as they was no script. He made up jis own lines. All the actor's did . ( the director does that with all his movies).
he's a bad actor. period.
@@oswaldthatendswald5892 nonsense. Period.
It's absolutely fantastic to see something other than a marvel movie or a movie that's just "the MESSAGE" doing well at the box office.
Sooooo true
sympathy for communists and on screen nudity aren't subtle insertions of the message?
Normalizing communism isn't great
@@oswaldthatendswald5892The feminists were pissed about the on-screen nudity, therefore we normal, male viewers should be happy they're unhappy.
@@GlitchManOmega oh, please remind me again, what race is the group of people who run Hollywood and are trying ever so desperately to narrow the gap between art and pornography? you are on the wrong side, my friend.
If you want to get super meta about it, it’s a film about people trying to comprehend something they don’t fully understand, which is fully reflected in the audience.
Not just comprehend, but also harness this cutting edge science into a practical application that could destroy the enemy... or yourself if you got it wrong. As they all saw the effects of radiation when people got careless and died as a result of that monumental pursuit. The stakes could not have been higher.
Well said
Nolan does that frequently. Some of his other movies, like The Prestige and Inception can be interpreted as allegories for some aspects of movie-making.
RUclips critics today: "We need new quality movies that are not agenda driven but put human stories upfront.
Also RUclipsr "the movie is three hours. I can only watch a mini series with one hour runtime. Also not to many explosions and action".
Reimi Malek finally speaking, and the set up for it, was brilliant
Yeah he was sort of set up as this weak, weird guy, then boom, just hits a homer and smashes Downey.
That was a huge payoff! Without that, all the hearing scenes would have been pointless.
Was so happy to see him in the movie, had no idea he was in it before....#mrrobot still Incredible
I really enjoyed it. The structure and pace of the film felt like a whole metaphor for nuclear fission. It was like a bomb slowly going off in your head you cannot stop. It does have some issues, but so refreshing to see an original movie that isn't a remake, sequel, soft reboot or super hero movie.
And knowing ChN, that might have been his intention.
@@marbellaotaiza801 I'd put money on it.
Or a PSA for an obvious agenda.
bruh its pro communism
@@oswaldthatendswald5892 ??
Oppenheimer is a great film - for a 3 hour film, I never once felt compelled to check the time, and even though it was telling a true story, I found myself on the edge of my seat as if the outcome wasn't fore ordained - I worried that the test at Trinity might indeed ignite the atmosphere (spoiler - it didn't).
I checked when the bomb dropped, but it's because the movie seemed to fly by.
how much did they pay you?
I don't want to set the world on fire.
@@itzybitzyspyder then don't wage a war against Russia. make peace.
@@oswaldthatendswald5892it’s a reference to a song (I believe). I’ve seen you replying to other people with these same one sentence replies so I ask you: Why are you so compelled to tell people that they can’t like this film?
The ending shot shook me to my core. Cillian Murphy is an actor among actors, I've never seen someone portray so much emotion while doing absolutely nothing. Oscar incoming.
Are white men allowed Oscars anymore? 😅
I certainly hope the Academy ignores the lack of “the message”.
I also think the ending is compelling for the fact that it shows the world slowly getting engulfed in fire, but it never portrays that fire as having come from a nuclear explosion, on top of the fact that the Nuke was confirmed to not ignite our atmosphere like its portraying, and that Mutually Assured Destruction was already claimed in the movie as a way to prevent further uses of the nuke. Yet, Oppenheimer says that we "already destroyed it [the world]" during that shot. And you have to wonder what the movie truly is referring to as destroying the world. Considering the whole bomb project is simply part of the larger story about the government trying to indict Oppenheimer for the belief that he is tied to the Russians (huh, sounds familiar somehow), alongside the depiction of Communism running unopposed in the schools and colleges, AND the fact that the guy manipulating everything to spearhead this attack only loses because of a vote by someone who famously was ASSASSINATED. Well, I have to wonder if the film was trying to say something more. Though I'm not sure what exactly, or if all this is simply coincidence.
@@vociferon-heraldofthewinte7763 didn’t the group who chooses Oscar nominees state you must have a certain amount of “representation if you want your film considered for oscars
Cillian *has* to win.
I agree that the third act in Oppenheimer was actually the best. The first two acts throw so many characters and ideas at you and it’s so fast paced that it never really slows down until after the bomb drops. Which is when we get the truly spine chilling scenes of Oppenheimer having grasp the true weight of his actions. Between those and Robert Downey Jr. giving us his best monologues ever it makes for a more investing finale
So did I, clearly it went a bit over Drinker’s head, he should go back action movies.
