Oppenheimer was boring

[compucrap]

Finally watched this the other night and was super underwhelmed. I knew this was going to be a dialogue heavy film which was something I was looking forward to since I assumed that meant we'd get lots of discussion regarding the Manhattan project, the many technological problems that required solving (from building the cyclotrons using silver instead of copper, WHY the pile reactor was built, HOW the explosive lenses worked, etc) and I've always liked how Nolan used practical effects so I assumed there would be some quality miniatures and effects.

What we got felt drrraaaaaaaggggggeeeedddd out. I didn't need 25% of the film--probably would have minimized the congressional investigation stuff as (spoilers) the twist at the end wasn't all that great.

- Very little technical stuff. I get that a full-on scientific documentary wouldn't be appropriate for the general audience but there was no explanation regarding the explosive lenses despite them being a semi-major plot point at times.

- Lackluster explosions. The "peak" detonation scene felt very blah. I know for a fact that it could have been better while still using pratical effects because lots of other films have done so. Sure, this film wasn't about "the bomb" but I did expect something better than what we got.

- Boooooobs. Sure am sick of Hollywood making sure that women actors have to show their **** to get featured. A smart biopic like this didn't need nudity and as a heterosexual male with average sex drive I found the sex seasons distasteful. Its blatant and cheap to include such stuff, especially as early in the film as they appear and it stinks of desperation (please keep watching my 3 hour epic--there might be more boooooobs.)

- At a few points the film lectures about the human-cost of the nuclear bombings but despite there being ample photographic evidence of these horrors they film-makers never show any of them. The bombings are a complex topic, I get that, but if you're going to discuss the moral and human implications then you really should show some of the many photographs from the actual event rather than trying to use FX burnt corpses slipped into everyday scenes (and god am I tired of that CGI "wobbly walls" effect paired with the sound fading out and a high-pitch screech that Nolan loves.)

I don't see what the hype was about. Thank God I didn't see this in theaters, don't think the 3 hours would have flown by in such an environment. The acting was ok, though the dialogue left much to be desired at times and some performances were "eh" at best (Matt Damon just wasn't that believable.)

If this is Hollywoods high-point of the year then 2023 must have been pretty bad for them. ::checks box office data:: Oh, yeah, looks like his was a rough year for them...

 

[CB2001]

Sounds like you'd prefer Fat Man and Little Boy a lot more.

 

[compucrap]

Definitely. There was a Paul Nuemann movie I once saw that was pretty good.

 

[Searun]

Some very good points. They also glossed over of the brilliant physicists, chemists & experimental scientist of 1922 that set all this in motion for 1945. Brought back the fear of hiding under my school desk during ”air raid” drills as a 5 year old starting in 1950 thanks to McCarthy. Irony was a career in nuclear power generation.

 

[CessnaDriver]

There were boobs!? I couldn’t get interested before but…. Haha.

I love me some Nolan but I just couldn’t get excited about this one. The run time was indeed intimidating and I really don’t want to take that much time to know about the guy, a wiki read sufficed.


I did see the Cusack film back in the day.


I’d rather Nolan had done a movie about the Wright Brothers

 

[compucrap]

There were boobs!? I couldn’t get interested before but…. Haha.

I love me some Nolan but I just couldn’t get excited about this one. The run time was indeed intimidating and I really don’t want to take that much time to know about the guy, a wiki read sufficed.


I did see the Cusack film back in the day.


I’d rather Nolan had done a movie about the Wright Brothers

Just more unnecessary gratuitous sex scenes. I don't mind when such scenes are part of the story, Gone Girl seemed to do this better than most, but when they're not really necessary its just irritating. Especially when we're dealing with a terribly edited movie with a 3 hour runtime. I don't need excessively sexual (nude grinding only one degree away from pornographic) in a WW2 era biopic.

My concerns with this is less being a fuddy-duddy (yes, I know sex is part of life) but more in regards to how the women actors are treated in Hollywood. If we weren't constantly learning about women actors being sexually harassed and forced to do sex/nude scenes to get parts I'd be less concerned.

I didn't need to see the womans **** to be interested/engaged in her performance, apparently Nolan did.

Personally, Nolan is getting a bit played out. I'd prefer these directors start training their replacements, you know giving the younger generations a chance like they were given, and see what the NEXT GENERATION of directors can produce. Instead we get movies we don't need or never asked for (Nolan doing a biopic... comon, next they'll be proposing Michael Bay making a Bond movie... yuck!)

But we don't get that. We get the next generation of movie makers being worked to the bone, never being given an opportunity to make something of their own and--gasp--maybe make something original.

 

[Funky]

I have to agree. I know the story and I wanted to see what all the buzz was about.
I fell asleep halfway through.

