By now, it is pretty obvious that Christopher Nolan's films have a very distinct style, similar themes and ideas, and epic, twisty narratives. He is an auteur for sure, but also one of the messiest ones, in my opinion. This story of Oppenheimer, so brilliantly and absorbingly portrayed on-screen by Nolan, is also frustrating at times because of his tendency to go back to his trademarks: twists, over-dramatization, and a complex time-jumping storyline. If you mix a standard biopic, with all of the elements of narrative of The Dark Knight, Interstellar, or Tenet, this is what you get. It's certainly not a bad thing, but at times just unnecessary.
Here are the great things about this movie. The cinematography is stunning. The sound design is exciting and impactful. The story is fascinating - to make what feels like an action film about chemists and physicists is quite the achievement. It is absorbing right from the beginning and for the most part to the very end. It presents an account of history that I was not very familiar with and a complex portrait of Oppenheimer as a brilliant man, but also conflicted, and with glaring weaknesses, especially for women and in his naive beliefs and interpersonal relationships. It has the best performance by Cillian Murphy that I've seen as he disappears into the role. What struck me most was his voice, which is low and gruff and not like what I've heard before. There are great supporting performances from Josh Hartnett, Emily Blunt, Florence Pugh, and Benny Safdie. I was especially pleasantly surprised by Josh Hartnett's nice turn in the movie. The build-up all the way to the completion and detonation of the first atomic bomb is exciting. The affect it has throughout on Oppenheimer, his justifications for the Manhattan project, and the disturbing effect the use of the atomic bombs on Japan has on him is portrayed brilliantly. And all of the "action" is punched up a few levels by the great score.
Now here are the bad things. The main issue that I have with this movie is the striking parallels with other Nolan's films. Since he is an auteur, this is to be expected, but in an intense biopic, it kept taking me out of the movie. Essentially, while watching I just kept seeing characters from his other films. Oppenheimer is like Batman. Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.) is like Ducard or the Joker. Or perhaps they are the rivaling magicians from The Prestige. Kitty Oppenheimer and Jean Tatlock (Emily Blunt and Florence Pugh) are to Oppenheimer like the Scarlett Johansson and Rebecca Hall characters were to Christian Bale's character in The Prestige. Albert Einstein is the Nicola Tesla of Oppenheimer. And on and on this can be done with many of the individuals in the film and you can probably replace any one of these comparisons with so many of the other characters from Nolan's other films. Essentially it is the same conflicts, with the same non-surprising surprises and twists, and the same narrative resolutions as in all of Nolan's work. For a biopic that feels so absorbing and epic, this just took me out of the movie. It's like Nolan is showing both his power as a director in how he paints this story with broad and epic strokes and his inability to get over the same character arcs, which are starting to feel trivial at this point in his career. While Robert Downey Jr. Gives a very good performance in the movie, the entire storyline of who sabotaged who and how and why between Strauss and Oppenheimer feels dwarfed by the rest of the story. I felt as if though this was from another movie. It has some purpose behind it, but it's just not very interesting. Lesser characters come in (like Rami Malek's David Hill) and all of a sudden put a twist on the storyline as if though they were an ace up a sleeve all along. Does it have to feel so much like The Dark Knight or The Prestige? Does it have to add so much unnecessary exposition and revelation about character motives and behaviors, which really just feel like made-up conjecture or silly, overly dramatic rationalizations?
Now for some of the mixed stuff. Matt Damon gives a very Matt Damon performance as Leslie Groves, the supervising military officer overseeing Oppenheimer. He's solid, but a little distracting with how familiar his face and behavior is. Oppenheimer's political affiliations, or more like relationships with people of certain political affiliations, and the role they played in his difficulties and how they led to questions about his loyalty to the United States also feel like an area explored in the movie that is both interesting and somewhat out of place. It's another great side to the story, but doesn't always gel. So there is just so much stuff here that it feels like some of it could have been left out or tightened. It didn't have to be turned into Inception with layer upon layer upon layer. In particular because this is a biopic and turning it into Inception is excessive. I think Nolan could have stuck to his trademarks without over-indulging once again. And finally the quick editing that Nolan employs is on display here. It's like a movie with ADD. This adds to the excitement, but sometimes Nolan could hold a shot instead of trying to catch every detail by cutting every second. It has the effect of feeling rushed and sloppy.
So this is clearly an exciting and absorbing film. I don't know that there are that many fascinating biopics out there in terms of the energy with which the story is told. But at times it feels convoluted. The editing can be distracting as are Nolan's character and theme trademarks. Some parts just could have been left out or done differently. I'd be lying if I said that the parts with Robert Downey Jr. Didn't take me out of the movie. One of the characters summed it up best when responding to Strauss' assertion that Oppenheimer said something to Einstein to purposefully ruin Strauss' relationship with him: "They were probably talking about something more interesting." A very good, exciting, and epic film that strives for greatness, but doesn't quite reach it. Definitely worth watching for the many interesting avenues it explores. And it is quite brilliant if taken more out of context with Nolan's other work.
