and from my own experience at the Princeton IAS quite rightly so
I listened to the soundtrack last night. Very well recorded, but other than Trinity nothing reallly stood out for me. Don't know when I'll catch the movie. I've already seen things like Fat Man and Little Boy, and read both Reaves books, so I already feel pretty well steeped in the history. It will be interesting to see how Nolan treats this very complex historical turning point.Just got out of the cinema and boy I'm so glad it's over. Overall, I'm not buying it. Some "hot takes"!
All in all, it felt like a waste of a big budget and talent pool. It felt like a huge, late baroque painting -- copying styles and themes of the old masters, attempting to show everything and from every angle, but ultimately hollow and shouty. Such a story could have been done in a much more intimate manner. I don't think Nolan has the self-awareness to learn how to get "closer" to humans in his movies…so I hope he goes back to making action or sci-fi films.
- The novel "mysticism" of quantum physics and then nuclear research, the wonder and awe associated with these topics fell flat for me because there was not enough depth. I absolutely loved the visualizations of atoms and energy waves, and how Oppenheimer was obsessing over those…but it never was truly fleshed out and disappeared after the first act.
- Character development and inter-character conflict were done poorly I thought. IMHO Nolan doesn't know how to portray human emotions*. It's all seen through binoculars or a microscope in his movies. You never feel you're actually close to the human being. Even the most emotional moments and subjective reality scenes felt dishonest.
- Political drama felt heavy handed and cheesy at times. I'd rather watch Oliver Stone, he captures these complexities with grit and way more passion.
- The film is too long and the structure is unnecessarily complicated. I think the whole black-and-white storyline could have been cut out because its conclusion was super cheesy.
- Why was it shot in IMAX? Definitely not for the visual appeal, the film has very little spectacle in it. And despite the technique, I thought the test scene was less impactful than let's say the oil rig explosion in "There will be Blood".
- I loved some performances (Florence Pugh, Casey Affleck) but also felt that many actors played themselves or brought too much flavor from their previous work (Cillian Murphy [although he did his best]; Ben Affleck and Robert Downey Jr. were pretty unwatchable with their signature smirks).
- I did not enjoy the music and its direction. Music itself was disjointed and without character. And the direction…I felt annoyed and kind of insulted that almost every second of the movie was filled with music telling me how to feel.
- Thankfully dialogue mix was not as bad as in "Tenet".
* One memorable exception is McConaughey in "Interstellar", although I believe that happened despite Nolan and because of McConaughey's skill and style.
Not an uncommon feeling for me.All in all, it felt like a waste of a big budget and talent pool.
The one with Waterston is almost like a soap opera. Lots of time on Oppenheimers complicated love life, his problematic friendships, and painting Teller as the bad guy. Better to give that one a pass.I tried quite hard to re-watch the 1980 BBC TV dramatization a couple of weeks ago (7 one-hour episodes). I gave up after 3. Here the stories are defeated by appalling script and acting. Waterston is quite good in parts but many of the other players turn in dismal performances and many of the scenes make as much sense as 70s Doctor Who. The Writer was a British journeyman TV director with one writing credit before Oppenheimer and none after.
I'm not sure Nolan is the right dir for this job. He is most famous for defeating stories and drama with overwhelming shock and awe deployment of the cinematic arts.
It's a pity because the story is very interesting in a number of dimensions.
Soap opera - yes! And like a soap, unless you buy in to the point you really care about the characters, it's very boring.The one with Waterston is almost like a soap opera. Lots of time on Oppenheimers complicated love life, his problematic friendships, and painting Teller as the bad guy. Better to give that one a pass.
Well put. The writing was frequently mediocre as well. Constant exposition. It was like listening to smart people recite things they just read moments ago on Wikipedia, but ginned up to appear like dialogue.Just got out of the cinema and boy I'm so glad it's over. Overall, I'm not buying it. Some "hot takes"!
All in all, it felt like a waste of a big budget and talent pool. It felt like a huge, late baroque painting -- copying styles and themes of the old masters, attempting to show everything and from every angle, but ultimately hollow and shouty. Such a story could have been done in a much more intimate manner. I don't think Nolan has the self-awareness to learn how to get "closer" to humans in his movies…so I hope he goes back to making action or sci-fi films.
- The novel "mysticism" of quantum physics and then nuclear research, the wonder and awe associated with these topics fell flat for me because there was not enough depth. I absolutely loved the visualizations of atoms and energy waves, and how Oppenheimer was obsessing over those…but it never was truly fleshed out and disappeared after the first act.
- Character development and inter-character conflict were done poorly I thought. IMHO Nolan doesn't know how to portray human emotions*. It's all seen through binoculars or a microscope in his movies. You never feel you're actually close to the human being. Even the most emotional moments and subjective reality scenes felt dishonest.
- Political drama felt heavy handed and cheesy at times. I'd rather watch Oliver Stone, he captures these complexities with grit and way more passion.
- The film is too long and the structure is unnecessarily complicated. I think the whole black-and-white storyline could have been cut out because its conclusion was super cheesy.
- Why was it shot in IMAX? Definitely not for the visual appeal, the film has very little spectacle in it. And despite the technique, I thought the test scene was less impactful than let's say the oil rig explosion in "There will be Blood".
- I loved some performances (Florence Pugh, Casey Affleck) but also felt that many actors played themselves or brought too much flavor from their previous work (Cillian Murphy [although he did his best]; Ben Affleck and Robert Downey Jr. were pretty unwatchable with their signature smirks).
- I did not enjoy the music and its direction. Music itself was disjointed and without character. And the direction…I felt annoyed and kind of insulted that almost every second of the movie was filled with music telling me how to feel.
- Thankfully dialogue mix was not as bad as in "Tenet".
* One memorable exception is McConaughey in "Interstellar", although I believe that happened despite Nolan and because of McConaughey's skill and style.
I can't stand Nolan's dialogue writing style. It really feels like he's trying super hard to make every line quotable, characters try to outsmart each other instead of interacting. People don't talk like that.Well put. The writing was frequently mediocre as well. Constant exposition. It was like listening to smart people recite things they just read moments ago on Wikipedia, but ginned up to appear like dialogue.
- Why was it shot in IMAX? Definitely not for the visual appeal, the film has very little spectacle in it. And despite the technique, I thought the test scene was less impactful than let's say the oil rig explosion in "There will be Blood"
yeah , thanksIMHO "Chernobyl" did an excellent job of capturing the topic too (replying to @Andysu)