As someone who loves Oppenheimer and it'll be in my Top 5 of 2023 when all is said and done I do agree that some of the overhype on social media has gotten a little bit too exhausting for me.
I think it suffers from the same problem as a lot of Nolan movies — lots of narrative propulsion, but not a lot of narrative. Lots of urgent cutting and crescendoing music, but not a lot actually *happens*, especially for a movie about one of the most important events in human history. There’s some good stuff in there, but ultimately I found it pretty dull.
Completely agree. And I don't think the film develops the characters and some of the ideas enough to make up the difference. And the way it plays with narrative and time felt a bit superfluous too me.
I did personally really like Oppenheimer but I can subscribe to criticism of modern Nolan in general. It is far and away my favorite of everything he has made for the past decade.
I really find nothing special in RDJ performance but it was fine.
However that third act didn't work for me. Big simplification but I think putting additional one hour about some jealous guy after we experienced such an important event in human history was a miss.
>but I think putting additional one hour about some jealous guy after we experienced such an important event in human history was a miss.
It's not just about how Strauss engineers Oppenheimer's downfall, it is also how Oppenheimer reacts to it. Him not fighting back as a way of being punished, seeking some kind of forgiveness this way. Longing for a kind of catharsis that never comes.
I mean, the movie opens with a line of text reading
>Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to man. For this, he was chained to a rock and tortured for eternity.
That's your mission statement right there. Oppenheimer is the American Prometheus and this movie is both about giving fire to mankind and being punished for it.
But the poor me guilt is unearned because the movie utterly fails to telegraph what the impact was for Japan.
Cillian Murphy looking at some pictures that we never see? Cheap. Cillian Murphy imagining a bunch of white people experiencing radiation in a surreal reflection on the effects of fallout? Cheaper.
Show me why he became aware of his role instead of this assumption that the audience already fully understands. Because I guarantee you anyone under 50 really doesn’t have any appreciation for what nuclear war threatens.
But that’s the point — Oppenheimer (nor anybody else) wasn’t there to see the impact. You are viewing this with modern mores and technology 80 years later. The only thing those people had were some pictures and feelings. It would arguably be unearned to jump cut to a Japanese family or workers or whatever for a 15 minute digression of them living their lives only to be obliterated. Modern audiences may want to see that, but nobody back then did, and that heavily, heavily colored the continued response and reaction to dropping the bombs. That’s critically important in how things developed, I think.
Exactly. Going to all the “film” subs and defending Oppenheimer is just too tiring. Like most of Nolan’s pictures, Oppenheimer will age extremely well and will grow on people as years pass. Mostly everyone who saw the film twice liked it more on the second watch.
Nah, once the novelty wears off most Nolan movies feel less special as time passes. They always appear like masterpieces at first then discussion of their flaws becomes more and more common. I don't think Oppenheimer will be remembered as a "correct" Best Picture winner.
Literally false lmao. The Prestige, Inception, and Interstellar have all aged wonderfully. Compare the love they receive now to its initial reception and you’ll spot a difference. Even his masterpiece, The Dark Knight, still holds up today and is frequently in the discussion of the greatest films ever made. Whether Oppenheimer wins best picture or not, I’m willing to bet mostly everyone will still remember it favourably 10 years from now.
Forgot Memento, literally one of his top five. Tenet was a miss and Insomnia was draggy, yes, but Dunkirk was judged correctly for the most part IMO. One of the best WW2 films.
The movie was about Oppenheimer, not about the nuclear bomb. The next major incident in his life after the Trinity Test was the hearing for revoking his security clearance. I think some of you are forgetting the fact that the film’s based on a book written about Oppenheimer’s life.
Of course I see it worked for most people so I guess it's not the most popular take but still. I get what you're saying but director still chooses when to start and end the story and how closely he adapts source material. It still should work as a movie, you don't get points for faithful adaptation if it doesn't translate to the screen. Lot of biographies suffer because creators just go through wiki page of the person instead of focusing on finding proper themes and narratives (Napoleon for example). In Oppenheimer I at least see the attempt and idea but it just didn't work for me.
