Christopher Nolan's "Oppenheimer"

[Mel81x+]

Here's hoping this focuses on the characters vs the world unlike Tenet which really tried to be like HBOs grandiose attempt for GOT with all the dark environments to the point where you were just as blind as the characters when watching it. I do like the cast so here's hoping. 

[Rick]

He’s vastly overrated on the whole, even if I do like a handful of his films. 

[nudge+]

 

Trailer is out! 

[Tommy]

1 hour ago, nudge said:

 

Trailer is out! 

I like how you can see Oppenheimer's inner turmoil about his invention. 

Also, for such a great cast, they show very little of it. It's probably a good thing as the trailer doesn't seem to give away too much. 

[Tommy]

The more I watch this trailer, the more I love it. Cillian Murphy is gonna knock it out of the park. 

[nudge+]

Just now, Tommy said:

The more I watch this trailer, the more I love it. Cillian Murphy is gonna knock it out of the park. 

He nailed that thousand year stare you'd expect from someone who contributed so much to the inventions of a weapon capable of destroying worlds. 

[Tommy]

3 minutes ago, nudge said:

He nailed that thousand year stare you'd expect from someone who contributed so much to the inventions of a weapon capable of destroying worlds. 

Exactly. From what little we see of him, he already conveys so much. 

This must also be his biggest role to date, I think. Okay, Peaky Blinders was big-ish. But in movies he more often played supporting characters. Fantastic actor. 

[nudge+]

8 minutes ago, Tommy said:

Exactly. From what little we see of him, he already conveys so much. 

This must also be his biggest role to date, I think. Okay, Peaky Blinders was big-ish. But in movies he more often played supporting characters. Fantastic actor. 

Yep, they did a great job casting him. Whenever I see him and that stare in the trailer, that infamous Bhagavad Gita quote he used after witnessing the power of his creation for the first time pops into my mind directly. "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by nudge

[Tommy]

2 minutes ago, nudge said:

Yep, they did a great job casting him. Whenever I see him and that stare in the trailer, that infamous Bhagavad Gita quote he used after witnessing the power of his creation for the first mind the  pops into my mind directly. "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

 

Damn, I should read his biography too before the movie comes out. 

[nudge+]

1 minute ago, Tommy said:

Damn, I should read his biography too before the movie comes out. 

Yep, I thought about re-reading it too, it's been a while since I read it and it would be a good refresher... Make sure you get the American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, as it's the best one there is. It's a big book, but definitely worth it. Probably my favourite biography book together with Von Braun: Dreamer of Space, Engineer of War. 

[Viva la FCB+]

 

[Tommy]

17 minutes ago, Viva la FCB said:

 

It's already been posted on the first page. 

[Viva la FCB+]

23 minutes ago, Tommy said:

It's already been posted on the first page. 

Man I suck 

[Tommy]

Just now, Viva la FCB said:

Man I suck 

@MUFC

[Tommy]

 

[nudge+]

The runtime is apparently almost 3 hours!  

[Danny]

I didn’t think the film was bad, clearly well acted and a lot of compelling moments. But I also felt like there were longer periods where I just sort of went along with whatever was on screen, not really invested in the story as at times with the pacing I’m not sure it gives you the chance to become invested (not the whole film, just parts of it). I’ve read some reviews of it that I just don’t get.

I’d like to watch it again and it definitely feels like a film you need to watch more than once to fully appreciate. But as of first viewing, whilst I did enjoy lots of it and there were some very powerful scenes, overall it’s probably one of my least favourite Nolan films.

 

Florence Pugh’s character was barely in it, which was weird seeing how important she was to Oppenheimer. She was in it enough to point towards a life of communism that the board could beat him with, but she wasn’t in it anywhere near enough to suggest that she was a great love of his. Feels a bit like when Tarantino chucked out Margot Robbie as a “key” character for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood yet she was barely more than an extra.

