Oppenheimer

[okok]

We deserve a thread, not sure how could they spend so much money on this IMAX biopic?

 

[bloodshoteyed]

well, the non-CGI nuke wasn't cheap fo' sure

 

[Willem]

After the recent final rehabilitation I looked up wikipedia and a few other sources on Robert Oppenheimer. What struck me was that there is virtually no reference to his role in the creation of the model for a modern Institute for Advanced Study, first at Los Alamos, but later at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. It is a model that has since been copied all over the world, and from my own experience at the Princeton IAS quite rightly so. The benefits to pure science all over the world have been enormous.

 

[Andysu]

nolan has become the destroyer of dialog . pass will no longer watch or buy anymore of his mumbling dialog movies dunkrik was dreadful muffled mumbling dialog

 

[okok]

and from my own experience at the Princeton IAS quite rightly so

how was Princeton back in the days? heard they really changed a whole lot

 

[Willem]

We are of course talking about the Institute and not the university. I spent time at both and both were great but very different. My membership of the IAS was in 2015 and was both enjoyable and productive.
I spent semesters or full academic years at a few similar institutes of advanced study and the Princeton IAS is not only the orinal, but hard to imitate.

 

[Pe8er]

Just got out of the cinema and boy I'm so glad it's over. Overall, I'm not buying it. Some "hot takes"!

• 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 Matt Damon 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".

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.

* One memorable exception is McConaughey in "Interstellar", although I believe that happened despite Nolan and because of McConaughey's skill and style.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Just got out of the cinema and boy I'm so glad it's over. Overall, I'm not buying it. Some "hot takes"!

• 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".

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.

* One memorable exception is McConaughey in "Interstellar", although I believe that happened despite Nolan and because of McConaughey's skill and style.

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.

 

[Multicore]

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.

 

[Multicore]

All in all, it felt like a waste of a big budget and talent pool.

Not an uncommon feeling for me.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

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.

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.

 

[Multicore]

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.

Soap opera - yes! And like a soap, unless you buy in to the point you really care about the characters, it's very boring.

 

[Andysu]

oppie is one movie , given nolan soundtrack of muffled mumbling dialog with LR music effects drowning out audio frequency masking centre channel , its one movie i will never buy or even rent , i have bundle of his past movies with dreadful LCR mixing
also subject matter , don't care for it ,

sure i have other movies on disc and tape that have same " atomic theme " with

the spy who loved me
the terminator
terminator 2
terminator 3
terminator 4
by dawn's early light
crimson tide
armageddon
deep impact
godzilla
shadow makers ( fat man and little boy )
indiana jones and kingdom skull ( no i certainly do not watch it anymore )
aliens ( i say we nuke it from orbit )
octopussy
goldeneye
back to the future
batman , dark knight rises 3
the hunt for red october
k19
the abyss
empire of the sun
the andromeda strain
rocky IV
wolverine
red dawn
13 days
broken arrow
superman the movie
superman iv
the peacemaker
the final countdown
jfk
earthquake
mission impossible fallout

all the above ^ in some way has a nuclear atomic theme in the story or plot with word reference being mentioned , nuclear or atomic , shall i go on ?

sort of thinking , star wars 77 does it has a destructive power which maybe not matched to the same as single atomic bomb

i'm just simply not into , nolan movies anymore , nolan has mentioned before that he doesn't like surround sound , then why does he even bother mixing in 5.1 ? why not mix with just LCR no surround and no LFE.1 , dolby digital can be mixed and encoded that way

 

[Open Mind Audio]

Just got out of the cinema and boy I'm so glad it's over. Overall, I'm not buying it. Some "hot takes"!

• 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".

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.

* One memorable exception is McConaughey in "Interstellar", although I believe that happened despite Nolan and because of McConaughey's skill and style.

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.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Haven't seen it, but my brother described it much like Pe8er did.

I had already noticed in trailers that Matt Damon just seems to be a grouchy Matt Damon. He certainly can be a very good actor. In fact it reminded me of watching Carol Shelby in WWII in a way. Seemed the same character that Damon played in Ford vs Ferrari.

Was planning to view it in an Imax, but my brother said he wondered why it was filmed in Imax and it didn't add anything to this kind of movie. He saw it in one of the handful of theaters Nolan preferred for it to be shown.

 

[Pe8er]

IMHO "Chernobyl" did an excellent job of capturing the topic too (replying to @Andysu)

 

[Pe8er]

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.

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.

 

[LightninBoy]

• 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"

Nice writeup overall. I like the comparison to "There will be Blood".

 

[Andysu]

IMHO "Chernobyl" did an excellent job of capturing the topic too (replying to @Andysu)

yeah , thanks
russia making idol threats towards the uk using nuclear weapons , i don't think many may care for oppie and has slipped in box office with its imax and 70 35 here and there , fewer don't care for the subject matter its depressing , which maybe why barbie pink is colourful and appeals to all audiences and its in " pinkmos sound " where nolan doesn't bring anything new with his soundtracks because he doesn't like surround sound , and the movie has swearing f bombs in it , where shadow makers , was pg 13 , yet flopped maybe due not many care for the subject matter ?

barbie still has to do even $500 $700 to look decent even it has feminist male woke power in it , china didn't like it , yet barbie in pink car with nos has overdriven nolan's oppier nuclear powered hyped movie and left it in the dust on desert road with tumble weeds

 

[Icboschert]

Huge Nolan fan here, with the exception of Tenet. He reached too far there and between the insane sound mixing and story, it wasn't enjoyable. On to Oppenheimer, I thought it was really well done. The sound mix wasn't bad to my ears, I've heard lots of people complaining but it wasn't like Dunkirk, Tenet or even Dark Knight Rises where it was unintelligible at times. I think there are viewers who would prefer not to have the constant soundtrack going throughout the film but if you want to give a 3 hour movie pacing, this is a way to achieve it; I was okay with directorial decision there.

The casting is tremendous and they all give top performances. For three hours filled with mostly people talking, I was never bored or even came close to it. I avoided trailers and promos for the movie since I like to go into my blockbuster films with a clean slate. Because of that I don't know how to respond to criticism of trailers/marketing not lining up with the actual film itself.

I watched it on a 70mm film projection screen (not the 70mm IMAX) and hearing the projector wheel spin in the back of the theater was really nostalgic. The picture quality was phenomenal, colors were graded really well. If you have a chance to see it on 70mm it is worth it. I almost went digital IMAX but glad I went with the film screening.

A cool memento was given out to the 70mm viewers on opening night: