Oppenheimer

[Uncle Rico]

Soooo...

Did anyone actually see the movie??

I did. It was great as expected. The tension during the bomb was phenomenal. The final court room scenes in both "court rooms" was incredible.

I think about 10 supporting actors brought career best work.

It's an incredible movie and Nolan's finest work. 

[MU82]

Instead of talking about what's doomed and what's not, one could argue that the success of Oppenheimer and Barbie (and, to an extent, Sound of Freedom) is telling studios: Make something original.

Stop just trotting out sequels and comic-book movies and Star Wars films. Give the audience something unique but also something that could interest large audiences. It might not be "easy," but that's OK. The deep thinkers in that industry are paid huge bucks to get things done.

[Uncle Rico]

Instead of talking about what's doomed and what's not, one could argue that the success of Oppenheimer and Barbie (and, to an extent, Sound of Freedom) is telling studios: Make something original.

Stop just trotting out sequels and comic-book movies and Star Wars films. Give the audience something unique but also something that could interest large audiences. It might not be "easy," but that's OK. The deep thinkers in that industry are paid huge bucks to get things done.

Despite being woke, Barbie keeps chugging along

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/box-office-haunted-mansion-9-151646788.html

[MuggsyB]

I saw Oppenheimer last night and was a bit dissappointed.  There were excellent parts, especially the Trinity Test and most of the scenes at Los Alamos, but the post war committee and congressional scenes dragged like crazy.  We don't need as a viewer to literally feel like we're at every minute of the hearing or the closed door sessions.  And while Robert Downey is a very good actor, it seemed to me his performance was a caricature of Stauss.  That's not to say they were historically inaccurate, and that he became somewhat of a villan, but it seemed a little over the top to me.  Portraying the psyche of Oppenheimer was essential to the film and frankly I don't think it was particularly well done both before and after the bombs were dropped. 

[PGsHeroes32]

I saw Oppenheimer last night and was a bit dissappointed.  There were excellent parts, especially the Trinity Test and most of the scenes at Los Alamos, but the post war committee and congressional scenes dragged like crazy.  We don't need as a viewer to literally feel like we're at every minute of the hearing or the closed door sessions.  And while Robert Downey is a very good actor, it seemed to me his performance was a caricature of Stauss.  That's not to say they were historically inaccurate, and that he became somewhat of a villan, but it seemed a little over the top to me.  Portraying the psyche of Oppenheimer was essential to the film and frankly I don't think it was particularly well done both before and after the bombs were dropped.

The two court cases were some of the best stuff. Very intense. And some phenomenal acting performances.

RDJ was fantastic. Emily Bllunt had her shining moment during the case(in a otherwise pretty empty role). Clarke was insanely good. The guy who played Han Solo as RDJs assistant was incredible. Malek in his brief spot killed it.

Excellent stuff.

[MuggsyB]

The two court cases were some of the best stuff. Very intense. And some phenomenal acting performances.

RDJ was fantastic. Emily Bllunt had her shining moment during the case(in a otherwise pretty empty role). Clarke was insanely good. The guy who played Han Solo as RDJs assistant was incredible. Malek in his brief spot killed it.

Excellent stuff.

I guess we just disagree.  I thought most of the acting was fine but was far less interested in that aspect of his story. 

[Jockey]

Despite being woke, Barbie keeps chugging along

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/box-office-haunted-mansion-9-151646788.html

We should all shudder at what these woke little girls will turn into as adults.

[MU82]

I saw Oppenheimer last night and was a bit dissappointed.  There were excellent parts, especially the Trinity Test and most of the scenes at Los Alamos, but the post war committee and congressional scenes dragged like crazy.  We don't need as a viewer to literally feel like we're at every minute of the hearing or the closed door sessions.  And while Robert Downey is a very good actor, it seemed to me his performance was a caricature of Stauss.  That's not to say they were historically inaccurate, and that he became somewhat of a villan, but it seemed a little over the top to me.  Portraying the psyche of Oppenheimer was essential to the film and frankly I don't think it was particularly well done both before and after the bombs were dropped.

