I'm a big Nolan hater but the trinity test for me was a incredible scene. What the bomb goes off to pure silence and then hear/feel the bass rushing forward from the back of the cinema was pretty insane.
Film Christopher Nolan's 'Oppenheimer'
- Thread starter Salt Bailly
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
It was easily the best part of the film. There are a few YouTube clips out there on how Nolan recreated the bomb sequence.
It was.
Yeah, they weren't quite expecting the shock wave. That scene was immense in the IMAX theater.
Concur.
Heard it was incredible in 4dx, which I can imagine being the most jarring.
It was incredible on 70mm IMAX
I saw it on IMAX too. Very impressed.
I had to look around the internet and there are others who noticed how weak that explosion was, even compared to the real footage of the test. Turns out Nolan didn’t want to use CGI and didn’t use the max TNT allowed, so that’s mystery solved, as far as I’m concerned. It worked for a lot of you though, going by the last few comments so, whatever. I think it was disappointing, as was the film as a whole.
What would have made the film better in your opinion?
Being written by a better scriptwriter? I'm not sure, but I'd say I'd change almost everything about it, dialogue first. My rambling about the bomb detonation though was because I was genuinely surprised. The one thing I was certain would be done extremely well, if not perfectly, was that, and I was almost shocked by the weak imagery of the bomb. Not talking about the scene with the blast wave or sounds – they were fine. Maybe I expected too much, I'm aware of that but take a look at the real trinity test grainy 1940s footage. They couldn't even match that.
Not using CGI is baffling to me. What does that achieve? He could've used real explosions plus CGI, but didn't for whatever reason. No CGI at all costs? Real filmmakers don't use CGI? I don't understand.
Fair enough.
Was there a way they could have matched the explosion, it was the equivalent of 20000 tons of TNT? Could it have been bigger, I guess, but not matching the original tonnage of TNT shouldn't be a valid criticism imo.
It was done in a cinematic manner that conveyed the power, the awe and the shock of it in a way more impactful way than any CGI, TNT or archive footage could.
Amen.
Agreed.
Nolan movies always have an authentic feel thats at least prioritising world building in as authentic a way as possible.
I love how comitted to cinema he has been , lots of his movies are just next level on the big screen. I can never see Interstellar too much in cinema and the music rattles your bones at certain parts.
Thought Oppenheimer was good but at the same time it's a bit overhyped.
Dunkirk was absolute dross and I'm amazed at how many people seem to like it.
Dunkirk was absolute dross and I'm amazed at how many people seem to like it.
I don't think it is overhyped and I'm a not huge Nolan fan. I hated Dunkirk and Interstellar, but love Oppenheimer.
What was it about Dunkirk people hated ?
I enjoyed it to a certain extent but ,generally, i found it to be a rather harmless movie.
I enjoyed it to a certain extent but ,generally, i found it to be a rather harmless movie.
I don't get it either. It's a harmless film that actually plays to Nolan's strengths as a director. It's forgettable at worst.
Each to their own. I did enjoy Oppenheimer but couldn't watch it again, which I feel is the sign of a truly good or great film.
It was just boring to me. Style over substance and all that.
It was probably because Nolan had established himself as a mind feck style director (Memento, Prestige, Inception, Interstellar etc), and so a period piece like Dunkirk was always destined to sit oddly among most of his followers.
Or that the narrative structure didn't fit the genre at all, that the scale of the events he was depicting wasn't shown on screen, that certain characters literally looked alike and that it was impossible to care for anyone, and that beyond the technical aspects - which were, as usual with his films, top notch - there wasn't much to like about it. Kenneth Brannagh with an uninspired lethargic performance, Tom Hardy Bane-ing his way through his flight sequences and Cillian Murphy in one of the weirdest casting choices, yeah, it was just pretty meh.
I quite liked the "horror" element of not showing a single German soldier until the end (but even then you didn't see their faces). I thought it was well executed and I don't think I've seen it before. Especially considering how packed with action the film is.
Poorly written characters (women in particular) and bad dialogue is typical of Nolan in my opinion. At least in Dunkirk this was kept to a minimum compared to his other films.
Finally got to see this since it's on Amazon Prime, haven't gone to the cinema since having a kid 2 years ago 
The start of the movie had the same issue as Tenet, with really quick dialogue and transition scenes making it disorienting. It helped a lot, compared to Tenet, that the story wasn't complicated so it wasn't as difficult to grasp what was going on.
The second half of the movie, when it got slower, was great though. Acting was superb throughout but the story and direction of the movie went up a notch.
Not one of the Nolan's best but a good movie non the less.
The start of the movie had the same issue as Tenet, with really quick dialogue and transition scenes making it disorienting. It helped a lot, compared to Tenet, that the story wasn't complicated so it wasn't as difficult to grasp what was going on.
The second half of the movie, when it got slower, was great though. Acting was superb throughout but the story and direction of the movie went up a notch.
Not one of the Nolan's best but a good movie non the less.
Finally got to see this since it's on Amazon Prime, haven't gone to the cinema since having a kid 2 years ago
The start of the movie had the same issue as Tenet, with really quick dialogue and transition scenes making it disorienting. It helped a lot, compared to Tenet, that the story wasn't complicated so it wasn't as difficult to grasp what was going on.
The second half of the movie, when it got slower, was great though. Acting was superb throughout but the story and direction of the movie went up a notch.
Not one of the Nolan's best but a good movie non the less.