So is Robert Downey, Jr. playing the atomic bomb in this film? He doesn’t show up in the ads, and I’m not going to pay see something seems boring.
@@donkeysaurusrex7881literally in multiple trailers mate, hard luck.
the 3rd act is just as important as the events leading to the trinity test. It talks about the fallout of using atomic weapons and ending it with oppie saying they might have started a chain reaction is a fitting end
I kind of think the movie portrays the creation of the bomb as secondary to the overall story of the indictment of Oppenheimer, and the stuff surrounding that, which is why the 3rd act is actually the most important part, as its tying everything together into something more important. But also, I think there is more to the movie because of this, though I'm maybe reading too much into it:
The ending shot is showing the world slowly getting engulfed in fire, but it never portrays that fire as having come from a nuclear explosion, on top of the fact that the Nuke was confirmed to not ignite our atmosphere like its portraying, and that Mutually Assured Destruction was already claimed in the movie as a way to prevent further uses of the nuke. Yet, Oppenheimer says that we "already destroyed it [the world]" during that shot. And you have to wonder what the movie truly is referring to as destroying the world.
Considering the whole bomb project is simply part of the larger story about the government trying to indict Oppenheimer for the belief that he is tied to the Russians (huh, sounds familiar somehow), alongside the depiction of Communism running unopposed in the schools and colleges, AND the fact that the guy manipulating everything to spearhead this attack only loses because of a vote by someone who famously was ASSASSINATED. Well, I have to wonder if the film was trying to say something more. Though I'm not sure what exactly, or if all this is simply coincidence.
15:46 Nolan or Oppenheimer? The film shows Oppenheimer as a slightly awkward person who used his intelligence as his charm with women. The first sex scene was as expected, slightly awkward almost like the first time you lose your virginity. Did you guys think Oppenheimer was suppose to be Ryan Gosling in bed? Those scenes were not suppose to be romantic or passionate.
The first sex scene is them barley nude with her in-control and dominating him. The later is them both equally comfortable and fully exposed to their core with each other. Like the bomb he’s building…they’re drawn together, attracted to each other, and when connected sensational things happen, but they’re destructive to each other and to those around them. Look at the lightning of the two scenes. Both have a yellow and orange glow, with the first being darker, and the second nude scene being brighter and more fire looking. Just like….the explosion of the bomb. The fact we’re still talking about it, proves it was a psychologically effective visual of seeing Oppenheimer and his mistress both on top of each other in that hearing room with Emily Blunt staring directly into her eyes.
I thought the sex scenes were gratuitous and unnecessary. It would have been much better without them.
Well said. These two real-life people weren't exactly the most socially graceful of humans that ever existed. The awkwardness was clearly intentional since it probably matched the real Oppenheimer and showed his relationships were pretty damn complicated.
@@kandallman the biopic American Prometheus describes Oppenheimer's first time in bed. His mother came to visit him in the UK brought over a girl for Oppenheimer to hang out with... but didn't want him actually dating her. They went to bed - it's unclear if they had sex but he started crying... and she started crying... and then his mom knocked on the door to ask what was going on.
Oppenheimer was an awkward dude. When he had his mental breakdown at Cambridge, one of his psychiatrists simply told him to get laid and gave him a prescription for aphrodisiacs lol.
@@FabrisFanatic have not read the book and the film did a great job on conveying his awkward sexual outlook and how his intelligence and scientific discoveries drove his confidence. His discovery of the atomic bomb and its god-like power went hand-in-hand with this.
Bobvog7123, it’s less than a minute of sex, with maybe a minute of screen nudity in a 3 hour plus film. And adds to the destructive embarrassment the US government exposed of Oppenheimer’s private life for no good moral reason other than to smear his name and discredit his achievement in order to deny him a security clearance. The visual imaginary of them nude in that hearing room with Emily Blunt and Florence making eye contact is something no one is gonna forget. It was a bold move for a Nolan film, and it was highly effective in showcasing its psychological destructive effect. If they simply said, “he cheated on his wife,” I don’t think it would’ve skimmed the impacting surface that Nolan’s visual has. Remember, most historical figures…Einstein (cheated on his wife with his cousin and then married her), John Nash, Stephen Hawking, and many more…all had affairs. It’s nothing new to learn they were this way. Same with historical women.
This was also the point where Blunt, who knew of the affair finally allowed it to fully get to her, all because her husband was not fighting the people who were calling him out and discrediting him to his face. Their attack on him, was an indirect attack on her.
Unlike everywhere, in India Oppenheimer is massively performing far much better than Barbie........