Here are the great things about this movie. The cinematography is stunning. The sound design is exciting and impactful. The story is fascinating - to make what feels like an action film about chemists and physicists is quite the achievement. It is absorbing right from the beginning and for the most part to the very end. It presents an account of history that I was not very familiar with and a complex portrait of Oppenheimer as a brilliant man, but also conflicted, and with glaring weaknesses, especially for women and in his naive beliefs and interpersonal relationships. It has the best performance by Cillian Murphy that I've seen as he disappears into the role. What struck me most was his voice, which is low and gruff and not like what I've heard before. There are great supporting performances from Josh Hartnett, Emily Blunt, Florence Pugh, and Benny Safdie. I was especially pleasantly surprised by Josh Hartnett's nice turn in the movie. The build-up all the way to the completion and detonation of the first atomic bomb is exciting. The affect it has throughout on Oppenheimer, his justifications for the Manhattan project, and the disturbing effect the use of the atomic bombs on Japan has on him is portrayed brilliantly. And all of the "action" is punched up a few levels by the great score.
Now here are the bad things. The main issue that I have with this movie is the striking parallels with other Nolan's films. Since he is an auteur, this is to be expected, but in an intense biopic, it kept taking me out of the movie. Essentially, while watching I just kept seeing characters from his other films. Oppenheimer is like Batman. Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.) is like Ducard or the Joker. Or perhaps they are the rivaling magicians from The Prestige. Kitty Oppenheimer and Jean Tatlock (Emily Blunt and Florence Pugh) are to Oppenheimer like the Scarlett Johansson and Rebecca Hall characters were to Christian Bale's character in The Prestige. Albert Einstein is the Nicola Tesla of Oppenheimer. And on and on this can be done with many of the individuals in the film and you can probably replace any one of these comparisons with so many of the other characters from Nolan's other films. Essentially it is the same conflicts, with the same non-surprising surprises and twists, and the same narrative resolutions as in all of Nolan's work. For a biopic that feels so absorbing and epic, this just took me out of the movie. It's like Nolan is showing both his power as a director in how he paints this story with broad and epic strokes and his inability to get over the same character arcs, which are starting to feel trivial at this point in his career. While Robert Downey Jr. Gives a very good performance in the movie, the entire storyline of who sabotaged who and how and why between Strauss and Oppenheimer feels dwarfed by the rest of the story. I felt as if though this was from another movie. It has some purpose behind it, but it's just not very interesting. Lesser characters come in (like Rami Malek's David Hill) and all of a sudden put a twist on the storyline as if though they were an ace up a sleeve all along. Does it have to feel so much like The Dark Knight or The Prestige? Does it have to add so much unnecessary exposition and revelation about character motives and behaviors, which really just feel like made-up conjecture or silly, overly dramatic rationalizations?
Now for some of the mixed stuff. Matt Damon gives a very Matt Damon performance as Leslie Groves, the supervising military officer overseeing Oppenheimer. He's solid, but a little distracting with how familiar his face and behavior is. Oppenheimer's political affiliations, or more like relationships with people of certain political affiliations, and the role they played in his difficulties and how they led to questions about his loyalty to the United States also feel like an area explored in the movie that is both interesting and somewhat out of place. It's another great side to the story, but doesn't always gel. So there is just so much stuff here that it feels like some of it could have been left out or tightened. It didn't have to be turned into Inception with layer upon layer upon layer. In particular because this is a biopic and turning it into Inception is excessive. I think Nolan could have stuck to his trademarks without over-indulging once again. And finally the quick editing that Nolan employs is on display here. It's like a movie with ADD. This adds to the excitement, but sometimes Nolan could hold a shot instead of trying to catch every detail by cutting every second. It has the effect of feeling rushed and sloppy.
So this is clearly an exciting and absorbing film. I don't know that there are that many fascinating biopics out there in terms of the energy with which the story is told. But at times it feels convoluted. The editing can be distracting as are Nolan's character and theme trademarks. Some parts just could have been left out or done differently. I'd be lying if I said that the parts with Robert Downey Jr. Didn't take me out of the movie. One of the characters summed it up best when responding to Strauss' assertion that Oppenheimer said something to Einstein to purposefully ruin Strauss' relationship with him: "They were probably talking about something more interesting." A very good, exciting, and epic film that strives for greatness, but doesn't quite reach it. Definitely worth watching for the many interesting avenues it explores. And it is quite brilliant if taken more out of context with Nolan's other work.
Tell Your Friends