I didn’t feel overly connected to Robert Downey Jr’s character and felt that his hatred for Oppenheimer came from nowhere, it felt like there was really barely any interaction between the two before the rage kicked in and it was revealed that Downey Jr’s character has set Oppenheimer up.

The issue I had with the film was that for a film that lasted 2 hours and 54 minutes (put a timer on when it starts and google the best times to go for a piss during, fortunately my bladder held for once) the pacing felt quite frantic at times when providing backstory. His time in Europe was quickly rounded up and his fear of Heisenberg seemed far greater than the screen-time given to the man, and given to their interaction.

I also felt that whilst it was insinuated multiple times that he was a womaniser, you rarely experienced that in depth with his relationships. He made multiple calls for his brother to be near him, and there is the scene near the beginning of the film when theyre in the tent. But I think the film leans more to assuming his relationship with his brother, wife and former lover rather than exploring it with any depth

Edited July 24, 2023 by Danny

[Spike]

58 minutes ago, Danny said:

I didn’t think the film was bad, clearly well acted and a lot of compelling moments. But I also felt like there were longer periods where I just sort of went along with whatever was on screen, not really invested in the story as at times with the pacing I’m not sure it gives you the chance to become invested (not the whole film, just parts of it). I’ve read some reviews of it that I just don’t get.

I’d like to watch it again and it definitely feels like a film you need to watch more than once to fully appreciate. But as of first viewing, whilst I did enjoy lots of it and there were some very powerful scenes, overall it’s probably one of my least favourite Nolan films.

  Hide contents

Florence Pugh’s character was barely in it, which was weird seeing how important she was to Oppenheimer. She was in it enough to point towards a life of communism that the board could beat him with, but she wasn’t in it anywhere near enough to suggest that she was a great love of his. Feels a bit like when Tarantino chucked out Margot Robbie as a “key” character for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood yet she was barely more than an extra.

I didn’t feel overly connected to Robert Downey Jr’s character and felt that his hatred for Oppenheimer came from nowhere, it felt like there was really barely any interaction between the two before the rage kicked in and it was revealed that Downey Jr’s character has set Oppenheimer up.

The issue I had with the film was that for a film that lasted 2 hours and 54 minutes (put a timer on when it starts and google the best times to go for a piss during, fortunately my bladder held for once) the pacing felt quite frantic at times when providing backstory. His time in Europe was quickly rounded up and his fear of Heisenberg seemed far greater than the screen-time given to the man, and given to their interaction.

I also felt that whilst it was insinuated multiple times that he was a womaniser, you rarely experienced that in depth with his relationships. He made multiple calls for his brother to be near him, and there is the scene near the beginning of the film when theyre in the tent. But I think the film leans more to assuming his relationship with his brother, wife and former lover rather than exploring it with any depth

That's the problem of historical films. From a film-making point of view it is difficult to decide what to show and tell the audience and what is already implicitly known. The film could go all the way and explain everything, handing holding hand, or rely on the audience having some degree of knowledge on the subject. I will say during the trailer I had a hard eye roll with the quote 'I don't know if we can be trusted with this power, but I know the Nazis can't.'  Bravo Nolan, excellent script writing. You don't need to explain the moral dilemma and the dichotomy of WW2 to me, thanks mate.

[Cicero]

Definitely a film you need to see over again to comprehend it. Only issue I had was the pacing of dialogue, but maybe that is just my ADHD kicking in. 

[nudge+]

I agree with the comments about pacing being a bit off at times. As I mentioned elsewhere, I felt that the first hour was not very useful - I get that it's important to explore the character's background and motivations in detail, but I am not sure that first act achieved much in this aspect. I kind of wish the movie explored more of Oppenheimer's internal struggles and moral dilemma of the subject matter in general; the second and third acts did that to a certain extent, but I hoped for more. @Cicero mentioned nudity/sex scenes in another thread; I personally don't think they were bad, although I must say I had to chuckle when 

Spoiler

Oppenheimer read that infamous quote from the Bhagavad Gita for the first time while fucking Jean, that was a bit cringe  

I'm already used to sound mixing issues in Nolan's movies, so expected worse, tbh - while extremely dialogue heavy, I thought it was pretty decent this time. Dialogues as such could have probably used a little bit more nuance at times.
Acting was great, Cillian Murphy and RDJ were stellar, in particular. A very strong point of the movie, in my opinion, was the portrayal of psychological distress. 