Well yeah because India is desperate for the female body
Yep lol, theaters for Oppenheimer were packed.
To be expected for a country that rounds of innocent women and rapes them for the world to see. India is several decades behind.
I thought it was blacklisted there? That's interesting though
@@BreMue No it wasn't. They did censor Pugh's nude scenes and cut out a few profanities in most regions of the country to earn a U/A rating instead of the normal A(R) rating.
As for Cillian Murphy, the man delivered BIG time.
So he was the bomb?
He always knows the assignment
I prefer the post bomb stuff too. It was nice to see Emily Blunt act for once. My 14 year old son loved the film too, I think it was compelling throughout.
Your son will dream with Florence Pugh
@@KaiserLandsknecht he feigned embarrassment !
@@frozenpizza5242 we live in France we don’t have any of that American madness in our schools, at least for now. French women won’t take any BS from perverts in dresses.
@@frozenpizza5242 I hunt wild boar during the season. It gets me outdoors. Lots of food for the family. Hunting is a wonderful way of getting outdoors and connecting with reality.
Man, did you see this with your son ? If so, what the hell is up with western society, absolute lack of shame knowing there is nudity. Might as well watch porn together.
If not, please ignore the above.
I'm glad Oppenheimer is doing well, because it tells an honest story about a complex man who built the atom bomb, and fell from grace just as quick. For a 3 hour biopic, it tells a rich story without it being redundant or bloated. And for me, the best part of it is aftermath of the design and use of the atom bomb. Its also my choice for Oscar gold; especially with best lead actor, best adapted screenplay, best director, and best picture. 3 cheers for Oppenheimer. 🎉🎉🎉
I agree, the first 30 minutes were really difficult since you didn’t really know what it was aiming for and what was the underlying thread. But when it gets into the flow it’s quite good, and the last hour was very good.
I was able to understand right away. The black and white scenes which only appeared when Strauss was around was foreshadow
the whole movie was bad, I am sorry you have such a bad taste
@@oswaldthatendswald5892 cope
I enjoyed it even while asking for the first hour, 'I wonder where this is going?' The dialogue was super efficient, so a lot was put out there. But the second and third hour had various payoffs.
@@oswaldthatendswald5892 Stop psychologically projecting!
This film was masterful. The reaction to the pacing is shocking to me and is really indicative of the lack of attention span in our culture today. I couldn’t look away. I think it would’ve been an absolutely disservice to make this a miniseries. It was incredible on the big screen.
I couldnt disagree more with breaking up Oppenheimer into a mini series. Im so tired of tv shows. Oppenheimer was exactly what i was hoping it would be and we need more movies like that.
I watched Oppenheimer in the Bob Bullock IMAX, screen is 6 stories tall and 84 ft wide. When the nuke went off, the screen was so large that I was looking up at the pillar of fire, literally had to raise my head up to see the top. It was intense.
How many feet were FPs tatas
@@shaecouture7480Actually, it wasn’t as awkward as you’d think. It’s not as if they constantly zoomed in on her chest.
I actually liked the whole movie, even the court hearing parts. It all felt interesting to see those scenes from different angles each time a new bit of context was added. Of course, the part leading up to the bomb was the best, but I think it was all a very satisfying whole.
i watched it because I am interested in science. But I read a comment saying the half of the movie is just a court room drama before I watched the film. I watched it anyways because I also enjoy court room dramas even I am not really in to laws
People said it before, it’s the Doom Eternal - Animal Crossing of the movie world. The occasion where 2 very different audiences combine and create combined content of the two. It’s kinda neat to see, kinda wholesome
Honestly regardless of how you feel about Barbie or Oppenheimer, it’s nice to see people really excited to go to the movies like this again in groups.
People who indulge in Barbenheimer are bronies, got it.
I think the 3rd act was perfectly placed to demonstrate his action's consequences, and it didn't feel boring at all
I felt it was meant to torture us to let us feel the torture he (Oppenheimer) felt he (Oppenheimer) deserved.
Yeah, I really enjoyed the 3rd act as well.
@@mvicksdogThat’s exactly how I felt. Robert basically had a panic attack from his guilt. It made Kitty standing up for him all the more powerful.
Florence's character was important to have in the film because it is suppossed to be Oppenheimer's true love.
Also, sex in real life can be awkward as well lol, not every fu*k is "sexy".
I loved the film, the editor did an amazing job packing up over 2 hours of pure dialogue scenes and the ending was brilliant and chilling.
I thought it was brilliant when Flo insunuates that Em's character 'trapped' Op in marrage with the pregnacey :-)
@@DaveTimperley yes, and also when Emily's character realizes through the "trial" that Oppie had been sleeping with Jean even when married it truly makes you question what would be her stance when interrogated.