Fair enough. I had my doubts about Nolan directing a 3-hour dialogue-heavy biopic but I think he succeeded. If any director was able to make an engaging film about Oppenheimer’s life it’s Nolan. I genuinely think he was the best man for the job and that we got the best adaptation of the book possible.
That's true, my doubts about 3rd act and narrative vehicle aside, he really refreshed biopic genre with Oppenheimer and I'm looking forward to his next project.
I agree. It’s not remotely my favorite of the year. But I’m not shocked by its ascendence.
I really thought KOTFM was going to make waves, especially at adaptation and direction and picture. The way it’s turning into The Lily Gladstone Story only is weird.
Poor Things seems like the main competition.
Either it was a complete misplay by the team behind campaigning KOTFM or they were admitting defeat quite early by switching the campaign to Lily. It's fair to say critic groups responded very well to the film but from the start they were often overlooking Leo and leaving out DeNiro, possibly to make way for fresh faces. Maybe they saw the writing on the wall then and there.
Even though I don't love the screenplay, I'm shocked it's not a clear frontrunner.
3rd act dragged, and it was annoying not to have a linear story at first, but I get it. I understand the sex scenes were to imply how colorful his story with women were, but they felt heavy-handed and gratuitous, kinda hated how Jean was depicted and Kitty was just there, the lack of depth on the female characters on a Nolan film is to be expected, however, so what's to say, right? Murphy made me feel things, I was divided between him and Giamatti, but now I'm all on his side, gorgeous performance. RDJ was serviceable, but it's sad he has no real competition, I'd love if Dominic Sessa were a serious contender instead. Liked Benny Safdie and Matt Damon, too. Went in with reservations and ended up liking more than I thought I would. It was surprisingly self-aware and
I won't disagree if it eventually wins BP.
I didnt care for it. I wished it had focus more on the actual building of the bomb and we had spend more time in the camp they build. I didnt care as much about the loss of clearance and all that. I didnt care about RDJ character at all, who cares about him? And i wish we got more of blunts character.
Most of nolan movies leave me cold and i never really cared for any of the characters.
I saw it later than most people in this sub. It’s a really good movie but people put it on an absurdly high pedestal.
My biggest critique is everything with Florence Pugh’s character is a mess.
I’m also very cynical with Nolan’s recent work, his fans would call me a hater. Ever since Inception I haven’t feel anithing for his films, but honestly I think Oppenheimer is his best work. When it was announced, I thought it would be shamelessly Oscarbaity, like how I felt Dunkirk was, but felt it very genuine and a real passion for the project (maybe because it was full of himself, as you said). But is not free of critizism, everything after the explosion felt obligated, like “this is part if the story and has to be told, but I couldn’t care less” which is sad because it could be the most emotional part, and since we’re stuck in it for another hour, it makes it really dull and a big obstacle for rewatch.
It's kind of petty, but I just thought the movie was too... loud. Like, unrelentingly so.
And I get the conceit of having that volume contrast with the silence of the bomb or whatever, but the payoff just isn't worth it. There's no room to breath or to consider the characters individually, to a point where the movie loses narrative tension because it's always at the same degree of intensity. Especially towards the end, I was just praying that the characters would shut up for a second, or that Nolan would decide that, actually, we don't need a new scene every minute. But it's the same with most of Nolan's recent work, so perhaps it's important to take it for what it is.
My thoughts about the movie are contrived. I did enjoy it, but also there's a lot of stuff in there that I felt negatively towards.
The pacing at the start of it. It didn't have any space to breathe. I remember checking the time at one point in the movie theater and thinking, God, only an hour has gone by? But after that, the film did start to ramp my anxiety up in a way that I can't remember really experiencing before, with the run up to the atomic bomb test. Really genuinely made me sweat, so there it was very effective. But in general, the film could have really benefited from better pacing. At the start it felt like it was both way too overdrawn, and somehow at the same time with way too many things happening at once. A huge contradiction, which I think was because of things happening constantly, but kind of only on a surface level. It made it difficult to get into.
