*** OPPENHEIMER *** (Spoiler Thread)

65,090 Views | 551 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by The Collective
BassCowboy33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TriAg2010 said:

HollywoodBQ said:

InternetFan02 said:

I'm bad with recognizing people and all the characters looked alike to me.
Wow. I thought that was one of the things they did a great job of. All of the characters looked distinct from one another.

Also, there were no diversity characters or commentary forced into the movie. No Negro cooks, no separate water fountains.

There were three moments in the film I thought there might be a diversity quota character:

1.) Female chemist who has to defend her place on the team given possible radiation risk.

2.) Black man escorting them at the University of Chicago campus when they visit the Pile experiment.

3.) Black man sitting in the crowd during Oppenheimer's "pep rally" after the atomic bombings.

And all three are why I think the diversity quotas are bull***** I would never have given any of these moments a second thought - but for the Academy saying "you need to meet this diversity rubric for your film to be eligible." For all I know, maybe Oppenheimer's Judaism checks all the boxes on its own as the lead character and those were moments that Nolan wanted in the film on their own merits. Or maybe not. The Academy policy distracts from the movie and leaves me wondering.


Not a diversity quota guy, but this is searching for a problem, lol.
BassCowboy33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
chick79 said:

Just got back. Terrific with mild flaws. About a half hour too long and I thought Damon was a miscasting mistake. This will clean up at the Oscars. I have to think Downey is a lock for supporting actor. For those who have not seen the movie yet I highly recommend doing at least some moderate research on the backstory of Oppenheimer post Manhattan project.


Man, I thought Damon was great.
Cliff.Booth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HollywoodBQ said:

Cliff.Booth said:

In my view that response from him just further drove home the point that despite being a great scientific mind he must have been a total idealist and not practical in how he viewed political issues. Just give Los Alamos back to the indigenous people is a similar level of naive as just share what we are working on with Stalin and we can cooperate on its development.
I took the possible working with the Russians to mean a couple of things.
1 - He figured it was a way to get more talent and more ideas. If they'd already tapped out the Americans and Brits, maybe adding Russians to the project could be a net benefit - to that goal.

2 - From his idealistic view, he figured that the Russians would get there anyway - as have the Israelis, Pakistanis and Indians (subcontinent). Why have them be competitors when as "The W.O.P.R" said, the only winning move in Global Thermonuclear War is to not play the game at all.

Frankly, I think that he thought maybe we could prevent the Cold War which dominated the world for 40 years, if we were able to get the Soviets on our side. It's hard to say but he definitely didn't see things as Black and White as the Red Scare folks did.


Again, if that really was his thinking, he didn't understand the Soviets at all. The Cold War didn't develop because we didn't share our atomic science with them, it developed because we emerged from WWII as superpowers with incompatible political and economic systems. There was no "getting the Soviets on our side" because our side was liberal democracy and the free market. George Kennan understood the USSR, not Oppenheimer.
TXTransplant
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Y'all hyped it up, but this is truly one of the best movies I have ever seen.

Murphy and Nolan have done an amazing job of capturing the genius, ego, hubris, and then the delayed regret and even anguish at the consequences of the events Oppenheimer put into motion.

I didn't know the story about Strauss and how it intersected with Oppenheimer, so that was a bit of a twist for me.

If you're around scientists long enough, you realize that most of their projects are vanity projects, and this was no exception. But Murphy really captured Oppenheimer's horror and regret at what he unleashed.

Add to that the government trashing his reputation and accusing him of being a traitor, and he really did become a martyr. Kitty calling him out on that aspect of his personality (on more than one occasion) just added to the complexity of the situation. So many emotions, and it really humanizes not just the man, but the whole project and what it meant to the people who worked on it.

I don't recommend this movie for kids, but not because of any one thing that happens in the movie, but because it's that complexity of humanity that someone who is not more mature isn't likely to pick up on or appreciate. It's just going to seem like a tedious 3 hour marathon.

As far as performances go, Josh Hartnett also blew me away. And Emily Blunt had a few stand out moments at the end (she/the character was annoying when first introduced, but giving Teller the evil eye and refusing to shake his hand at the end cut like a knife.) The guy who plays Strauss' senate aide was also very good. And Matt Damon and Cillian Murphy allowed their characters to play off of each other quite well. Groves may have been presented as a bit of a caricature, but it presented a nice foil to Oppenheimer. If there was any weak performance, I would call out Florence Pugh, but I think that was more the way the character was written.