And that pays off immensely when that scene comes, Emily Blunt was amazing.
28, 29, 30. I'm outa here. Al Bundy.
The movie was freaking fantastic! The performances, the music, the pacing, the message. Hell, I rarely pray attention to editing and noticed how amazing it got towards the end! That one guy might not have liked it, but for me it's a masterpiece! And that's coming from someone who usually hates bio pics.
Nolan brought more of the European auteur-way of making movies with Oppenheimer. Very inspiring.
I was an incredible film. Christopher Nolan did not miss! I wasn't all aware of OPPENHEIMER's story and the film does a great job telling that story from several perspectives (you'll see during the third act). Was sad Zimmer wasn't composing the OST but the composer they used did an outstanding job. The tension could be felt thanks to the acting and the score working together. I'm going to watch this again on Tuesday.
Ludwig Göransson's OPPENHEIMER score is his INTERSTELLAR. Songs like Can you feel the music" and "Destroyer of Worlds" remind me of "cornfield chase" and "where we're going" from Interstellar. Both breeming of Hope and tension throughout the scenes and instrumentation. Zimmer uses the clock's tick tock sound to drive the tension of interstellar, while Göransson uses the march sound to do the same. It's pretty fascinating works.
I started crying when he said
"I am become deaf what did you say?"
So stunning so brave
Alright Ken, Ken down now.
Yeah you’ve definitely come to the wrong place.
Lol
I have finally managed to find a seat to watch the movie in IMAX (the nearby cinema is apparently the only one in central Europe projecting it in 70mm, so all screenings have been regularly sold out), and I very much enjoyed it. The first 20' or so I felt not so sure about the pacing, but then after things started moving, I did not even feel the 3 hours, including the last part with the interrogation and political schemes that I found very much engaging.
And stellar performances by pretty much the entire cast, and so refreshing seeing Robert Dawney Jr. finally stretching his acting muscles again in good movies.
Several years ago, one of my favorite theatres replaced all their seats with automatic recliners, and all the tickets became "reserved". I quickly realized the only way to go was to order my tickets online days in advance. Usually, I'm the first one buying a ticket for a given show, so I get the best seat in the place!
The exception was when I went to see "SHIN ULTRAMAN", which had an insanely-limited showing here of only 2 DAYS. After waiting months, I got a ticket as soon as I learned they were on sale, and 1/4 of the place had already been sold out-- a MONTH in advance! I was worried about inclement weather (snow) but the night I went, no problems. I also got a surprise when I saw the crowd. Though I bought my ticket 4 weeks earlier, apparently, I was the LAST one to buy a ticket for it. I guess the price was too high.. especially for a Japanese film with English SUBTITLES (heehee). First time in my entire life I ever had to read a movie in a theatre. It was a blast.
When it opens with the bomb exploding and the sheets shaking man. I just knew I was in for an experience
As far as the romance subplot goes, speaking as someone who has at one point in his life been a naive young man who fell in love with a narcissist, I think the movie did a very good job of portraying a young man who fell in love with a narcissist.
I actually agree with Mistress here. I enjoyed the heck out of the last hour of Oppenheimer. Robert Downey Jr. really shows off, same as Cilian Murphy and I'm always intrigued by drama like that. It's wonderful!
I might not have been as emotionally invested if I wasn’t in to the history of communism. There was just something so haunting about knowing that literally as his coworkers were convincing him to consider communism, millions were being starved death in Ukraine, being purged, and worked to death labor camps in the name of communism. That same CPUSA they kept wanting him to join, was being funded by the USSR, infiltrating the government, and passing along secrets, which is why Stalin knew about the bomb before Truman. Reminded me of when I first listened to him one of The Shadow pulps written in the 1930s and one character said his organization was considering making a loan to the “fascist government”, he wasn’t a villain, even the author didn’t know what was going to happen, what the word “Fascism” would come to mean. I really appreciated that Nolan had Mrs. Oppenheimer say she realized there was no difference between the CPUSA and Soviet communism, or that Oppenheimer didn’t exactly explicitly renounce and disclose his dealings with the communists before being approached for the Manhattan project.
RUclips channel Tikhistory has some great videos about fascism. and similar topics.
I'd say it was a film about hubris, guilt and confession.
"But the Soviets helped beat the Yahtzees so that makes everything they did okay!"
