Finally saw it and absolutely loved it. Regarding earlier comments and speculation... * Agree that I couldn't make out every piece of dialogue and it did feel a little rushed sometimes. Wasn't a dealbreaker for me and I could hear 95% or more of the dialogue at the Alamo Drafthouse in SF. * Did not feel like they oversimplified the bombing decision though they made it pretty cold looking. * I did not feel like they overplayed the hearing stuff. Having all the Strauss stuff for a different and critical view of the main character was worth while, and in actual screen time the hearings don't consume much at all, especially the Strauss ones. Very useful and clever framing, I thought. To me, Nolan's best use of fragmented narrative yet. (In some of his movies, he seems to **** with timelines just out of boredom or to amuse himself or feel super smart or something.) In the end, I thought this was finally a Nolan film where all his experimenting really served the story to best effect. Some of the scenes near the end -- I don't want to spoiler anything about what he did -- were really affecting. I want to see it again and probably will do so. By the way, he was super super loyal to the factual accounts, even with relationships with people like Ed Teller and Einstein. Had great faith to the source material with only a couple of little embellishments or shifts. Bravo, Nolan -- I actually thought you were headed kinda downhill but was very wrong.
He needs to have subtitles or something. Why not cut down the background noise a little. Maybe it is worse with imax sound system.
I avoided IMAX particularly for this reason. (And I get plenty of eye candy at the big Alamo screen anyway -- I'm always there for the story more than the tech).
Do I have better hearing than others or something. I've heard this criticism of Nolan quite a bit, but I've never had issues making out dialogue in his movies.
How many SUBTLE nods does Nolan sprinkle throughout as well? Like... they don't go into his shitty relationship with his kids but they give you JUST enough that - if you know, you know.
Exactly, it's non-stop interesting character and history, jam-packed into every frame. Brody wrote in a stupid New Yorker column that it was just a glorified "History Channel" movie. What a dummy, or... maybe I just don't watch enough History Channel and it's awesome, but I don't think that was his point.
So glad you got to see it in the theater! I assumed that if you write books about scientists, you’ll probably love this movie!
I saw it yesterday and agree with this take almost totally. The sound thing did bother me a little and subtitles would’ve been nice but didn’t spoil my overall enjoyment of the movie. Visually it was a beautiful movie and really had the Nolan feel of blending black and white like Memento. The Trinity test was very well done. There was both a sense of awe and sinister with how it was done. The visuals explaining the physics were very interesting and how Nolan showed the quantum realm was both intriguing and understated. A nice contrast to the visual overload of the Marvel Movies. Cillian Murphy was outstanding along with several of the other actors. Emily Blunt’s role as Oppenheimer’s long suffering wife was some what lost in the overall story but she did the most out of a limited role. Matt Damon as General Groves was great and Robert Downey Jr. As Lewis Strauss. On a couple of personal notes this is a movie I would love to see with my Dad and will be talking to him about it later this morning. My dad is a physicist who has been doing a lot of theoretical work recently. His interest has been in understanding the nature of mass and has been heavily referencing Bohrs and Lorentz. I would be really curious to hear his take on the movie, less from the science but more in the depiction of such legendary names of physics. Also as a Cal grad I really enjoyed seeing Berkeley in the 1930’s and 1940’s and glad they shot the outdoor scenes actually on campus. It was also cool to see names that I’ve only known from textbooks and building names depicted. Particularly Earnest O Lawrence who was well played by Josh Hartnett (during the movie I thought it was Chris Hemsworth). As a student shuttling between classes often forget that Lawrence, Tolman, Chevalier, were real people and not just names in textbook or building where my 8am physics lab was. Great movie and I plan to see it again!
Before the history channel went all in on Ancient Aliens and Pawn Stars used to do some pretty good documentaries. Many of them veered into docudramas but some had high production values with good actors. Oppenheimer does have that docudrama feel but its history is actually more accurate than what a lot of the History Channel has had.
I know there was some criticism of Florence Pugh and Cillian Murphys sex scenes. Let’s just say they are more “artistic” than erotic. Sorry @Jontro. I had never heard of Jean Tatlock and I’m curious about what she looked like in real life as there appeared to be a deliberate contrast between her fleshy figure and Murphy’s almost emaciated build. The sex scenes didn’t seem gratuitous but actually advanced the plot and served to illustrate a point about how Oppenheimer felt very loyal to friends even when it was very destructive.
Since we have 1 of the two real Imax screens in Texas here in Dallas, I just bought a ticket for a screening at 6:50am this Saturday. Early morning but I'm looking forward to it....
Every. Single. Casting choice. I don't know that I've seen a historical drama that well-acted and well-cast at the same time. Even Bohr, who was an odd-looking fellow, was closely approximated. Fermi. Feynman. Only Groves was a little off, b/c the real dude was fat. It's like: Come on, Matt Damon. Cillian lost weight, and you need to lay into the burger bar! (spoilered for "size" har har) Spoiler