I'll be thinking about this one for a long time. Now that I've seen it, I feel like this was a story that needed to be told. And while Oppenheimer is the center figure, I really do think it honors so many of the other individuals involved.

HollywoodBQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bunk Moreland said:

JFC some of you just refuse to live any moment of your life not through a political lens. Go outside and enjoy yourself.
I didn't even complain about the 50 star flags at the rally at Los Alamos.

I did notice it though.

Here in 2023, it was nice to see a movie without forced wokeness.
Wife forced me to watch "Greyhound" (Tom Hanks as a WWII Destroyer Captain) the other night and it had a lot of screen time for the Cook. He was no Doris Miller. And if you don't know who Doris Miller is, you don't know your Texas History (take a trip to Waco).

As far as the female scientist in the Oppenheimer movie, it wouldn't surprise me at all that a female in the 1940s would be able to contribute but also have difficulty being accepted. But, she'd be (as depicted in the movie) quantity 1, not 20% of technical staff. I felt like the movie reflected that accurately.

I also thought it was really cool in the scene where Oppenheimer explained why they had wives doing secretarial work, answering phones, etc. They're stuck there until it's over so, might as well use them.

I've seen my Grandfather's enlistment papers for WWII and the term of service was 5 years, or until the war was over. These folks had no idea how long this project might take and thus how long they might be stuck in the New Mexican desert.
HollywoodBQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Brian Earl Spilner said:

Gary Oldman has played both Truman and Churchill.
He also played Lee Harvey Oswald in the last 3 hour epic movie I watched that had about 30 minutes too much courtroom drama.
HollywoodBQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Cliff.Booth said:

HollywoodBQ said:

Cliff.Booth said:

In my view that response from him just further drove home the point that despite being a great scientific mind he must have been a total idealist and not practical in how he viewed political issues. Just give Los Alamos back to the indigenous people is a similar level of naive as just share what we are working on with Stalin and we can cooperate on its development.
I took the possible working with the Russians to mean a couple of things.
1 - He figured it was a way to get more talent and more ideas. If they'd already tapped out the Americans and Brits, maybe adding Russians to the project could be a net benefit - to that goal.

2 - From his idealistic view, he figured that the Russians would get there anyway - as have the Israelis, Pakistanis and Indians (subcontinent). Why have them be competitors when as "The W.O.P.R" said, the only winning move in Global Thermonuclear War is to not play the game at all.

Frankly, I think that he thought maybe we could prevent the Cold War which dominated the world for 40 years, if we were able to get the Soviets on our side. It's hard to say but he definitely didn't see things as Black and White as the Red Scare folks did.


Again, if that really was his thinking, he didn't understand the Soviets at all. The Cold War didn't develop because we didn't share our atomic science with them, it developed because we emerged from WWII as superpowers with incompatible political and economic systems. There was no "getting the Soviets on our side" because our side was liberal democracy and the free market. George Kennan understood the USSR, not Oppenheimer.
Oh, agree completely.

I don't think Oppenheimer did understand the Soviets.
But, I think he thought he did or at least he wanted to think that he did.

Just like how I believe that George W Bush believed that Saddam Hussein really did have "Weapons of Mass Destruction" aka - Nukes. Even thought it was painfully obvious to anybody with half a brain that all Saddam had was arrogance and loyalty through executions.
k20dub
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Saw it in IMAX this afternoon. Stunning. The score paired perfectly with the movie. The lead up to the detonation had my heart racing and palms sweating. I watched the documentary a few days ago and that definitely gave more context to what was going on in the movie.

My only complaint was that the dialogue was hard to understand at times. Like I genuinely feel like I understand about 70% of the dialogue. Wondering if that was a theater/IMAX issue. Anyone else?
Fairview20
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As someone who used to love Drake and Josh growing up, the fact Josh Peck was the one to press the detonate button during the Trinity Test was hilarious to me. Good to see him doing well!
HollywoodBQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dialogue must have been a local problem.
It was crystal clear at the Burbank AMC16.

One dialogue related issue - Oppenheimer was speaking German not Dutch.
(that tidbit was offered up by my daughter who went to the movie with me and took 6 years of German at her Australian HS)

I'm not willing to sit through another 3 hours to fact check that plot point.

