[Film] Oppenheimer - Christopher Nolan

[Isgrimnur]

[Holman]

I saw Oppenheimer in a theater (1pm and packed full) this afternoon.

tl;dr: Definitely powerful, very well acted, and too long by almost a third. (Also, is there anyone who *isn't* in this movie?)

I saw it in a regular theater. Given the weight of visuals and sound at several points, I think IMAX might have killed me.

Further thoughts:

Spoiler:

Cillian Murphy is excellent in the role. There's a whole lot of "tortured genius" in the script, but he manages to give the character more than just one note.

There are so many famous names in the cast that at times it almost falls into a game of counting cameos. Kenneth Branagh as Niels Bohr? Gary Oldman as Harry Truman? Tom Conti as Albert Einstein? Matthew Modine? Rami fuckin' Malek?

The movie does a very good job of outlining just enough science for the bomb to make sense, and it does it subtly. There's never a scene where a scientist has to carefully explain atomic reaction to an obvious audience-stand-in character.

There are really two plots in the movie, although they're entwined in a Nolanesque structure that swiftly jumps forwards and backwards in time. The first plot (which takes up about 2/3 of the total time) is the assembling, research, and culmination of the WW2 Manhattan Project and the atomic bombings of Japan (which we are not shown, or not directly), followed by Oppenheimer's doubts about the meaning of it all.

The second plot (about 1/3 of the movie) is a close focus on a series of Eisenhower-era hearings through which a political figure (played by a barely recognizable Robert Downey Jr) contrives to bring late-career Oppenheimer under suspicion and have his security clearance stripped from him. This, because Oppenheimer once humiliated him in a public hearing unrelated to the Manhattan Project or anything else in the plot.

So there are really two antagonists in this movie: the threat of global nuclear annihilation and... Robert Downey Jr.

Christopher Nolan seems to want to treat these two as having the same dramatic weight.

I came away feeling that the second plot was basically unnecessary and that it could have been presented as a subplot rather than a main cable. In fact, Oppenheimer's whole later career as a gadfly and critic of the arms race, while talked about during the hearings, is almost never depicted. Reducing the second plot and extending the focus on Oppenheimer's turn would (IMHO) have made this a more focused and more impactful film.

All in all, though, this is strong drama. There are slight elements of fantasy (well-deployed), and the ending scene will stay with you.

[RunningMn9]

Saw it last night in an IMAX theater. I thought it was long, but it didn’t feel like 3 hours to me. Other movies of that length FEEL like 3 hours. This just felt long.

Spoiler:

- I saw it with my daughter (20) who is a TV/Film student, and we were both left wondering why everyone in the movie was allowed to wear clothes except Florence Pugh.

- It wasn’t easy to keep everyone straight. And I mean everyone. As noted, basically every actor is in this movie.

- I liked that there wasn’t any math or physics in the movie, and even that there was very little bomb in this movie. Outside of the very well-shot Trinity scene, this movie is definitely all about Oppenheimer.

- My main complaint is everyone’s reaction to Oppenheimer’s post-WW2 moral quandary. I think that it’s easy to understand the need to get to the finish line before Nazi Germany. I think it’s equally easy to understand how you might feel differently when your work is used to blow two cities full of innocent people to bits.

While I think the last third of the movie felt somewhat out of place (the whole thing with Robert Downey, Jr.’s character), I didn’t hate it. And by the end I was definitely really rooting for RDJ to get bent.

[hepcat]

Spoiler:

[Holman]

I have a fun personal connection to the Manhattan Project. My FIL's cousin was one of the scientists working under Oppenmheimer, and he is presumably present (in unnamed spirit) among the Los Alamos extras in the film.

He was also arrested and served time in Leavenworth for taking some small samples of uranium and plutonium as souvenirs.

During the Cold War, as the U.S. feared Soviets would obtain America’s nuclear secrets through espionage, Simons was arrested and spent 18 months in federal prisons in Texarkana, Texas, and Leavenworth, Kan., for taking souvenirs of his work, a small glass vial of plutonium and a few pieces of uranium when he left Los Alamos in July 1946.

