I love the Cameron love-in turn this thread has taken (all praise the Cameron!) but I feel this is slightly disingenuous/unfair. I feel they addressed his moral qualms with regards to the bomb decently enough (the scene in that packed theatre, the way Cillian Murphy conducted himself afterwards), but ultimately it was a decision taken out of their hands and made by politicians, which I think was shown correctly enough. And it was first and foremost a film about Oppenheimer so dealing with his legacy (which this security clearance part was instrumental in) was an important aspect of it. It feels more like it's just not the film you wanted to see, rather than a failing of the film itself.
Film Christopher Nolan's 'Oppenheimer'
- Thread starter Salt Bailly
- Start date
I agree. It's not called The Bomb. As the film made clear, to me at least, the significance is not literally whether his security clearance is revoked, it's about an attempt to quietly and dishonestly destroy someone's legacy. That last hour was the most compelling part of the film for me. I found it incredibly emotive how they used his hesitancy of nuclear expansion against him, painting the person who gave them their most potent weapon as a traitor, especially when Strauss engineered the entire thing for such petty personal reasons.
I thought it was incredible, I don't really get how someone can say it was shit, it's a film based on one of the most significant events in human history, with exceptional actors in it, great storytelling and excellent cinematography.
I'd understand 'I thought it could have been better, they missed out on x' etc., but what else were you expecting if you're labelling it shit
I'd understand 'I thought it could have been better, they missed out on x' etc., but what else were you expecting if you're labelling it shit
It's not a shit movie. It's decent and worth a watch. But I wouldn't call it a masterpiece. The writing just ain't that special as I thought some dialogue was too silly for a serious subject like this. Also found the soundtrack annoying at times as well as the non-linear story gimmick.I thought it was incredible, I don't really get how someone can say it was shit, it's a film based on one of the most significant events in human history, with exceptional actors in it, great storytelling and excellent cinematography.
I'd understand 'I thought it could have been better, they missed out on x' etc., but what else were you expecting if you're labelling it shit
I finally got tickets for this on Imax 70 mm this Sunday. Up until now it was impossible to get OK tickets. First row or super late on a weekdays only. The marketing for this film must have been insane!
The film was about Oppenheimer not about the bombs that were dropped.
Seeing this on 70mm tomorrow after going into the office. Silver lining and all
Fair point and your right. Ultimately it’s not the fault of Nolan that the Oppenheimer film I wanted is Gary Oldman in a giant fat suit as Truman, covered in KFC stains and drooling joy and with a visible hard on as he takes credit for killing thousands of Japanese citizens.
The prometheus like figure of Oppenheimer getting reduced to balding Cillian Murphy looking like a soulless Butoh dancer while covered in dust and rumble. Unable to wash the blood off his hands. Humans scream so piercing the hearing aids of the old couple next to me explode. I basically I wanted the Veroheven version.
It was written and directed by Nolan. He picked what his version of Oppenheimer was about. And what he picked for the last hour was imo very boring.
Personally for me the last hour was boring as shit. My sister thought the same. A guy standing outside the cinema returning from a long toilet break (the exact same thing I was doing) thought the same.
But then two of my other sisters liked the film as a whole, as do a lot of people.
But for me 45 mins of watching random panel people talking about something so mundane will never be good cinema.. if it was a documentary I was watching then fair enough, in fact that's what it felt like, one of those historical documentaries where they they re enact what happened in black and white. I literally couldn't care less if he had his security clearance revoked or not, because we'll it has no consequence to anything. It happens. It means nothing. The end. Let's throw in Einstein to save this terrible last arc. Finally the actual end. I can leave.
But then two of my other sisters liked the film as a whole, as do a lot of people.
But for me 45 mins of watching random panel people talking about something so mundane will never be good cinema.. if it was a documentary I was watching then fair enough, in fact that's what it felt like, one of those historical documentaries where they they re enact what happened in black and white. I literally couldn't care less if he had his security clearance revoked or not, because we'll it has no consequence to anything. It happens. It means nothing. The end. Let's throw in Einstein to save this terrible last arc. Finally the actual end. I can leave.
You are being extremely generous to writing talents of Nolan brothers. All the sub text that video is talking about was absolutely not the core theme of the movie. The main "subtext" was regarding that whole button non sense on two ships with even the criminals choosing not to blow it up translating to even criminals retaining some moral fibre of not wanting to destroy society completely. Ending was about using a lie to preserve law & order but comparing it to WMD lie is absurd.
In general across Batman trilogy, Nolan did try to dabble in some political commentary related to crime and its related themes like justice or causes. There is an ongoing theme across three movies on police corruption which necessitates the need of vigilantes but has a very weak conclusion in eventually police force only being required to restore order. Essentially an argument for status quo, somewhat counter balanced by Robin in the third movie, then deciding to ditch the force due to the same.
