The first 2 hours are probably the best stuff Nolan has ever done. A thrilling take on science (that oddly, feels very spiritual at times) and its dangerous potential. This is no Frankenstein. That’s the best part; it did happen and the threat won’t go away anytime soon.
It leaves other sappy biopics like The Theory of Everything in the dust.
The last hour, isn’t bad and remains interesting but deals with topics that feel more mundane and less trascendental. Stuff that we’ve seen many times before. And what’s worse, it affects the pacing of the whole movie.
At least, it kinda recovers on the closing scene. Chilling!
I agree with critics that think Nolan still can’t write female characters (their point is utilitarian to the story) and it’s frustrating that this could be better and shorter, but overall, it remains an amazing achievement.
I find it hard to go back to some of Nolan's previous films these days, as I find some of his filmmaking quirks - particularly his propulsive editing style and fondness for brute-force loudness - to be frustrating and even exhausting. I think Dunkirk addressed some of that with its temporal trickery, but Tenet - perhaps his worst film for a plethora of reasons - was maybe the worst offender yet.
Which is important context, as I think it's exactly that particular style - flaws and all - that makes Oppenheimer work. Indeed, a time-hopping biopic is if anything the perfect fit for Nolan's restless storytelling style. Here, it drives forward and jumps from scene to scene with relentless forward momentum, only really slowing down for some killer extended scenes where everything comes together or simmering tension is allowed to boil over and erupt. Matched with the clever choice to switch between black & white and colour to illustrate the film's two key perspectives, this feels like Nolan turning what has been a filmmaking weakness of his into a strength. The sparing use of expressionistic effects shot is also very well done - beautiful images often staying on screen for just a second as a note of emphasis or warning.
Ditto his tendency to 'go loud'. This is another film seemingly designed to blow the speakers off, but it does so in a much more elegant way. The dialogue is suitably snappy and speedy, the ideas allowed to overwhelm and overlap. Göransson's soundtrack builds and builds and builds, only for Nolan to suddenly drain sequences of sound completely. The interplay between noise and silence is tremendously well done, and a reminder that good cinematic sound design is often defined by restrained use of total quiet. Oh, and the recurring use of foot-stomping, building up to maybe the film's best scene, is magnificent.
The film is admirably blunt about the moral contradictions of the story: this is not afraid to call out the unspeakable evil that is the use of the nuclear bomb (the film's biggest villain is almost certainly Harry S Truman), while also embracing the rush of scientific discovery and accomplishment. Of course, the film ultimately is very much in the 'existential dread' camp, but it certainly does get at the humanity behind these momentous and some might say apocalyptic decisions.
Murphy is of course great, as are most of the ensemble, even those who don't really have much time to do anything. I was almost inclined to say Emily Blunt is underused here, but she has one scene that's so good later on that you're inclined to almost retrospectively forgive Nolan for keeping her on the bench up to that point.
I can see some of the structural decisions turning people off. This is a long film that becomes almost a second film at the two-hour mark. It takes a while to settle back in, and an already talky film grows even talkier at that point. I think the destination is ultimately worth a somewhat jarring swerve to get there - but it's definitely a big ask at a point when some audience members may be thinking about when they'll get to pee. Also, Nolan doesn't always do subtle - there are moments here it's fair to say are very, very on the nose.
But overall, I liked it a whole lot - in many ways, the most accomplished and consistent film Nolan has made since a lot earlier in his career. It is, in some ways, an unusual fit for a summer blockbuster - there are a lot of close-ups of people talking in rooms here. But that stuff can look as good as any big action setpiece, and in a way it's refreshing to see Nolan use a big cinematic canvas to tell a story that shifts so seamlessly between the historically monumental and the brutal intimacy of the people making those decisions.
It has some pacing issues, and parts that sag in at times, but overall it was good. The acting of Murphy and Downey is on point. A bit of humor works wonders with Damon as the general as well.
And I realize most Americans can't point out The Netherlands on a map, but the language Murphy speaks in "Leiden" is anything but Dutch.
Bombastic, intense, emotional, educational and thought-provoking. With the medium of film in the past decade reduced to mere entertainment, Oppenheimer serves as an (imperfect) artistic statement which not only serves as an interesting chronicle of Oppenheimer's life, but also lays bare the (moral) dichotomies that came with Oppenheimer's creation.
The most Christopher Nolan movie ever made, because it's largely people explaining things, Oppenheimer is undoubtedly well-made, but probably too long. Two frame tales (to match each POV - Oppenheimer in color and Senator Strauss in black and white) that fuel a lot of early career stuff up front, and a lot of hearings in the back, couching the meat of the story - the Manhattan Project - in thematically interesting terms, sure, but also biographical detail that may or may not be required. There are 2 or 3 good movies in there, but they don't always play well with one another. To me, a biopic is successful if the film maker latches on to a theme, and according to that metric, Oppenheimer is good. The seemingly unnecessary explanation of quantum mechanics provides the key to the character, a man whose ambivalence is as paradoxical as his science. And so we can have a patriot who associates with enemies of the state, a science nerd who is also a womanizer, and most crucially, a man driven to create a weapon but conflicted about its use. Other characters' personal paradoxes are also exposed so that's really the artful point of the film. Other things, like shoehorning the famous Shiva quote, or a certain character's final testimony, are much less successful. On the actors' side - and there are practically no meaningful parts taken up by unknown faces - it's a great piece. Cillian Murphy is up to the challenge, Robert Downey Jr. is sure to get an Oscar nod (I mean, this is powerful Oscar bait all around), and I would watch Emily Blunt destroy a state prosecutor all day long. It's a quality film, but I don't think Nolan knows how to kill his darlings. So it's thematically appropriate that Oppenheimer can simultaneously be good AND frustrate me.