At almost the same time, another U.S. Army engineer, Julius Rosenberg, and his wife, Ethel, were arrested and executed in 1953 for atomic espionage. They were found to be members of the Young Communist League delivering top-secret information to the Soviets. Simons was caught because he talked casually about taking the souvenirs, but he was spared a more serious sentence because prosecutors could not link him to communism or the Soviet Union.

What's interesting is that some of his relatives (including my FIL and his siblings) actually had briefly been Communist Party members in the 1930s.

[Isgrimnur]

[Kurth]

How can you not love Gritty???

[Daehawk]

My grandfather helped on the Manhattan Project. The War Dept gave him a certificate thanking him for his help. I have it hanging here behind me. To think my grandad's family were from the Black Forest region of Germany and came to the US sometime in the past. I called him Pa as him and my grandma raised me.

[Isgrimnur]

Daehawk von Braun

[gilraen]

I'm actually surprised that all the IMAX showings for Oppenheimer are so packed. Sure, they've been pushing this movie for months - but c'mon, a 3-hour movie with ~20 bucks per ticket (unless you have a subscription of some sort), and it doesn't involve superheroes or spaceships? For an average American moviegoer these days, that's just crazy talk.

[disarm]

I didn't make it to Oppenheimer over the weekend because I do want to see it on IMAX, but all the shows were sold out except the first two rows that are way too close to the screen. I'm okay with waiting though...not like I have to worry about someone spoiling the ending.

[Holman]

I didn't make it to Oppenheimer over the weekend because I do want to see it on IMAX, but all the shows were sold out except the first two rows that are way too close to the screen. I'm okay with waiting though...not like I have to worry about someone spoiling the ending.

FWIW, I saw it on a regular screen, and I don't think I missed anything. The pyrotechnics and effects are impressive, but there's nothing like Dunkirk's dogfights or bombings. It's largely a movie full of people talking (along with one big explosion).

[RunningMn9]

Hard to say if I appreciated it more on IMAX, since that’s the only format that I saw - but it was a pretty impressive visual experience.

[Rumpy]

Saw it tonight and while entertaining, thought it was way too long. I kept wondering when they'd get to the point with the trial.

I was also super confused by the use of B&W. At first I thought it was used to denote a different part of the timeline, but the more you watch, the more you realize that isn't really the case.

[Holman]

Saw it tonight and while entertaining, thought it was way too long. I kept wondering when they'd get to the point with the trial.

I was also super confused by the use of B&W. At first I thought it was used to denote a different part of the timeline, but the more you watch, the more you realize that isn't really the case.

If I remember correctly, B&W is used only for the cabinet-nomination hearing for Robert Downey Jr., which comes last (with the exception of a final bit about Oppy receiving the Medal of Freedom) in time. Both the Manhattan Project timeline and the investigation into Openheimer's loyalty (which is closer to the Downey Jr hearing, but still prior to it) are in color.

[Rumpy]

Saw it tonight and while entertaining, thought it was way too long. I kept wondering when they'd get to the point with the trial.

I was also super confused by the use of B&W. At first I thought it was used to denote a different part of the timeline, but the more you watch, the more you realize that isn't really the case.

If I remember correctly, B&W is used only for the cabinet-nomination hearing for Robert Downey Jr., which comes last (with the exception of a final bit about Oppy receiving the Medal of Freedom) in time. Both the Manhattan Project timeline and the investigation into Openheimer's loyalty (which is closer to the Downey Jr hearing, but still prior to it) are in color.

But that's further complicated by the fact that the round-table dinner scenes are in color which are more or less related to the hearing scenes. And there's also that B&W scene where we first meet Strauss that extends to the mysterious Einstein scene. So, the logic of when a scene is B&W isn't entirely clear.

Was really hoping on a more straightforward telling of the story, but Nolan of course had to use his brand of timeline trickery which only further confused things. It only made it exhausting to watch.

[RunningMn9]

I had thought that the B&W was used for the scenes that Oppenheimer is not actually in, but that was what my daughter said, I wasn’t paying close enough attention.