Then there is the superficial commentary on haves and have-nots in the third movie which equated the overthrow of social order into anarchy of kinds. Again hinting towards the notion that while inequality being rife in capitalist systems should be acknowledged, it is the best worst system we have since any kind of real revolution is unlikely to yield better results.
Who knows, you might get your wish one day! But it'll be directed by @Dirty Schwein and Nic Cage will be Truman.
I'm not sure whether you're excluding the capacity for cinema to be interesting even if it's "mundane" conversations shown on screen, but one of the most riveting scenes of cinema I will always have in mind is a 25mn conversation between Michael Fassbender (Bobby Sands) and Liam Cunningham (a priest) in Hunger. I felt the last part of Oppenheimer was extremely engaging too, especially the way it was somewhat built up even before the Trinity test, and then really shown in full, but I understand that you disagree.
Do people not understand the underlying importance of his security clearance being revoked, in the context of that time, or do they just not care anyway? To say that it wasn't important doesn't really make sense, unless you're just saying 'I don't care because the nuclear holocaust never happened anyway cos I'm alive innit'.
Agreed one of the more reasonable voices in the nuclear arms race getting his clearance revoked and everyone sees that as inconsequential
This is what I’m confounded by in these comments.
was in a particular mood last night so just replayed the fight where the whale wrecks the big boat and demolishes the small whaling boat and breaks that guy's arm, and then i slept happy.
it definitely does!
And it’s not just that Oppenheimer lost, it’s who he lost to - a paranoid psycho like Strauss. I don’t know the history well enough to know how accurate it is, but clearly the movie wanted us to see Oppenheimer’s personal defeat as a defeat for rationality and (perhaps naive) open-mindedness, as America, and the world, embraced Cold War paranoia.
What an experience that was. Magnificent film. Needed that after Asteroid City. The use of music was sublime.
Brilliant stuff. Just brilliant.
Brilliant stuff. Just brilliant.
Fantastic. Even better than i dared hope for.
What a film. Thank God we still have directors like Nolan. Great experience!
Wracking my brain to find something I really didn't like, and the only thing that comes up is the scene with the Truman meeting. Came across as quite hamfisted, in my opinion.
Wracking my brain to find something I really didn't like, and the only thing that comes up is the scene with the Truman meeting. Came across as quite hamfisted, in my opinion.
It was @Sweet Square's favourite part of the film
Pretty much.That scene makes the audience feel very uncomfortable which is great.
It was... OK?
Cillian Murphy is great, but I thought that Oppenheimer was going to be a little bit more charismatic and cocky. What we got was a bit of a "misunderstood genius" who's passion for his subject inspires those around him. Granted that may be my own fault for basing my image on Oppenheimer on the little I had read about him on beforehand. In any case, the strength of the film lies in the subject-matter and the good performances from all actors involved. Based on this alone the film couldn't fail. The events are simply too interesting for that.
I do not understand the people who told me that it feels much shorter than 3 hours. It very much felt that long, if not longer. The film never stops to breathe and forces you to stay plugged in. The dialogue is constant and relentless and when it's not, your ears are blasted with sound effects and background music. But despite throwing all of this at the audience for 3 full hours the end result still feels a bit hollow. It does so much and so little at the same time.
I did not find Nolan's dialogue to be as obnoxious as usual, which is quite some feat considering how much dialogue there is in this film. But that first sex scene was really awkward
Cillian Murphy is great, but I thought that Oppenheimer was going to be a little bit more charismatic and cocky. What we got was a bit of a "misunderstood genius" who's passion for his subject inspires those around him. Granted that may be my own fault for basing my image on Oppenheimer on the little I had read about him on beforehand. In any case, the strength of the film lies in the subject-matter and the good performances from all actors involved. Based on this alone the film couldn't fail. The events are simply too interesting for that.
I do not understand the people who told me that it feels much shorter than 3 hours. It very much felt that long, if not longer. The film never stops to breathe and forces you to stay plugged in. The dialogue is constant and relentless and when it's not, your ears are blasted with sound effects and background music. But despite throwing all of this at the audience for 3 full hours the end result still feels a bit hollow. It does so much and so little at the same time.
I did not find Nolan's dialogue to be as obnoxious as usual, which is quite some feat considering how much dialogue there is in this film. But that first sex scene was really awkward
I just got back from watching this, what an amazing film. Truly one of his best works. I loved everythhing about it. One of my favourite things about it was how they conveyed Oppenheimer's guilt through visual and audio cues. Outstanding cinema.
I also loved the dynamics of the Strauss character being so bigoted to think Oppenheimer would shit talk him to Einstein only for the truth to be revealed at the end, highlighting the pettiness of politicians and humans in general and the inability to think of the bigger picture.
I also loved the dynamics of the Strauss character being so bigoted to think Oppenheimer would shit talk him to Einstein only for the truth to be revealed at the end, highlighting the pettiness of politicians and humans in general and the inability to think of the bigger picture.
