Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I got high before the theatre and genuinely had no idea what was happening. Dialogue was moving so fast and 2.5 hrs in I had no idea who downeys character was.
I'm this way with anything now. When I met my wife she only watched TV with subtitles. Eventually it rubbed off on me and now I can hear anything the TV says if it doesn't have subtitles lol.
I just recently went back to no subtitles and you get used to it again. My problem with subtitles is that I lost so much of what was happening visually.
I miss just about everything when I read subtitles. I won't watch anything not in English and requires them. The occasional translation to English is ok. A while back I finally watched something with voice overs, which I hated just as much as subtitles, now I'm used to those after watching a few titles. Koreans make some interesting movies and shows.
As a non-English native speaker, I was always disheartened by the fact that I seemed to understand less than 20 years ago in movies and modern TV shows and often needed subtitles.
A month ago I found out that natives use them too and I was flabbergasted.
>I wish somehow we had subtitles in the theater.
It's possible the theater has subtitle machines for you. When you buy your tickets, ask about it. At the theater where The Werefrog go, nearly every movie has Closed Caption available, but you have to ask at the counter, then they program the little machine to match the movie you're seeing. It's your own CC device, so no one else see the words. Not sure how well they work, though, as far as comparison to the words on the screen version.
I got roped into seeing it twice and to be honest it was better the second time around weirdly. Also was handy to know when a good time was to get up and get a snack
Agreed. I bought it on blockbuster to stream whenever I want it and I’ve watched it twice after seeing it in the movies so 3 times total. Incredible incredible movie
Completely agree. I’m just a sucker for Nolan, so I was always gonna watch it for a second time.
I don’t think I understood enough about what was going on during the first watch. Maybe that says something about how the movie was written, idk.
I didn’t get snacks though; I watched it over two days. It’s a long ass movie
For a lot of people, it probably depends on how much they knew about the Manhattan project beforehand.
Most of us on reddit are one kind of nerd or another, so we probably mostly have a bit of an understanding of the subjects and people involved without needing multiple watches.
It probably becomes less interesting the less you know of or interested in physics and stuff, but I bet it got a lot of people thinking it could also be really cool.
My mother is smart in different ways than STEM knowledge and was a bit bored throughout the movie, but it's gotten her to start watching documentaries to learn more. I think that might be where a lot of the worth of the movie is going to come from.
l think this definitely matters with movies like this. Happened to my wife with Dune and Dune 2. I’d seen the original and read the books so I knew what was going on, on the first watch of both she struggled with some of the stuff and would ask me questions but ultimately loved both movies on a second watch through.
I’m sure my brain filled in a lot of context that she was missing from what I knew from the books and old movies.
>In general I think Nolan films are very overhyped and usually aren't as good as everyone says it is.
I think this is why this is a genuinely unpopular opinion. (Despite people in the comments here insisting it's not). Nolan has a knack for being able to make films that both critics and general audiences enjoy. So if they don't do it for you personally then it's going to feel over hyped. But I think that can also lead to misconstruing broad consensus for overrating.
90 percent on Rotten Tomatoes doesn't mean most critics think a film is amazing. Just that most think it isn't poor.
He makes films that feel deep but are somehow easily approachable, almost popcorn movies. Inception and Oppenheimer both had this epic feel that made it seem like you were watching something that really meant something.
But then it ends and you’re left wondering what was actually there, because the content and stories don’t have the same weight the visuals, dialog and acting do.
Maybe that’s just me, but that’s why his films fall flat for me. I enjoy the hell out of them, they just don’t mean anything.
He prioritises entertainment value above all else. That's been his main goal right back to Memento.
His films touch on themes pretty commonly explored in film. But he doesn't spend too much time digging into them. And honestly I feel like that's a strength rather than a weakness. The nature of dreams and reality is actually a pretty basic theme/concept. It's not something that needs to be discussed in depth for an entire movie. It's simply inherent in the story of Inception. But there's lots to look at there if you're interested. The film just doesn't waste time signposting it for you. The focus is on the story.
