I could have done with a half time break, and subtitles occasionally. A film for watching in two or three parts at home. I agree about the three main themes- would have made an excellent tv series. I think Cillian Murphy will start a trend with broad brimmed hats this year
I have 3 fedoras but rarely wear them because where have the hatcheck girls gone? The baseball cap is the fedora of our era, and most just leave them on.
I agree with your criticisms of it! I think it's technically very well made but suffers from a lot of Nolan's typical issues as a filmmaker (not knowing how to write female characters, not knowing how to make things understandable, not knowing how to condense...anything).
Nice article. I enjoyed the Manhattan series more. Oppenheimer is in it, but more focused on the scientists (who are fictional blends). The movie definitely has it's moments, but is so tiresome.
Your review reminded me of seeing the Gandhi biopic as a teenager. It, too, was too long, tried to cram too much in, was based on a biography (by Louis Fischer, which I later read), but laid out some of the 'issues' surrounding colonialism and anticolonialism, violence and nonviolence, pretty well, at a time when sentimentality about the Empire was the norm in mainstream British culture.
It's interesting to read such a 'so-so' take on this. Oppenheimer isn't the film I was expecting, but I can't say I'd want it any other way. I think it worked and I think the performances were stunning (particularly Robert Downey Jr.).
Nolan does well to balance the many facets that are needed to make this a story worth telling. He certainly crams a lot in, but that's the nature of tackling such a big story.
I don't think "it's easy to watch" — quite the contrary. No doubt it's easier than reading 'American Prometheus' but few audiences would opt to see a three-hour dialogue driven film with a non-linear narrative.
I'm also interested to know what makes you say: "For anyone who knows a lot about movies, this won’t be a very impressive film," when top critics are raving about it?
It seemed obvious to me that while it is good at what it is, it’s just not a great movie. Critics often rave about stuff that doesn’t last. Easy to watch==learn about nuclear weapons with nudity and dramatic scenes. I expect most people to enjoy it like I said but I don’t think it will last for “movie reasons”.
Thanks for taking the time to respond! While I respectfully disagree with “it’s not just a great movie” I do agree that it probably won’t stand the test of time. Though I think that’ll be more due to the fact that it’s 3 hours of mostly dialogue.
Outside of the cinema, and away from the hype, people will rarely be ‘in the mood’ to watch Oppenheimer. It’s similar to being what The Irishman was to Scorsese.
I see your point, but I think it's getting increasingly harder for anything to stand the test of time with the current media cycle — there are so many films coming out.
For the sake of making a point: If this was 1972, Oppenheimer might be remembered in the same way The Godfather is (not that they're the same, or that we’ll ever know).
Even some of the best/top/most-celebrated films from just two years ago (Sound of Metal, Nomadland, Minari, Another Round, House of Gucci, Don’t Look Up) are, sadly, already fading into obscurity.
If I had the time, I'd go and do some deep research on the number of major pictures from 50 years ago vs. now (surface Googling isn't cutting it) but I've got to drive out to the Kentish countryside!
I've enjoyed this discourse though, and look forward to reading more of your film reviews. Until next time…
I think the large amount of recognizable actors in small roles is actually a smart way to handle the mass amount of secondary and tertiary players in this story. Nolan needs you to remember the faces of Dane Dehaan and Rami Malek, even though their characters get very little in the way of big lines, because you need to immediately know which part of the puzzle their piece fits when they show up in the final act. Casting Kenneth Branagh as a guy who shows up for four scenes serves to clue the audience in to the significance of Niels Bohr, both for the history of quantum mechanics and for his decision not to work on the Manhattan Project. Honestly, I'm a little surprised Nolan didn't swing a little harder with the casting of Heisenberg -- maybe someone like August Diehl or Daniel Bruhl --but it might have been even more difficult to get a big German name for a single scene. All this to say, in a Hollywood where they no longer invest in memorable and venerable character actors of a type like Jack Warden or Martin Balsam, the best way to cast memorable faces in small roles is to get big name actors...it's just rather difficult to pull off if you don't have a name like Nolan or Spielberg.
