What's new
By:
Filters

Oppenheimer

Keefe

Keefe

Well-Known Member
Anyone seen it? I saw it yesterday. I thought the performances were good overall and like most Nolan movies it looks good.

Spoilers.

The music though. Dude needs to chill. Also it just sort of felt like a mess transitionally at times scene to scene. Partially it was the writing (him), partially it was the editing (I imagine he has a hand in that) but overall I didn’t love it. And it was long. A good 20 minutes could have been cut. Don’t get me wrong. It was solid. Murphy was excellent in the lead. I’d be floored if he wasn’t nominated for Best Lead Actor although his accent (NY I guess) was missing at points and it just sounded like normal American Cillian.

I’d give it a 7.9.
 
Last edited:
Keefe said:
Anyone seen it? I saw it yesterday. I thought the performances were good overall and like most Nolan movies it looks good.

Spoilers.

The music though. Dude needs to chill. Also it just sort of felt like a mess transitionally at times scene to scene. Partially it was the writing (him), partially it was the editing (I imagine he has a hand in that) but overall I didn’t love it. And it was long. A good 20 minutes could have been cut. Don’t get me wrong. It was solid. Murphy was excellent in the lead. I’d be floored if he sent nominated for Best Lead Actor although his accent (NY I guess) was missing at points and it just sounded like normal American Cillian.

I’d give it a 7.9.
Click to expand...

Im off to the movies tonight, I want to see Oppenheimer but my date is keen on mission impossible, so ill be watching that...
 
I'm seeing some 10/10's. Casting seems excellent.... I'm going to wait on this one. Nolan really likes really loud movies with questionable sound mix decisions. 3 hours of that isn't my jam. Tenet was a rough experience.
 
prodigy said:
I'm seeing some 10/10's. Casting seems excellent.... I'm going to wait on this one. Nolan really likes really loud movies with questionable sound mix decisions. 3 hours of that isn't my jam. Tenet was a rough experience.
Click to expand...

This is accurate. Not as loud as usual but 3 hours of distracting music that hurts the film imo and scenes where dialogue is crucial. Compare that to The Social Network where the music during such scenes enhances the film and elevates it.
 
Keefe said:
Anyone seen it? I saw it yesterday. I thought the performances were good overall and like most Nolan movies it looks good.

Spoilers.

The music though. Dude needs to chill. Also it just sort of felt like a mess transitionally at times scene to scene. Partially it was the writing (him), partially it was the editing (I imagine he has a hand in that) but overall I didn’t love it. And it was long. A good 20 minutes could have been cut. Don’t get me wrong. It was solid. Murphy was excellent in the lead. I’d be floored if he sent nominated for Best Lead Actor although his accent (NY I guess) was missing at points and it just sounded like normal American Cillian.

I’d give it a 7.9.
Click to expand...
There’s a lot of truth here and some of the editing did make things confusing. Especially if one hadn’t read the book that it’s based on first. I don’t think they explained well why he sent donations through the American communist party during the Spanish civil war. This ends up being a key part of his life but they didn’t explain it really in the movie. Needless to say, he thought it was the best way to provide aid to Republicans battling fascists. He also supported racial integration, civil rights, and better wages for migrant farm workers. So easily one can see why he’d be on many conservatives’ **** lists once they didn’t have use for him anymore.

I didn’t find the music to be too distracting but I don’t think it really enhanced things either. The music was heavy and dramatic, much like Dark Knight Rises or Inception. But did it need it? The movie is already pretty depressing/troubling/dark.

I’ve seen some people criticize it for not diving more into the damage the bomb testing did in New Mexico and what the bombs did to Japan. I think those criticisms are stupid. The movie is already long and can’t address everything. It’s also a movie about an incredibly complex person in history. He’s not Rudy Ruttiger. He’s not a villain either. I do think the movie does a good job of opening up discussions about nuclear weapons. Did he and his team break the world? Or did the development of nuclear weapons help avoid future world wars? We haven’t seen one since the use of the two bombs in Japan.

It’s a good movie to see once. Not an an enjoyable movie to watch again and again (again think DKR or Inception). I can’t imagine anyone seeing this multiple times.

8/10

Murphy and Downey Jr are fantastic, they get 11/10 for their acting.
 
JazzGal said:
It's quite good, so you win either way.
Click to expand...

I liked it a lot. Thought it was weird. I thought Cruise looked 40 years old half the time, most noticeably in the tux, and then the other half, looked puffy and his age.

I’m guessing CGI or Botox is the reason.
 
I'm looking forward to watching it with close caption. As mentioned, many parts I missed dialog due to overwhelming background noise. All in all I enjoyed it. 8\10 is my opinion.
 
I just can't stop thinking

"Oh I wish I were an Oppenheimer Weiner..."

when I see this thread.

I don't know why.
 
Does Hollywood make normal movies anymore? Seems like the biggest hits now are 3+ hrs long. If you watch the previews, that’s like another 30 mins. I struggle to sit for 3+ hrs in a movie theater even with comfy seats.
 
The Thriller said:
Does Hollywood make normal movies anymore? Seems like the biggest hits now are 3+ hrs long. If you watch the previews, that’s like another 30 mins. I struggle to sit for 3+ hrs in a movie theater even with comfy seats.
Click to expand...
I might start watching movies again. I absolutely loath the 90-120min Hollywood AAA movie formula. You can actually tell a compelling story in 3hrs of movie.

That said, I doubt I will ever step foot in a theater again. I think it has been more than 10 years since I've ben to a normal theater. In those 10+ years I've gone to Brewvies 2-3 times.
 
Gameface said:
I might start watching movies again. I absolutely loath the 90-120min Hollywood AAA movie formula. You can actually tell a compelling story in 3hrs of movie.

That said, I doubt I will ever step foot in a theater again. I think it has been more than 10 years since I've ben to a normal theater. In those 10+ years I've gone to Brewvies 2-3 times.
Click to expand...
Ive been to Brewvies probably over 200 times and I have seen 2 or 3 movies there. I prefer to watch movies at home anyways. Plus drinking beer and movies dont go well together when you cant pause.
 
I love going to movie theaters. I don't have a huge screen and a sound system at home. And the popcorn is better than anything I can make. I also like the shared experience, laughing or gasping or whatever with a roomful of people.
 
JazzGal said:
I love going to movie theaters. I don't have a huge screen and a sound system at home. And the popcorn is better than anything I can make. I also like the shared experience, laughing or gasping or whatever with a roomful of people.
Click to expand...
This. We love going to the movies and we have a good time even at movies we probably wouldn't watch on a quiet night at home. Some movies just hit better in that environment, like "Nope". That one was fantastic in the theater and I'm glad we saw it on the biggest screen we could find.

I'll write a better write up about Oppenheimer later when I have a keyboard. I agree with a lot of what was said about sound and other editing decisions, but I kind of took it differently, more as an accent for the conflicting concepts that make up this highly complex and enigmatic man, the brilliant leaps of scientific advancement, the dubious relationships in his often chaotic personal life, all juxtaposed against the sheer destruction of the end results of all of this. Very very few of us will ever dedicate such a huge portion of our lives to something as big as this, or even to something smaller and more personal. He was a unique and fascinating individual and I really enjoyed the film for exploring multiple aspects of his life and not just the scientific accomplishments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top