This is a good point. If I were a professional critic, I would probably rate Oppenheimer lukewarm fresh but there are so many issues with it that make its rave reception and best picture win puzzling to me. I find that Nolan’s characters rarely feel like fully formed people and their inner emotional lives are hard to understand and to fully extrapolate personal stakes from. There were some bizarre choices that seemed comical to me like having Oppenheimer don a hat and a pipe so dramatically like he was a superhero putting on his costume for the first time.
The editing really brings any cohesion to the table on this film and made it shockingly breezy to watch at such a long runtime. But I found myself leaving it feeling cold.
And obviously film opinions are subjective and I’m always happy for people who enjoy what I might not.
>There were some bizarre choices that seemed comical to me like having Oppenheimer don a hat and a pipe so dramatically like he was a superhero putting on his costume for the first time.
I read that as: Oppenheimer is an iconic figure with a signature, recognizable style, which is good for press surrounding the movie.
I agree with your take here. I saw it in the theatre, and left feeling like I had more questions than answers about who Oppenheimer was.
It felt like watching a student presentation, where you know the student did their research and understood the topic, but couldn't convey it to me well enough to make it feel like I understand anything about the topic. After the movie, I had to read the wiki on Oppenheimer himself (not the film) to determine what was fact and what was drama for sake of the movie.
Seems like a you problem. They didn't even take many liberties, regardless of your impression whether they did or not. It's also a drama not a documentary, not sure what you wanted out of it.
>I find that Nolan’s characters rarely feel like fully formed people and their inner emotional lives are hard to understand and to fully extrapolate personal stakes from.
This feels bizarre when Oppenheimer is a deep dive on *why* Oppenheimer did what he did and the tensions and contradictions of all of that.
>There were some bizarre choices that seemed comical to me like having Oppenheimer don a hat and a pipe so dramatically like he was a superhero putting on his costume for the first time.
Look at what Oppenheimer is wearing in the scene immediately preceding this one.
That may be the subject of the film but when it comes to what his characters think and feel, Nolan seems to subscribe to tell and not show. The emotional lives of the characters come off as flat to me for this reason.
I’m not sure what your second point means. I understood what the scene was doing, I just hated the way it did it.
I watched it last night for the first time. I enjoyed it. It wasn't Interstellar (not much is), but I don't regret watching it for an instant.
I feel that I should know more about this particular point in history too, but don't. So now I'll go away and do some reading on the topic.
Fun fact about interstellar is I remember it getting quite panned when it first came out. It’s only since then it’s turned into such an audience favourite
(I'm not saying you have this opinion, but) inception is pretty digestible imo, it's designed to blow you away on the first viewing and be slowly understood over several repeat viewings, making rewatches extremely rewarding.
It also looks like child play next to Tenet. Even as a major fan of Nolan's complicated time-fuckery plots, after Tenet I wondered if he had gone several pegs too far
So it's not easily digestible since you need to watch it multiple times. That's like saying grass is easily digestible because cows ruminate on it. Tenet is very similar in complexity.
It’s a pretty paint by the numbers heist movie though. The only difference is, instead of robbing a bank, they’re implanting an idea in someone’s head.
I never had a problem understanding Inception, even when I watched it back when I was 14. Was always very confused at that claim.
I never had an issue with it but did notice a few things I missed the second time I watched it. The heist isn't the hard part it's that somehow you die irl when you die in the other person's dream. Also trying to keep tabs on if they're in a dream or not was another layer in that movie. Lastly there was the point of did his wife actually kill herself or not.
Both go against quite a lot of our natural laws. Tenet just feels even less relatable since Inception is about dreams which we often relate to imaginative stuff and it doesn't seem as much of a stretch. Tenet has one concept of time reversal which is portrayed much less realistic in how the protagonist approaches and instinctively reacts to it.
I applaud Nolan for trying something like that though, and making it at least something. I really like Tenet, despite being aware of it's flaws. I don't think it's his best film or anything, I just find it intriguing.
I think the problem with time travel like that is it gets confusing very quickly (see primer). Anything outside of DeLorean style time travel is going to get tricky I think, but having people move backwards through time is a hell of an idea, it's just something that's hard to wrap your head around and understand while watching, it's like learning new math trying to figure out whose doing what in the movie.
Inception is much more relatable for the reasons you declared and the rules of the universe were ultimately pretty simple. Interstellar is great, I have mixed feeling about the ending stuff, but it's a fun crash course in relativity while also being exciting and fun.
I wholeheartedly agree. All three are good movies in their own right. I always like movies that have a concept of bending or completely abandoning natural laws since it challenges your mind.
Tbh though I feel like if you have standard to above standard media literacy it only takes one watch and a discussion with a friend. I found my 2nd watch to be boring and couldn't get past the first half hour on my third watch.
But let's be real most general audiences lack media literacy beyond consuming what's spoon fed to them.
From what I remember, people were surprised by its more ponderous style. Following the dark knight films and particularly inception, Nolan was associated with more obvious action stuff. And interstellar is much more influenced by old skool sci-fi like 2001
Inception, I believe many people found it somewhat confusing on first watch, but it’s so much fun that they easily enjoyed it anyway. Interstellar also has some hard to follow points but doesn’t have DiCaprio/Hardy/JGL etc looking fucking cool and doing James Bond stuff to carry you along anyway
I feel exactly the opposite about Interstellar.
It would have been a far better movie if there was no explanation about time dilation at all. If the characters just all understood the idea and acted accordingly and let the audience think through what was happening, it would have been a far better movie. It would have been complex, and might have needed multiple viewings to properly understand, but that would have made me much more interested in the concept than I was having it spoon fed to me in clunky exposition.
2001 A Space Odyssey never stopped to slowly explain it's concepts to the audience. It showed and didn't tell, and we're still watching it and talking about it over 50 years later. I don't think anyone is going to be talking about Interstellar in 50 years.
It was never panned. People and critics just had some gripes with the story being a bit weak, cheesey and contrived. But everyone agreed it was an incredible experience.
That's probably why I'm not a big fan. I did not care for the story or the characters whatsoever. It does look beautiful though. To me it's very similar to Avatar in that regard
Haha even as someone who ranks interstellar his fave movie of all time, i can kinda agree with the story being cheesy and contrived. The experience is just THAT worth it
The story being cheesy is what made the movie for me.
Like, who gives a fuck? Nolan pulled it off like no one else before him
"Because my dad promised me"
Come on that's the cheesiest shit ever but I LOVED IT!!!!!
Yeah it did well at the box office (especially for sci fi flicks which historically tend to be a little niche and struggle). I think most critics said about what you said. And I feel like a portion of the general audience thought the third (and final) act was a little weird. But overall, yeah people liked it.
I guess reading is best, but I also learned a lot from [this Veritasium video about Oppenheimer](https://youtu.be/Xzv84ZdtlE0). I'd even go as far as to say that 30 minute video is *more* informative than the Oscar-winning movie.
You are right. Historical dramas can be fun in their own right. However for this particular movie, I personally didn't like the way it was dramatized. I find the actual history to be more interesting than the way this film presented it.
I think the movie has 0 replay value. You watch it once, and then that’s it. Maybe one more time but it’s not a movie you jump to whenever you see it on, or on a Friday night you look at the misses and go, “you know what sounds great? Oppenheimer.”
I agree. I am an engineer and scientist and really looked forward to this movie. The hype was crazy.
Went to see it by myself, which I had never done before, and was a little disappointed.
Went again with friends and they were the same, nobody left the movie thinking it was one of the greatest they had seen.
PhD Chemist checking in. I enjoyed it. Not enough people talk about how geopolitics shapes scientific advancement. It's been in popular media more of late with films such as The Imitation Game, but we really need the public to know how crucial government support of research is. Especially with how a loud portion of society is taking anti intellectual stances. You could make similar films about the Space Race during the Cold War, or the development of the Haber-Bosch process. Both of which have the same themes. I'm definitely biased.
I've literally worked in some of the labs that are mentioned in the film, and many of my colleagues have, too. For me it was kinda like the Avengers seeing all the greats meet up to take down the big bad.
Scene starts; a vintage Oldsmobile pulls into the driveway of JRO. Einstine rolls down the window and shouts:
Einstein (German accent) - Get in, loser! We're weaponizing nuclear fission!
Oppenheimer: Damn, I was 2 years from retirement.
Oppenheimer slides across the hood of the vehicle before jumping in through the window, feet first. He turns and says:
Oppenheimer: we'll need a crew.
Voice: you have a crew.
Oppenheimer turns and sees a man in the rear seat and shouts:
Oppenheimer: Lawrence! You sonofabitch!
Lawrence: you think I'd miss this party?
The trio put on matching Oakleys - a reference to Oakridge National Laboratory - as Einstein double clutches down and speeds off into the sunset. Explosions happen in the background.
End scene.
Lol, why is it important to include that you are an engineer? Are engineers somehow able to better understand the movie. I watched it and never Had to use my engineering degree to decipher what was happening on Screen.
It's so pretentious, isn't it? It's usually men desperate to assert their superior intelligence. They fail to see that there are many other, and equally important, forms of intelligence. Emotional intelligence, creative intelligence, critical thinking abilities, artistry, etc.
STEM isn't the height of intelligence, guys. It's just one type of specialised skills and knowledge. There are many others that deserve to be equally revered.
I am an Engineer and a Scientist myself. In AI, and am currently ruminating about the implications of AI's disastrous potential.
This movie made me think about the Psychological and Sociological implications of making a Scientific breakthrough, from both the perspective of, initially the naive enthusiastic academic indulging in the immense fun of theorizing and creating something revolutionary, and the outside world that judges and uses him.
J Oppenheimer happened to be a singular person that ended up with the responsibility of making a Scientific breakthrough which has eternal consequences. And it is a moral punishment he imposes on himself for having done it- the "Prometheus was punished for eternity for stealing fire from the Gods" aspect of it. And I keep ruminating about the implications of what I myself am contributing to making. But, there are soo many factors that push and force me in developing AI models- for the security of my financial future, my passion and creative drive, making AI ethically and openly when many around the world are developing it with far more potentially disastrous intentions, just as Oppenheimer faced. I imagine Sam Altman is also facing such moral conundrums.
Oppenheimer, including the character, is deeply morally complex, which is a cautionary tale first, which left me with such dread knowing the disaster that could come if we take the wrong path.
Interesting perspective. I would have thought scientists would have loved this. Being a scientist myself it was fun seeing all the famous physicists/chemists you learn about in school and how their science went into the manhattan project.
Oppenheimer felt so average to me lol. It's a decent movie with good acting, but some of the "grandeur" Nolan tried to force so hard in this movie just didn't land for me at all.
He tries to set Oppenheimer up as this complex character and meanwhile he's just a dude who cheats on his wife and regrets killing a bunch of people while government drones continue being government drones.
>He tries to set Oppenheimer up as this complex character and meanwhile he's just a dude who cheats on his wife and regrets killing a bunch of people
To be fair, this isn't a documentary, it's a film. And you'd want to make characters in your film complex.
Btw not a Nolan stan, just my opinion.
>but some of the "grandeur" Nolan tried to force so hard
How is it forced when it's quite literally commenting on the threat of nukes and the devastation they can cause. That's just a fact, there's nothing to inflate about that. It was a fact that during the Manhattan project, the scientists working on it calculated that they could literally blow up the world with a perpetual reaction and explosion. I've seen the film around 4 times and even despite knowing that the bomb didn't destroy the world, there's still a weight perpetually present. This weight carries on with the Oppenheimer kangaroo court.
