Oppenheimer - who's seeing it?

I'm going to buck the trend and say that I found Oppenheimer pretty underwhelming. I realize I'm in the minority—and some critics who I really align with in other ways consider it a masterpiece—but it just didn't work for me.

It was fine. The cinematography was impressive, but I'm not sure it was all that better than any other top tier movies I've seen in recent memory. The sequence leading up to the Trinity test was well done—probably the best part of the movie, in my view.

Otherwise it felt like a 3+ hour montage (I think I'm ripping that from someone else but I can't recall who). And while it wasn't quite Oppenheimer hagiography in the way I'd feared it also didn't, in my view, grapple with the story or implications in a deep or nuanced way. I walked out of it without a real sense that Nolan had given me anything to really think about (not uncommon for me with his films).

Killers of the Flower Moon, on the other hand, was a masterpiece...
 
cyvideo said:
I'd go along with all of those, Doug, but I'm surprised seeing your list that Hacksaw Ridge isn't in there.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I'm pretty sure I've never seen Hacksaw Ridge, so thanks for the suggestion.
I don't think I ever realized until your post that Hacksaw Ridge and Heartbreak Ridge are two different movies. Duh!
The names are too similar (especially with my dyslexia) and I guess I've never realized there was another film with a nearly identical name. Heartbreak is a piece of garbage, so Hacksaw got ignored because of it. My bad. I will check it out at my earliest convenience.

BTW, have not seen Oppenheimer yet, but my expectations are low, based on previous Nolan movies.
 
Doug Jensen said:
I don't think I ever realized until your post that Hacksaw Ridge and Heartbreak Ridge are two different movies
Click to expand...

I think many have mistaken one for the other. Like chalk and cheese, they are. Going by your list, I feel quite sure you would enjoy Hacksaw Ridge.

Quote:

"Hacksaw Ridge was chosen by the National Board of Review and American Film Institute as one of their top ten films of 2016 respectively,[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] and received numerous awards and nominations. The film received six Oscar nominations at the 89th Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor for Garfield, and Best Sound Editing, winning the awards for Best Sound Mixing and Best Film Editing.[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP] It also received Golden Globe nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor,[SUP][10][/SUP] and 12 Australian Academy Award nominations, winning the majority, including Best Film, Best Direction, Best Original Screenplay, Best Actor for Garfield, and Best Supporting Actor for Weaving."

Chris Young
 
Last edited:
cyvideo said:
I think many have mistaken one for the other. Like chalk and cheese, they are. Going by your list, I feel quite sure you would enjoy Hacksaw Ridge.
Click to expand...

Ha, ha. When I told my wife I was going to see if I can stream Hacksaw Ridge, she said "Why do you want to watch that awful Clint Eastwood movie"? I really think the producers should have thought more about the title.

I discovered I can stream it for 4 bucks, so I will take a look when I have time to sit down and enjoy it. But you owe me $4 if I'm not fully satisfied, right? :)
 
Doug Jensen said:
Ha, ha. When I told my wife I was going to see if I can stream Hacksaw Ridge, she said "Why do you want to watch that awful Clint Eastwood movie"? I really think the producers should have thought more about the title.

I discovered I can stream it for 4 bucks, so I will take a look when I have time to sit down and enjoy it. But you owe me $4 if I'm not fully satisfied, right? :)
Click to expand...

Geez! That's Aussie $6.00... now can I afford that? :undecided I'm on reasonably safe ground, I think.

Chris Young
 
Okay Chris, I finally found an evening where I could sit down and watch Hacksaw Ridge without any distractions. I was all set to soak it in and enjoy a really good movie that I've never seen before. Unfortunately, I was completely underwhelmed and if you hadn't recommended it I would have bailed out after the first 15 minutes. But I stuck it out to the bitter end . . . and hated every minute of it. There's no way this is even close to being on the same level as The Thin Red Line, Private Ryan, or Band of Brothers. The first half felt like a cheesy Hallmark movie without the Christmas lights bokeh. They employed every cliche' in the book and the whole thing was completely 100% predicable in every way. I also found the casting terrible,especally the dullard Andrew Garfield. Who would hire that guy for anything??? He's like a low-rent Anthony Perkins who has the range of a single expression. And Vince Vaughn as the drill sergeant was completely miscast. All the other characters were cardboard cutouts with zero depth, right down to the nude guy in the barracks. Seriously?? So many plot holes and dumb things that I could poke holes in. I waited until the end to read the Rotten Tomatoes reviews, and then found a few that sum up my feelings.

"Overall, the movie doesn't add up to much."

"Cornball heroism at its most righteous and manipulative."

"An amazingly bizarre film, one that admires Doss' pacifist beliefs while presenting gruesome, festishized violence en masse."

"A morally repugnant bloodbath from its shallow, sermonizing first act to its ferociously brutal finale."

"Instead of a war film about a brave hero's comeuppance, Gibson has remade his Christ film, this time with his martyr in khaki."

