Oppenheimer Reviews

OPPENHEIMER is...incredible. The word that keeps coming to mind is "fearsome." A relentlessly paced, insanely detailed, intricate historical drama that builds and builds and builds until Nolan brings the hammer down in the most astonishing, shattering way.

Christopher Nolan’s #Oppenheimer is truly a spectacular achievement, in its truthful, concise adaptation, inventive storytelling and nuanced performances from Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Robert Downey Jr., Matt Damon and the many, many others involved —- some just for a scene.

#OPPENHEIMER may be Nolan's masterpiece. A chilling, galvanizing spectacle anchored by astounding performances. Cillian Murphy transforms into the destroyer of worlds while Matt Damon's Dick Shitless brings charming levity. This is a *movie* movie and a definite Oscar contender

Totally absorbed in OPPENHEIMER, a dense, talkie, tense film partly about the bomb, mostly about how doomed we are. Happy summer! Murphy is good, but the support essential: Damon, Downey Jr & Ehrenreich even bring gags. An audacious, inventive, complex film to rattle its audience

#Oppenheimer Review: CHRISTOPHER NOLAN’S MASTERPIECE. A bold, tragic look inside humanity’s darkest hour. Riveting, world-class performances & breathtaking imagery that blows a load of emotion inside you. Not just another biopic, it’s the best historical movie ever! A fitting end

Am torn between being all coy and mysterious about Oppenheimer and just coming out and saying it’s a total knockout that split my brain open like a twitchy plutonium nucleus and left me sobbing through the end credits like I can’t even remember what else.

Writing for The Los Angeles Times, former critic Kenneth Turan hailed “Oppenheimer” as “arguably Nolan’s most impressive work yet in the way it combines his acknowledged visual mastery with one of the deepest character dives in recent American cinema.”

I’ll see this on streaming but I’ll go see Barbie in the theater.

They said the same thing about Dunkirk and that was an utter bore.

Matt Damon's delivery is terrible in that short trailer I just watched

Nolan should make commercials for watches and stuff like that

#Oppenheimer is staggering in every sense of the word. Might sound nuts to say this about a Chris Nolan movie that isn't INCEPTION, DUNKIRK, or even TENET, but this could be his most formally daring work yet. Sharp script, impeccable sound design, and Cillian Murphy is a *force*

#ChristopherNolan's #Oppenheimer is incredible. Every aspect of the film is worth talking about from the brilliant performances, to #HoytevanHoytema's amazing work behind the camera, to the way Nolan tells the story. The 3 hour run time flies by. See it in @IMAX 70mm if you can.

I'm absolutely seeing this movie again in IMAX 70mm because it demands another viewing. ABSOLUTELY needs to be seen on a movie screen.

The PAYOLA going on in these reviews is ridiculous.

[QUOTE] Totally absorbed in OPPENHEIMER, a dense, talkie,

Dense and talkie = B O R I N G

I don't understand how anyone could have found Dunkirk boring.

Mrs. Fowler, you couldn't even keep your husband from cheating on you, so your taste is suspect.

Absolutely loved #Oppenheimer. It manages to remain so intimate and yet it feels like the biggest story ever told. Shades of Kubrick’s Paths of Glory. Nolan, like his protagonist, doesn’t believe in conventional thinking - and aren’t we lucky. Proper cinema.

To say that #Oppenheimer is the greatest film of the year is an insulting understatement to the unfettered, majestic genius of Christopher Nolan, who has shaped a stupendous saga around humanity’s darkest hour, bolstered by a once-in-a-lifetime cast headed by celebrated thespian Cillian Murphy. The audience going into this film is akin to an unassuming twink paired for a gritty scene with Rocco Steele: this movie, like the events it portrays, is bigger and uglier than you can prepare yourself for, and once it enters you, you will emerge dazed, possibly damaged, and most certainly permanently changed on the interior. Five stars. See it today.

see offsite link on Twitter.com

OPPENHEIMER is one of if not Nolan’s best work. And that comes from a huge Nolan admirer. I’ve see it twice. Impeccable immersive filmmaking of the highest order. Cillian Murphy gets the role he deserves. In love with Downey’s work. This one demands your attention.

#Oppenheimer is my film of the year.

Christopher Nolan makes 3 hours fly in stunning form. Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey Jr. are incredibly strong.

The story is chilling in the tragic sense of World War II’s lack of humanity and on intimate human levels.

Stunning and scary.

#Oppenheimer is powerful stuff. Cillian Murphy’s flawless awards worthy performance is next level. Every player in this rich ensemble cast is at the top of their game. Christopher Nolan’s haunting opus is remarkable and Hoyte van Hoytema‘s execution of his vision is breathtaking.

There’s no fat on #Oppenheimer at all. It’s a long one but the pace of the rich narrative is perfect. It’s hard to single people out but Downey Jr. and Ehrenreich are insanely good and pure alchemy together. The sound and production design, as well as the score, are impeccable.

Christopher Nolan’s #Oppenheimer is fantastic - big & bold w/ electrifying performances & an incredibly visceral pacing to it. It’s both quietly intimate & also a ferocious moviegoing experience at the same time. See it in IMAX 70mm & it’ll be among your favorite watches of 2023

It speaks to the state of the country when "Barbie" is the movie to see, and "Oppenheimer" is on the back burner until it streams.

Sort of like fantasy trumps history.

A sign that French audiences loved #Oppenheimer is that they stayed in front of the Grand Rex theater long after the film ended to debate about it!

Stunning, shattering, obliterating. Nolan’s masterpiece leaves the viewer unnerved, awed, even numbed by the potential of the human mind to create in order to utterly destroy. The melding of humanity, technology, and possible annihilation into a narrative so powerful has not been in over thirty years, since the seminal science fiction series Small Wonder, with the android VICI as a similar, potentially existential threat to humankind as Oppenheimer’s bomb. This movie is almost, if not just as brilliant as its Small Wonder forerunner. You don’t just watch this film; you bleed it. Relish the wound.

see offsite link on Twitter.com

Very clever R26 but if you were REALLY clever you would have managed to work in something about how the young actresses’s budding breasts prompted the cancellation of the show and relate that to nuclear war.

