Film Christopher Nolan's 'Oppenheimer'

FreakyJim said:
Was watching some documentary or something about nuclear weapons and it reminded me of Oppenheimer and a point I missed to mention in my previous post. The trinity test. Why was it so weak? It looked like a 2 fast 2 furious explosion if even that. I was sure at least the detonation of the A bomb would be done well, IMAX and all. What a complete disappointment.
Twin Peaks season 3 was better at this, David Lynch is an infinitely better director though, so no surprises there. Still, if you can't make a spectacle of a nuclear bomb exploding, what the feck can you do?
Click to expand...
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.
 
FreakyJim said:
Was watching some documentary or something about nuclear weapons and it reminded me of Oppenheimer and a point I missed to mention in my previous post. The trinity test. Why was it so weak? It looked like a 2 fast 2 furious explosion if even that. I was sure at least the detonation of the A bomb would be done well, IMAX and all. What a complete disappointment.
Twin Peaks season 3 was better at this, David Lynch is an infinitely better director though, so no surprises there. Still, if you can't make a spectacle of a nuclear bomb exploding, what the feck can you do?
Click to expand...

It was easily the best part of the film. There are a few YouTube clips out there on how Nolan recreated the bomb sequence.
 
Sweet Square said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they weren't quite expecting the shock wave. That scene was immense in the IMAX theater.
 
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.
 
FreakyJim said:
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.
Click to expand...
What would have made the film better in your opinion?
 
calodo2003 said:
What would have made the film better in your opinion?
Click to expand...
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.
 
FreakyJim said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hughes35 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
FrankDrebin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Wibble said:
I don't think it is overhyped and I'm a not huge Nolan fan. I hated Dunkirk and Interstellar, but love Oppenheimer.
Click to expand...

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.
 
FrankDrebin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Raoul said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.