 

[NeoRutty]

Thought it was great and super interesting. I literally knew nothing about Oppenheimer and the bomb. Heck I was shocked to know Germany had surrendered before they even tested the bomb.

If anything I want to watch again cuz the music was so loud it was drowning out the dialogue in parts.

Watch with SUBS.

 

[Ron]

Just more unnecessary gratuitous sex scenes. I don't mind when such scenes are part of the story, Gone Girl seemed to do this better than most, but when they're not really necessary its just irritating. Especially when we're dealing with a terribly edited movie with a 3 hour runtime. I don't need excessively sexual (nude grinding only one degree away from pornographic) in a WW2 era biopic.

My concerns with this is less being a fuddy-duddy (yes, I know sex is part of life) but more in regards to how the women actors are treated in Hollywood. If we weren't constantly learning about women actors being sexually harassed and forced to do sex/nude scenes to get parts I'd be less concerned.

I didn't need to see the womans **** to be interested/engaged in her performance, apparently Nolan did.

Personally, Nolan is getting a bit played out. I'd prefer these directors start training their replacements, you know giving the younger generations a chance like they were given, and see what the NEXT GENERATION of directors can produce. Instead we get movies we don't need or never asked for (Nolan doing a biopic... comon, next they'll be proposing Michael Bay making a Bond movie... yuck!)

But we don't get that. We get the next generation of movie makers being worked to the bone, never being given an opportunity to make something of their own and--gasp--maybe make something original.

Yeah that's why I skipped it even though I was really looking forward to watching it.

 

[JediMichael]

I also think there were a lot of issues with the movie. Within it all, I believe there is a good movie, but what we ended up with, was too much of a mess.
I also think it needed to focus more of him and the team trying to figure out how to get the bomb working and far less on the whole legal issues of his clearance.
The scene with the bomb itself was very intense and put you on the edge of your seat. When it goes completely silent, I think that threw everybody off. But I did read that from detonation til the sound wave hit them all watching, that the movie did correctly have the right amount of time.
The explosion itself was quite underwhelming as most have said.
The sex scenes were not needed at all. My parents saw it with me, and my Mom even said, if you need to add something like that to your film, then you apparently do not have faith the film will do good on its own.
I know a lot of his movies are edited all crazy like, and sometimes that can help. In certain scenes, it did help keep it more energetic. But my biggest issue, and not knowing much of Oppenheimer's story at all, was how it cut back and forth between different characters AND the years. Some black and white, some color. Pretty much, most the time, I had no idea what year it was suppose to be. Before the time of the bomb, after??? Who knows.
I did read after the fact, that all the black and white stuff was from Strauss's point of view. But they absolutely did not present that in a way that was understood during the film.
But, Hollywood and movie critics love this type stuff, so it will probably end up winning a ton of academy awards. Oh well, it doesn't change anything for my life at all.

 

[NeoRutty]

Sex scenes were fine. It’s not like they weren’t done tastefully. It wasn’t euphoria!

I totally forgot there even was nudity til brought up here.

 

[yaris]

It's basically 3 hours of why he lost his security clearance and why they wouldn't let him have it back.

It's a good awful boring movie and I hate it...there I said it.

It's not even interesting political drama.

Murphy is quiet well cast, but Damon and Downey just don't sell it.

Nolan can make really good films, but this is up there that snooze fest Tenet

 

[Probe Droid]

Saw this in the theater last August, and, yeah, it felt like it was three weeks long. Good cast even in tiny roles and an interesting story, but too much extra crap. The big event is developing/dropping the bomb but there's almost another hour after that. Frankly, by that time I didn't care any more.

It still was better than Barbie.

 

[compucrap]

It's basically 3 hours of why he lost his security clearance and why they wouldn't let him have it back.

It's a good awful boring movie and I hate it...there I said it.

It's not even interesting political drama.

Murphy is quiet well cast, but Damon and Downey just don't sell it.

Nolan can make really good films, but this is up there that snooze fest Tenet

Nolan used to be able to make good films. Think he's run out of ideas. Tenet and Oppi seem like bottom of the barrel pitches.

Saw this in the theater last August, and, yeah, it felt like it was three weeks long. Good cast even in tiny roles and an interesting story, but too much extra crap. The big event is developing/dropping the bomb but there's almost another hour after that. Frankly, by that time I didn't care any more.

It still was better than Barbie.

Haven't watched Barbie, not really my genre. After all the hype for Oppi I'm skeptical Barbie can live up to the hype it received.