The two court cases were some of the best stuff. Very intense. And some phenomenal acting performances.

RDJ was fantastic. Emily Bllunt had her shining moment during the case(in a otherwise pretty empty role). Clarke was insanely good. The guy who played Han Solo as RDJs assistant was incredible. Malek in his brief spot killed it.

Excellent stuff.

I also just saw Oppenheimer, and I'm more in agreement with PGs than Muggs.

Downey was one of the film's strengths; I thought he was outstanding, as was Murphy of course. The hearings scenes were fascinating.

I really thought the storytelling was excellent throughout: the way Nolan shifted time periods, went to black-and-white for long stretches (mostly the hearings scenes), the tension in the buildup to the construction of the bomb, and the ridiculous obsession with Communism back then in the McCarthy era. I liked the brief interludes with Einstein, too, especially the late scene.

The way Nolan used sound to depict the horrors - both those that went along with the creation of a weapon that, for the first time, gave humans power to destroy the entire world; along with the personal demons Oppenheimer felt - was masterful. At times, the theater shook ... reminded me of the old "Sensurround" that was popular decades ago.

I thought this line from the Roger Ebert website's review was interesting and accurate: Strauss is Salieri to Oppenheimer's Mozart, regularly and often pathetically reminding others that he studied physics, too, back in the day, and that he's a good person, unlike Oppenheimer the adulterer and communist sympathizer.

My one quibble was in Rami Malek's very minor character all of a sudden delivering a major speech. Seemed way too out-of-nowhere and convenient for the story. But it's a minor quibble. This film will be nominated for a lot of awards, and deservedly so.

[dgies9156]

Saw the move and thought it was intriguing. Thought they were unusually ugly to President Truman.

[🏀]

Saw the move and thought it was intriguing. Thought they were unusually ugly to President Truman.

That film depicted the scene verbatim, per Truman.

[dgies9156]

Maybe, but the connotative message in the scene was bizarre and candidly, derogatory.

[🏀]

Maybe, but the connotative message in the scene was bizarre and candidly, derogatory.

That's literally how Truman told the story of their meeting. He was braggadocious about it.

[MUBurrow]

I'm more with Muggs, though my expectations were sky high and probably unfair.  I thought a lot of the writing was a little Sorkin-esque, and I don't mean that in a good way.  I also thought too many ancillary characters popped up to play big roles without sufficient context or would then disappear again.  David Hill (Rami Malek), Frank Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence, and Ruth Tolman all weave in and out in a way that maybe moves the plot, but doesn't add to the exposition of the character. Combined with the nonlinear storytelling, it was disorienting.  Last, as big a role as Oppenheimer's relationship to women played in his life and in in the film, I didn't feel like I left the theater with a decent grasp of how he actually felt toward any of them.  Still a very good movie, but if you have me for three hours, those are pretty big holes.  It was a 7.25-7.5 for me.

[MuggsyB]

I'm more with Muggs, though my expectations were sky high and probably unfair.  I thought a lot of the writing was a little Sorkin-esque, and I don't mean that in a good way.  I also thought too many ancillary characters popped up to play big roles without sufficient context or would then disappear again.  David Hill (Rami Malek), Frank Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence, and Ruth Tolman all weave in and out in a way that maybe moves the plot, but doesn't add to the exposition of the character. Combined with the nonlinear storytelling, it was disorienting.  Last, as big a role as Oppenheimer's relationship to women played in his life and in in the film, I didn't feel like I left the theater with a decent grasp of how he actually felt toward any of them.  Still a very good movie, but if you have me for three hours, those are pretty big holes.  It was a 7.25-7.5 for me.

Excellent point on the portrayal of his intmate relationships They weren't explored in depth and didn't add anything to the film imo.  I thought the sex scenes were a little bizarre.   The film was definitely worth seeing but I don't think it's one I'll have any interest in watching start to finish again.  Great movies or books (especially those described as "masterpieces") are those that you want to revisit.  I'm sticking with my B-.

[MU82]

Thanks to Muggs and Burrow for your viewpoints. I agree with some of them and disagree with others ... and that's all good.