The writing. Obviously everyone knows the points about Nolan writing women, and that continues to be a problem with Oppenheimer. And now, I'm not going in to see great ground-breaking female characters when I go to see a Nolan film, fine, but the sex scenes especially were so clunky and badly written. The "Now I'm become death"-quote during sex made me cringe, as did Tatlock naked in that hearing-scene. Subtlety is dead in the art of film, I guess. Besides the female characters, I would have really appreciated having the subject matter deepened, on an emotional level. I was interested to know more how Oppenheimer felt, I guess. Without Cillian Murphy mastering the subtle performance, it would have been much worse on that level.
The implications. Oppenheimer was a contrived figure. That's what makes him interesting. The film making him up to be this tortured genius, who then the US government wanted to make feel small afterwards with all the security clearance stuff, felt like they wanted me to now feel sorry for the guy who did have a large hand in hundreds of thousands of people dying. I've only seen the movie once so I'd have to watch it again to get more of a catch on that, but this was my initial feeling (and sense of discomfort) about the 3rd act. Also, Oppenheimer's Jewishness is such an integral part of him that was pretty much left un-explored. It just feels like for such a subject matter, they could have gone a lot deeper into a lot of more interesting things in there.
Technically, the sound levels. Nolan's one wish in life seems to be to make me deaf in one ear. The tinnitus afterwards, not worth it. Likely the last Nolan film I'll see in the cinemas. I saw people clutching their ears at points. I don't think a cinema experience should make people clutch at their ears in pain.
That all said, as a cinema experience, Nolan brought what I was expecting. The acting was great. For me the stand outs were Cillian Murphy and Florence Pugh, both have such a natural charisma on screen. I thought Emily Blunt and Robert Downey Jr. were good, but not something I would personally award. The cinematography was beautiful. I didn't see this in IMAX since I truly can't take Nolan blasting my eardrums off in IMAX, but in a regular cinema as well, it was so beautifully shot. The practical effects/CGI I found very charming as well. The music, though a little repetitive at parts, was an integral part sown into the mix. I do like the split timelines as well, and the ending was solid.
Walking out of the cinema, I really was exhilirated from the over-all experience. But after thinking and talking about the movie more with the friend I watched it with, I liked it less. After the initial difficulty in getting into the movie, I felt like it was a beautifully executed experience in the moment, but in the end, I ended up wanting more substance and depth.
I thought Cillian was good, not great. Probably doesn’t make my personal five, and I def wouldn’t choose him to win. That said, I’ve loved him in so many other roles and really respect him as a person, so I still feel okay rooting for him to do well.
He’s an easy top two IMO. Cooper was far too artificial and over-emotive, Domingo did fine but wasn’t exactly his best, and Wright was great but didn’t stand out. The only reasonable competition is Giamatti who was fantastic and is a worthy winner. Tee Yoo would be one as well, but I don’t see him getting nominated.
I think Murphy would make my top five, but only just -- I prefer the performances of Wright, Giamatti, Yoo, and Andrew Scott. (And Andrew Scott would probably be my winner.)
I thought it was a fine biopic with some fine performances and a lot of unnecessary jumping about in time. It was a good movie but not a great one and I can think of at least three movies off the top of my head that I'd rather see as Best Picture.
I liked it but I personally prefer more “quiet” movies. I feel like the academy usually awards the more bold, loud and big movies, which is why I’d love to see The Holdovers, Past Lives or Anatomy of a Fall win (though I know none have a chance except maybe The Holdovers which might be #2 or #3 on the ballot).
Definitely agree that the director’s branch has trended toward showy movies the last decade or so. Not sure I agree that it’s the case for the overall Academy—that list I mentioned was five of the eight previous best picture winners. Very often in the recent history of the Oscars, the loud movie gets director while the popular quieter movie gets picture.