"Man, I thought most of this film was a load of hooey -- right down to Garfield's tremulous, moist-eyed performance and that sing-songy cornpoke accent of his."

Those quotes pretty much sum it up. But there is good news!! I found it for free on Netflix, so you don't need to reimburse me for the cost of streaming. :)
 
Yeah but other than that how was the movie?

Have you seen "We Were Soldiers" this time starring Mel Gibson instead of directed by. Also starring Sam Elliott, Greg Kinnear. Lieutenant Colonel Hal Moore was a real life highly decorated army recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross, and retired as lieutenant general. Moore is remembered as the lieutenant colonel in command of the 1st Battalion, 7th Calvalry Regiment at the Battle of la Drang in 1965, during the Vietnam War. Moore was wounded and received the Purple Heart which he would not wear because he didn't feel his injury merited receiving it. Although fictionalized, the movie is based on true events. Moore stated in a documentary, included in the video versions, that the film was the first one "to get the Vietnam War right."
 
Tom Roper said:
Yeah but other than that how was the movie?

Have you seen "We Were Soldiers" this time starring Mel Gibson instead of directed by. Also starring Sam Elliott, Greg Kinnear. Lieutenant Colonel Hal Moore was a real life highly decorated army recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross, and retired as lieutenant general. Moore is remembered as the lieutenant colonel in command of the 1st Battalion, 7th Calvalry Regiment at the Battle of la Drang in 1965, during the Vietnam War. Moore was wounded and received the Purple Heart which he would not wear because he didn't feel his injury merited receiving it. Although fictionalized, the movie is based on true events. Moore stated in a documentary, included in the video versions, that the film was the first one "to get the Vietnam War right."
Click to expand...

I read the book a few months ago and loved it. So many incredible stories. Downloaded the film and had a similar reaction to Doug with Hacksaw Ridge. I found it corny and jingoistic. What does it mean to be a good man? I don’t know Mel but the string section is suggesting you’re about to tell us.

Incidentally, the book is called “We Were Soldiers Once… and Young” which I think is a pearl of a title. Removing the last half takes away all of its mystery and power. In the 90s they made a TV special about it and went with the clanger “They Were Young and Brave”!
 
I finally saw Oppenheimer. I thought it was great. Nolan is a master of editing and really managed to weave together a complex series of events and facts without resorting to distortions and simplifications and without losing narrative momentum. The personal/psychological focus brings it all together. And every time I paused the film to find out if some detail was true to the historical record, it was.

The one aspect that really didn't work for me is I never cared much about Strauss and the personal battle/vendetta there. I understand that he represents the political calculus and amoral gamesmanship that stands in opposition to the earnest embrace of principles on the part of Oppenheimer and other scientists (even as Oppenheimer's motivation is called into question). But the climax of Strauss' vote felt sort of shoehorned into the larger narrative. I get why Nolan wrote it this way and what was the narrative purpose of the character and the event in the story arc. It just never mattered to me.
 
I thought it was great too and it did feel shoehorned but wait for a movie to finish before fact checking it. The abruptness of "we'll take care of it from here," and the quick exit from Los Alamos portrayed by Emily Blunt was poignant. Entering the mind of Oppenheimer as he muted the voices cheering his success at the rally before emerging from his withdrawal to say, "I doubt they liked it very much" was pure Nolan. I haven't liked everything Nolan does, notably hated Tenet but Dark Knight was brilliant. I'm not sure the events in the meeting with Truman were factual, but the seething portrayed by Gary Oldman was a masterstroke. Robert Downey narration was excellent, and Matt Damon good in his role, strong cast, about as deep as I usually go with my movie reviews, not looking for symbolism or metaphors for everything but glad that you do.
 
Tom Roper said:
I thought it was great too and it did feel shoehorned but wait for a movie to finish before fact checking it.
Click to expand...
In theory, i agree that it's best to watch the movie without interruptions. But there were a series of plot points that threatened my suspension of disbelief, starting with the poisoned apple. I thought that was preposterous and a bit too Hollywood in trying to be dramatic and illustrate his mental state. Sure enough, something like that happened. I'm not clear on the details but it's close enough to warrant the depiction in the film.

Besides, it took me 4 sittings to finish the whole film and there were a handful of times where I couldn't understand a line and had to rewind and turn on the subtitles. So there were plenty of interruptions to the viewing anyway.

the abruptness of "we'll take care of it from here," and the quick exit from Los Alamos portrayed by Emily Blunt was poignant. Entering the mind of Oppenheimer as he muted the voices cheering his success at the rally before emerging from his withdrawal to say, "I doubt they liked it very much" was pure Nolan.
Click to expand...
Yeah there were a couple notable uses of silence. There was a memorable and brilliant use of sudden near-silence in Dunkirk and I feel like he was inspired to use it again, which paired well with the delay between light and sound from the atomic blast. Pretty brilliant stuff.