Thanks for the info—I wanted to watch this film but now I'm not so sure. The question I'm really intrigued about, the one that fascinates me the most, is what the scientists working on the bomb thought about what they were doing. How did it feel to be working on such a destructive weapon? The ethics of science doesn't seem to be discussed nearly as much as it ought to be. It seems from your synopsis that the movie doesn't touch on this theme at all. Perhaps it does, when it discussed stopping the evil guys from getting the bomb. But Mr. Nolan has raised questions about the appropriate use of technology in a few other films—Inception, Interstellar, even to a lesser degree in The Prestige—so I'm disappointed that this movie doesn't appear to go there. And having gratuitous nudity in the movie sours it even more for me.
On the other hand, films which highlight an aesthetic above all other considerations are certainly valuable. I see that as, maybe, a key feature of cinema which isn't appreciated as much as it could be. There are whole genres which depend on the aesthetics much more than they do a cogent plot. Perhaps in the future there will be ambient films in the same way we have ambient music; films which have no plot at all and which follow characters around in a world defined by an aesthetic, and which can be played at home on a big screen TV, there to be glanced at as one is puttering around the house?
I could have done with a half time break, and subtitles occasionally. A film for watching in two or three parts at home. I agree about the three main themes- would have made an excellent tv series. I think Cillian Murphy will start a trend with broad brimmed hats this year
I've been wearing a fedora for years and they are due to come back. Intermission would have been nice.
I have 3 fedoras but rarely wear them because where have the hatcheck girls gone? The baseball cap is the fedora of our era, and most just leave them on.
Wait. Is there a found poem almost there?
I have 3 fedoras but rarely wear them
where have the hatcheck girls gone?
The baseball cap is the fedora of our era,
and most just leave them on.
I generally dislike the whole biopic genre, so when one isn’t embarrassingly awful, I’m surprised.
I loved it. It achieved two things to me:
First, it depicted a truly great man in an impossible moral position
Second, it did a great job of re-reminding us of this horrible device that we have somewhat forgot we still have
Yes exactly these are its merits
I agree with your criticisms of it! I think it's technically very well made but suffers from a lot of Nolan's typical issues as a filmmaker (not knowing how to write female characters, not knowing how to make things understandable, not knowing how to condense...anything).
I enjoyed it! But also watched a few documentaries ahead of the movie and some notes i had align with your article.
It’s a good gateway I guess but yeh
Nice article. I enjoyed the Manhattan series more. Oppenheimer is in it, but more focused on the scientists (who are fictional blends). The movie definitely has it's moments, but is so tiresome.
Oh I might try that
Those Rolleiflexes are Speed Graphics......
Damn. Lazy writing well spotted.
Most people wore a hat in those days.
Nice review, thank you.
Your review reminded me of seeing the Gandhi biopic as a teenager. It, too, was too long, tried to cram too much in, was based on a biography (by Louis Fischer, which I later read), but laid out some of the 'issues' surrounding colonialism and anticolonialism, violence and nonviolence, pretty well, at a time when sentimentality about the Empire was the norm in mainstream British culture.
Another good film for similar reasons though -- a difficult genre
It's more enjoyable if you imagine it's a film about Sam Bankman-Fried.
Now that would be a good movie
It's interesting to read such a 'so-so' take on this. Oppenheimer isn't the film I was expecting, but I can't say I'd want it any other way. I think it worked and I think the performances were stunning (particularly Robert Downey Jr.).
Nolan does well to balance the many facets that are needed to make this a story worth telling. He certainly crams a lot in, but that's the nature of tackling such a big story.
I don't think "it's easy to watch" — quite the contrary. No doubt it's easier than reading 'American Prometheus' but few audiences would opt to see a three-hour dialogue driven film with a non-linear narrative.