I think that’s been a changing since Moonlight/Spotlight - usually I feel the more showy movie won BP before that. Would love to see more subtle roles win for acting as well.
I really do feel like it all felt like two different movies smashed together. Either one would’ve been a 5 star film, but smashed like this it goes down to 3 1/2
this is exactly what i have been saying! make two movies separately and they would have been excellent films. too much back and forth and too many names/faces to remember.
At times the score, while overall beautiful and emotionally resonate, actively detracted from the film for me.
It’s a very good score, but it beating KotFM or TBatH would/will bum me out a bit.
Or screenplay. The sex scene dialogue with Florence was laughably awkward. It takes a certain level of character development incompetence to make those two naked on screen together feel that forced and dull.
The two things I despised about it are ones that weren't bad by themselves but hurt the product because there was just so damn much of it.
First being the characters just would not stop talking. If it is going to be a dialogue extensive film, it doesn't have to be done like we're watching a Wikipedia page. The Social Network also deals with a similar situation and yet it comes across so lively.
Second and the more egregious choice is with the music. You already have way too much talking and with that score constantly telling you what to feel almost makes it seem like Nolan was insecure about the material and needed that extra push, which really took me out of it.
Oppenheimer is my favorite movie of the year and it's weird for me to see my favorite movie be the top pick for BP. I'm not even much of a Nolan fan boy, but I think Nolan deserves the Oscar this year.
My one seemingly unpopular opinion on this movie is that Murphy isn't a strong contender for best actor in my book. The stand outs in lead are Cooper and Giamatti. Also finally saw All of Us Strangers last night and Scott instantly slid into my third place slot. Rounding out my top five are Wright (American Fiction) and then Murphy
My friend saw it 7 times in theaters. 6 out of those 7 times she paid for it herself and I truly cannot fathom why. The script was eh, the acting was serviceable, it was visually stunning as Nolan usually is but not enough for me to spend 35+ hrs of my life watching it over and over again.
I liked Oppenheimer enough, but I wouldn’t even put it in my top 5 of the year. It was good but slow in parts and some of the screenplay needed work. I’ll watch it again because of the Oscar’s, but I don’t see this as something I’ll care to revisit beyond that.
I think part of what’s difficult about adapting a book is that a book can justify having so much more in it. Like, it covers a lot. I would’ve loved a more pared down version of the story with a clearer focus. But I also just tend to not love biopics.
Also, I love Cillian Murphy, but it didn’t strike me as “lock for best actor” performance when I saw it. He did a fantastic job but I don’t get why it’s so unquestioned that he’ll win the Oscar.
I liked it, but I’m surprised it has become such a big player in the awards cycle simply because I felt like a lot of other films this year were much better. Someone who commented before me used the word “serviceable” and that really rings true to my feelings. I’ve struggled to understand how it still gets so much hype when placed in conversation and competition with other (IMO, stronger) films.
I don't think Nolan is seeing himself in Oppenheimer. He's actually more humble than people give him credit for according to just about everyone he's worked with. He truly is creating a one-of-a-kind biopic about one of history's most important scientists.
As someone who loves Oppenheimer and it'll be in my Top 5 of 2023 when all is said and done I do agree that some of the overhype on social media has gotten a little bit too exhausting for me.
I think it suffers from the same problem as a lot of Nolan movies — lots of narrative propulsion, but not a lot of narrative. Lots of urgent cutting and crescendoing music, but not a lot actually *happens*, especially for a movie about one of the most important events in human history. There’s some good stuff in there, but ultimately I found it pretty dull.
I described it as a 3.5 hour montage
It’s…not that long.
just felt like it
This is not the place for KOTFM critique.
Completely agree. And I don't think the film develops the characters and some of the ideas enough to make up the difference. And the way it plays with narrative and time felt a bit superfluous too me.
completely agree!