All in all, I think it's a good but flawed movie. Glad I watched it, and I will probably rewatch it at home at some point, but it could have been better for sure.

[Cicero]

1 minute ago, nudge said:

I agree with the comments about pacing being a bit off at times. As I mentioned elsewhere, I felt that the first hour was not very useful - I get that it's important to explore the character's background and motivations in detail, but I am not sure that first act achieved much in this aspect. I kind of wish the movie explored more of Oppenheimer's internal struggles and moral dilemma of the subject matter in general; the second and third acts did that to a certain extent, but I hoped for more. @Cicero mentioned nudity/sex scenes in another thread; I personally don't think they were bad, although I must say I had to chuckle when 

  Reveal hidden contents

Oppenheimer read that infamous quote from the Bhagavad Gita for the first time while fucking Jean, that was a bit cringe  

 

I'm already used to sound mixing issues in Nolan's movies, so expected worse, tbh - while extremely dialogue heavy, I thought it was pretty decent this time. Dialogues as such could have probably used a little bit more nuance at times.
Acting was great, Cillian Murphy and RDJ were stellar, in particular. A very strong point of the movie, in my opinion, was the portrayal of psychological distress. 

All in all, I think it's a good but flawed movie. Glad I watched it, and I will probably rewatch it at home at some point, but it could have been better for sure.

Thought that was the strongest part of the film personally.

 

[nudge+]

9 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Thought that was the strongest part of the film personally.

 

Putting this in spoilers just in case...

Spoiler

I thought some of it was done really, really well (that public speech after the bomb, especially - this is what I meant with my psychological distress comment in my previous post), but for me personally, it was still lacking a bit, especially in earlier parts before the bomb, but also in the third act which focused more on the RDJ character than I expected it to. It kind of felt they introduced a villain because they felt the movie audiences needed that, instead of focusing on the moral consequences of the bomb.

 

[Cicero]

23 minutes ago, nudge said:

Putting this in spoilers just in case...

  Hide contents

I thought some of it was done really, really well (that public speech after the bomb, especially - this is what I meant with my psychological distress comment in my previous post), but for me personally, it was still lacking a bit, especially in earlier parts before the bomb, but also in the third act which focused more on the RDJ character than I expected it to. It kind of felt they introduced a villain because they felt the movie audiences needed that, instead of focusing on the moral consequences of the bomb.

 

 

The way I saw it was that in the middle of a world war, it was always going to be a race against time once the atom was split and physicists knew it could be harnessed to create a nuclear weapon. Bohr put it best that it wouldn't just be a weapon to end the war, it would be a weapon that would end all war. The moral conflict in building such a weapon I thought they did a well job at because again, it really was a race against time with the enemy (Heisenberg) already building theirs. Create the weapon first so that we have the upper hand, or allow the enemy to build theirs to which we have no idea what they will do with it? You could see as time went by during the building process Oppenheimer went from being excited to being engulfed with fear, which was then cemented during Trinity. 

I wish they mentioned that Trinity's radiation affected 47 states though. 

 

Agree with you on RDJ. Though the whole villain thing was poorly done.  Had a gripe with Oppenheimer because embarrassed him that one time. 

Edited July 25, 2023 by Cicero

[Dr. Gonzo]

I was going to see this until I saw the runtime. I'll wait til it's on some streaming service.

[Viva la FCB+]

Definitely plan on seeing this before taking off in a few weeks. Cillian Murphy has always been one of my favourites since '28 days later'. Cool to see him in alot of Nolan films along the way but I was always waiting for a leading role in one of his films. Cant wait.