Quite intense for a largely narrative driven movie. The framing is a commonly used one, but it was necessary to find a way to give the audience the details in a well structured way.
The pacing was a bit flawed, but it's not a big deal breaker.
I was speechless leaving the theater. It was a somber walk to my car and the world felt quieter than when I went in despite it being later in the day with more activity. A really sobering movie.
It was tense and thrilling up through the Trinity test but grinds to a halt for the last hour.
They'd set up enough of what was happening I didn't need to see the intricacies of the two trials. I'm sure they would have been a lot more interesting in the book, but that level of detail wasn't well suited to film.
I honestly expected the movie was going to end after the speech in the gymnasium and I would have been completely OK with that. It's a really good movie but not quite great.
This movie requires devotion to conversations and intense attention. I can see the purpose of it - it's about Oppenheimer's life not just creating the bomb. But it still seemed too long although it was historical and interesting.
+ Nolan's intense music (Ludwig Göransson)
+ Cillian Murphy, Robert Downey Jr.
Amazing real life drama. Very impressive. 3 Hour real life drama that looks and sounds amazing. Top notch in all departments and what a cast. It's been a long time that i left the cinema with such a feeling.
The first 2hours and 15min are simply outstanding. Last 45min is great but can't keep it up,
It feels like he tried to fit a 4 or 4 hour movie into a tight 3 by cutting every opportunity for a moment to land. I felt like I was watching a YouTube cut on double speed. The constant cutting was just exhausting. No time to watch two characters cross a room, we'll just cut to them on the other side. Exhausting for 3 hours, I feel like it could've been a really great mini series
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 19
baraka92
The first 2 hours are probably the best stuff Nolan has ever done. A thrilling take on science (that oddly, feels very spiritual at times) and its dangerous potential. This is no Frankenstein. That’s the best part; it did happen and the threat won’t go away anytime soon.It leaves other sappy biopics like The Theory of Everything in the dust.
The last hour, isn’t bad and remains interesting but deals with topics that feel more mundane and less trascendental. Stuff that we’ve seen many times before. And what’s worse, it affects the pacing of the whole movie.
At least, it kinda recovers on the closing scene. Chilling!
I agree with critics that think Nolan still can’t write female characters (their point is utilitarian to the story) and it’s frustrating that this could be better and shorter, but overall, it remains an amazing achievement.
MrW
I find it hard to go back to some of Nolan's previous films these days, as I find some of his filmmaking quirks - particularly his propulsive editing style and fondness for brute-force loudness - to be frustrating and even exhausting. I think Dunkirk addressed some of that with its temporal trickery, but Tenet - perhaps his worst film for a plethora of reasons - was maybe the worst offender yet.Which is important context, as I think it's exactly that particular style - flaws and all - that makes Oppenheimer work. Indeed, a time-hopping biopic is if anything the perfect fit for Nolan's restless storytelling style. Here, it drives forward and jumps from scene to scene with relentless forward momentum, only really slowing down for some killer extended scenes where everything comes together or simmering tension is allowed to boil over and erupt. Matched with the clever choice to switch between black & white and colour to illustrate the film's two key perspectives, this feels like Nolan turning what has been a filmmaking weakness of his into a strength. The sparing use of expressionistic effects shot is also very well done - beautiful images often staying on screen for just a second as a note of emphasis or warning.
Ditto his tendency to 'go loud'. This is another film seemingly designed to blow the speakers off, but it does so in a much more elegant way. The dialogue is suitably snappy and speedy, the ideas allowed to overwhelm and overlap. Göransson's soundtrack builds and builds and builds, only for Nolan to suddenly drain sequences of sound completely. The interplay between noise and silence is tremendously well done, and a reminder that good cinematic sound design is often defined by restrained use of total quiet. Oh, and the recurring use of foot-stomping, building up to maybe the film's best scene, is magnificent.
The film is admirably blunt about the moral contradictions of the story: this is not afraid to call out the unspeakable evil that is the use of the nuclear bomb (the film's biggest villain is almost certainly Harry S Truman), while also embracing the rush of scientific discovery and accomplishment. Of course, the film ultimately is very much in the 'existential dread' camp, but it certainly does get at the humanity behind these momentous and some might say apocalyptic decisions.
Murphy is of course great, as are most of the ensemble, even those who don't really have much time to do anything. I was almost inclined to say Emily Blunt is underused here, but she has one scene that's so good later on that you're inclined to almost retrospectively forgive Nolan for keeping her on the bench up to that point.