Oppenheimer made me want to schtup the screen.

When will the Broadway musical open??!! Christian Borle IS Robert Oppenheimer!!!

"tick tick...BOOM" is taken!

R3 I agree will it be a contender AND will win best picture….

Potential Oscar juggernaut

Do not be surprised if it duplicates Ben Hur’s wins exactly

Cillian is a shoe-in and the Academy would love to give an Oscar to RDJ

Ben Hur won picture, director, actor, supporting actor, cinematography (color), set decoration (color), costume design (color), film editing, score, sound and special effects

Additionally there is one more category it could take to make a record 12: makeup

There’s also Screenplay but that tends to be a bridesmaid category

Is there a trans woman of color in this? Or even a disabled Asian? If not, it may not be eligible for Best Picture under the new guidelines.

Ugh. A movie about the worst invention in the history of the world should not win Best Picture. It ain't fittin'.

You do realize the movie is does not PRAISE the bomb, right?

Did you also think Schindler’s List endorsed the Holocaust?

I don’t get other people.

[quote]The PAYOLA going on in these reviews is ridiculous.

I hope the movie is good (though a movie about the making of a nuclear bomb doesn't sound like the feel good entertainment I need about now), but none of these people would ever be invited back if they didn't gush all over the movie - whatever the movie was. I saw some Variety article quoting MTV's Josh Horowitz, who is biggest fangurl that ever fangurled - really, we're supposed to take this guy's word for it? If Brad Pitt took a shit on the street, Josh would be waxing on about how it smelled like roses and tasted as sweet as candy

MSNBC ran a documentary on Oppenheimer last week called TO END ALL WAR. It was excellent - chock full of archival film, very well done. It's streaming everywhere -

Embargo is down

“Oppenheimer has the temerity to be a drama of ideas staged on a massive scale, at a time when such things are out of vogue. Maybe Oppenheimer will be the force that finally sets off a chain reaction in Hollywood, ushering back in the kind of serious, director-driven studio fare that defined a past industry epoch. Or, it will be but a lone burst of light. No matter its broader effect, Oppenheimer is a mainstream offering of uncommon resonance, sending the viewer out of the theater head-spun and itchy-eyed, ears ringing from all its sophisticated, voluble explosion.”

“This is a big, ballsy, serious-minded cinematic event of a type now virtually extinct from the studios. It fully embraces the contradictions of an intellectual giant who was also a deeply flawed man, his legacy complicated by his own ambivalence toward the breakthrough achievement that secured his place in the history books.”

“Oppenheimer deserves the title of masterpiece. It’s Christopher Nolan’s best film so far, a step up to a new level for one of our finest filmmakers, and a movie that burns itself into your brain.”

Seeing Damon and his schtick in the trailer just takes me right out of the film. I actually like him and find him watchable in many films, but a period piece like this?

96 with 50 reviews

“Christopher Nolan’s three-hour historical biopic “Oppenheimer” is a gorgeously photographed, brilliantly acted, masterfully edited and thoroughly engrossing epic that instantly takes its place among the finest films of this decade — an old-fashioned yet cutting-edge work that should resonate with film scholars and popcorn-toting mainstream movie lovers for years and decades to come. At the risk of sounding like Nicole Kidman: This is why we still go to the cinema, to settle into our seats and slip into the darkness when the lights go down, to immerse ourselves in visual and aural storytelling at its finest. From the moment the closing credits begin to roll, we’re already looking forward to the next time we see “Oppenheimer.”

Oh my God the New York Post loved it

The Post!

“Director Christopher Nolan’s seismic “Oppenheimer” is that rarest of things: a sophisticated and bracing movie that’s made for adults and makes nobody say, “I’ll wait till it’s on streaming.” See it in IMAX on 70-millimeter film — you’ll be very glad you did. Many unbelievable scenes fill the entire screen.”

Now that I think of it, though, maybe Damon's casting was purposeful a la Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove - a statement on the absurdity of the situation.

I just hope Matt Damon gets no awards attention, can't stand that mansplaining turd

“It’s a complex character study-cum-history lesson which recognizes that our greatest accomplishments can also be our doom, violently shaking the world in explosions of dazzling light and cacophonous sound (or eerie silence) that leave behind charred bodies, tattered reputations, unappeasable bitterness, and tormented psyches. It's the creation myth of our contemporary age, begat in eruptions of 10,000-foot-tall pillars of fire that swallow the past and engulf us with dreadful ferocity. “A terrible revelation of divine power” is how Oppenheimer describes his paradigm-shifting weapon of mass destruction, and he might as well be speaking about Oppenheimer itself. This is surely the finest and most inspired film of Nolan’s career, not to mention 2023’s best.”

Oh, Damon will get one. The list of Oscar nominations will definitely include Cillian Murphy, Christopher Nolan, Robert Downey, Jr. Emily Blount, and Matt Damon. We know Leo will get a nomination for Killers of the Flower Moon, and so will Scorcese. The same for a couple of the Native American actors. And let's not forget Robert De Niro. Definitely. You know Joaquin Phoenix is getting one for Napoleon. Hell, Ridley might even get one.

““Oppenheimer,” Christopher Nolan’s staggering film about J. Robert Oppenheimer, the man known as “the father of the atomic bomb,” condenses a titanic shift in consciousness into three haunted hours. A drama about genius, hubris and error, both individual and collective, it brilliantly charts the turbulent life of the American theoretical physicist who helped research and develop the two atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II — cataclysms that helped usher in our human-dominated age.”

Nolan is right up there with the greatest now. You can say his name with the best. I'm glad he made this. Think about it. It could have been a Spielberg project. Jesus ,can you imagine?

Too soon to call it a classic

This could be a potential 15 Oscar nominations (record is 14 shared by All About Eve, Titanic and LaLa Land). That’s assuming one nomination for each category where it seems to be a shoe-in (excluding only Lead Actress and Original Song).

The question is whether it can get multiples in Supporting, it could potentially take it to 17 nominations with Blunt and Pugh in Supporting Actress and Downey and another in Supporting Actor.

This whole post is SPAM! Paid propaganda over and over.

DL should shun this type of thread here. Why is Muriel allowing shameless advertising?

[quote]Why is Muriel allowing shameless advertising?

Because they fucking pay me.

Anything else I can help you with, asshole?

[quote]Seeing Damon and his schtick in the trailer just takes me right out of the film. I actually like him and find him watchable in many films, but a period piece like this?

I was thinking the same thing - I saw his canned ham of a face show up & it just turned me off; DL has really turned me against Damon

But will Tom Conti get a nomination for his Albert Einstein?

“As a filmmaker at the height of his powers, Nolan has used those prodigious skills, not simply to amaze or spectacularize, but to plunge the audience into a chapter of history that might feel ancient, as he reminds us, but happened just yesterday. By making that story so beautiful, so elegantly crafted and compulsively watchable, he has brought to life not just J. Robert Oppenheimer, but the still-crucial arguments he both started and tried to end. “Oppenheimer” boldly posits that those arguments are still worth having, in a film of magnitude, profundity and dazzling artistry.”

The last big movie before all the theaters are shuttered again because of the strikes. After barely surviving the pandemic, these strikes will be the death of movie theaters.

The last big movie before all the theaters are shuttered again because of the strikes. After barely surviving the pandemic, these strikes will be the death of movie theaters.

The person Matt Damon plays, Leslie Groves, actually does look like how Damon looks in the movie

[quote] A bold, tragic look inside humanity’s darkest hour.

Reads like a college sophomore's overwrought eloquence. Plainly somebody who never heard of the Black Death, the Rape of Nanking, World War One trench warfare, Unit 731, or the Final Solution.

Could it potentially get three acting nominations in Supporting? That has happened three times before: On the Waterfront, The Godfather and Godfather II.

I hope it's better than "Mank," which, in spite of the endless hype and nominations, was a real turkey.

R61 sorry to burst your grief Nazi bubble, but the creation of the atomic bomb is pretty universally agreed upon as the most significant development in the history of warfare.

I mean, even the aliens heard about it. 👽

It's not going to get all those fucking Oscar nominations, the only two performances singled out for praise are Ironman and the Irish guy with the big knob

Wrong, R65, it will ride the hype and pick up some technical nominations too. I don't know if it's eligible, but the movie "Air" that's streaming on Amazon Prime stars Matt Damon, Viola Davis, and Ben Affleck, who directed it. It's a feel good movie, and not nearly as well made as other Affleck movies. Looks like more of a made for TV movie. Very low budget. But Matt Damon and Jason Bateman gave two amazing performances. Damon carried that movie and the dialogue was excellent, too.

Has Lynn Stairmaster weighed in yet?

“The bomb will get nominated in supporting - believe you me!”

Dunkirk is my favorite Nolan film; aside from Memento, I found it to be the most grounded and captivating of his ouevure. I find high-concept films like Inception to be insipid and boring. I'm very much looking forward to Oppenheimer, sex-scenes and all.

Does the "Democrats cause war and bombed the Japs" message come through?

The user reviews on IMDB are all over the place. Some say it's a masterpiece and some say it's three long hours of your life you'll never get back.

Technically the Deplorables would be jealous that a Democratic President bombed Japan.

You make a lot of Deploreable jokes but I don’t think you actually understand them.

Nolan is Conservative and trying to make the point about how evil "The Dems" are.

r71

This movie will be an also-ran like that story about the gay rancher and the lanky nephew-in-law

R73 = white Boomer, never graduated college, was raised religious, substituted partisan politics for religion out of homosexual expediency. May have joined a cult at one point in life. Assumes Andrew Jackson was a good guy because he was a Democrat, thinks Oswald killed JFK, believes the Vietnam War was a worthwhile cause, will argue to the death that DADT and the Defense of Marriage Act were acceptable compromises.

r16 Dunkur was a WWII movie with next to no action. It was a snooze. Noland was also jerking himself off when he insisted on minimal CGI. Well bitch, I'd rather have CGI than a boring WWII movie.

I'm equally excited to see Oppenheimer. Don't know who that guy is, but if he helped build us the bomb then 'Thank you!' Better the US get it first over those hateful Russians. I'll see it, but I feel like it's yet another movie where we know that happends. Race against time, the good guys end up with the bomb (America). We blow a few holes in Japan. Maker feels remorse. World is nuked up, blah, blah, blah, "What have I done!"

Excited to see it, but we know how this is gonna go.

Nolan has only made a couple of outstanding movies

Once again, Nolan has poorly developed female characters. I guess that's why straight men love his loud ugly movies.

It has overwhelmingly positive reviews. Director/Screenwriter Paul Schrader said it was the best film of the Century (the last 23 years.).

But even with the best projects, there is always at least a little bit of hate. WHERE IS THE HATE?

Here it is:

[quote] A misfire for Nolan. Too talky & like many of his films, lacks emotion. The story is hard to follow and unfair to history. But the film looks good with some good performances even if most of the characters are unlikable. Also, not a good use of IMAX.

[quote] My patience wore thin as the director gave into one of his favorite indulgences: a bleeding soundscape.

[quote] While Oppenheimer does feature a few truly brilliant moments, they are often overshadowed by the excesses of the narrative, ultimately resulting in a rather tedious viewing experience.

[quote] Where the style is far less effective, it browbeats the audience into submission with little substance behind it.

[quote] Making a bomb that kills a lot of people and probably keeps one up at night. Yeah, I bet. I’m not sure the movie is saying much more than that and, at three hours long, even though the editing and narrative style keeps it moving, it gets to be redundant.

I was settled in to watch "Dunkirk" at the movies when it came out, but during the opening minutes I was greeted with the sight of some little twink lowering his breeches to take a shite on the beach! Not a piece of toilet roll in sight. I was speechless.