I had read the book "Bomb: The race to build - and steal - the world's most dangerous weapon" which goes over the total history of the making of the bomb. Including the sabotuers and spys surrounding the Manhattan project. Definitely gave the film context
The Soviets (Russian Bolsheviks / criminal gangsters, really) I've long felt committed possibly the single biggest con-job on the human race. They overthrew a democratic revolution only 2 weeks after it happened, preventing Russia from having any kind of democracy, and they forced a brand of STATE CAPITALISM on their people, while LYING and claiming it was "Marxist Communism"-- when it NEVER WAS. You had millions of people believing in this "cause", this "movement", that was all a LIE.
And here in the USA, you have CAPITALISTS increasingly turning this country into one big SLAVE-LABOR camp.
Best movie. Worth the money.
While the Trinity test scene was amazing (the calm before the blast was awesome), it felt like a climax, an ending. The part after that was initially weak, but I understood that it's the Oppenheimer movie, not Trinity Movie.
But the testimony scene were excellent.
how much did they pay you?
I absolutely love Oppenheimer and am looking forward to seeing it again. That last third of the movie is a different kind of ‘destruction’ caused by the bomb-political destruction and its absolutely fascinating. This was my kind of movie and will go down as a Goat for me
I've seen it twice in IMAX. During the lead up the bomb being detonated. My heart was beating out of my chest.
It’s good to see thoughtful ideas driven films do well, maybe people are just bored with flashy superhero stuff. As much as I have mixed feelings about the film, it is a serious piece of cinema.
Agreed, I felt like my brain had been in an intellectual prison for years and suddenly released. It was absorbing having to actually think about a movie, and have it linger afterwards. It was a work of art. Like good art it didn’t spoon feed you, it gave you things to ponder.
Thumbs up to whoever wrote 'The Wrath of Ken' in the live chat. Now I want Trek/Barbie memes/gifs with Kirk shouting 'Keeeeeeeen!'
I also enjoyed the last part after the bomb.
I went to see it with my 20 and 18 year kids, and we all agreed Downey killed it .
I really liked Oppenheimer. Gonna watch it again.
Oppenheimer was excellent. I was daunted by the length going in, but I never felt like it dragged and I never got bored. Acting was excellent, cinematography was amazing, and I walked away feeling like I saw something genuinely great. I enjoyed the third act of the movie as well. it got into a lot of really interesting moral and thematic questions about the price of relentless intellectual pursuit and the consequences of one's actions.
Loved Oppenheimer. And honestly it doesnt make any sense.
Its a dialog driven drama, there isnt much action or really a lot going on.
But they managed to make 3 hours of talking so damn gripping, it really is a piece of art.
I enjoyed Oppenheimer. It told his story. The Manhattan Project story was well told in Manhattan, on whatever streaming service. Nolan didn’t waste time retelling it.
Barbenheimer can be Oppenbar as well.
I see the Drinker jumping right in!
The last 3rd of Oppenheimer is the most important part of the film for me. RDJ gives one of his best performances in this part of the movie. It's also a critical story that needs telling as it gives a higher level view of American politics at the time and also points to the fact that although Oppenheimer was incredibly successful with the Manhattan project he also was not on as assured a footing as you would think with regard to his status. He was a flawed human character for his time and that appeared to have in some cases got him into a bit of trouble.
Hey drinker you missed it bud… when Christopher Nolan covers the same ground it’s because the dynamic has changed and what the audience understands has changed in light of new information. That’s good film making. He did the same thing in the prestige. You missed the mark on this.. otherwise, I enjoy your insight .
I enjoyed the part after the bomb as well. I don't understand why Drinker is being so critical. That part was just as good, even though set in a completely different tone.
@@fromkeajra I totally missed the joke. :D
He likes action movies, this was a bit a cerebral for him.
It has its its flaws but it’s highs are galactic. One of those movies you could watch without the script and it would still enthral.
The last hour is super necessary the movie is about Oppenheimer not the the bomb him getting fucked over and branded a communist is a massively part of his life and not showing it would have been massive disservice to Oppenheimer life. All I love how when it black and white Oppenheimer is a lot more colder and that his wife is just drinking and being a bad moth because he hasn’t noticed it
This movie was a masterpiece.
Sound of Freedom and Oppenheimer give me hope for movies in the future.
sound of thunder?
@@alexf.6521 sound of freedom my bad. It sounds like someone farting in a bucket! :)
@@thatguyfromcetialphaV sound of thunder must be the prequel to that movie the narrator tells you about in idiocracy.
The section of the movie after the bomb was the best act of the movie. It was compelling and - considering how close to life it was - incredibly aggravating when you consider the implications it had for nuclear arms proliferation.
I am more than willing to overlook a few issues if it means we begin to stray from the Cape bandwagon and begin to focus more on biopics. There are tons of amazing historical figures that make any superhero look like a mincing sissy.