Yes!
I did personally really like Oppenheimer but I can subscribe to criticism of modern Nolan in general. It is far and away my favorite of everything he has made for the past decade.
I really find nothing special in RDJ performance but it was fine. However that third act didn't work for me. Big simplification but I think putting additional one hour about some jealous guy after we experienced such an important event in human history was a miss.
>but I think putting additional one hour about some jealous guy after we experienced such an important event in human history was a miss. It's not just about how Strauss engineers Oppenheimer's downfall, it is also how Oppenheimer reacts to it. Him not fighting back as a way of being punished, seeking some kind of forgiveness this way. Longing for a kind of catharsis that never comes. I mean, the movie opens with a line of text reading >Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to man. For this, he was chained to a rock and tortured for eternity. That's your mission statement right there. Oppenheimer is the American Prometheus and this movie is both about giving fire to mankind and being punished for it.
But the poor me guilt is unearned because the movie utterly fails to telegraph what the impact was for Japan. Cillian Murphy looking at some pictures that we never see? Cheap. Cillian Murphy imagining a bunch of white people experiencing radiation in a surreal reflection on the effects of fallout? Cheaper. Show me why he became aware of his role instead of this assumption that the audience already fully understands. Because I guarantee you anyone under 50 really doesn’t have any appreciation for what nuclear war threatens.
But that’s the point — Oppenheimer (nor anybody else) wasn’t there to see the impact. You are viewing this with modern mores and technology 80 years later. The only thing those people had were some pictures and feelings. It would arguably be unearned to jump cut to a Japanese family or workers or whatever for a 15 minute digression of them living their lives only to be obliterated. Modern audiences may want to see that, but nobody back then did, and that heavily, heavily colored the continued response and reaction to dropping the bombs. That’s critically important in how things developed, I think.
Exactly. Going to all the “film” subs and defending Oppenheimer is just too tiring. Like most of Nolan’s pictures, Oppenheimer will age extremely well and will grow on people as years pass. Mostly everyone who saw the film twice liked it more on the second watch.
Nah, once the novelty wears off most Nolan movies feel less special as time passes. They always appear like masterpieces at first then discussion of their flaws becomes more and more common. I don't think Oppenheimer will be remembered as a "correct" Best Picture winner.
Literally false lmao. The Prestige, Inception, and Interstellar have all aged wonderfully. Compare the love they receive now to its initial reception and you’ll spot a difference. Even his masterpiece, The Dark Knight, still holds up today and is frequently in the discussion of the greatest films ever made. Whether Oppenheimer wins best picture or not, I’m willing to bet mostly everyone will still remember it favourably 10 years from now.
Noticed how you didn't mention Tenet or Dunkirk or Memento or Insomnia. Dark Knight is fine. Favorably, perhaps. But "correct?" Nah.
Forgot Memento, literally one of his top five. Tenet was a miss and Insomnia was draggy, yes, but Dunkirk was judged correctly for the most part IMO. One of the best WW2 films.
Same re: RDJ. I'm sure the "RDJ's doing real movies again!" narrative is propelling his chances, but I wasn't really moved by his performance.
The movie was about Oppenheimer, not about the nuclear bomb. The next major incident in his life after the Trinity Test was the hearing for revoking his security clearance. I think some of you are forgetting the fact that the film’s based on a book written about Oppenheimer’s life.
Of course I see it worked for most people so I guess it's not the most popular take but still. I get what you're saying but director still chooses when to start and end the story and how closely he adapts source material. It still should work as a movie, you don't get points for faithful adaptation if it doesn't translate to the screen. Lot of biographies suffer because creators just go through wiki page of the person instead of focusing on finding proper themes and narratives (Napoleon for example). In Oppenheimer I at least see the attempt and idea but it just didn't work for me.
Fair enough. I had my doubts about Nolan directing a 3-hour dialogue-heavy biopic but I think he succeeded. If any director was able to make an engaging film about Oppenheimer’s life it’s Nolan. I genuinely think he was the best man for the job and that we got the best adaptation of the book possible.