Needless to say I got straight up and marched out. I swore if never trust this 'director' again.

[quote] Don't know who that guy is, but if he helped build us the bomb then 'Thank you!' Better the US get it first over those hateful Russians.

Under Oppie's benevolent gaze every scrap of useful research was passed to the Russians, because it just wasn't 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳 the US and British alone would have the bomb. Using this Beria's Gulag slave scientists built the first Soviet bomb which was a one to one duplicate of the Nagasaki "Fat Man".

I saw Inception in the cinema during the pandemic, I think it was summer 2020, before they did the Tenet release. In the UK they re-released this and Goodfellas (which I also went to see) because there were really no other films on release. The cinemas tried this for about a month.

I just laughed my ass off during Inception. It was so preposterous, I was giddy with laughter during the last hour where it took that bus an hour to fall off that bridge. Jesus, that was stupid. While we cut back and forth to footage that wouldn’t have looked out of place in a 1970s Bond film. It was so dumb and pretentious.

So, Christopher Nolan, no. No, thank you. I saw a clip of this on tv and just the overbearing score was enough. Don’t think so.

Cillian Murphy is a FMD

I Didn't like Tenet at all. Not a fan of Inception. But otherwise I like Nolan a lot.

Inshepshion.

I heard it bombed in Japan.

[quote] It’s a complex character study-cum-history lesson

Nuclear war and the history of cum? Talk about explosive!

The early reviewers seem to love it. Of course these are Nolan fans who had reserved seats 4 months ago so it makes sense that they would love it and give it a 10 across the board. The criticism that you find throughout has to do with its length, its coldness and the lack of a big moment.

The marketing people deserve all kinds of kudos. I'm not saying this movie isn't good. I believe it will be spectacular. But there have been many well made "important" movies that were not successful because they had no marketing budget or were poorly marketed. This movie is really well promoted.

^I would agree; the thought of a movie about the making of the bomb to end all bombs doesn't sound like a winning subject in these troubled times, but the long slow shots of Murphy in his hat sort of makes it look it's a story about "Peaky Blinders Goes Atomic" (or something like that)

Based on what I've read here and elsewhere - my impressions after watching: Cillian Murphy deserves every award that undoubtedly will come his way for this. RDJ underwhelmed me, have seen him better. LOVED David Krumholtz, Josh Hartnett, even Matt Damon convinced me. Nolan simply can not write women and I can only guess what the typical Nolan audience thinks of them. The score has no Hans Zimmer quality whatsoever and is quite goody.

Josh Hartnett now looks like a fourth Hemsworth.

I just saw this. Absolutely legendary performance by Cillian Murphy. Downey Jr I also agree with above, while he’s very good I wasn’t blown away.

It’s a fascinating film. The best way I can describe it is having the themes of Lawrence of Arabia and Gandhi, but written by Aaron Sorkin and shot by Ingmar Bergman’s cinematographer Sven Nykvist. I saw this in IMAX 70 mm and all the closeups of the faces on the giant screen give the movie a surreal feel. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an IMAX film shot like this.

Mesmerizing score, this one is going to be up there with Vangelis’s Blade Runner score as the soundtrack to get high to.

The narrative is astonishingly smooth and well constructed until the bomb detonation. It does become more fragmented and hard to follow with the HUAC hearings and loses momentum as it barrels through the third hour. I think 10-15 minutes could have been trimmed.

I will need to watch it again to pick up some of the threads. There’s a lot of stuff covered.

[quote] The narrative is astonishingly smooth and well constructed until the bomb detonation.

Can I respectfully ask that people not post spoilers here?

The other movie that this brought to mind was “Reds”. But without the love story. It has a lot of the same issues as nonfiction biopics like “Reds” and “The Right Stuff” with pacing, because biopics never have a nice three act narrative.

But my God what a performance by Cillian Murphy. Go see it for Murphy’s performance if anything.

I watched Oppenheimer the 1981 documentary on the Criterion Channel last night and found the story fascinating while told in 90 minutes or so. I can't imagine holding my pee for 3 hours to watch another one of Nolan's self-indulgent visions.

Decidedly no Nolan-fan here. Watched the movie yesterday in cinema and it is actually good, for a Nolan. Little to no self-indulgence there.

Writer having his " Ariel moment."

For Gods sake

Newsweek is not a legitimate news organization anymore

They write clickbait for the Chinese Communist Party

R96 what was the quality of the cock on display please? Was it just Cillian nude?

Cillian already showed his cock in 28 Days Later.

No cock in Oppenheimer.

Another writer responds:

[quote]The narrative is astonishingly smooth and well constructed until the bomb detonation.

I though the bomb detonation happened with the release of the last Indiana Jones film.

[quote] No cock in Oppenheimer.

He probably wanted to avoid the "Little Boy" remarks

In New Mexico, they are not very happy...

"Tomorrow, millions of people will flock to see Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer. New Mexico was chosen for its uninhabited space, however, nearly half a million people were horribly affected. Generations of New Mexicans later, thousands of victims and their family members continue to face serious, sometimes deadly health complications.

[quote]It’s the sad truth that too many have died from the radioactive fallout from these decades-old tests. And I’ll be very candid, I’m worried folks aren’t really focused on the negative consequences of the Oppenheimer nuclear tests. It’s critical to note 78 years after the nuclear tests this movie centers on, New Mexico continues to face collateral damage from the Trinity Test site.

Well, that worked.

I saw it this afternoon.

Fascinating, tedious, thrilling, laggy, edge-of-your seat, thoughtful, talky and about 15 minutes too long.

"Oppenheimer" is impressive.

Still, even though our sound system on the Super Screen DLX screen and audio was loud, I, and my boyfriend, still had trouble clearly hearing and understanding all of the dialog.

And, boy, is there ever plenty of dialog.

But, we managed to keep up. Be prepared, however, to put real effort into concentrating on listening and watching.

And, I might get flamed for observing this, but, if the two women in his life were depicted at least somewhat accurately in this film, I'll just say Oppenheimer had a taste for, if not a fetish for, brooding, unhappy, downbeat women.