Unrelated but sort of - when I watched "Sound of Freedom" a few weeks ago, I could understand 95% of the Spanish being spoken - especially by the protagonist. I felt pretty good about that because I lost a lot of my Spanish ability while living in Australia for 12 years.
OldArmy71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

My only complaint was that the dialogue was hard to understand at times. Like I genuinely feel like I understand about 70% of the dialogue.

I saw it today at a normal theater.

The volume was much, much too loud. Hurt my ears at some points.

A fair amount of the dialogue was, as you said, garbled.

The movie went on forever, in particular the Straus part. I understand why, but it was too long by 30 minutes at least.

I was disappointed to discover that two of the major scenes with Einstein--the issue of "Could we actually blow up the world?" and the talk between Einstein and Oppenheimer that maddens Straus and is made such a major point of--were complete fabrications by Nolan.

It was a well-done movie that I have no interest in seeing again.
Goldie Wilson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Entertaining enough. Can't imagine ever seeing it again.
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think he was great in this movie but I also get why history buffs might think it was miscast (though miswritten is probably more accurate.) Hard to overstate how much a lot of people absolutely hated Groves and we don't really see that. Also might be because we see him interact almost exclusively with Oppenheimer who is like the one person on the planet that he liked.
Marauder Blue 6
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
k20dub said:

Saw it in IMAX this afternoon. Stunning. The score paired perfectly with the movie. The lead up to the detonation had my heart racing and palms sweating. I watched the documentary a few days ago and that definitely gave more context to what was going on in the movie.

My only complaint was that the dialogue was hard to understand at times. Like I genuinely feel like I understand about 70% of the dialogue. Wondering if that was a theater/IMAX issue. Anyone else?
Which documentary?
k20dub
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To End All War: Oppenheimer & the Atomic Bomb. It's on Peacock.
FightinTexasAg15
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fairview20 said:

As someone who used to love Drake and Josh growing up, the fact Josh Peck was the one to press the detonate button during the Trinity Test was hilarious to me. Good to see him doing well!


There's an opportunity for someone to cut the video of him pushing the button and it not working and then cut to

bonfarr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Just saw it and was disappointed. Very little of the movie is devoted to the actual building of the Bomb, it is all about the moral conundrum and politics of the bomb. A significant portion of the film takes place in a claustrophobic room filled with men questioning Oppenheimer and others. I expect a big drop off after the opening weekend and I would not spend time watching the movie again when it is streaming.
CharlieBrown17
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I thought the movie was excellent.

Only complaint I had at times was that Murphy plays Oppenheimer very similar to how he plays Thomas Shelby at times and the panic attacks that Oppenheimer has were vert reminiscent of the PTSD episodes Thomas Shelby has.
Petrino1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bonfarr said:

Just saw it and was disappointed. Very little of the movie is devoted to the actual building of the Bomb, it is all about the moral conundrum and politics of the bomb. A significant portion of the film takes place in a claustrophobic room filled with men questioning Oppenheimer and others. I expect a big drop off after the opening weekend and I would not spend time watching the movie again when it is streaming.


Agreed, I saw it today and came away very disappointed. I don't get all the hype. I love all of Christopher Nolan's movies and I am a big WWII buff, and I still couldn't get into this movie.

I thought it was decent, not great. Don't think I would watch again.
Cliff.Booth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Us waiting for TC's review

Post removed:
by user
BCSWguru
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This movie is fantastic. So many great acting jobs. Plus boobs.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think I'm going to have to see it again in the theater to know, definitively, how I feel.

While my initial impression is that it's no doubt a masterpiece - at times it felt truly iconic, like an instant Oscar classic - yeah, I doubt I'll rewatch it in full again on cable or wherever, unlike a number of Nolan's other films. There are sequences I'll revisit a ton, but man this thing is packed with way more political back-and-forth than I was expecting, especially the last 45 minutes or so. I definitely got the overall gist, I just need to see it again to really track and appreciate those parts of the movie.

Overall, though, Murphy should have Best Actor sewn up - that was a performance for the ages - and I loved the rest of the (incredible) cast so much as well. The cinematography and score were of course top notch too, but there was one, massive distraction that also makes a second viewing a necessity...