To say it a different way, when a scene is not from the point of view of Oppenheimer - B&W.

So the initial scene with Einstein, it’s B&W because it’s from Strauss’ point of view. The second time it’s in color because that scene is from Oppenheimer’s POV.

[RunningMn9]

More specifically, the color scenes are from the perspective of Oppenheimer while the b/w scenes are from the perspective of Strauss. According to the internet. This is regardless of the timelines, as noted with the Einstein scene above.

[Zaxxon]

More specifically, the color scenes are from the perspective of Oppenheimer while the b/w scenes are from the perspective of Strauss. According to the internet. This is regardless of the timelines, as noted with the Einstein scene above.

Interesting. I saw it last night (late) and wasn't able to quite determine the catalyst for B&W in the moment.

Thought the movie was very good. Like you, it felt long but at no point was I wishing it had ended earlier.

[RunningMn9]

I read another interesting tidbit that was really used to reinforce what Nolan was trying to do, which is that the script is written in the first person. The process of making this movie is fascinating to me.

[Zaxxon]

I read another interesting tidbit that was really used to reinforce what Nolan was trying to do, which is that the script is written in the first person. The process of making this movie is fascinating to me.

This whole interview I found fascinating. Well, not the whole thing. But a lot of it.

[naednek]

Saw it yesterday in Imax on 77mm film, the way it was meant to be seen.. Except, this didn't need to be an IMAX film...

It was ok, Definitely not one of my favorite's of his movies. It was long but interesting. It took me half the movie to realize that Strauss was played by Robert Downey Jr... LOL I didn't pay attention to who was in the movie prior to it being released.

[Rumpy]

It was ok, Definitely not one of my favorite's of his movies.

Same. In fact, going against the grain, I'd say it was not one of his stronger efforts. I marvel at the technical aspects that went into it and the cast was brilliant, but I didn't love it. In fact, I kind of feel he blew it. Should have been more straightforward, and would have been more powerful for it. The 30 minutes at the end felt tacked on and robbed the movie of momentum gained by the testing scene and it ends up feeling like a movie mistake. It gave the impression that he'd want to do a remake of 12 Angry Men.

[Zaxxon]

Should have been more straightforward

I actually agree, but this is Christopher Nolan. There is no world in which this film was told in a simple, clear manner.

[Rumpy]

Should have been more straightforward

I actually agree, but this is Christopher Nolan. There is no world in which this film was told in a simple, clear manner.

Which means that despite the fact that I actually like his work, I don't think he was the right person for the job.

[Grifman]

I thought that it was great, and that Murphy and Downey should win Oscar’s.

[Exodor]

Saw it yesterday in Imax on 77mm film, the way it was meant to be seen.. Except, this didn't need to be an IMAX film...

Saw it over the weekend in a regular theater and I can't really fathom why it would need to be on IMAX. 80% of the film is a bunch of dudes taking while sitting at a table (the confirmation hearing, the Oppenheimer hearing, etc).

Loved it though but glad we didn't watch it back to back with Barbie- we saved that for the next day. Both are great films but both require a little processing afterward.

[Isgrimnur]

I thought that it was great, and that Murphy and Downey should win Oscar’s.

Oscar's what?

[Zaxxon]

I thought that it was great, and that Murphy and Downey should win Oscar’s.

Oscar's what?

His trophy.

[hepcat]

Is that a euphemism?

[Grifman]

I thought that it was great, and that Murphy and Downey should win Oscar’s.

Oscar's what?

Oscar’s spell correction.

[Grifman]

I also want to note that I went to a 12:30 showing and there was a relatively large crowd there. This movie has legs

[hepcat]

I really should see this on an imax screen, shouldn’t I?

[naednek]

I forgot to mention that the men's line to the bathroom was quite long, while the women's bathroom had no line. I guess all that training on having to hold it while raising toddlers built them for this moment

[Exodor]

I forgot to mention that the men's line to the bathroom was quite long, while the women's bathroom had no line. I guess all that training on having to hold it while raising toddlers built them for this moment

We had the opposite experience after leaving Barbie.