Our showing piled on the preview trailers, of course. The new "The Exorcist" and another horror movie trailer were among them.

I bring up those particular trailers because, at least for me, the testing of the bomb scene in "Oppenheimer" is so suspenseful, fraught, nerve-wracking and, yes, horrifying, in a real-life and real-death kinda way, it made me feel silly about the fear I felt watching that stupid "The Exorcist" trailer.

I took away from "Oppenheimer" that it ain't Satan, God, Ghosts, Goblins, Zombies, Angels, or Vampires that are scary.

Plain old human beings are what are truly horrifying.

Speaking of vampires, Gary Oldman’s portrayal of Harry Truman might be the most terrifying portrayal of an American President ever seen onscreen.

Going to the movies is so expensive nowadays, and I don't subscribe to any streaming services. I know I'm missing a lot, but it doesn't bother me and I don't care. I've got MSNBC, and that's all that matters to me.

So why are you posting here? WTF is wrong with people.

Thank you, r109!

For the life of me, I knew I recognized the actor playing Truman, but the make-up and performance got in the way of me identifying him as Oldman.

Ever since that best-selling biography of Truman came out a couple of decades ago, Truman has many, many admirers. I'd be curious to know some of their reactions to this portrayal of him.

And, just as with Robert Altman's "The Player" there is an aspect of, "Oh. That's Tony Goldwyn. Oh. that's Rami Malek" and so on.

Geez, r110. scrape together the cost of a matinee showing and comeback and contribute.

[quote]Mesmerizing score, this one is going to be up there with Vangelis’s Blade Runner score as the soundtrack to get high to.

Just added it to Amazon music playlist. It really is good.

The takeaway is that President Truman, a Democrat, was evil.

More Nolan propaganda.

R115 I wouldn't say he's portrayed as evil. I see him more in the vein of narcissism, an overall theme of the movie.

No interest in QAnon movies from Nolan.

Please describe the nudity we were promised!

R118 Apart from a sex scene Cillian Murphy is sitting fully nude in an armchair, hands in front of crotch.

Even shows at 9AM are pretty much sold out for Oppenheimer. This Barbenheimer campaign really worked even though you think they've never heard of counter programming before.

R120.

R119 what? No big cock exposed?!

How could Cillian Murphy go fully naked when he plays a jewish man?

Trolls have landed here.

[quote]No interest in QAnon movies from Nolan.

Then perhaps I can interest you in mine?

[quote] Oppenheimer had a taste for, if not a fetish for, brooding, unhappy, downbeat women.

The female communist/socialist types always tended to be rather grim

If you hate all things woke and want a film about and for white men, this film is for you.

Considering this is the most sympathetic Hollywood film toward the American Left since Reds, you may want to reconsider that position.

[quote] and want a film about and for white men

Yes we already hate Nolan for erasing all the women and tranny POCs at Dunkirk

Just started watching the series Manhattan from 2014 (recommended by an entertainment writer as an Oppenheimer-adjacent show), and so far it’s pretty good. Stars Nate from Succession and a pre-Mrs Maisel Rachel Brosnahan.

A feminist academic has slammed the new Oppenheimer movie after claiming that no women speak until 20 minutes into the movie.

The film, which explores physicist the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, who created the atomic bomb, was released this weekend to rave reviews.

On Twitter, Dr Tanya Roth criticized the film for it's lack of female representation within the first twenty minutes.

On Friday, the expert on woman's history, said: 'Fun fact: no women speak until 20 minutes into Oppenheimer and then within a minute there’s a sex scene.'

She also followed this up with: 'To add to this: no people of color appear for at least 30 minutes, and I believe there are 2 black men in the entire movie.'

------------------

At least they could have had Morgan Freeman play Harry Truman

Is Nolan a conservative? I know Gary Oldman is.

R131 An idiotic statement by a feminist fundamentalist. She's probably still angry that there are no Black people in Titanic.

Sorry, wrong thread.

MANHATTAN was a very good series.

Any mention of genius mathematician John Von Neumann, who also participated in The Manhattan project?

R131 she sounds like stupid cunt who has to make everything about identity politics. Perhaps she wanted a transgender person of colour to play the lead?

R132: I believe he is. He was on Fox with Brian Kilmeade last night.

Look. Truman is the man who decided to use the bomb. He wanted to end the war. He tried to play it off in his "Missouri" way that He made the decision and had no reservations about it. So when Oppenheimer starts trying to talk about it with him, trying to focus on the dangers and advocated for an international Nuclear Energy Commission, Truman got pissed off called him a cry baby. IMO Truman was defensive3. However. Also operating was a cabal of military types and members of Congress who did not want to be handcuffed to an international commission.

My personal opinion of the movie, over all it was brilliant. However...IMO it was over orchestrated at times and I found the soundtrack intrusive. The actors were brilliant. The dialogue was great, and then all this throbbing bullshit sort of undermined the actors' efforts. No all the time but several times I can think of. They need to dial it back. Robert Downey, Jr. Emily Blunt, and Cillian Murphey for Oscars. Definitely.

Seeing it next week. Those who have seen it: Is it worth going out of your way to see it in iMax?

I was surprised to be so creeped out by Oldman's portrayal of Truman. It took me a while to realize it was Oldman who really can dial up the creep factor. I wonder how much his performance bears resemblance to Truman IRL. He always had the grandfatherly aura about him.

aaaR140, I don't think you need I Max. I saw it on a regular screen and it was f antastic.

When we saw the trailers before the movie started they were all teen horror movies.

Well, it’s no Barbie!

Nolan cast several problematic actors (Casey Affleck and Gary Oldman) in Oppenheimer. Creep.

I didn't see it in imax, r140 and didn't miss it.

Oldman was in his Batman movies. Don't know WTF Casey Affleck was doing.

R139 An “intrusive soundtrack” is a movie-ruiner for me, so now I’m reluctant to see it in the theater.