I can see some of the structural decisions turning people off. This is a long film that becomes almost a second film at the two-hour mark. It takes a while to settle back in, and an already talky film grows even talkier at that point. I think the destination is ultimately worth a somewhat jarring swerve to get there - but it's definitely a big ask at a point when some audience members may be thinking about when they'll get to pee. Also, Nolan doesn't always do subtle - there are moments here it's fair to say are very, very on the nose.
But overall, I liked it a whole lot - in many ways, the most accomplished and consistent film Nolan has made since a lot earlier in his career. It is, in some ways, an unusual fit for a summer blockbuster - there are a lot of close-ups of people talking in rooms here. But that stuff can look as good as any big action setpiece, and in a way it's refreshing to see Nolan use a big cinematic canvas to tell a story that shifts so seamlessly between the historically monumental and the brutal intimacy of the people making those decisions.
MetaBull
It has some pacing issues, and parts that sag in at times, but overall it was good. The acting of Murphy and Downey is on point. A bit of humor works wonders with Damon as the general as well.And I realize most Americans can't point out The Netherlands on a map, but the language Murphy speaks in "Leiden" is anything but Dutch.
mrjellow
Bombastic, intense, emotional, educational and thought-provoking. With the medium of film in the past decade reduced to mere entertainment, Oppenheimer serves as an (imperfect) artistic statement which not only serves as an interesting chronicle of Oppenheimer's life, but also lays bare the (moral) dichotomies that came with Oppenheimer's creation.Siskoid
The most Christopher Nolan movie ever made, because it's largely people explaining things, Oppenheimer is undoubtedly well-made, but probably too long. Two frame tales (to match each POV - Oppenheimer in color and Senator Strauss in black and white) that fuel a lot of early career stuff up front, and a lot of hearings in the back, couching the meat of the story - the Manhattan Project - in thematically interesting terms, sure, but also biographical detail that may or may not be required. There are 2 or 3 good movies in there, but they don't always play well with one another. To me, a biopic is successful if the film maker latches on to a theme, and according to that metric, Oppenheimer is good. The seemingly unnecessary explanation of quantum mechanics provides the key to the character, a man whose ambivalence is as paradoxical as his science. And so we can have a patriot who associates with enemies of the state, a science nerd who is also a womanizer, and most crucially, a man driven to create a weapon but conflicted about its use. Other characters' personal paradoxes are also exposed so that's really the artful point of the film. Other things, like shoehorning the famous Shiva quote, or a certain character's final testimony, are much less successful. On the actors' side - and there are practically no meaningful parts taken up by unknown faces - it's a great piece. Cillian Murphy is up to the challenge, Robert Downey Jr. is sure to get an Oscar nod (I mean, this is powerful Oscar bait all around), and I would watch Emily Blunt destroy a state prosecutor all day long. It's a quality film, but I don't think Nolan knows how to kill his darlings. So it's thematically appropriate that Oppenheimer can simultaneously be good AND frustrate me.totavo
Quite intense for a largely narrative driven movie. The framing is a commonly used one, but it was necessary to find a way to give the audience the details in a well structured way.The pacing was a bit flawed, but it's not a big deal breaker.
I was speechless leaving the theater. It was a somber walk to my car and the world felt quieter than when I went in despite it being later in the day with more activity. A really sobering movie.
chunkylefunga
Expected more from Nolan.Just above average.
Caerus
It was tense and thrilling up through the Trinity test but grinds to a halt for the last hour.They'd set up enough of what was happening I didn't need to see the intricacies of the two trials. I'm sure they would have been a lot more interesting in the book, but that level of detail wasn't well suited to film.
I honestly expected the movie was going to end after the speech in the gymnasium and I would have been completely OK with that. It's a really good movie but not quite great.
CodeV
This movie requires devotion to conversations and intense attention. I can see the purpose of it - it's about Oppenheimer's life not just creating the bomb. But it still seemed too long although it was historical and interesting.+ Nolan's intense music (Ludwig Göransson)
+ Cillian Murphy, Robert Downey Jr.
Earring72
Amazing real life drama. Very impressive. 3 Hour real life drama that looks and sounds amazing. Top notch in all departments and what a cast. It's been a long time that i left the cinema with such a feeling.The first 2hours and 15min are simply outstanding. Last 45min is great but can't keep it up,
Terrific movie and a classic!
maarow
A generally effective movie about important things. It would be a pretty safe (and boring) choice for Best Picture, but I'm pulling for Poor Things.goellnerd
It feels like he tried to fit a 4 or 4 hour movie into a tight 3 by cutting every opportunity for a moment to land. I felt like I was watching a YouTube cut on double speed. The constant cutting was just exhausting. No time to watch two characters cross a room, we'll just cut to them on the other side. Exhausting for 3 hours, I feel like it could've been a really great mini serieselcid
Not bad at all. I didn't even notice the 3 hours length.AlexFerrero
2 hours long and it was the best movie in 2023. They ruined it.boulderman
Detailed, long, loud and dramatic. Too long and the loudness was in Tenet and The Dark Knight Rises. The latter had a similar best line:"How are you keeping the security safe"
"You're not there". Similar to the Bain line
Showing items 1 – 15 of 19