I am willing to read more books as those might be more instructive and satisfying than bloated biopics.
Are you for real? Capes and Biopics are the only dominant genres anymore and it's foolish to think that Hollywood will make biopics of interesting figures. Amazon released "Air" about the "struggle" to create fucking Air Jordans, I was scrolling through prime and found a biopic called "Blackberry" about the "struggle" of creating the blackberry, I remember seeing a trailer with Greg Kinnear where he plays the inventor of windshield wiper blades and "struggle" to create windshield wiper blades. Capes and Biopics NEED TO STOP. It exposes Hollywood for the lack of talent, stories, or ideas they're willing to have or display. More than that, Capes and Biopics have one thing in common, they're fucking boring and I'm not sure people understand that the Entertainment Industry is supposed to be.... wait for it..... drum roll please.... entertaining.
@@freespeechchampsusanwojcic2528
Are you saying that all superhero & biopic films are boring?
What genres do you consider fun?
I agree that the most interesting part for me was after the bomb. I now have a much better feel for JFK's contribution to checking the Military Industrial Complex: 1) scuttling their man Strauss and 2) the Cuban missle crisis (watch 13 Days). I also appreciate Oppenheimer's seing beyond the world he lived in to the future world we live in.
Oppenheimer is brilliant. Unfortunately though, it's probably Nolan's most specialist film to date, so a lot of people expecting the 'Nolan-Spectacle Event Movie' seem to be responding slightly underwhelmingly to it. It really isn't for everyone and not everyone will be able to get the full benefit of it.
I'm frankly amazed at how well it's doing at the box office for how dense and talky it is. It's probably his best film for me, neck & neck with Memento.
I’m so amazed, too. It’s so deeply historical, philosophical, and artistic. It’s not a popcorn flick.
Gary Oldman hands down one of the best actors in Hollywood history.
We went to see this last night. I felt it could have been trimmed down a bit in terms of runtime, but it was a well-made, thought-provoking movie featuring some fantastic performances. And the screening I went to was 90%+ full.
Excellent movie. I´m just glad adults are allowed to go to the cinema again. Looking forward to Dune 2 (and possibly Flowers of the Killing Moon Read the true crime book; horrifying. I hope the movie will be do it justice).
And I loved the court hearing parts. Finally a movie that treats us like grown ups.
I liked the section after the bomb too. It’s a rise and fall movie. You need to show the fall of the person afterwards.
The thing I was amazed by is that the entire theater was sold out. I went to Avatar and Mario in the same theater, and only two or three rows were filled for those.
Its nice to see Oppenheimer doing well. Cillian Murphy killed it.
Blue Collar Ken made an outstanding point about splitting up the content. Ive been on the "bring back intermissions" bandwagon. It gives people a chance to process, go to the bathroom, stretch and pump some money into theaters through concessions. I know I'm in the minority here and this is NOT for short movies.
What do you think the line should be for length worthy of an intermission, and how long into a showing? Hadn't given it much thought myself but off cuff, 2 hours, and roughly an hour in. For a 3 hour epic like this, 2 hours in seems about right.
I can't sit through a 3 hour movie. 1:45 is about my intermission point.
No. This is idiotic. Breaks the immersion.
@@Sorain1
you don't need intermissions for 2 hour movies.
For 3 hours - yes.
Somewhere 100-120 minutes in, depending on where you can fit it in the best. Here it would work great after Oppenheimer's speech to his colleagues about the Japan's bombing
Oppenheimer takes me back to a time when films weren't just non-stop quips, CGI overload, and stories that weren't pushed through a continuous ideological purity filter.
Damn what movies are you watching? Cause that's not all there is ... speaks more about your selections to be honest.
@@jstmartonHe only watched Marvel movies and complains about it. 👽
@@jstmarton
Name the top 10 movies of the last 7 years that would be considered timeless film masterpieces.
@@archshade7891
No Marvel films are even in my top 20 favourite films. 😉
@@grandmufftwerkin9037
Predestination
Shutter Island
Split
Unbreakable
John Wick
John Wick 2
John Wick 3
John Wick 4
Edge of Tomorrow
Puss in Boots: The last wish
You guys are missing the narrative paradigm Nolan is telling the story in. Remember, his source material is from a book entitled, American Prometheus, so Nolan has placed Oppenheimer in parallel with the myth of Prometheus. Like that Greek god, Oppenheimer was being "tortured," politically, for his association with Communists, and that's what the 3rd hour of the film was portraying about him.