I'm also interested to know what makes you say: "For anyone who knows a lot about movies, this won’t be a very impressive film," when top critics are raving about it?
It seemed obvious to me that while it is good at what it is, it’s just not a great movie. Critics often rave about stuff that doesn’t last. Easy to watch==learn about nuclear weapons with nudity and dramatic scenes. I expect most people to enjoy it like I said but I don’t think it will last for “movie reasons”.
Thanks for taking the time to respond! While I respectfully disagree with “it’s not just a great movie” I do agree that it probably won’t stand the test of time. Though I think that’ll be more due to the fact that it’s 3 hours of mostly dialogue.
Outside of the cinema, and away from the hype, people will rarely be ‘in the mood’ to watch Oppenheimer. It’s similar to being what The Irishman was to Scorsese.
Standing the test of time is what makes a movie great, I think. Critics should be more honest about that. They are trapped in a cycle of ephemera.
I see your point, but I think it's getting increasingly harder for anything to stand the test of time with the current media cycle — there are so many films coming out.
For the sake of making a point: If this was 1972, Oppenheimer might be remembered in the same way The Godfather is (not that they're the same, or that we’ll ever know).
Even some of the best/top/most-celebrated films from just two years ago (Sound of Metal, Nomadland, Minari, Another Round, House of Gucci, Don’t Look Up) are, sadly, already fading into obscurity.
There’s always a lot and most doesn’t last--look at C19th fiction. All gone now.
If I had the time, I'd go and do some deep research on the number of major pictures from 50 years ago vs. now (surface Googling isn't cutting it) but I've got to drive out to the Kentish countryside!
I've enjoyed this discourse though, and look forward to reading more of your film reviews. Until next time…
I think the large amount of recognizable actors in small roles is actually a smart way to handle the mass amount of secondary and tertiary players in this story. Nolan needs you to remember the faces of Dane Dehaan and Rami Malek, even though their characters get very little in the way of big lines, because you need to immediately know which part of the puzzle their piece fits when they show up in the final act. Casting Kenneth Branagh as a guy who shows up for four scenes serves to clue the audience in to the significance of Niels Bohr, both for the history of quantum mechanics and for his decision not to work on the Manhattan Project. Honestly, I'm a little surprised Nolan didn't swing a little harder with the casting of Heisenberg -- maybe someone like August Diehl or Daniel Bruhl --but it might have been even more difficult to get a big German name for a single scene. All this to say, in a Hollywood where they no longer invest in memorable and venerable character actors of a type like Jack Warden or Martin Balsam, the best way to cast memorable faces in small roles is to get big name actors...it's just rather difficult to pull off if you don't have a name like Nolan or Spielberg.
Thanks for the info—I wanted to watch this film but now I'm not so sure. The question I'm really intrigued about, the one that fascinates me the most, is what the scientists working on the bomb thought about what they were doing. How did it feel to be working on such a destructive weapon? The ethics of science doesn't seem to be discussed nearly as much as it ought to be. It seems from your synopsis that the movie doesn't touch on this theme at all. Perhaps it does, when it discussed stopping the evil guys from getting the bomb. But Mr. Nolan has raised questions about the appropriate use of technology in a few other films—Inception, Interstellar, even to a lesser degree in The Prestige—so I'm disappointed that this movie doesn't appear to go there. And having gratuitous nudity in the movie sours it even more for me.
On the other hand, films which highlight an aesthetic above all other considerations are certainly valuable. I see that as, maybe, a key feature of cinema which isn't appreciated as much as it could be. There are whole genres which depend on the aesthetics much more than they do a cogent plot. Perhaps in the future there will be ambient films in the same way we have ambient music; films which have no plot at all and which follow characters around in a world defined by an aesthetic, and which can be played at home on a big screen TV, there to be glanced at as one is puttering around the house?