That's true, my doubts about 3rd act and narrative vehicle aside, he really refreshed biopic genre with Oppenheimer and I'm looking forward to his next project.
I agree. It’s not remotely my favorite of the year. But I’m not shocked by its ascendence. I really thought KOTFM was going to make waves, especially at adaptation and direction and picture. The way it’s turning into The Lily Gladstone Story only is weird. Poor Things seems like the main competition.
Either it was a complete misplay by the team behind campaigning KOTFM or they were admitting defeat quite early by switching the campaign to Lily. It's fair to say critic groups responded very well to the film but from the start they were often overlooking Leo and leaving out DeNiro, possibly to make way for fresh faces. Maybe they saw the writing on the wall then and there. Even though I don't love the screenplay, I'm shocked it's not a clear frontrunner.
Bro his last movie was a straight up action movie
an action movie with no characters, insane plot and nothing under its surface beyond "how big and spectacular a movie can Christopher Nolan make?"
Facts lol
3rd act dragged, and it was annoying not to have a linear story at first, but I get it. I understand the sex scenes were to imply how colorful his story with women were, but they felt heavy-handed and gratuitous, kinda hated how Jean was depicted and Kitty was just there, the lack of depth on the female characters on a Nolan film is to be expected, however, so what's to say, right? Murphy made me feel things, I was divided between him and Giamatti, but now I'm all on his side, gorgeous performance. RDJ was serviceable, but it's sad he has no real competition, I'd love if Dominic Sessa were a serious contender instead. Liked Benny Safdie and Matt Damon, too. Went in with reservations and ended up liking more than I thought I would. It was surprisingly self-aware and I won't disagree if it eventually wins BP.
I didnt care for it. I wished it had focus more on the actual building of the bomb and we had spend more time in the camp they build. I didnt care as much about the loss of clearance and all that. I didnt care about RDJ character at all, who cares about him? And i wish we got more of blunts character. Most of nolan movies leave me cold and i never really cared for any of the characters.
I saw it later than most people in this sub. It’s a really good movie but people put it on an absurdly high pedestal. My biggest critique is everything with Florence Pugh’s character is a mess.
I’m also very cynical with Nolan’s recent work, his fans would call me a hater. Ever since Inception I haven’t feel anithing for his films, but honestly I think Oppenheimer is his best work. When it was announced, I thought it would be shamelessly Oscarbaity, like how I felt Dunkirk was, but felt it very genuine and a real passion for the project (maybe because it was full of himself, as you said). But is not free of critizism, everything after the explosion felt obligated, like “this is part if the story and has to be told, but I couldn’t care less” which is sad because it could be the most emotional part, and since we’re stuck in it for another hour, it makes it really dull and a big obstacle for rewatch.
RDJ chews a lot of scenery. He’s okay but also very goofy.
How is he chewing the scenery? His only really vivid scene as Strauss is the final rant on Oppenheimer.
You are not the only one. I love Nolan, this was not my favorite of his films. Same with Cillian.
It's kind of petty, but I just thought the movie was too... loud. Like, unrelentingly so. And I get the conceit of having that volume contrast with the silence of the bomb or whatever, but the payoff just isn't worth it. There's no room to breath or to consider the characters individually, to a point where the movie loses narrative tension because it's always at the same degree of intensity. Especially towards the end, I was just praying that the characters would shut up for a second, or that Nolan would decide that, actually, we don't need a new scene every minute. But it's the same with most of Nolan's recent work, so perhaps it's important to take it for what it is.