Speaking of Dunkirk, I think that historical dramas help ground Nolan and keep his stories from going off the rails. I haven't seen Tenet but I was bored and disappointed by inception and interstellar. Loved Dunkirk, watched it several times within a week.

I haven't liked everything Nolan does, notably hated Tenet but Dark Knight was brilliant. I'm not sure the events in the meeting with Truman were factual, but the seething portrayed by Gary Oldman was a masterstroke.
Click to expand...


My wife rewatches Dark Knight every year. She doesn't even like superhero movies.

Apparently Oppenheimer did meet with Truman and rubbed him the wrong way. Supposedly Truman really said "don't let that crybaby in here again," albeit not within earshot of Oppenheimer.

Robert Downey narration was excellent, and Matt Damon good in his role, strong cast, about as deep as I usually go with my movie reviews, not looking for symbolism or metaphors for everything but glad that you do.
Click to expand...


Nolan must be an excellent director of actors. Everyone in the exceptional cast was as good as they've ever been.

I wouldn't say that I go looking for symbolism/metaphors but if it's there hopefully I notice it. I didn't notice a lot of symbolism in this movie. It seemed to play out mostly on the literal plane.

Of course, there was the motif of rain/splashes/ripples. But that motif was rooted in character observations so I'd say it's still in the realm of the literal. Oppenheimer watches rain fall in puddles. Einstein tosses pebbles in the pond. And at one point Oppenheimer sort of sees puddles/ripples on a map of Russia where they drew out H bomb blast radii. (I wasn't quite sure what was going on in that shot.)

And I would assume that the characters are thinking about both the ripple effects of their actions (especially the harmful effects of the atom bomb) and the blast of the bomb like the ripple from the falling raindrop. Someone also mentioned drowning the Russians to mean bombing them to oblivion, and it didn't matter if you drowned in 10 feet of water (atomic bomb) or 1000 feet (hydrogen bomb). Not sure why they chose the metaphor of drowning rather than burning, but it ties back to water.

Then of course Straus made reference to Oppenheimer being a martyr and wearing a crown when he suggested that Oppenheimer wanted to be disowned by the military establishment so he could distance his legacy from Hiroshima. So there's a bit of Christ reference there although not too strong. And when Straus led him out from the meeting where they told him his security clearance might be denied, he insisted that Oppenheimer take his car and driver and leaned in, I thought, uncomfortably close when he did. Betraying him with a kiss, as it were. But it's a minor allusion, nothing like in Cool Hand Luke.
 
I enjoyed this film and definitely think it's worth watching. However, it feels a bit too long and the female characters seem underdeveloped, almost as if they were included just for the sake of it. I particularly liked the cinematography, especially the parts that were in color rather than black and white.
 
wd23kf said:
I enjoyed this film and definitely think it's worth watching. However, it feels a bit too long and the female characters seem underdeveloped, almost as if they were included just for the sake of it. I particularly liked the cinematography, especially the parts that were in color rather than black and white.
Click to expand...
Like Abe mentioned earlier, the Strauss rivalry felt tacked on. They could probably have cut 45 minutes from the movie by not including that subplot.
 
But it's part of the Oppenheimer story which didn't just stop at the detonation. I'm sure Nolan isn't crafting his story lines around the cutting room.
 
Tom Roper said:
But it's part of the Oppenheimer story which didn't just stop at the detonation. I'm sure Nolan isn't crafting his story lines around the cutting room.
Click to expand...
I don't know. While I partly admire the auteur/filmmaker who "does it all" it also seems like that there are few people around Nolan to reign things in. It's as if this project calls for something called a "scriptwriter" to make sure it is not a word for word adaptation of the biography.
 
I'm not a Nolan fan, and frankly, I don't get the hype. Of course, I come from a perspective of the New Hollywood (which is dying before our eyes).

Interstellar was very, very good, but the rest of his body of work I can leave be. And Dunkirk? Horrible. And that score? Horrible. That drone dissonant score. There was this entire battle before the evacuation on the beach, and we see none of it. And save The Dark Knight; not a Superhero fan at all. Me and Scorsese feel the same way.

I got about an hour and a half into Oppenheimer and shut it off. I just couldn't.

Nolan likes to have two people talking while this score plays in the background, and it's so distracting.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
I'm not a Nolan fan, and frankly, I don't get the hype. Of course, I come from a perspective of the New Hollywood (which is dying before our eyes).

Interstellar was very, very good, but the rest of his body of work I can leave be. And Dunkirk? Horrible. And that score? Horrible. That drone dissonant score. There was this entire battle before the evacuation on the beach, and we see none of it. And save The Dark Knight; not a Superhero fan at all. Me and Scorsese feel the same way.

I got about an hour and a half into Oppenheimer and shut it off. I just couldn't.

Nolan likes to have two people talking while this score plays in the background, and it's so distracting.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. Oppenheimer and Dunkirk were awful. Intersteller is a modern classic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top