Oppenheimer (Christopher Nolan)

Myself and the missus went to see it last night. I thought it was very good as did she. The only downside, I missed a couple of minutes of it while I had to go out for a leak. 3 hours is too long for a movie for people with a weak bladder like me.

Ah yeah, not being snarky either. I've seen several people with the same opinion and I respect it too, that it should have been shown, but I think the way it's done suits the film well

It's funny, here I am defending the film after saying it didn't work for me. Now that it's settled I do think higher of it. It's not perfect and there's some bits that I don't think were good but it has a lot going for it. When I saw someone ask how long it was, it reminded me I didn't think it was too long at all, and that's saying something at 3hrs

Saw this last weekend (I did a Barbenheimer day with Barbie first, then Oppenheimer), and I really enjoyed it. I think it's one of Nolan's best films. Cillian Murphy was amazing. RDJ was also very good as were Emily Blunt and Matt Damon. The whole cast really sold it. I wouldn't be surprised to see Murphy, RDJ and Blunt get nominations and I think Murphy has a particularly good shot at winning.

The devisive last hour - I enjoyed it. Given that the movie is based on American Prometheus, it was important to show Oppenheimer not only bringing fire, but then being tied to the stone for torture. One thing I thought was intersting was how easily the petty greivance between Oppenheimer and Strauss eventually led to both of their careers being ruined - mutual destruction. Oppenheimer did have a bit of revival in the 60s, but the damage had been done by then. And Strauss' political ambitions were snuffed out by the Senate hearing. It's just an interesting and unsettling parallel to the final scene.

The Trinity test scene was magnificent, and I'd encourage people to see this movie in the cinema for that scene alone.

Saw it last night in Rathmines. Overall thought it was fantastic even if the jumping from scene to scene took a little getting used to. The sound is incredible in parts, really what going to the cinema is all about. RDJ and Emily Blunt are brilliant, surely they will get a nomination here.

The Trinity test scene alone was worth the ticket price.

This is Oppenheimer's story, and Nolan is showing us the man responsible for the Trinity test.

Strauss says in the movie something along the lines of "Oppenheimer wanted to be famous for Trinity but not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I gave him that". Truman also states in the movie "Nobody cares who built the bomb, I'm the one that dropped the bomb".

I think it's a deliberate exclusion to leave you questioning why they didn't show it, putting you into Oppenheimer's shoes a bit where one draws the line at responsibility for what happened in Japan. Culminating in Oppenheimer's reflection in the final scene.

It also takes away from the cinematic spectacle of the Trinity test if they started showing multiple detonations.

Agree entirely, it does not take long to realise this.

Just one point, weren't the B&W scenes of the closed hearing, without Strauss in the room? So it wasn't always his perspective or is my memory failing me and he was there?

Speaking of scenes not involving Strauss or Oppy, it did a great job portraying Opp's internal struggle of what he believes has happened and how it's affecting him. Like with Jean..

David Baddiel is complaining about Cillian Murphy being cast as Oppenheimer because Murphy isn’t Jewish.

His reason is so stupid that I can’t properly put it into words And unless I’m very much mistaken Oppenheimer was not even a believer and his parents were not religious.

Don't know what he is trying to achieve by moaning about “authenticity” now after the film is released?

So, when Jews play non-Jews, should everyone else complain?

Baddiel's always been a bit of a plonker, but this is a stupid hill to die on.

I still like David Baddiel but he's miles wide of the mark here

One comment I saw highlighted the hypocrisy. Baddiel wrote the screenplay for The Infidel, in which a Muslim man finds out he was born to a Jewish family and adopted. He's played by Omid Djalili who is neither Muslim or Jewish. And, obviously, it didn't matter one bit

He also said that there's no mention of Oppenheimer's Jewishness in the film which is just not true. There's a conversation about it on the train, and the point that Hitler's antisemitism will give them a chance to catch up the time lost to the Nazis in development.

“Both roles” ?

I didn’t know Tom Hanks had said that. I also ask why?

I wonder if someone will ask Baddiel why he waited so long to comment on it - surely not because after the release when it scoring big attention that he could get big attention? Surely not that?

I remember some half wit celebrity doing that “Jewface” thing over Tony Shaloub playing a Jewish man on THE MARVELLOUS MRS MAISEL. I can’t remember if anything was said about Rachel Brosnahan but I do remember several Google headlines that made it seem like no one knows what her religious background is if any. Why would they even want to know?

The guy who plays Sheldon in BIG BANG THEORY is gay but no one objects to him playing straight men on TV and movies. Imagine if he was told “sorry the role is for a heterosexual man”.

Ed Skrein quit HELLBOY after some public outcry of whitewashing because his character was supposed to be “Japanese-American”. No outcry when Daniel Dae Kim took the role. Same for John Cho playing Sulu in the new STAR TREK films. Kristen Bell isn’t allowed voice a mixed race character in CENTRAL PARK but Titus Burgess is? Wouldn’t want him replaced by the way. He is bloody perfect. So was Bell though.

All is nonsense we seem to agree. I given it too much of my attention

That makes 100% sense to me..

But it's always instructive to see how many morons would find a way to argue with it.

Okay, don’t know how I didn’t understand that. There is nothing else you could have meant by it :P

I know that, I’m the one who first posted it.

What I meant is that at first I didn’t understand what you meant by “both roles”, but it is obvious you meant characters so I don’t know why I didn’t understand.

Yeah, I found that quickfire editing a bit too much over the first hour - it's just relentless this-is-happening-now-this-is-happening-now-this-is-happening-now-this-is-happening. After they get to Los Alamos I found the pacing and scene-flow worked better, but that first hour really felt like a montage, as you say.

Box office crossed 500m, impressive.

Predicted to hit over 550m by end of this weekend.

Just watched it now and a bit disappointed considering the hype. Cant fault anybodys acting and certainly Cillian Murphys best performance of his career but ultimately found Oppenhimer's story less interesting than I thought it would be. I understand they were showing things from Oppenhimer's point of view but I still think showing brief scenes of Hiroshima/Nagasaki would of made for a better film.

Damn Nolan's arrogance. Since Memento he has wanted to make films that need a rewatch to fully appreciate the depth and density of his creations for them to be fully understood and appreciated (so not referring to the Batman films), through varying mixtures of complexity, and postmodern film-making techniques, and where its the nuances that turn out to be the centre of gravity.

The trouble has been that he has increasingly tended to over-emphasize at least one of these elements, so their depth and density makes the elements - especially complexity - unpalatable, and so unlikely to inspire a rewatch to fully understand or appreciate it. Unlike all his other films, I still haven't mustered up the time and energy to rewatch Inception, even though I want to. I was enthralled by Oppenheimer, mesmerized, but felt afterwards that it was just a fantastic spectacle; a really well put together story of incredible significance, which deserved to be brought to the screen by a writer-director with such vision.

It wasn't overly complex, though did suffer a little from the quick-fire character introductions (necessary because of its history), and the postmodern techniques were scaled right back, so the depth and density were perfecly manageable and appreciated. For me, having been drawn into the history of it after watching it, the film demands a rewatch on the subtleties and nuances of its centre of gravity; where despite the existential crisis of possible global nuclear war,

That's why the last segment has a JFK-style court-room feel to it, and why it was so necessary for it to be there. Damn Nolan's arrogance; I'm gonna have to rewatch this again, but unlike Inception, which I want to rewatch only because I need to unravel the complexity at an intellectual level, I look forward to rewatching this for all its marvellous storytelling and subtleties, aided by fantastic acting.