I know why he was in the film, I’m just saying I didn’t particularly care for the story. I thought the guilt he felt about it afterwards, starting the chain reaction of nuclear weapons etc, was a more interesting thing to focus on. But as it’s a biopic I can see why it needed to be in there. Doesn’t necessarily make for interesting cinema though.
Film Christopher Nolan's 'Oppenheimer'
- Thread starter Salt Bailly
- Start date
Righto.
I actually enjoyed the after the bomb sequences or more accurately perhaps the "after the bomb test" sequences. Until the test the bomb belongs to the scientists and the technicians - after it they're more or less an irrelevance. The grey suits take over.
From the bit when we see the bombs crated and driven away the story has to change. Oppenheimer himself no longer has the sense of purpose that makes him essential during the project - he's back to being the no good at experiments, not great at maths theoretician with the breadth and insight to pull people and ideas together - the midwife(husband?) of the bomb rather than the father.
He makes deals with his conscience. We need to make the bomb first, because the Nazis will otherwise. With Hitler defeated he has to make a new deal with his conscience - it will be a warning to the world never to do it again.
After Nagasaki there aren't more deals - he had to find a way to live with it, which is what Bohr and Einstein warned him about. He tries in his own way - but the grey suits try to put him in his place, from hero to employee to potential traitor in easy steps.
Yet, it's arguable that his arguments still had a part to play in the shaping of the post war world. Nuclear weapons of increasing power were built but remain unused, other countries did build their own but surprisingly few. The Dr Strangelove device didn't (as far as we're aware) ever get built.
In a sense it's the well known stuff of cliches. If science can be weaponised it will be - the just because you can, doesn't mean you should warning. But I actually thought pushing it back to individuals with grubby motivations (the black and white Strauss) and confused and ultimately incompatible motivations (Oppenheimer and some of the other scientists) was useful - the too big theme reduced to the mundanity of the everyday, the petty jealousies and ambitions.
From the bit when we see the bombs crated and driven away the story has to change. Oppenheimer himself no longer has the sense of purpose that makes him essential during the project - he's back to being the no good at experiments, not great at maths theoretician with the breadth and insight to pull people and ideas together - the midwife(husband?) of the bomb rather than the father.
He makes deals with his conscience. We need to make the bomb first, because the Nazis will otherwise. With Hitler defeated he has to make a new deal with his conscience - it will be a warning to the world never to do it again.
After Nagasaki there aren't more deals - he had to find a way to live with it, which is what Bohr and Einstein warned him about. He tries in his own way - but the grey suits try to put him in his place, from hero to employee to potential traitor in easy steps.
Yet, it's arguable that his arguments still had a part to play in the shaping of the post war world. Nuclear weapons of increasing power were built but remain unused, other countries did build their own but surprisingly few. The Dr Strangelove device didn't (as far as we're aware) ever get built.
In a sense it's the well known stuff of cliches. If science can be weaponised it will be - the just because you can, doesn't mean you should warning. But I actually thought pushing it back to individuals with grubby motivations (the black and white Strauss) and confused and ultimately incompatible motivations (Oppenheimer and some of the other scientists) was useful - the too big theme reduced to the mundanity of the everyday, the petty jealousies and ambitions.
I totally agree
Just watched it in Imax, did anyone have problems even hearing what they were saying half of the time? or are my ears fked?
I had the same issue, as with Tenet.
Lots on here though haven't, wonder if it's as simple as differing from cinema to cinema depending on the quality of the sound system etc.
I've heard someone say that they were watching another film and could hear bits of Oppenheimer (explosions) and that says to me it's too noisy in places.
Annoyingly, the only line that I didn't catch at my viewing was the very last one that pissed off Einstein...
After reading a bunch of reviews and comments on here I’ve decided I’m marginally less likely to watch this movie than I am to watch Barbie. Which is not a situation I thought I’d find myself in a few months ago.
heard a few say this but when I saw it (standard 2d) I had no issues.
The reviews are overwhelmingly positive.
It just sounds really dull.
It's a masterpiece.
It surely is not action packed like other Nolan flicks, but that's expected given its a portrayal of a very complex personality. I found it really really good.
Watched this a couple days ago, great film. Like stated by some others too, the 3 hours just flew by and I didn't have to check my watch even once.
A very good cast too. Murphy and RDJ were both brilliant. The sex scenes felt a bit out of place but any reason to see Florence Pugh naked is fine by me.
Only realized after looking at Wikipedia after the movie that president Truman was played by Nolan's old trustee from the Batman era Gary Oldman. Wonderful cameo.
A very good cast too. Murphy and RDJ were both brilliant. The sex scenes felt a bit out of place but any reason to see Florence Pugh naked is fine by me.
Only realized after looking at Wikipedia after the movie that president Truman was played by Nolan's old trustee from the Batman era Gary Oldman. Wonderful cameo.
Yeah but my review counts the most.
The problem with the movie isn't that it lacks action. Anyone expecting Michael Bay stuff had the wrong expectations anyway.
The problem is that for a dialogue-heavy movie the dialogue itself isn't anything special. Not bad, not great.
I'd rather watch movies like Thirteen Days, All the President's Men, Path to War, JFK.
The problem is that for a dialogue-heavy movie the dialogue itself isn't anything special. Not bad, not great.