The past few days I've seen so many mentions on Twitter, of 70mm screenings having issues, and thought surely none of that will happen at ours, considering we're seeing it at one of the most popular theaters on the planet, the Chinese Theater IMAX, one that Nolan himself personally helped calibrate for this movie. But sure enough, right after Oppenheimer's big victory speech, when he starts to lose it in front of the crowd in the bleachers, the sound went completely out. Only, there was a good 30 seconds where we thought it was a purposeful choice by Nolan, as Oppenheimer exits the building, sees the couple crying, the guy throwing up, etc. That moment played so incredibly well in utter science - like, it was legitimately poignant - but then when it cuts to the White House, Oppenheimer is led into the Oval Office, and Truman starts speaking - and there was still no sound - the audience started to fidget (even though the silence still kind of sort of worked at first). Another 20 seconds passed and people started yelling for them to stop the projector, turn it off, etc, but it kept playing with no sound.

Finally - and this was pretty hilarious - one part of the theater started doing exactly what the audience in the bleachers had just been doing on screen - stomping their feet and clapping - and pretty soon the entire theater joined in - all 900 or so people stomping, clapping, and laughing - and the theater finally turned off the movie. It took another five minutes or so before they had it fixed, and when it came back it was the laser IMAX projector, not the full-frame, 1.43:1, 70mm one. For whatever reason, they also had to restart it from the scene where Truman's announcing the bomb over the radio, so we saw that scene twice, along with Oppenheimer's speech twice. Turns out, the sound blew out from the 70mm projector when there's that loud explosion noise during the speech, and Oppenheimer is freaking out, but it's crazy how it was almost *more* effective after that moment, when there was no sound, and we didn't realize it wasn't intentional.

A friend we were with used to work with to Nolan a ton at Warner Bros, and before the movie they said Nolan doesn't live too far away from the theater, will actually drop in on certain showings of his movies opening weekend at the Chinese, and just stand at the back, so I kept wondering if he might have there when the sound went out. Who knows, but it was funny to imagine, and definitely a memorable movie/experience regardless.
Post removed:
by user
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Done. A baker's dozen, just for you.
Post removed:
by user
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I lied. 14 was the magic number.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A great piece about that incredible ending...

TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TXTransplant said:

Y'all hyped it up, but this is truly one of the best movies I have ever seen.

Murphy and Nolan have done an amazing job of capturing the genius, ego, hubris, and then the delayed regret and even anguish at the consequences of the events Oppenheimer put into motion.

I didn't know the story about Strauss and how it intersected with Oppenheimer, so that was a bit of a twist for me.

If you're around scientists long enough, you realize that most of their projects are vanity projects, and this was no exception. But Murphy really captured Oppenheimer's horror and regret at what he unleashed.

Add to that the government trashing his reputation and accusing him of being a traitor, and he really did become a martyr. Kitty calling him out on that aspect of his personality (on more than one occasion) just added to the complexity of the situation. So many emotions, and it really humanizes not just the man, but the whole project and what it meant to the people who worked on it.

I don't recommend this movie for kids, but not because of any one thing that happens in the movie, but because it's that complexity of humanity that someone who is not more mature isn't likely to pick up on or appreciate. It's just going to seem like a tedious 3 hour marathon.

As far as performances go, Josh Hartnett also blew me away. And Emily Blunt had a few stand out moments at the end (she/the character was annoying when first introduced, but giving Teller the evil eye and refusing to shake his hand at the end cut like a knife.) The guy who plays Strauss' senate aide was also very good. And Matt Damon and Cillian Murphy allowed their characters to play off of each other quite well. Groves may have been presented as a bit of a caricature, but it presented a nice foil to Oppenheimer. If there was any weak performance, I would call out Florence Pugh, but I think that was more the way the character was written.

I'll be thinking about this one for a long time. Now that I've seen it, I feel like this was a story that needed to be told. And while Oppenheimer is the center figure, I really do think it honors so many of the other individuals involved.

TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bonfarr said:

Just saw it and was disappointed. Very little of the movie is devoted to the actual building of the Bomb, it is all about the moral conundrum and politics of the bomb. A significant portion of the film takes place in a claustrophobic room filled with men questioning Oppenheimer and others. I expect a big drop off after the opening weekend and I would not spend time watching the movie again when it is streaming.