Maybe the whole Barbenheimer thing was just a way to balance bathroom demand?

[pr0ner]

It was ok, Definitely not one of my favorite's of his movies.

Same. In fact, going against the grain, I'd say it was not one of his stronger efforts. I marvel at the technical aspects that went into it and the cast was brilliant, but I didn't love it. In fact, I kind of feel he blew it. Should have been more straightforward, and would have been more powerful for it. The 30 minutes at the end felt tacked on and robbed the movie of momentum gained by the testing scene and it ends up feeling like a movie mistake. It gave the impression that he'd want to do a remake of 12 Angry Men.

You have to think about it less as a movie about the development of the atomic bomb and more of a movie about Oppenheimer himself. The last 30 minutes of the movie are pretty key aspects of his life.

[Rumpy]

It was ok, Definitely not one of my favorite's of his movies.

Same. In fact, going against the grain, I'd say it was not one of his stronger efforts. I marvel at the technical aspects that went into it and the cast was brilliant, but I didn't love it. In fact, I kind of feel he blew it. Should have been more straightforward, and would have been more powerful for it. The 30 minutes at the end felt tacked on and robbed the movie of momentum gained by the testing scene and it ends up feeling like a movie mistake. It gave the impression that he'd want to do a remake of 12 Angry Men.

You have to think about it less as a movie about the development of the atomic bomb and more of a movie about Oppenheimer himself. The last 30 minutes of the movie are pretty key aspects of his life.

Oh, I realize that. It's titled Oppenheimer, not A-Bomb, afterall. It's a biopic. And while thematically, the hearing might fit, it doesn't mean I don't disagree with the methods that Nolan used. It could have been condensed and given the gist of it without making people sit through a half-hour of sitting around just talking. As is though, it feels like Nolan ran out of material after the testing and just used what he had left of the hearing. It just doesn't feel like very effective film-making to me. And to think a younger generation would be watching this together with Barbie, well... I just can't see them wanting to sit that out. Good luck on that front.

[pr0ner]

It was ok, Definitely not one of my favorite's of his movies.

Same. In fact, going against the grain, I'd say it was not one of his stronger efforts. I marvel at the technical aspects that went into it and the cast was brilliant, but I didn't love it. In fact, I kind of feel he blew it. Should have been more straightforward, and would have been more powerful for it. The 30 minutes at the end felt tacked on and robbed the movie of momentum gained by the testing scene and it ends up feeling like a movie mistake. It gave the impression that he'd want to do a remake of 12 Angry Men.

You have to think about it less as a movie about the development of the atomic bomb and more of a movie about Oppenheimer himself. The last 30 minutes of the movie are pretty key aspects of his life.

Oh, I realize that. It's titled Oppenheimer, not A-Bomb, afterall. It's a biopic. And while thematically, the hearing might fit, it doesn't mean I don't disagree with the methods that Nolan used. It could have been condensed and given the gist of it without making people sit through a half-hour of sitting around just talking. As is though, it feels like Nolan ran out of material after the testing and just used what he had left of the hearing. It just doesn't feel like very effective film-making to me. And to think a younger generation would be watching this together with Barbie, well... I just can't see them wanting to sit that out. Good luck on that front.

Christopher Nolan is a very meticulous filmmaker. It is kind of silly to say "it feels like Nolan ran out of material after the testing and just used what he had left of the hearing". That wouldn't be the way it works for him at all. Setting up the movie the way he did was very much intentional, and between the acting, the editing, and the music, the last stretch was one of the more riveting aspects of the movie.

And considering the movie has already made $175M in domestic box office and $400M in international box office, it's doing just fine.

[Rumpy]

Well, I can effectively say it didn't work for me. C'est la Vie! You can argue all you want for it, but it's not going to change my opinion on how I feel about it.

[Carpet_pissr]

I'm actually surprised that all the IMAX showings for Oppenheimer are so packed. For an average American moviegoer these days, that's just crazy talk.

Average American moviegoers love big ass explosions. That’s my theory at least.