I'd rather watch movies like Thirteen Days, All the President's Men, Path to War, JFK.
That’s my concern. And the stuff about dialogue being similarly inaudible to previous Nolan movies doesn’t inspire confidence.
Anyhoo. The main reason I won’t watch is that historical biopics aren’t really my thing. So a three hour long biopic full of Nolan’s preference for honking, overblown audio and quasi pointless timeline tricksiness sounds like more of a chore than a good time. To me anyway.
It's been a fascinating read. Any more films you've not seen you want to tell us about? I'm all fecking ears.
None whatsoever. Clear as a bell.
I am not a Nolan fan to say the least but this was truly excellent film making. None of the things you fear occur. I was apprehensive but had the best cinema experience in many years.
Last edited:
Same for me and I didn't think I had this level of attention span left. Maybe because the subject matter is really interesting for me, but I felt immersed and it seems like theater cinema can still pack a punch in a way, provided with the right content.
The test scene is really fascinating. I knew very well what would happen, but the level of detail in that reproduction and the sound made this incredibly tense and I can't remember at what movie last it felt that way. Also, he really did his homework on this one, even added Feynman's hiding behind the glass windshield.
Important in what way though?
I can't do it word for word - because of my memory not the sound system but...
Oppenheimer reminds Einstein about the "setting the world on fire" question he'd asked him earlier.
Einstein says: what about it?
Oppenheimer: I think we did.
That's the gist anyway.
Einstein says: what about it?
Oppenheimer: I think we did.
That's the gist anyway.
this
Aka flashbacks.
Last edited:
Thanks. It was just the 'I think we did' line, though tbf my friends all heard it so it could just be my ageing ears.
It a single mention in the movie about his inside out brain? fecking Nolan fanboys acting like he's some Realism King yet he missed that fact, didn't he?
Same. It was an unforgettable experience. But I'm a huge fan of Christopher Nolan in general.
Totally agree. I went to see this with my wife after the kids were asleep so the movie didn't begin until 10 pm. I was worried one or both of us would fall asleep because of the long running time and late start. But, we both found the time just flew by. I loved this movie. After years of one super-hero movie after another it was incredibly refreshing to see a movie that was substantive, well paced, well acted, wonderful cinematography, thought provoking. More movies like this and maybe people will be pulled back from streaming services into the theatre.
Couldn't disagree more. In my opinion, the movie got better after the bomb went off and was most thought provoking in the post war narrative.
The film goes into several areas which are as relevant now as they were then. I suppose most obviously the morality of scientific discovery versus application and the many difficult questions around the consequences. That is a huge subject on which you could apply your thoughts around AI, vaccines, global politics or even something as silly as football ownership - really, in one scene Gary Oldman practically cameos as a Qatar Twitter troll. Equally less subtle are its questions around American exceptionalism and nationalism, racism, McCarthyism... it's all there. While you'd expect all of this from an Oppenheimer biopic, I was shocked at how visceral it felt. It made me feel angry and euphoric, because, while the events of the film are relatively not-so-modern history, they are so easily applied to modern politics and the fecking bullshit we have witnessed in the past decade.
I could go on for paragraphs with effusive praise, but I'll not, I'll just say I was astounded at how good it was. I feared another Tenet.
'Important' can mean different things to different people, some think Star Wars was important because of how it changed the film industry, some might think its 12 Years A Slave for its unflinching look at slavery and some might even think its what Kevin Feige did with never-ending, consequence-free blockbusters. They'd all be right, even those French New Wave wankers. I think this is important because someone made a $100m movie that millions of people will see, that addresses all the things I personally got out of it via three hours of people talking in rooms, and assumes the audience are smart enough to enjoy it.
Others will disagree, as they should, but whoever it was who said this film was important, was, for me, bang on.
This is a thread about the movie, Oppenheimer. In which I just explained why I’m probably not going to watch it. This being a forum where people discuss things related to the title of the thread they’re posting in. Not sure why you struggle with this concept?
Yes. I agree, but I thought the pacing throughout was outstanding. It never stops. Again, its pretty much just people talking in rooms, but it never felt too long for me.
Nor did it for me. In fact, it felt like a normal length movie to me.
You summed it up really well.
Watched this a couple days ago, great film. Like stated by some others too, the 3 hours just flew by and I didn't have to check my watch even once.
A very good cast too. Murphy and RDJ were both brilliant. The sex scenes felt a bit out of place but any reason to see Florence Pugh naked is fine by me.
Only realized after looking at Wikipedia after the movie that president Truman was played by Nolan's old trustee from the Batman era Gary Oldman. Wonderful cameo.
I'd no idea Josh Hartnett was in it until his name popped up afterwards. I think the last thing I saw him in prior to this was Black Hawk Down.
It had quite the cast. I recognized some right away including Gary Oldham. But, I had to ask my wife who Josh Hartnett played and she asked me who Remi Malek had played.
I also very much enjoyed "meeting" some of the famous scientists who are routinely studied in Chemistry and Physics classes today. Einstein of course. But, also Bohrs, Heisenberg, Fermi, Teller and Lawrence.
Not recognising Rami Malek is impressive!
War of the worlds!
Yeah, I think she may have to update the prescription on her glasses.