 

[JediMichael]

I've been saying, with what they did film, that a whole lot could have been edited WAY down and still gotten the same message across, besides most of us wishing it had been more on the bomb development side of it all.
And like with most film where rough cuts are much longer. I read this films first cut was over 4 hours...yikes. Glad they at least did cut it down, and they only cut it down because an imax film platter can only hold so much. The thing was already over 600 pounds. Although, I think it was more of a, "Hey guys, look what I did. They are even having to make new imax platters for the film.", type of thing. More of a bragging thing than anything else.
I do like how he has really used imax in a way thats more than just for true documentaries.

 

[Knightmare]

Definitely. There was a Paul Nuemann movie I once saw that was pretty good.

The color of money ?

 

[Probe Droid]

Nolan used to be able to make good films. Think he's run out of ideas. Tenet and Oppi seem like bottom of the barrel pitches.



Haven't watched Barbie, not really my genre. After all the hype for Oppi I'm skeptical Barbie can live up to the hype it received.

There's some funny stuff in Barbie, and the two leads are good, the life-size sets and props are cute, etc., but it's very heavy handed, dated, and dumb. Also, honestly, quite hateful (basic message: men are horrible). It's Revenge of the Nerds with dolls. It's hard to fathom how it pulled in a $bilion at the box office.

 

[Probe Droid]

Definitely. There was a Paul Nuemann movie I once saw that was pretty good.

Wasn't it Fatman and Little Boy, the names of the bombs. I think that was the title.

 

[compucrap]

I've been saying, with what they did film, that a whole lot could have been edited WAY down and still gotten the same message across, besides most of us wishing it had been more on the bomb development side of it all.
And like with most film where rough cuts are much longer. I read this films first cut was over 4 hours...yikes. Glad they at least did cut it down, and they only cut it down because an imax film platter can only hold so much. The thing was already over 600 pounds. Although, I think it was more of a, "Hey guys, look what I did. They are even having to make new imax platters for the film.", type of thing. More of a bragging thing than anything else.
I do like how he has really used imax in a way thats more than just for true documentaries.

Yup. Needed to be edited down OR needed to use that extra runtime to expand the scope of the story. The dialogue was crap; numerous times they missed opportunities to add relevant dialogue that'd have easily expanded the scope. (E.G. when they mentioned they'd need tons of uranium ore they just say "already got it." When they should have mentioned the Australian business-man that bought the ore and stored it in New York harbor because he had a hunch the US was going to need it.)

Nolan isn't know for his thought-provoking dialogue. Miss the days when multiple screen-writers would review and revise a script before production. Are we really seeing how much Carrie Fisher improved scripts now that we're seeinf films that lack her once-over? (I've heard rumors she lent her skills to numerous films over the years uncredited.)

I love Imax as much as any cinemaphile--heck I have a cell from one of my favorite Imax documentaries! If Nolan holds the format so scared he should have used the medium better. The biggest complaint I've seen is how lackluster the trinity detonation was. Man, was that ever a letdown. I love practical effects but that needed some CGI improvement. Even a remastering of the actual footage would have been better. Made the bomb seem ho-hum.

Didn't watch this on imax, obviously, but I'm sure the desert shots looked cool on the big screen. Sadly, this isn't what most people wanted to see.

There's some funny stuff in Barbie, and the two leads are good, the life-size sets and props are cute, etc., but it's very heavy handed, dated, and dumb. Also, honestly, quite hateful (basic message: men are horrible). It's Revenge of the Nerds with dolls. It's hard to fathom how it pulled in a $bilion at the box office.

Meh. I love me some strong women-centered films--Gone Girl seems to be the high-water mark--but Margo isn't my favorite lead (I did like her in I, Tonya.) Last thing I need is an lecture from the Hollywood-types about gender norms using a highly flawed icon of said gender-normification.

Both these films did well because they were advertised like no other. If anything they prove that a massive advertising campaign can help fill seats. Disney should take note, many of their failures in recent years may have done better had they actually promoted them.

Wasn't it Fatman and Little Boy, the names of the bombs. I think that was the title.

Probably was. Didn't bother looking it up before I commented but if its got Nuemann thats probably the film. It features the "demon core" accident, right? Thats why I watched it a few years ago. Read an article about the demon pit and it mentioned it was in that film. Another important scene that Oppi missed out on featuring!

I've been on an ancient Roman kick recently so all those details have been pushed aside as I geeked out on Kirk Douglas' Spartacus--now THERES an epic. Kubrick--where are you in this our hour of cinematic need!?!?

 

[JediMichael]

I got to see it on digital imax, which most of a movie like this didn't really even need. Mostly, it was for the sound, which is usually better than a normal theater. When the sound of the bomb did hit, I'm pretty sure most everyone jumped....lol.