I didn't like the soundtrack, but I didn't find intrusive in the sense that it was annoying, grating, or still running in my head hours later. As a matter of fact, I can't remember it a day later. I found it way, way overused to underscore points, themes and tension over and over. There were points where I was "Oh, no. Not again."

Funny, I am usually highly sensitive to score and soundtracks, but I didn't mind it at all. Great score, not intrusive to my ears.

R145 he cast them both in asshole-roles if that is any help.

Dull as shit until the last hour. Random events pop up out of nowhere. The connections are hard to grasp. Non-linearity should make connections even clearer, but it does not.

Visually every shot is carefully composed, but little in the framing or editing is significant. The film is more concerned with effect than meaning.

The music often drowns out dialog in the first two hours which is usually a sign that the production team knows the script is weak.

But the last hour is really wonderful. And when the actors actually get to play a scene rather than a fragment of one, they do amazing things.

I have a feeling this might be better to watch at home streaming. At home you will be able to stop the film to do an internet search to find out the connections between characters and events that the film studiously avoids making clear.

"The film is more concerned with effect than meaning." / "The music often drowns out dialog in the first two hours which is usually a sign that the production team knows the script is weak." You just described basically every Nolan-movie.

Does anyone sing?

[quote] Is it worth going out of your way to see it in iMax?

I saw it in 70mm and the image looked astounding but it's not a movie with great vistas or spectacular special effects so I can't imagine what could be gained by going out of your way to see it in IMAX. Also, if you are going to an IMAX screen make sure it's IMAX 70mm, not Digital IMAX. I would encourage you to see it in 70 if you can.

I saw this in 70mm IMAX and then in Regal RPX. The Regal RPX actually had better sound than the 70mm IMAX theater and I thought that sound was actually a much bigger component for effectiveness than the size of the screen.

But they didn't need all that dramatic throbbing to underscore dialogue in certain scenes. I remember one scene in particular, when Oppy is in a verbal fencing match with Jason Clark's character in that hearing room, and the music actually drowned out the dialogue. I was straining to follow it. I will say this. The movie went fast for me. It did not drag. I Really really enjoyed it inspite of thoses moments.

Three hours went by very quickly. I knew the story, but the movie was compelling. Great performances.

Excellent film that will likely get a lot of awards attention. Cillian Murphy was impressive, but Emily Blunt nearly walked away with the entire film. Robert Downey Jr. was just OK.

The biggest problem was the breakneck pacing. The film races from scene to scene and throws so much information at you, it becomes overwhelming at times. Nolan also seemed to write the film presuming the audience already has some knowledge of Oppenheimer's life and the development of the atomic bomb.

The Trinity test sequence was intense and beautiful in a horrifying way, but it wasn't quite the showstopper moment it needed to be. It kind of fell flat.

I loved the Kodachrome look of the cinematography. Every shot looked like it was shot in the 1940's. This movie really shows the difference between shooting in 70mm and digital. There's just no comparison.

I recommend watching The Day After Trinity. It is a documentary about Oppenheimer and you get a much better sense of him and the personalities in play. The scientists at Los Alamos are fascinating and the stories about them are great. You wish that Oppenheimer had been more interested in character.

Also, it is much more emotional than Oppenheimer. You get the joy and fun of their time at Los Alamos, the thrill of succeeding, then the last half hour is heartbreaking as they all face disillusionment afterwards.

Much more emotionally involving than Oppenheimer.

[quote] The scientists at Los Alamos are fascinating and the stories about them are great. You wish that Oppenheimer had been more interested in character.

Especially regarding the Communist spies within the program giving Stalin's nuclear project run by NKVD Chief Lavrentiy Beria every single detail of American/British nuclear research.

I second R161. The Day After Trinity which I just watched this week on the Criterion Channel is a much more emotional watch than Oppenheimer and a perfect choice before you see the movie.

Thanks for The Day After Trinity recommendations. I was so swamped and lost in the dialogue. I actually wear hearing aids (a new addition) and was afraid of being blasted with too much sound so I didn't wear them for the film. It was loud enough, but still. Cannot wait to watch in streaming.

The commentary on The Day After Trinity says that the director originally considered the same structure that Oppenheimer ended up using. The director also describes how he decided what material to include and what material to omit. I wish Nolan had been as careful with that.

Tom Conti as Einstein - now where did we hear that exact same accent before? Hmm Costas?

A lot of problems with the 70mm IMAX film projections are being reported

I honestly didn’t have an issue seeing it in digital (I saw both). I personally have gotten used to the pristine digital image and it was odd/distracting to see dust and hairs in the 70mm projection.

Actually I thought Conti was perfect as Einstein. And Gary Oldman made a perfect Truman, because Truman was a shit when it came to the nuclear question. The politicians were hot for the Hydrogen Bomb, and Oppy and others wanted to be rational. Said no one needed it and we had to set up an international agency to address the whole nuclear age thing. The concept of mutually deterred destruction was what Oppenheimer believed when they were creating the atomic bomb. But then of course we were at war and it was Germany will have it, then WW II ends and it's Russia will get it, etc. and the same held true for the H bomb and anything else we invent. The problem is, someone is going to use it at some point, right?

I cannot watch this.

I hate Nolan with a passion. He's a neo-con prick.

Murphy is so weird-looking I can't deal with three hours of his face (I admit he was oddly cute when he was young).

And what's the story? People ambivalent about bomb invent it anyway; are later given ample cause to regret it?

I think I knew that already.

R167 Thank you for posting that. I'll say that young people like the guy in this video find film breakdown and projection issues "awesome" because it's new to them. For those of us who lived through decades of film splices coming off, film burning in the projector gauge, projector lamps dying, etc. in the past, "the experience of film" is not something to look forward to and digital projection will do just fine thank you.

That said and to be clear, I recommended Oppenheimer in 70mm, not Oppenheimer in IMAX 70mm. See it at a cinema where they know what they're doing.

I bet Michael Fassbender would have done a great job as Oppenheimer. Cillian Murphy's eyes make him look crazy. I would have loved a good nude scene ...or two with Fassy.