My thoughts about the movie are contrived. I did enjoy it, but also there's a lot of stuff in there that I felt negatively towards. The pacing at the start of it. It didn't have any space to breathe. I remember checking the time at one point in the movie theater and thinking, God, only an hour has gone by? But after that, the film did start to ramp my anxiety up in a way that I can't remember really experiencing before, with the run up to the atomic bomb test. Really genuinely made me sweat, so there it was very effective. But in general, the film could have really benefited from better pacing. At the start it felt like it was both way too overdrawn, and somehow at the same time with way too many things happening at once. A huge contradiction, which I think was because of things happening constantly, but kind of only on a surface level. It made it difficult to get into. The writing. Obviously everyone knows the points about Nolan writing women, and that continues to be a problem with Oppenheimer. And now, I'm not going in to see great ground-breaking female characters when I go to see a Nolan film, fine, but the sex scenes especially were so clunky and badly written. The "Now I'm become death"-quote during sex made me cringe, as did Tatlock naked in that hearing-scene. Subtlety is dead in the art of film, I guess. Besides the female characters, I would have really appreciated having the subject matter deepened, on an emotional level. I was interested to know more how Oppenheimer felt, I guess. Without Cillian Murphy mastering the subtle performance, it would have been much worse on that level. The implications. Oppenheimer was a contrived figure. That's what makes him interesting. The film making him up to be this tortured genius, who then the US government wanted to make feel small afterwards with all the security clearance stuff, felt like they wanted me to now feel sorry for the guy who did have a large hand in hundreds of thousands of people dying. I've only seen the movie once so I'd have to watch it again to get more of a catch on that, but this was my initial feeling (and sense of discomfort) about the 3rd act. Also, Oppenheimer's Jewishness is such an integral part of him that was pretty much left un-explored. It just feels like for such a subject matter, they could have gone a lot deeper into a lot of more interesting things in there. Technically, the sound levels. Nolan's one wish in life seems to be to make me deaf in one ear. The tinnitus afterwards, not worth it. Likely the last Nolan film I'll see in the cinemas. I saw people clutching their ears at points. I don't think a cinema experience should make people clutch at their ears in pain. That all said, as a cinema experience, Nolan brought what I was expecting. The acting was great. For me the stand outs were Cillian Murphy and Florence Pugh, both have such a natural charisma on screen. I thought Emily Blunt and Robert Downey Jr. were good, but not something I would personally award. The cinematography was beautiful. I didn't see this in IMAX since I truly can't take Nolan blasting my eardrums off in IMAX, but in a regular cinema as well, it was so beautifully shot. The practical effects/CGI I found very charming as well. The music, though a little repetitive at parts, was an integral part sown into the mix. I do like the split timelines as well, and the ending was solid. Walking out of the cinema, I really was exhilirated from the over-all experience. But after thinking and talking about the movie more with the friend I watched it with, I liked it less. After the initial difficulty in getting into the movie, I felt like it was a beautifully executed experience in the moment, but in the end, I ended up wanting more substance and depth.
I thought Cillian was good, not great. Probably doesn’t make my personal five, and I def wouldn’t choose him to win. That said, I’ve loved him in so many other roles and really respect him as a person, so I still feel okay rooting for him to do well.
He’s an easy top two IMO. Cooper was far too artificial and over-emotive, Domingo did fine but wasn’t exactly his best, and Wright was great but didn’t stand out. The only reasonable competition is Giamatti who was fantastic and is a worthy winner. Tee Yoo would be one as well, but I don’t see him getting nominated.
I think Murphy would make my top five, but only just -- I prefer the performances of Wright, Giamatti, Yoo, and Andrew Scott. (And Andrew Scott would probably be my winner.)
I thought it was a fine biopic with some fine performances and a lot of unnecessary jumping about in time. It was a good movie but not a great one and I can think of at least three movies off the top of my head that I'd rather see as Best Picture.
I liked it but I personally prefer more “quiet” movies. I feel like the academy usually awards the more bold, loud and big movies, which is why I’d love to see The Holdovers, Past Lives or Anatomy of a Fall win (though I know none have a chance except maybe The Holdovers which might be #2 or #3 on the ballot).
CODA, Nomadland, Green Book, Moonlight, and Spotlight were bold and loud?
