Oppenheimer (Christopher Nolan)

Agree. For me its like a biography documentary. Not a film.

Saw it last night in the Oranmore IMC, LUXX screen with the nice new leather recliner seats - very comfortable I must admit. Slight defect on the screen which was off-putting.

I'd give the movie 8 out of 10 - great performances all round, Cillian is superb, really gets the intensity of Oppenheimer across. Emily Blunt is very good too, RDJ is rather over the top as the villain but still compelling. Some great cameos, Gary Oldman stole his scene as Truman. As a biographical movie, it primarily succeeds.

I also thought it could have been 30 minutes shorter, the security hearing scenes went on a bit. Sound was good overall and the dialogue was easy to hear for the most part, except for 2-3 minutes towards the end of the security hearing scene when there is basically a cacophony of noise thrown at the viewer (which is meant to represent Oppenheimer's confusion and despair).

I was a little disappointed by the special effects and the Trinity test explosion itself, they could have used some CGI to enhance the visuals, but it actually mirrored the real footage. I don't believe they allowed a B52 to fly overhead during the test to record it from altitude; it was mentioned during an earlier scene.

I also thought they might have better explained the engineering and technical challenges they encountered to purify the U235/plutonium and to build the device. There was no real mention of the inherent dangers in handling highly radioactive and toxic materials. They could have included the 'Demon Core' episode at Los Alamos in which 2 researchers died due to an accidental radiation exposure (this happened shortly after the Trinity test).

Oppenheimer is an excellent movie.

Saw it in the IFI on real 70mm film. I think it looked fantastic, certainly the best screening of a movie I've see in a while. I like how it's stressed to turn off your phone and shut up before the screening. Everyone there was there to watch the movie and not annoy others. Was about 6 rows back which is still an awkward angle to view, but ok. Any closer and you'd need a hinge on your neck.

It was hard to understand the dialogue at times. Kept reaching for the subtitles button. So, you really need to focus and listen over the never ending soundtrack. And, yes, the security hearing stuff goes on way too much.

Cillian Murphy keeps the whole show on the road for 3 hours. He's brilliant in it.

The science and engineering is glossed over which is a shame. I think a lot of people are fascinated by this stuff. Was kinda disappointed they only showed the Trinity explosion. But in hindsight that was plenty. My mind easily filled in the rest and there was an unbearable tension leading up to that and wondering what might be shown next.

I appreciate the fact that the Tokyo firebombing, which was probably an even more incredible act of destruction and violence was mentioned. Also how they were looking for a site to attack that gave the most bang for their buck. I think this lets the viewer left to fill in the total shocking truth of it all.

Probably the most profound moment in human history so far. The moved gets that across so well. I think people have forgotten how fragile things are. This movie is a harsh reminder.

Have to agree that Kenneth Brannagh is annoying in front of the camera. It's not that he's a bad actor but he nearly always comes across smarmy or smug at least to me. Except, I seem to remember he fitted his role better in Dunkirk.

Reminds me, Dunkirk and this movie are two excellent movies.

Question about Oppenheimer...post trinity test

Only negative I can think of is that they ruined the famous quote for me...

Interesting discussion, posting my 2c below on some of the topics raised above. I'd done a fair bit of reading/podcasts (The Rest is History have 2 podcasts on him) beforehand, as well as watching the 7 part BBC series on Youtube, so that coloured my outlook a lot. There's also an excellent YT earlier in the thread which does a fantastic job of explaining the historical and scientific context 

 - First off, it lived up to the expectations and the hype. Murphy incredible in the title role. 

 - Cast - I this was a mixed bag. RDJ too hammy for my tastes, as well as Damon. I thought Jason Clarke was fantastic as Robert Robb, and did a great job of explaining the context to the hearings (as much as one character could - see comments below). Benny Safdie as Edward Teller was also excellent. 

 - Length - I think it needed to be 3 hours - the aftermath of the war and the hearings are a huge part of the Oppenheimer story and they had to be in. I normally don't like overlong films but in this case I felt it was needed. 

 - Storytelling - I don't know how I would have followed this story without knowing the background. The hearings, and the cultural context, could have been explained better. The BBC series did a far better job of explaining what was at stake, and how it ended up in that place. The film doesn't spend a lot of time on the science behind the bomb, which features a lot more in the BBC series. I felt some of the characters could have been developed out better (Blount and Pugh aren't really involved to the extent they could have). I would agree with the comments above about showing Hiroshima/Nagasaki - Trinity was the test he saw first hand, and that is the key one in his story. RDJ ends up doing a lot of exposition on the hearings themselves - it may have been better to use Murphy on this as it would have showed the characters perspective more, and the more subtle approach from Murphy might have worked better in terms of transmitting the information.  

 - Sound - the sound was incredible and added so much atmosphere. As Jonny has already said - the use of silence was brilliantly done, and the foot-stomping pieces were iconic and will be a lasting memory of this film to me. 

Overall I think this is an excellent film, but I wouldn't call it a masterpiece as I think it relies on the viewer having some context of the post war hearings, and I'm not sure if the film would stand on its on if the viewer did not have that context. 

Oppenheimer – 7/10

Saw this on opening day at a sold-out BFI iMax with James Acaster in attendance. Proper bombs of dread. 

Lots of anticipation for this one and I’ve long been curious as to how it justifies the 3-hour run time. I assumed that running that length would mean that we have multiple set pieces, but it really does just focus on the Trinity test. Hiroshima and Nagasaki happen off screen, and we instead focus on the Manhattan project and ‘court room drama’ that unfolds in the aftermath of the Trinity test.  

This is Christopher Nolan’s JFK, with a healthy dose of The Social Network and a sprinkling of abstract imagery. I would have liked a bit more surrealism, but I guess Nolan would be well aware of what David Lynch achieved in Twin Peaks: The Return episode 8 so he keeps it restrained. It’s more history lesson than blockbuster and I’m sure there are many people out there that expected a completely different film. The marketing made it look like it could be an action-packed race against time but it’s much more academic and dialogue heavy. 

If you’re interested in exploring Robert Oppenheimer’s story in forensic detail, then this is the film for you. Just don’t go expecting an all-encompassing retelling of the ending of the second world war.  

It’s a very well-made film, but it’s intense and a lot to take in. You must be in the right mood. I won’t be in a rush to see it again and I certainly wouldn’t be raving about it and recommending it to everyone. A slog, but an interesting and worthwhile slog. 

It will SWEEP at the Oscars.

I wasn't clear what was so different about the H-bomb versus the A-bomb, I know they was one line about kilotons versus megatons, but it didn't really register, I thought more could have been said about that, I just didn't understand Oppenheimer concerns having built the A-bomb, I had to google later to really see how much bigger a H-Bomb would be, but still not quite sure whats the difference between killing a 100,000 people in one go versus 10,000,000

I read that the Americans were impressed that the Russians could air drop the Tzar.

That's very much Nolan's style, he doesn't explain things. Usually it encourages multiple viewings but because this is a biopic he probably hoped to inspire people to do as you did and research.

It worked well in inception but not so much in Tenet. Hard for me to judge with this one as I(like Cillian) had a Wikipedia level understanding of the subject matter going in.

Yes I did address that.

Either way, Nolan does not like to explain things and that can be a good thing but not always.

I find Christopher Nolan films similar when it comes to a rewatch, they're all really enjoyable the first time around but I generally have no desire to watch them again. Bit of a one off event type watch and never go back to it.

Inception, Interstellar, and his Batman films I went to see in the cinema but have only seen them once.