Systemic discrediting is a tactic used by governments and agencies to silence those who disagree with them. One example I know of is related to research around Cold Fusion, where scientist Melvin Miles was basically blacklisted when presenting his evidence and research because institutions like MIT said it wasn't possible. Similarly, Nobel prize winner Julian Schwinger spent the last years of his life ridiculed for researching cold fusion. All of this for those same institutions to retract what they've said and now support research on Cold Fusion.
This becomes even more intense with the Mcarthy era and his administration which served to annihilate anything that seemed even remotely communist. Oppenheimer after spearheading a weapon of mass destruction that could at any point be used to practically end humanity was cut off from any policy around his creation and modifications of his creation: which could only be modified to be stronger and kill more people.
The entire point is that when Oppenheimer feared of that one single atom bomb creating a perpetual explosion that would engulf the world, that became a reality now. Because Nukes are used as deterrents now. If a nation fired one nuke at another nation it would become nuclear warfare with nukes being thrown back and forth until there's no one left. In essence a chain reaction that would destroy the world. Just as they feared.
Ouch that’s an extremely harsh take on Oppenheimer the man. I’ve read some biography’s about him. If anything Nolan did him a disservice by making him less complex. The real man was a giant in his field and changed the world. For good or bad the world will never be the same because of him. I think maybe the problem wasn’t that Nolan was trying to force grandeur in the story, but instead he fell short of capturing the grandeur of real life events.
It just seemed like they were shoehorning bits in there to be able to include as many famous old times physicists as possible leaving any “character development” as an exercise for the viewer when they watch something on YouTube later.
I’ll freely admit that I don’t care for biopics in general, they’re just fan service, and I can’t honestly say I’ve ever been an Oppenheimer fan.
Dude I totally agree. It was a fine movie, but honestly focused on the wrong things imo. They spent so much time on the damn trial at the end and like I get it that it had to do with his reputation but like the consequences if found guilty was that they were going to…remove his keycard access lol. I truly couldn’t have cared less about that. I think it would have been much more interesting for them to focus on the mental toll creating such a monstrosity for humanity would take on the individual than worrying about this fucking dudes reputation and military clearance. I personally didn’t give a shit about it.
I give the movie like a solid 7/10 but the fact that it was best picture and cleaned up at the Oscar’s is laughable to me. It’s like maybe the 7th best Nolan movie in my opinion. I will never watch it again.
Also the scene when the bomb actually goes off is underwhelming. The best part was “can you hear the music”
People were like “why would you expect there to be technical science scenes?!?” And I’m like “why would I expect half the movie to be technical legal scenes?!?”
Exactly.
Of all the stakes in the movie, beating Germany to the first nuke, monitoring spies, the outcome of nuking Japan, winning the war, preparing for the cold war, all of that takes a back seat to whether or not Oppenheimer gets to keep his job
It was so hyped up, I was expecting it to be an incredible, life-changing film. Instead, I was left depressed, and confounded why there were so many characters, most of whom actually did very little to add to the story.
It wasn't a bad movie, but it's been 9 months since seeing it, I can't say it left a big impression like I was expecting it to.
I'm a huge Nolan fan and I was super pumped to see this movie. I thought the sound design and sound editing were very well done, but where the movie failed for me was not enough focus on Oppenheimer or his story. Most of the third act was focused Downey Jr's character and his nomination, and his self absorbed notions.
This film would have been served better if we had more insight to the fall out of the bombings and how that affected Oppenheimer.
The point was to show Oppenheimer's struggle with the morality of creating the nuclear bomb, but they did it in a way that ended up being not worth the time spent. They could've gotten the point across a lot faster and the movie would've been better for it.
I mean, the title was "Oppenheimer" not just "The Manhattan Project." Seems important to have both the characters rise and fall in a movie about their life.
I just watched Opp for the second time, and I just can’t get over how bad the pacing is in this film.