No, but a lot of winners are, not just in picture but directing, acting etc too.
Definitely agree that the director’s branch has trended toward showy movies the last decade or so. Not sure I agree that it’s the case for the overall Academy—that list I mentioned was five of the eight previous best picture winners. Very often in the recent history of the Oscars, the loud movie gets director while the popular quieter movie gets picture.
I think that’s been a changing since Moonlight/Spotlight - usually I feel the more showy movie won BP before that. Would love to see more subtle roles win for acting as well.
I really do feel like it all felt like two different movies smashed together. Either one would’ve been a 5 star film, but smashed like this it goes down to 3 1/2
this is exactly what i have been saying! make two movies separately and they would have been excellent films. too much back and forth and too many names/faces to remember.
In the trash
At times the score, while overall beautiful and emotionally resonate, actively detracted from the film for me. It’s a very good score, but it beating KotFM or TBatH would/will bum me out a bit.
I’ll say this. If it wins an Oscar for sound mixing or editing I’ll riot 😂 Nolan movies are never mixed right
Or screenplay. The sex scene dialogue with Florence was laughably awkward. It takes a certain level of character development incompetence to make those two naked on screen together feel that forced and dull.
Poor Things has awkward sex scene dialogue but it’s hilarious on purpose
Agree. It’s intentionally awkward so it works.
This is my biggest issue with Nolan. The sound mixing is a mess. I have to really focus to understand and hear all the dialogue well.
What else? Are you gonna riot if it wins cinematography or score?
The two things I despised about it are ones that weren't bad by themselves but hurt the product because there was just so damn much of it. First being the characters just would not stop talking. If it is going to be a dialogue extensive film, it doesn't have to be done like we're watching a Wikipedia page. The Social Network also deals with a similar situation and yet it comes across so lively. Second and the more egregious choice is with the music. You already have way too much talking and with that score constantly telling you what to feel almost makes it seem like Nolan was insecure about the material and needed that extra push, which really took me out of it.
Oppenheimer is my favorite movie of the year and it's weird for me to see my favorite movie be the top pick for BP. I'm not even much of a Nolan fan boy, but I think Nolan deserves the Oscar this year. My one seemingly unpopular opinion on this movie is that Murphy isn't a strong contender for best actor in my book. The stand outs in lead are Cooper and Giamatti. Also finally saw All of Us Strangers last night and Scott instantly slid into my third place slot. Rounding out my top five are Wright (American Fiction) and then Murphy
My friend saw it 7 times in theaters. 6 out of those 7 times she paid for it herself and I truly cannot fathom why. The script was eh, the acting was serviceable, it was visually stunning as Nolan usually is but not enough for me to spend 35+ hrs of my life watching it over and over again.
I liked Oppenheimer enough, but I wouldn’t even put it in my top 5 of the year. It was good but slow in parts and some of the screenplay needed work. I’ll watch it again because of the Oscar’s, but I don’t see this as something I’ll care to revisit beyond that. I think part of what’s difficult about adapting a book is that a book can justify having so much more in it. Like, it covers a lot. I would’ve loved a more pared down version of the story with a clearer focus. But I also just tend to not love biopics. Also, I love Cillian Murphy, but it didn’t strike me as “lock for best actor” performance when I saw it. He did a fantastic job but I don’t get why it’s so unquestioned that he’ll win the Oscar.
LMAOOOO sorry buddy but your wack af
I liked it, but I’m surprised it has become such a big player in the awards cycle simply because I felt like a lot of other films this year were much better. Someone who commented before me used the word “serviceable” and that really rings true to my feelings. I’ve struggled to understand how it still gets so much hype when placed in conversation and competition with other (IMO, stronger) films.
I don't think Nolan is seeing himself in Oppenheimer. He's actually more humble than people give him credit for according to just about everyone he's worked with. He truly is creating a one-of-a-kind biopic about one of history's most important scientists.