Oppenheimer (Christopher Nolan)

homerun_homer

I went yesterday on my day off, initially booked the near empty Imax screening for morning, to suddenly find I was blocked in on my row by people with bags on the ground. So my experience was marred by my bladder being tested to its limit, and not wanting to be awkward passing by everyone to go back and forth. Also the film is so fast flowing with the dialogue and jumping from scene to scene there was no easy point to miss.

I would have to go see it again under better conditions.

One thing that bugged me is why the need for music constantly throughout. It never relented and gets annoying. Some scenes are better served for impact when there is no music on top. Such as the "Near zero" conversation before the Trinity test.

heavydawson

Loved it, but give me the HBO Max version of the story, a la Chernobyl.

I'd read Richard Rhodes books on the history of the bombs (Atomic + Hydrogen) before seeing it.

The marble jar in the movie would be a whole episode in and of itself in a mini-series.

Highly recommend the books written by Rhodes.

johnny_ultimate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120898151#Comment_120898151

Nolan's editing and storytelling style almost demands liberal use of music to keep things flowing. It's so quickfire (scenes often end on strange or abrubpt notes) that things would threaten to become even messier and inconsistent if there wasn't a score in the background keeping things in check.

This can be a liability - I rewatched The Dark Knight relatively recently and found the relentless score there gives the feeling the feel of a feature-length montage. Once you notice it, it's hard to stop noticing it and it can be really distracting and somewhat unsatisfying. But I think in Oppenheimer the nature of the multi-year storytelling makes it flow more elegantly than some of his other films. The film also does make smarter use of silence and the absence of music as pretty smart dramatic punctuation marks that wouldn't work as well if there wasn't so much music throughout. I also think Göransson's musical style is a bit more interesting than some of Han Zimmer's recent work.

That said, Nolan films often struggle more on a rewatch for me, so will be curious if that's the same here - although have no immediate inclination to watch it again despite generally really liking it.

pixelburp

This was a conflicting watch and then some, I really can't decide where I land on it in the immediate aftermath walking out. By all means, The Prestige remains my favourite Nolan flick and I do think it remains the best synthesis of Nolan's obsession with non-linear structure, choppy editing as a choice - and actual characterisation worth a damn. And certainly Oppenheimer hasn't moved the needle on that personal preference.

The more his career has gone on, the more the technicality of Nolan's craft seems to have swallowed an ability to tell something Human sized? Dunkirk was a clinical exercise for something that should have been an existential, emotional story, while Tenet was simply an incoherent brain-fart punctuated by a 747 crashing into a hanger. If Robert Zemeckis lost himself in CGI, Wes Anderson pedantically interested in dioramas, I think Christopher Nolan is drifting far from the realm of narrative conventionality - and I'm not sure I buy into the results. I suspect film discourse will be arguing the issue of Nolan's... audio choices alone for years to come; but I'm not on the fence there, the overpowering, overcranked noise of his latter-day films have been unpleasant and a disruption to enjoyment of late.

The twitter mob trying to wring their hands because the film didn't have a Japanese perspective is the worst form of performative concern and contrarianism; but by all accounts, I didn't walk out of this with any sense of who Oppenheimer was as a person or moral creature either - even if the film constantly had this thing to predict or presume his motives. Cillian Murphy and RDJ both lead from the front with great performances for sure, but I think what humanity existed in this Oppenheimer was because of Murphy's tortured turn and despite Nolan's direction.

Snake Plisken

Speaking of the use of music I didn't really notice it and it didn't bother me but the lads on Red Letter Media brought it up as bugged them. They then gave us this gem 😀

https://youtu.be/vhqbILnmJ-Q

MaddChris

Thank the youtube algorithm. Just Nolan and Murphy wandering around a 2nd hand DVD shop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLUe85q1hNM

lbunnae

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120894684#Comment_120894684

That's a huge difference though in one go? Wiping out the country or wiping out Cork. Lol

micks_address

Seen it Sunday night in cineworld imax.. was late due to chronic traffic/parking - should have arrived an hour early but didnt get into till a few minutes into the movie.. was annoying as after literally rushing to get in felt couldn't settle into the film for a while.. i might try see it again as i generally enjoyed it.. dont think i missed a lot at the beginning.. he was in class where he couldnt stay awake and ended up breaking stuff..

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120898891#Comment_120898891

I'm in two minds as well, and as someone who has read a number of books on Oppenheimer and the development of the bomb and its aftermath, I felt that it had a number of very curious omissions and oddities. Leo Szilard pops up only on occasion to spout off something and then disappears giving the impression that he was just some random guy. Edward Teller comes off as a kind of drunken, sweaty, bar fly and the relationship between General Groves and Oppenheimer was far, far, too warm.

