Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It deserves pretty much all the praise it has been getting. Ridiculously well acted and directed as well as being gorgeously cinematic for a dialogue driven film.

One of the stand out elements to me was that even with JRO as the central character it shows how collaborative scientific research and experimentation is, not just in the Manhattan Project but before and after. Sure he was brilliant but he also went to others who were experts in their fields and didn't treat him as some all encompassing master of physics.

I’m really hoping to see this soon. The cast is amazing, and I’ve heard Nolan really put all his tricks to good use.

I finally got to see it. I went with my wife and my sister in law, and I enjoyed it more than they did. However, it’s pretty much confirmed I’m not a Nolan fan.

The overbearing music, quick editing and the preponderance of on-the-nose dialogue made it feel teetering in the edge of self-parody. Half of the lines in the first half were portentous or name-dropping that made it feel like an early MCU after-credits scene. The acting was so well-done-dramatic and humorless that it start d veering into “commitment to the bit” for me. And the silly over-the-top imagination sequences made me cringe-giggle. It felt like watching Walk Hard at times.

My companions thought the film felt like a docudrama that failed on the drama. It would start to mention themes, but then never really explore them in depth. It was shallow and broad rather than focused.

While it certainly is a finely crafted movie, I don’t see how it is getting such rave reviews or considered a masterful drama. I was really hoping to like this one.

Got front row seats opening night. Can confirm I am now just a skellington from the bomb scene.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Half of the lines in the first half were portentous or name-dropping

I don't think it is "name-dropping" if it was something that actually happened and goes toward establishing the world they existed in. These were high level Physicists that would have read each others work and did go to lectures that were given. it is akin to complaining that George Lucas is name dropping Spielberg and Ford when talking about Indiana Jones.

Now if they had some off hand story about meeting Marilyn Monroe that was unrelated to the diegesis of the film, now that would be name dropping.

Consider that the number of physcists who could work on something like the atomic bomb was so small back then, literally, everyone knew everyone.

It was a community of a few hundred people. The big names were names everyone knew and read. Even smaller names would be known if they contributed something to the broader body of research.

This is true of most academic fields even today.

The number of true subject matter experts on any given topic can be so low as to be counted on your hands and feet.

 Ahtman wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Half of the lines in the first half were portentous or name-dropping

I don't think it is "name-dropping" if it was something that actually happened and goes toward establishing the world they existed in. These were high level Physicists that would have read each others work and did go to lectures that were given. it is akin to complaining that George Lucas is name dropping Spielberg and Ford when talking about Indiana Jones.

Now if they had some off hand story about meeting Marilyn Monroe that was unrelated to the diegesis of the film, now that would be name dropping.

No, I mean they had the same sense as the end of the first Horus Heresy book,
something like “our next stop is some insignificant place no one’s ever heard of, A little planet called Isstvaan.”

Like how many scenes ended with “… I call it Los Alamos.” “….Some kid named Kennedy, John F. Kennedy.” Etc.?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Like how many scenes ended with “… I call it Los Alamos.” “….Some kid named Kennedy, John F. Kennedy.” Etc.?

But that is actual history... Were they supposed to make up a fake name for the plot of land he had and encouraged to be used for the project just so that they could make a dramatic name change reveal or something? Kennedy was a deciding vote in the confirmation hearings and one of the earliest things he did as a junior Senator. It is a coincidence noted by JFK, Oppenheimer, and Science historians before this film was made.

You know I’m talking about the method of delivery, not the specific name. The way the scene would end on a portentous note at a name the audience would recognize, accompanied by dramatic music. It was not that they were saying these names, but the way they were dropped like trailer lines or ominous foreshadowing every ten minutes for the first half of the movie. There’s a huge difference between dialog that feels natural or organic to the story and what this movie does. It was cheesy when Dan Abnett did it in a book about space marines—it’s not less cheesy when done in a film about the guy most responsible for the A-bomb. It’s the dialog equivalent to the Ally McBeal imagination cuts with Oppenheimer sitting naked at a desk or imagining himself on a fighter plane watching a V2 go by. We’re talking about choices so on the nose as to edge on self-parody, that might have worked in a less stilted film but just come across hokey when underscored with bombastic music and movie trailer editing.

Delivery and "name dropping" aren't the same thing you specifically called it "name dropping" so I took at as you meaning "name dropping".

 Ahtman wrote:
Delivery and "name dropping" aren't the same thing you specifically called it "name dropping" so I took at as you meaning "name dropping".

My mistake. I wasn’t aware the term was so narrowly specific in meaning.

It isn't a case of broad or narrow, and I don't believe that you believe that words are so fluid that they can be interchanged so readily between disparate concepts.

I'm sorry that trying to better understand the nature of your criticism has brought such malaise and weariness upon your house.

My young adult room mate and I went and saw this. We even got dressed up!

My thoughts on the film in particular order.

1. It was nice to see Robert Downey Jr. playing someone other than Iron Man. However, in every Congressional scene I expected him to say, "I am Iron Man."

2. I agree that we get names drops and maybe a 30-60 second moment with some famous physicist. It almost felt like a vehicle for cameos actors so they could be in a Nolan film. So many cameos! The entire "opening act" was basically "look at all these famous physicists I know!".

3. At the beginning, I couldn't help but think "Communism.... It's a party!". Being a Communist in the 30's at Berkeley looked super great! Too bad those damn right wing military types had to come in and be all... bah-humbug.... and ruin everything!

4. Acting was top-notch and the editing helped make a dialogue heavy, action free movie really zip. I was impressed by the use of editing to make the movie move along.

5. The interspersion of black and white for Congress, and color everywhere else was an interesting choice. The camera shots in those scenes were also close-up, almost distorting in their closeness. I am sure someone smarter than me can unpack the symbolism there.

6. It really felt like two films. One was the "Heroic journey" of Oppie, then the deconstruction of the hero, then a heel turn resolution.

7. I am surprised this movie is doing so well. I mean. I put a lot of study and time into the Cold War and Nuclear deterrence in College. These names and ideas were pretty familiar to me. However, the average American film-goer? No idea, and I don't think the movie really brought you along that well on the journey.

8. I could only hear about 2/3rds of the dialogue. Thanks Nolan!

9. There were a couple old ladies sitting behind us. The rest of the theatre was empty. Listening to their experience of the movie is part of why I still love movie theatres. I think my favorite part was, ".... and their naked again." Said very matter-of-factly. Cracked me up.

I am going to say a very unpopular opinion. Of the Barbie/Oppenheimer duology I think Barbie was the better movie on a lot of levels. Just an opinion, so no need to take the discussion that direction.

 Easy E wrote:
5. The interspersion of black and white for Congress, and color everywhere else was an interesting choice.

Color was when we were from Oppenheimer's perspective and B&W was when it was from someone else's, primarily Strauss.

 Easy E wrote:

I am going to say a very unpopular opinion. Of the Barbie/Oppenheimer duology I think Barbie was the better movie on a lot of levels. Just an opinion, so no need to take the discussion that direction.

Oh I agree.
Oppenheimer was definitely a good movie. Well done, well acted, decently accurate enough, etc. Probably deserves some rewards. But it was more in line with being a good Documentary full of re-enactments. More akin to the stuff I like to have on while building/painting....

Barbie was also well done, well acted, etc. But it was also entertaining.