Christopher Nolan movies are uniformly praised and uniformly boring.

[quote] Cillian Murphy's eyes make him look crazy.

That’s how he looked.

I loved the film but I would never call it a character study. It was about the story of building the bomb and the aftermath, not about Oppenheimer as a human and his background etc.

This was a meh film for me. Intersteller is still my top Nolan film, science warts and all.

2 hours into this movie I was asking myself what even was the point of it all? And why they hell did i pay to listen to some "cry baby" act like some weird anti-social playboy, genius. Like, am i supposed to feel sad, fearful, or something else at the end? The movie mentioned how much more powerful this bomb is than the firebombs we've dropped. Okay, but that's still bad. We've had nukes for 80s years. At this point, fearing it is a waste of all of our time. Let the government handle that.

People clutching their pearls of the creation of the bomb don't understand that mankind has been marching towards bigger and better war tech since the first argument. I was left proud that we used to be able to move mountains, via our government, to get shit done. I was proud we had the bomb before the Russians, or at least the same time.

The highlight for me was when Truman cut his ass down to size. It was Opp that gave recommendations on bombing sites so don't sit there crying over spilled milk. Damon was also a highlight as some comic relief. RDJ stole the show for me, playing a petty datalounger. Uh, his ending could have been writing by many posters on this site. Me-me-me!

Opp's first wife felt like a waste of screen time. Fuck was her problem? Emily Blunt doesn't offer much else either., beyond LOADS of facial filler. It wasn't a bad movie, but don't waste your time paying to see it in theaters, just stream it.

r171 Michael Fassbender, star of Cockenheimer.

I think once the excitement of the first few weeks passes, Oppenheimer won't be thought of as the great masterpiece people are making it out to sound like. It's an OK movie, about 30 minutes too long. Stylistically, it doesn't add much to the cinema we've been used to seeing since Hiroshima Mon Amour. The acting is good but Cillian Murphy doesn't have to do much except look like Cillian Murphy, all doe eyed and intense. The 70mm cinematography is excellent, the music also. In the end, the movie feels like calculated Oscar bait like Ghandi. I think it's going to win because it's the safe kind of "serious and important" movie the Academy loves.

R177 that’s your opinion. I walked out mesmerized by everything about it. It’s phenomenal in every single way. It’s a masterful film.

I preferred "Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part 1." Light entertaining fun. I did the "Barbenheimer" too Neither were fantastic but Barbie was smarter and also more fun. I've never liked Nolan though. Too much violence in "Tenet."

[quote] Damon was also a highlight as some comic relief.

If General Groves is being portrayed as comic relief that's the most damning thing I've yet heard about this film. Nobody before or since has so successfully created such an enormously technical industry from nothing in such a short space of time. His word was law .

FYI the day after trinity is available to view for free without subscription on The Criterion Channel until Monday

R180 he’s hardly comic relief lmao. That poster is just copying and pasting shit from twitter and Reddit. He didn’t watch it. Damon had a couple of lines that were funny and that’s it. It was a very serious film.

Now I know it's suck giant donkey balls. I'm going to go into expecting the sublime rapture experience and walk out going "that's it? That's what you people were on about?"

Happens every time they overhype something.

I don’t want to go to a 3 hr movie.

I went in with low expectations and loved it. It was phenomenal. However, it isn’t a character study. The film focuses on how the atomic bomb came to be, not on the history of Oppenheimer as a whole

Do they show his Jewish heritage?

It doesn't suck monkey balls but it's not a masterpiece either.

R186 yes they show him eating Chinese and complaining about the small portions.

Nolan will probably win Best Director Oscar for this film. I'm shocked that he earned his first nomination with Dunkirk.

And didn't deserve it.

The year Nolan was snubbed by the Academy for The Dark Knight was the year two directors got in for largely forgotten work, Ron Howard for Frost/Nixon and Stephen Daldry for The Reader. The rules for Best Picture were changed the following year as it was clear that targeted Oscar-bait films were ruining the Academy Awards.

I saw this movie a third time today (I feel this movie can’t be appreciated with one viewing alone)

And I just felt such a sadness once it was over not just because of the movie’s subject matter but what it represented and how rare this is, a big long intelligent historical epic made by the most talented people in Hollywood. Just to think in the 80s and 90s we had Gandhi, Amadeus, Out of Africa, Platoon, The Last Emperor, Dances With Wolves, Schindler’s List, Braveheart, The English Patient and Titanic win Best Picture, and now we have films like The Artist, Spotlight, Moonlight, Parasite, Nomadland, CODA and Everything Everywhere… There’s absolutely nothing wrong with those films but their ascendency comes from the vacuum of intelligent Hollywood films. Will Oppenheimer be the beginning of a wonderful new age of Hollywood films or like one reviewer said, a lone burst of light in the darkness…

R192 Ok thank you. I definitely don't want to see it now. I've got enough problems.

R192, I don't think Out of Africa, Dances with Wolves, Braveheart, even The English Patient or Titanic are particularly important films. You're confusing fashion with intelligence. And the '80s were full of great films that the Academy never paid attention to, it was a great era for films.

I don't necessarily consider Christopher Nolan the savior of anything.

I don’t give a fuck how good it is! My fucking ass can’t sit for 3 fucking hours in most of those theater seats that are harder than the hubs of hell!

R191 the rules were only changed for Best Picture, not the other categories.

R192 is the first person I saw name Out of Africa has some amazing film that deserved its Best Picture win. Many would say otherwise, especially with some of the films that didn’t win that year or weren’t nominated.

r182 fuck right off. I saw the movie and Damon, playing a hard as nails military man about to be promoted to general, was comic relief. His deadpan takes were funny. You can be comical while serious because there is a clash of personalities and style in that movie between the scientists and military/politicians.

Damn, some of you are legit assholes sometimes.