One area where I'm not at odds with myself on, however, was the sound design. It was absolutely atrocious, to the point where I was wishing that there was a version without a soundtrack available. So intrusive are the musical interludes and so abrasive are some of the effects that i came away annoyed rather than tense or thrilled. It's easily the worst of Nolan's movies for its audio aspect, by a country mile.

On a positive note, Murphy was very good in the role and he managed to get some of Oppenheimer's mannerisms down and Downey Junior kinda steals the day with his portrayal of Lewis Strauss. But I would doubt that anyone in the audience who was relatively unfamiliar with Oppenheimer came away knowing more about him than they did when the went in. Nor would they have been any the wiser on many of the other characters (some of whom are very important) who come and go in a very fleeting way.

It's a film that's well worth seeing, though. But it's a bit of a curate's egg in a number of ways, with the subject matter being probably better suited to a mini series, like 'Chernobyl', rather than a feature length film. Because even at 3+ hours, there's a whole lot left out of the story.

Nermal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120902207#Comment_120902207

A noisy soundtrack allows no time to reflect, to gaze. It just ends up lessening the impact of the score when it's actually required, e.g. the climax of the interrogation. It's a film about thinkers, but it's not thoughtful.

The real stand-out scene for me is the 'pep rally' after the test.

o1s1n

Any examples of where you guys thought the score took away from the film? I quite enjoyed the huge dynamic shifts and brashness of it.

I went in expecting more of an art piece rather than a biopic, feel that's more along the lines of what I got.

homerun_homer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120902048#Comment_120902048

Spoiler Warning

I was going to say you didn't miss much, but then it is quite important to have seen the scene where RDJ witnesses from a distance the exchange with Oppenheimer and Enstein, in which he believes he has been slighted by what was said. It bookends the film essentially.

micks_address

yeah i saw the scene you refer to... so was there for that.. my son had gone in while i was getting parking and he said there wasnt much... i just hated not being seated and relaxed before it started.. spoiled the first 30 minutes of it

techdiver

In my opinion, a truly amazing movie, probably Nolan's best to date. For a 3 hour movie with mostly dialog it never once dragged or was boring. It has a feel almost like JFK (1991). The performances across the board were fantastic. Murphy was amazing an haunting, RDJ will get an Oscar nomination at least for his performance, I thought he was as good as I've ever seen him.

Whilst I'm not a proponent of CGI bashing in movies (when used for necessity), it was brilliant to have a movie that was shot practically. In most action movies you lean into the "nuke" scene as fun etc, but in this movie it is very much different during the Trinity test scene. It filled me with dread and although I know what was going to happen almost rooting for it to fail.

In short, it's been a long time since a movie has entertained and effected me so much in equal measure. I came out entertained and devastated at the same time.

Electric Nitwit

Just home, don't think it landed for me

A lot of it was amazing, the look and feel, the acting, all great. But I felt the story was a bit incoherent at the start. Felt like rushed vignettes from his life, and I found it a bit hard to keep track of the characters coming and going, which was annoying when some turned out to be important later on. I've seen some people suggest it would have worked better as a series and I agree

Once it got to Los Alamos it settled, but like others have said I'd have preferred more on the technical challenges there

I actually liked the hearing scenes, I think they had a bit more room to breathe than some of the early stuff. That said, I didn't think the Strauss hearing fully justified its significance in the film

Overall, lots of brilliance but it didn't quite mesh for me. Felt a bit like 800 pieces of a 1000 piece jigsaw

Lefty2Guns

Seen it Wednesday knowing very little about Oppenheimer and his back story.

I loved the film, would go back again to watch it. Like what I do most times now I'll re-watch it with Subtitles but its definitely a 9/10 for me.

Like someone mentioned above, I held my p**s in for the last hour as I didn't want to miss a thing.

Murphy was excellent in it.

heavydawson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120904503#Comment_120904503

Wasn't the Strauss hearing necessary to effectively have him get his comeuppance? For the effective villain of the piece to get his deserved downfall? It's cathartic in one sense, but Nolan chose to remove any sense of triumph by having the final scene with Einstein.

I think the series would have been amazing if done A-La Chernobyl. But Nolan's specialty is managing to sustain story momentum over 2-3 hours. That he did it with a largely action-free film is really something. Speaking of tension, I'd also love to see the Safdie Brothers version of this. I think I'd have run screaming from the cinema 😂

The Davestator

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120898151#Comment_120898151

You need to use the Run Pee app. Tells you when the best time to go to the bathroom is and you can also read a synopsis of what you are missing while you're there. Also tells you if there is anything after the credits.