I mean, "the moral conundrum and politics of the bomb," by their very definitions, are inherently far more dramatic than "the actual building of the bomb." You want the latter, go read a book or watch a documentary. Personally, I certainly didn't need to see another shot of scientists writing on chalk boards, reading equations, or assembling bomb components. Give me moral conundrums and political infighting all day long.
TXTransplant
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ha! I looked up who he was after the movie was over because I didn't recognize him. Didn't include his name in my post because I'd never heard of him and figured not many others would recognize it.

Han Solo. I totally missed that one. That's a movie I would /should have seen with my son, but we just didn't go. I think he might have seen it with his dad.

I will freely admit I am not a movie buff. I'm probably 25 years behind in my movie watching and was fully expecting to fall asleep during Oppenheimer. I'm shocked I loved it as much as I did.
bonfarr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

bonfarr said:

Just saw it and was disappointed. Very little of the movie is devoted to the actual building of the Bomb, it is all about the moral conundrum and politics of the bomb. A significant portion of the film takes place in a claustrophobic room filled with men questioning Oppenheimer and others. I expect a big drop off after the opening weekend and I would not spend time watching the movie again when it is streaming.

I mean, "the moral conundrum and politics of the bomb," by their very definitions, are inherently far more dramatic than "the actual building of the bomb." You want the latter, go read a book or watch a documentary. Personally, I certainly didn't need to see another shot of scientists writing on chalk boards, reading equations, or assembling bomb components. Give me moral conundrums and political infighting all day long.


Fat Man and Little Boy did it better.
TXTransplant
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TCTTS said:

bonfarr said:

Just saw it and was disappointed. Very little of the movie is devoted to the actual building of the Bomb, it is all about the moral conundrum and politics of the bomb. A significant portion of the film takes place in a claustrophobic room filled with men questioning Oppenheimer and others. I expect a big drop off after the opening weekend and I would not spend time watching the movie again when it is streaming.

I mean, "the moral conundrum and politics of the bomb," by their very definitions, are inherently far more dramatic than "the actual building of the bomb." You want the latter, go read a book or watch a documentary. Personally, I certainly didn't need to see another shot of scientists writing on chalk boards, reading equations, or assembling bomb components. Give me moral conundrums and political infighting all day long.


I don't even think this really represents what the movie is about. It's about the internal human conflict that this specific time in history presented to some of the most genius academic minds.

Oppenheimer and his colleagues were brilliant scientists trying to make a name for themselves studying the most fundamental aspects of the existence of the universe. It just so happened that, at this moment in time, that work had a very specific and urgent application.

All of the people who worked on the project probably started out just wanting to work with and learn from the greatest minds of their time (maybe of all time). But because of circumstances beyond their control, to do that they had to help develop a device that would kill hundreds of thousands of people in a very gruesome way.

It's the ultimate "sell your soul to the devil" storyline, and it's not fiction. These people had to live the rest of their lives knowing they contributed (albeit, the decision on how and when to use it was completely out of their hands). Even if you completely 100% supported the decision to use the bomb, that's still a lot to have on your conscience. It doesn't rest solely on the shoulders of the political leaders in charge because that's just not how human emotions work.

Just like I'm sure every soldier who fought in WWII had to live with their choices and actions during the war, so did these scientists. And that's why I think this movie is such a great tribute to them. Their sacrifices were just as meaningful and deserve to be acknowledged.
veryfuller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
https://www.vox.com/culture/23800888/oppenheimer-review-physics-donne-trinity-christopher-nolan-fission-fusion

This reviewer does a good job of focusing on the power dynamics and themes of the movie. I especially like the insight that Oppie represents fission and Strauss fusion (which the movie even labels) in how they try to wield their own power.

The longer I sit with the movie, the more I love how the film shows both approaches fail. Both men collapse under their own inability to wield their power. They are both nave in ways that end up biting them in the end.

My big gripe with the book is that it seems dead set that Oppenheimer's views were correct about how to handle information and nuclear weapons post-war. But we never lived in a world where that played out so we don't know if it would have been better or worse.

Nolan avoids this with his ending, IMO. Oppie acknowledges that they set the world on fire, and his post-war work of trying to put the genie back in the bottle is almost a futile attempt at penance.

Anyway, the longer I've sat with it, the more impressive an effort this movie has become to me. Cannot wait to watch it again.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.