R192, are you kidding? Those films in the 80s that won best picture may have had intelligent scripts but they were not great films. Films like Moonlight, Spotlight,Parasite, Nomadland, CODA and Everything Everywhere had intelligent script AND were terrific films. Titanic, The English Patient, and Out of Africa are nowhere near the same league as Moonlight and Parasite.

As I heard a few people say recently, a best picture win used to guarantee that a film was overlong, pious, and dull. Today it has come to signify an interesting film that makes a strong statement.

r199 Titanic made a strong statement. Last month's billionaire debacle showed how that movie is still impactful. Even "My heart Will Go On" re-entered the Billboard Top 100 over that sub/Titanic story.

It may not be a smart script but when taken together, it's a fantastic piece of film. No movie has done a better sinking. Cameron brought that ship to life, so please stop trying to pile on to a movie that the people, real normal people, and Academy agreed was the best movie at that time.

Titanic is a classic and one of the few Best Picture winners that is a massive blockbuster and still popular. It will never not be popular. It’s loved by so many people.

[quote] It will never not be popular. It’s loved by so many people.

If they ever release a Leo-free edit I'll finally watch it

This is about OPPENHEIMER. Take Titanic to the Titanic thread! This is for OP👏PEN👏HEI👏MER👏!

Now please continue to discuss Oppenheimer.

What was your favorite scene, dear movie goer who saw it thrice in one day?

Oppenheimer earns more in 10 days than Batman Begins made during its entire run!

That was twenty years ago

Inflation happened

The true story from r 204's article is is how WB truly, and I mean massively, fuck up by upsetting Nolan. Sort of like Disney letting Shanda go. Anyway Opp made over $400 million in 10 days if you were wondering what the number was, since r204 was too lazy to just post it.

Back to WB:

The film, based on the life and times of theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, was produced on a reported budget of $100 million and marks Nolan’s first collaboration with Universal after a long and successful stint with Warner Bros. The acclaimed filmmaker severed ties with Warner Bros. in protest of the studio’s controversial decision to debut each of its 2021 releases simultaneously on the Max streaming service. Recent reports, however, suggest that WB is hoping to bring Nolan back into the fold.

Yeah, no shit WB wants him back. Nolan has been a cash cow, how they could think regulating him to Streaming was going to fly is beyond me. Tenant, on streaming made since due to the release timing, but anything else was just just a cash grab for their app as they prepared for their sale to Discovery. WB really missed out on having potentially the top 5 highest grossing films this year.

Technically if Nolan had made this at Warner Bros. then Warner Bros. would have never scheduled Barbie opposite it and Barbenheimer would have never happened and both films might have made less money. So the move was providential.

Especially for Nolan since Universal wooed him with 20% of the first dollar grosses and Oppy will do at least $700 million worldwide.

Donna Langley is also a better creative match for fellow Brit Nolan.

Everything I know about Oppenheimer I learned from this series years ago.

[QUOTE]How could Cillian Murphy go fully naked when he plays a jewish man?

I hadn't thought of this until now. A man born of his age in Ireland wouldn't have been circumcised. Yet, all the pre-release hoopla about full-frontal? Maybe CGI didn't work out.

R210 his age? Circumcision isn’t common in any part of Europe.

I said he wouldn't have been, r221. On other words, not, as you suggest, right?

[quote] To say that #Oppenheimer is the greatest film of the year is an insulting understatement to the unfettered, majestic genius of Christopher Nolan, who has shaped a stupendous saga around humanity’s darkest hour, bolstered by a once-in-a-lifetime cast headed by celebrated thespian Cillian Murphy.

If there is indeed life existing on other planets, extraterrrestrials will be able to see the flaming MARY! of this sentence just with their naked eyes.

So much over-the-top, flowery praise.

If I may, I'd like to pee in your cornflakes. I was listening to NPR the other morning and they had someone on who talked about the cancer rates and the invisibility of the residents of the area back then. It's a legitimate part of the story and she was higly critical of the fact that Nolan ignored it. She suggested that if, at the end they would have at least mentioned the fallout, the consequences of the tests, that's all they asked for, yet they were rendered invsible once again, the first time being when the Feds f ailed to evacuate or inform them that there was contamination.

Wanted to add that back then a lot of people had no electricity, or running water and were totally dependent on their natural environment for evey thing including growing their own food. And everything was contaminated.

No matter the subject matter, Chris Nolan films are all about Chris Nolan.

Barbie outperforms Oppenheimer two to one

Is there a scene midway-ish through the movie that would be a good time to take a quick bathroom break? Don’t know if I can sit through a three-hour movie—just too antsy!

Do what I do. No water and lots of salt. But even if you have to use the bathroom, you won't miss more than some talking heads scenes.

R219-Go when they start assembling the bomb for the test. You have a good 7 minutes before the best hour of the movie begins.

Spoiler alert - there is no BIG explosion scene in the movie. No full atomic blast in the wonders of Imax. Use the bathroom at your discretion, you won't miss much.

[quote]I was listening to NPR the other morning and they had someone on who talked about the cancer rates and the invisibility of the residents of the area back then. It's a legitimate part of the story and she was higly critical of the fact that Nolan ignored it. She suggested that if, at the end they would have at least mentioned the fallout, the consequences of the tests, that's all they asked for, yet they were rendered invsible once again,

Here's the story NOT told in Nolan's Oppenheimer about those forced off their land in New Mexico:

A movie just 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 have too much white guilt.

R224, FFS, a minute or two referencing the fact would have sufficed. Or do you think Native people and other locals weren't victimized by this test?

I don't get the idea that Cillian Murphy's performance is Oscar worthy. He just stands around throughout the whole movie looking like he doesn't know what just hit him. Maybe it's a good representation of Oppenheimer but as far as an acting exercise, it's pretty moot.

R225 a movie that cannot even find time to develop the scientists at Los Alamos as defined characters is going to find time to reference the community they sat in the middle of?

A movie would have to be 2-1/2 or 3 hours long to include all of that.

Maybe they didn't include it because someone with some common sense said, Let's NOT turn this picture into another social injustice lecture. That's why there are no trans characters in the movie either.