I actually liked the nonlinear storytelling. That's not always the case for me because sometimes storytelling like that can be confusing. But I thought Nolan did it well here. Totally agree with Burrow about the way some minor characters were used, and I had already mentioned Malek.

I wouldn't call this a "masterpiece" or a 10. For me, Schindler's List is the gold standard, so if a critic gives a movie a 10 or an A+, it had better be in that class ... and this clearly isn't. But I'd give Oppenheimer a solid 8+. It was 3 hours long yet I was never bored and never looked at my watch - that alone is worth a few points!

[MuggsyB]

Thanks to Muggs and Burrow for your viewpoints. I agree with some of them and disagree with others ... and that's all good.

I actually liked the nonlinear storytelling. That's not always the case for me because sometimes storytelling like that can be confusing. But I thought Nolan did it well here. Totally agree with Burrow about the way some minor characters were used, and I had already mentioned Malek.

I wouldn't call this a "masterpiece" or a 10. For me, Schindler's List is the gold standard, so if a critic gives a movie a 10 or an A+, it had better be in that class ... and this clearly isn't. But I'd give Oppenheimer a solid 8+. It was 3 hours long yet I was never bored and never looked at my watch - that alone is worth a few points!

I would just say it's not among the best historical films or close to Schindler's List and others.  And back to the point Burrow made.....he's absolutely spot-on with his take Not only does the viewer have no idea why Oppenheimer is attracted to these women or has any connection to them whatsoever (or why he had a mistress for that matter), we have no idea why these women want a partnership with him as well.   We have literally no clue how their influence shaped any part of his life.  I thought essentially those roles could have been completely thrown out.  I also would have liked to learn more about Fermi and his group of physicists that came to Los Alamos. 

[MU82]

We agree that it wasn't close to a "perfect movie," Muggs.

I don't need a movie to be A+ to like it a lot.

[StillAWarrior]

I actually liked the nonlinear storytelling. That's not always the case for me because sometimes storytelling like that can be confusing. But I thought Nolan did it well here.

It's pretty clear by now that Nolan considers non-linear storytelling something of a calling card. I didn't read too much about Oppenheimer before I went to see it, but I went in assuming that there would be non-linear elements.

I really like a lot of Nolan's work. Memento is a favorite of mine.

Edited to add: I want to make it clear that this wasn't stated as some sort of brilliant insight that I thought the huddled masses hadn't figured out. Obviously, I know that anyone even remotely familiar with Nolan's work is aware that he likes to play with the temporal/linear elements in his films.

[MuggsyB]

It's pretty clear by now that Nolan considers non-linear storytelling something of a calling card. I didn't read too much about Oppenheimer before I went to see it, but I went in assuming that there would be non-linear elements.

I really like a lot of Nolan's work. Memento is a favorite of mine.

Edited to add: I want to make it clear that this wasn't stated as some sort of brilliant insight that I thought the huddled masses hadn't figured out. Obviously, I know that anyone even remotely familiar with Nolan's work is aware that he likes to play with the temporal/linear elements in his films.

Call me crazy but I still think Memento is his best film. 

[MuggsyB]

We agree that it wasn't close to a "perfect movie," Muggs.

I don't need a movie to be A+ to like it a lot.

That's fair. Although Fermi should have gotten a little more run and recognition. 

[StillAWarrior]

Call me crazy but I still think Memento is his best film.

Muggsy, we don't seem to agree on much...but this...we agree.

[MU82]

I need to see Memento again. I only saw it once, back when it came out 20+ years ago.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Call me crazy but I still think Memento is his best film.

Dark Knight is far and away my favorite Nolan movie. Momento probably second for me though Prestige and Batman Begins are both close.

[StillAWarrior]

Dark Knight is far and away my favorite Nolan movie. Momento probably second for me though Prestige and Batman Begins are both close.

I need to see The Prestige. I wasn't even aware of that one. My daughter recommended it to me not long ago and I haven't seen it yet.

[tower912]

I need to see The Prestige. I wasn't even aware of that one. My daughter recommended it to me not long ago and I haven't seen it yet.

Creepiest ending ever.