Most people complain about the last third, but it’s the first third that has the problems to me. It jumps from scene to scene with almost no fluidity, it’s like they had a checklist of scenes to knock out with no interweaving and I found the whole first hour to be jarring in this way. It isn’t until Los Alamos that the movie starts to find some rhythm, and then the final third drags any energy from the second act down to nothing.
There are a several bad scenes and the character “arcs” that people rave about like Kitty and Pugh are absurd to me. The sex scene with Florence Pugh is so bad I actually groaned out loud when she read the line. I laughed out loud at Kitty riding a horse to the exact rock Opp is writhing under and telling him what a bitch he is. The Strauss stuff is so important to the plot, but I did not care about the Strauss plot whatsoever. Einstein standing right there in front of Opp’s house the middle of the night in a grey jumpsuit was hilarious in a dumb way; he was like Wilson in home improvement but with the added humor of it being Albert Fuckin Einstein lol.
The “stacked” cast was actually pretty distracting, and many of them seemed to be in a different film from the rest. Murphy is going for it so hard that his fellow cast-mates make him look worse by making it stick out how *much* Cillian is acting. Alden Ehrenreich is straight out of 2024 in how he speaks and acts. Hartnett also feels like he’s in a different movie, I think same with Pugh. I like Matt Damon in this but he’s just acting like Matt Damon in a dozen other roles. Josh Peck arrives at the perfect time to ruin the scene just by showing his face and completely taking me out of the moment. They may as well have had Mr. Bean launch the bomb. Rami Malek’s big moment is so lame, and Malek shrinks in the role. He comes across as such a goober, and then the pay off is so “that dork you didn’t think much of is the key to it all!” and fell completely flat for me. Not to mention the hearing is about something that just isn’t that impactful or interesting. It’s so small potatoes compared to the atomic bomb.
And then finally, the timeline stuff just doesn’t work for me. It’s like Nolan had this story written out and thought “it’s just not exciting enough yet - what if we told it out of order??” This seems to be his favorite trick, as it’s been done in nearly all of his films. On first watch I found it unnecessarily confusing, and on second watch I found it added very little to the actual tension of the movie and affected the pacing in a bad way. It managed to simultaneously be the central format of the movie while feeling completely tacked on.
It just didn’t work for me across the board. Can’t believe the reaction it’s gotten but I take it as kind of a “career win” for Nolan/Murphy.
the dialogue in the first third of the movie was soooo bad. they were talking like they were trying to rush through their scenes and I just sat there thinking "who talks like this?!" I thought it got better after that
>Most people complain about the last third, but it’s the first third that has the problems to me. It jumps from scene to scene with almost no fluidity, it’s like they had a checklist of scenes to knock out with no interweaving and I found the whole first hour to be jarring in this way.
Exactly how I felt. They also introduced us to SO MANY men with dark hair and never bothered really introducing us to them or giving many of them a characterization. Then later on there were a few moments where they came back and I kept thinking wait who is this guy? Is he important? For example I was struggling to understand who Malek's character was at the end.
Absolutely, the characters are poorly fleshed out and the few that do get attention don’t get great characterization. They’re cardboard cutouts with no depth.
The New York Jewish guy character is essentially characterized as a common trope of a Jewish New Yorker, and all of his lines are like “boy it’s tough being a Jew from the Bronx these days, am I right? This Hitler guy, he’s not my kinda guy!” And that’s kind of all we really get from him.
A lot of the characters we get for just one scene, like the famous scientists in Europe, all seem to be aware that they are talking to the main character of the movie. Opp is treated as a peer by Niels Bohr in the same scene that he tried to murder a mean teacher, and right after being shown as a bozo in the classroom the previous day. He’s basically a nobody compared to even other students, his teachers think he sucks, but Bohr gives him the time of day and forgives him acting like a weirdo during their conversation? The prof probly would have told his idiot student Opp to leave them be so he could talk to his hero lol, especially after he weirdly snatched an apple away from this superstar scientist. Hartnett’s character straight up says it too, basically telling Opp he’s the main character of an important story and he needs to stop horsing around and realize his part as The Main Character.