I actually found the first part(school part, and the last part) the best. I knew ca how the bomb was made and so on, but what happened to Oppenheimer blew my mind and I SO appreciated that that politician got what was coming for him.
I have not been this excited for a movie and happy with the result in a long time.
Until late 1944 or early 1945 we thought we were in a race with Hitler and there was no ambiguity about it.
Jason Clarke played the prosecutor, Roger Robb. Great performance!
I don't get why people dislike the ramification of the invention. It was a brilliant political drama where actors really gave it everything. There is not pre/post bomb section in my opinion, it's all part of the same endeavor.
To me I also enjoyed the last third of the movie. Of course my favorite is the middle portion of Los Alamos up to the bomb, but the first third seemed alright. Just a ton of back story and character introducing, situation setup and plot initiatives---not to say I thought it was useless, it definitely did come back in the end which why I enjoyed the last third, the drama and moral dilemma of the use of the nuke, proving his innocence and the mystery on if there were a spy. Once the nuke test was building up, I became enthralled and was literally palm sweating in my seat---crazy tension! Loved that---and after that I was completely in for the rest of the film.
A historical biopic with more energy than the majority of action films.
I also jumped in my seat when the sound wave hit, twice :-) I thought the audio in this film was brilliant.
My favourite part was when Oppenheimer turned to the Senate Committee hearing panel and said 'IT'S HEIMIN' TIME'.
I have watched this movie three times now, and third time was the best experience because of having had learned all about different aspects of the movie from RUclips commentary videos and review articles. Guys do your research and view it with enlightened eyes - the experience is truly remarkable. I will miss it when it ends its theatrical run.
12:03 I've heard this objective/subjective explanation a lot but I just watched a video where Nolan says the color parts are Oppenheimer's perspective and the black and white parts are Strauss' perspective. So I don't know if he's been perfectly consistent on this point or if the objective/subjecetive thing has just been a misinterpretation somewhere along the way.
I knew going in that the third act takes a bit of a turn away from the Trinity test, but now kind of surprised at some reactions. Aside from a couple of moments where Nolan inserts some on-the-nose dialogue I thought it was great. It's an organic part of the larger film - not only because of the flashforwards, but with the communism/secrecy themes throughout.
I really applaud Nolan for resisting the urge to end the film with Trinity, and having the confidence to show this critical subsequent part of Oppenheimer's story.
Agree with MistressKen, the political intrigue and interrogation section after the Trinity test were great! This is a case study in how things like this should be done.
I think that Flo is supposed to be representitive of all the women Op had been with, and that possibly he cared for her more then 'just having a fling' which gives Em's character something to push aganst, and as you guys have stated, gave extra weight to her 'stand by yer man' theme.
I was actually a bit bored until Oppenheimer started teaching in the US. I think the one hour after the bomb scene was crucial for the story. It mirrors the life of Oppenheimer after the success of the a bomb, and it added so many more layers to the scenes in the first 2 hours.
I honestly don't know how anyone can call Nolan's films "clinical and sterile." The ending of The Prestige is one of the most emotional endings to a movie I've ever seen, the deathbed scenes in Inception and Interstellar both made me cry and the father/son scenes between Bruce and Thomas Wayne in the Dark Knight movies are absolutely heartwarming. It feels like I'm watching completely different movies to people when I hear them describe these movies as clinical and cold. The central theme in all Nolan's work (sans maybe Tenet) is family - how can that be devoid of emotion?
I guess maybe you could say he's clinical and sterile when it comes to love between a man and a woman, I haven't really noticed but I guess that's possible. But he is absolutely not clinical or sterile when it comes to love between parent and child. I've always seen Nolan as excelling at that and I stand by it.
Watching Oppenheimer was like watching a terrific accident happen where you cannot help it and cannot look away. There's no mistery, we know what happens: Oppenheimer builds the bomb and then gets politically bombed himself. The only thing left for us is to be riveted to the screen and watch it happen almost clinically, step by step. Great respect to Nolan.
If only Mission Impossible was doing good as well but it got lost in the shuffle
And this is an interesting take... I actually enjoyed Oppenheimer MORE the second time I saw it. There is a LOT that comes at you in the first three-hour sitting. You have to digest a lot of it, then go back and see it again. It's better the second time around!
Best Nolan film by far. A film where everything he explored doing in past movies come together into this film.
The editing was amazing, the music fantastic, the first hour is not a slog like many claimed, the nudity "controversy" (it wasn't a romantic subplot but rather a character establishing one) is justified as it is used brilliantly as a metaphor moments later, and the acting is fantastic for all. And the three hours flew by. A full theater was glued to the screen the whole time. And the audio (IMAX 70mm theater) was perfectly fine. It is not even close to some suggesting it was like Tenet.