Crossed the $700m mark at the box office. Not bad for a 3 hour film about science bros.
And some people saying it wasn't as good as Dunkirk (which was really dull and heartless telling of history) seems very odd to me.I thought it was incredible, I don't really get how someone can say it was shit, it's a film based on one of the most significant events in human history, with exceptional actors in it, great storytelling and excellent cinematography.
I'd understand 'I thought it could have been better, they missed out on x' etc., but what else were you expecting if you're labelling it shit
Not knowing anything about him prior... Was he a genius? The film left me a bit confused in this regard. The film portrayed him more of a manager type who got shit done. A genius in that regard maybe, but in actual quantum physics or whatever, the film showed he had a reputation for it sure but didn't really show why to the viewer. How good was he?It was... OK?
Cillian Murphy is great, but I thought that Oppenheimer was going to be a little bit more charismatic and cocky. What we got was a bit of a "misunderstood genius" who's passion for his subject inspires those around him. Granted that may be my own fault for basing my image on Oppenheimer on the little I had read about him on beforehand. In any case, the strength of the film lies in the subject-matter and the good performances from all actors involved. Based on this alone the film couldn't fail. The events are simply too interesting for that.
I do not understand the people who told me that it feels much shorter than 3 hours. It very much felt that long, if not longer. The film never stops to breathe and forces you to stay plugged in. The dialogue is constant and relentless and when it's not, your ears are blasted with sound effects and background music. But despite throwing all of this at the audience for 3 full hours the end result still feels a bit hollow. It does so much and so little at the same time.
I did not find Nolan's dialogue to be as obnoxious as usual, which is quite some feat considering how much dialogue there is in this film. But that first sex scene was really awkward
I didn't mean that I think that Oppenheimer came across as literal genius. You are absolutely right that he was picked primarily for his managerial skills combined with his intelligence.
I was thinking more about the misunderstood genius trope that we see so often in blockbusters. I thought that Oppenheimer was going to be inspirational because of his charm and charisma. To be much more of a people person basically. That would explain why he got picked for the job, how he got the job done and why his peers at the site seemed to love him. But instead he came across as an abrasive and arrogant nerd who people gravitated towards regardless.
But this might be my own fault for going in expecting something else. Oppenheimer may very well have been just like this in real life.
There's a genius element to it - someone who could weigh up multiple theories and pieces of evidence and draw new insights. His ability to generalise and to take leaps in understanding is visible in his early work. He would have probably got a Nobel prize for his work on black holes had he lived long enough to see them become part of our accepted model of the universe, but he didn't follow up on his own initial insight.
He was neither a great mathematician or a capable lab physicist. He's not a genius in the Feynman sense either of someone who could both generalise the big picture and do the detail to turn it into an actual theory. He does seem to have been very effective at knowing who to ask to do the details
I liked this summary:
That's from an interesting short bio of him at:
https://unherd.com/2023/07/we-wouldnt-want-oppenheimer-today/#:~:text=He noted an “overweening ambition,to be at the centre.
I think the film tries to highlight that he wasn't a super genius like Einstein, I remember one scene they were trying to work out how the Germans split the atom and he couldn't work out the formula but his mate did. I think the film tries to portray that he understood what was going on but wasn't necessarily the one doing the main thinking. More of a manager as you say. Not sure how true that is to history.
A proper big budget movie about Feynman would be awesome. Or, judging by the life he had, probably a HBO series.
I reckon it would look great as a HBO miniseries sort of story.
Sadly I think him being, "a lot of physicists' favourite physicist," might be a bit niche to get funding
This was me. I really enjoyed the movie, but I didn't really understand the US Political stuff, nor the big deal around the security clearance.
Apart from being that, he also wasn't an introvert like Dirac, he had a particular way of communicating with the laymen not seen before or after (Sorry NDT). I mean literally every interview or lecture meant for non specialists is brilliant. He also venutred into non purely scientific acitviites which would also add an interesting angle. On top of everything he had a big role in the Challenger investigation (which was decently dramatised, for TV movie I believe)I reckon it would look great as a HBO miniseries sort of story.
Sadly I think him being, "a lot of physicists' favourite physicist," might be a bit niche to get funding
So it seems Openheimer wasn't as widely known as I thought, yet the film is a significant success. A series about Feynman can have similar effect I'd think.
PS: And he's an actual Nobel Prize winner.
Finally saw this today. Really enjoyed it. Then, hours later I repaid the missus by going to see Barbie with her. Some come down that was from a Nolan epic.
The point the movie wants to make is different. It's really not about Oppenheimer or Feynman or anybody else. It's about ruthless and cynical way capitalism treats human progress and civilisation.
That's what you took away from...Oppenheimer?
Please elaborate.
Isn't it evident? Both the first and the second half of the film look at how capitalism and its political level face US look at and treat first its sworn enemy socialism and socialists, and then how ruthlessly it treats humanity on the whole.