Electric Nitwit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120907241#Comment_120907241

Yeah, I do get that about the Strauss hearing. And bits of it when the stories started overlapping I really liked. I don't know, just somehow it didn't give me what I wanted, not that I'm sure what that was!

Like I said, I liked a lot but overall it didn't hang together for me. I won't over-analyse why though, I think it'll further spoil it for me and I definitely wouldn't want to argue with anyone who loved it, I just wish I was one of those people too

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120904503#Comment_120904503

All the Strauss stuff , I'd have been happy with just text reel at the end, and include more of the stuff during the war, for example the Americans having an operation to see if they needed to assassinate Heisenberg until they figured how the nazis were so far behind.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120902207#Comment_120902207

But I would doubt that anyone in the audience who was relatively unfamiliar with Oppenheimer came away knowing more about him than they did when the went in. Nor would they have been any the wiser on many of the other characters (some of whom are very important) who come and go in a very fleeting way.

As someone who only knew Oppenheimer as a headline personality ("the dude who invented the A Bomb, then regretted it"), I can absolutely relate to this idea of simply coming out of the cinema without a greater sense of who the guy was, or what drove, scared or inspired him. Everything felt very surface level, never explored with any great degree. The domestic stuff by example: we see Kitty drank - very suddenly into the relationship - and seemed to be struggling with raising the kids ... but nothing came of it, nothing said of it. And when a moment came where her sobriety might have been a factor - the security hearing - she rose to the occasion. Then what was the point in showing her a bit of a lush? Not that Nolan's great with female characters, but that's a whole different segue I suppose.

Hollywood biopics are mostly absolute duds, but my brain immediately thought of gold standards of recent years like Steve Jobs or The Social Network; sure much has been said about how truthful or accurate they were in dissecting their subject characters - but they still chose a lane, still explored facets of the men's character & flaws. I could tell you at the end of Danny Boyle's master-piece (yes I said it) what and who Jobs was as a person and what he meant to those around him - but Oppenheimer? The guy was ... ... uhh... wore a hat well?

Sandor Clegane

A lot to take in, id have to watch it again to come up with a more conclusive verdict but I felt is was too long, a bit disjointed and had too many scenes marred by music.

Cinematography was great and it was well acted, Murphy was great.

Spon Farmer

Right I love movies but there is a technical side this that film that I don’t understand.

Palas in Galway have a listing for Oppenheimer and for Oppenheimer 35mm.

Eye Cinema’s synopsis states it an “IMAX shot epic”.

Does all this mean that Palas and Eye are showing the IMAX version? And that Palas is also showing it in the “regular format”?

Has anyone here seen it at these two cinemas?

Spon Farmer

I was told here on the boards there is no IMAX in Ireland and only one in the U.K.

How is the Odeon Blancardstown IMAX and Cineworld in Belfast not IMAX?

GOOGLE shows quite a few in Britain.

adrian522

Apparently there only 30 theatres in the world that have 70mm IMAX, all the "IMAX" screens in Ireland use digital projectors and wouldn't have the screen size of the full IMAX experience.

In Galway the 35mm will use a film projector, where the other options would be digital versions.

Electric Nitwit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120909991#Comment_120909991

I went to the IMAX in Blanch for this. I appreciate it's not the full IMAX experience but it is a damn nice cinema, I was very impressed with the screen, sound, reclining armchairs...

Spon Farmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120910273#Comment_120910273

How is not the full IMAX experience?

I’ve never seen an IMAX film. I saw GRAVITY on a “giant screen” in China but I honestly cannot remember the experience. Pretty it wasn’t IMAX though.

Electric Nitwit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120910351#Comment_120910351

Don't really know 🤣

I think, like adrian said above, the full experience is the analogue 70mm projector. I don't think I'd know the difference but I'm sure some would

johnny_ultimate

‘Proper’ IMAX screens are massive, multi-storey screens, with capacity to project proprietary, extra high-fidelity 70mm film. There are none in Ireland, nearest are in London and Manchester. All IMAX screens here - and most IMAX screens in general - are just digital cinema screens with a proprietary projector set up. They’re OK quality with good sound / image and tend to be bigger screens than average, but really not a whole lot better than a standard digital cinema screen (with a premium price to boot).

The closest equivalent to seeing 70mm IMAX in Ireland - ie an analogue film format - is seeing the standard 70mm film version in the IFI. And then there are 35mm prints screening in Light House and Palas Galway, which are proper film prints but lower fidelity than 70mm. Every other screen in Ireland AFAIK will be digital.

Spon Farmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120910442#Comment_120910442

So the 35mm in Palas is on film as opposed to digital? And it is regular widescreen?

Are you recommending the IFI because it has a bigger screen than Blanchardtown?

If the screen isn’t big like a proper IMAX then is it simply just large full screen?