And I loved that you could see actual real film grain again.
Haha yeah ! For a 3 hour historical drama heavy on dialogues and R rated , Oppenheimer’s success at the box office is unexpected
Oppenheimer has won the Mumbai boxoffice for the last two weekends.
Yeah, we love it here in India haha
The title should've been 'Oppenheimer *explodes* with huge opening weekend.'
Honestly the first 30 minutes were the best. It was an all senses experience. It's so hard to explain just how breathtaking and awe inspiring it was
The closest comparison I can give was 2001 a space Odyssey.
Without the final act of Oppenheimer, it’s a simple film about the bomb achievement, which we all have common sense about. Post bomb is the most important part. The film is about the rise and fall (assassination w/o firing a bullet) of a flawed genius who changed the course of history.
Also, those who point out his marriage flaws. Einstein cheated on his wife with his cousin and then married her. They’re all flawed people (Cillian, Emily, and Florence) and not Mary Sues.
The play on movie titles with Ken is hilarious. I could watch that all day.
Very few films deserve three-hour run times, and _Oppenheimer_ is no different. I agree with Convict Ken that Nolan needs an editor. However, I thought it was still a very good film (the sequence where Oppenheimer gives a lecture after Hiroshima is bombed is one of the most brilliant sequences Nolan has ever done). I'm so thankful that someone like Nolan is making movies in this current cinematic climate.
He also apparently needs someone to pick better films for him so his talents aren’t wasted on boring crap like Oppenheimer again
@@donkeysaurusrex7881what do you want nolan to direct?
@@saifmohamed9592 More sci fi stuff would be nice.
"mini-series" -- The first time I experienced a thing like this was when I was re-watching John Huston's 3-hour epic, "THE BIBLE: IN THE BEGINNING" (1966). It's an anthology, and there's an intermission at the halfway point (right after "Noah's Ark"). The 2nd half consists of only 2 stories: "The Tower Of Babel" (10 minutes) and "Abraham" (80 minutes). That last 80 minutes is a PAINFUL slog, if you're trying to stay awake through all 3 hours in one go! But the last time I watched the film, I decided to deliberately take a break at the intermission, and watch the 2nd half THE NEXT DAY. Man, that was such a good idea. It was the first time I EVER really enjoyed the "Abraham" story (and I'd seen it in a theatre when it came out!), despite George C. Scott playing the title character.
The funny thing was, Richard Harris had played "Abraham" in a TV-film decades later, which on its own was 3 HOURS long-- and yet that version I found far more watchable. Go figure.
These days, I wouldn't be surprised that prolific Tobacco use would push a movie to R on its own.
Lol i love you guys, i really do, hit for me this movie hit all the right notes. My god what a refreshing movie, none of “the message”, no girl bosses, just genuine realism, historical drama etc etc
It is a good movie. I thought that the treatment of the actual Manhattan project was rather slim. They didn't give a good explanation of how the implosion bomb worked, and how it was built. Maybe some more details about the actual Los Alamos work would have been interesting.
The editing at the beginning was hard to understand at first but I think it was done to represent the obsession or the way that Oppenheimer dreamed about the science and space.
I personally like the scene where Oppenheimer’s wife goes hard on the asshole who was dominating conversation and makes him look like a fool. I like to think that happened in real life too. It would certainly be satisfying if it did
I really enjoyed Oppenheimer. My only gripe is more a gripe at modern movie cliches and that this movie had a few scenes where it would have benefited from some long camera shots instead of the near constant jump cuts. Makes the movie feel disjointed to me.
After seeing Josh Hartnett, we need an Airwolf movie with Josh as StringFellow Hawk.
Went to see it with my friends last Wednesday I was surprised the theater was filled to the brim.
After rings of power there few who haven't seen Tolkien's paraphrased quote about evil not being able to create, only pervert, and it applies to Barbie too. But there's another one that I really like, that's even hopeful, about this movie being an accidental red pill:
"A traitor may betray himself and do good he does not intend."
The cast was pretty amazing, and it was nice to watch a film full of talking, but the characters' internal thoughts were communicated without having to resort to ‘emotional exposition’.
Agree with lots of this. Wanted more science, lots of the first 30-40 minutes was extraneous, didn’t need the sex scene or Pugh’s character. Really enjoyed the last hour. Didn’t feel it explored the moral question enough.
Great movie, fantastic performances. Not a masterpiece as it couldn’t decide what it wanted to be. Mini series idea could have worked better.
Flawed but I did enjoy it.
It would be interesting to see your take on fat man, little boy and compare the two, Drinker.