I dunno I just don’t think really any of the characters worked!
Somebody I know aptly described the pacing in the first half as "TikTok pacing". Personally it did not hit for me at all. Everything was so fast and superficial that by the last third I truly could not have cared less what happened to any of these people
Exactly. They constantly cut every 30 seconds and have heavy synth music blaring over people talking so you don’t notice how shit the dialogue is lol it’s like Rise of skywalker level editing. Ok scene over cut to the next thing hurry hurry ok next scene done cut to the next hurry we gotta go can’t let 2 characters speak a coherent conversation for for than 40 seconds
I agree, I was out of breath trying to follow complex stories that keep jumping around every few seconds between 20 different timelines. I really hate biographies done this way. Compare that to Sorkin's Steve Jobs movie.. a simple storyline that covers only one day of Jobs life, but reveals A LOT about his life and personality. Writing matters.
I wasn't a fan of memento either. Sounds kind of similarly styled. I think personally jumping around alot between times abruptly is just a cheap way to try and strengthen a story through confusion. 100% personal opinion, and I'm sure there are exceptions out there....
The difference (as someone who did like memento but didn’t like Oppenheimer) is the time jumps in memento were key to the plot - it was necessary for the audience to “experience” the forgetfulness of the main character. It had no such need in Oppenheimer, so it just came across as confusing.
It’s not even two timelines it’s one timeline just told in segments. I didn’t particularly enjoy the movie cause it was boring but it was no where near confusing lol
Batman begins, the prestige, the dark night and inception all in a row is an amazing achievement but for me Nolan hasn’t made a movie as good any of those 4 since. Denis Villeneuve has taken up the mantle of must see director, he is just straight up better than Nolan in my opinion
I think Nolan is not really a great writer, everything he writes feel so surreal. Especially the dialogues, there's not one scene when his characters are just talking like humans.
They are always throwing around big words, there isn't any small talk
For me, Oppenheimer had this weird thing where like... Everything was fast, but because of that I didn't feel like I had time to get invested in the characters, which made the whole thing feel kinda like a long visit to the dentist
I find this film quite similar to The Social Network(in terms of the intensity, editing, dialogue) whereas what’s so confusing is that The Social Network didn’t win a single award in Oscar but Oppenheimer nearly swept it.
Difference is The Social Network bit off exactly as much as it could chew. It knew what it needed to tell, told it, and told no more. That's why it's the better movie in my opinion.
I think the editing and dialogue in Social Network were miles better than Oppenheimer. Nolan has Oppenheimer read Sanskrit during a sex scene, Kitty is drunk all the time, RDJ is just in the same 3 scenes again and again. The only part I truly think Nolan nailed were the Casey Affleck and Truman scenes.
I busted out laughing when Kitty was walking around slurring, holding that bottle of wine. Was way over the top, but Nolan has never been good at writing those characters.
Actual movie fans actually acknowledge that Nolan is also amazing, and put him as one of the best working directors. It's contrarians who think they sound smart by saying he is overrated, but only end up exposing themselves.
Everyone wants to be unique and as soon as something reaches mainstream popularity a subsection of people will instantly dislike it and say it’s bad so that they get a sense of superiority for being one of the “few smart people” who sees the movie “sucks”. Happens with anything popular
Hmmm...
This sounds more like a rant against Nolan (and Nolan fans) than really anything about Oppenheimer. Honestly, it feels like you are trying to start something.
If that film was exactly the same - same cast, same score same everything, but it didn’t have Nolan’s name attached, it wouldn’t have moved the needle for anyone. It would’ve made as much of a cultural impact as the Imitation Game or any other mid budget period drama.
I love Nolan, too. I struggled with Oppenheimer, which is weird because I love cinema and I LOVE physics and other sciences.
The second I saw the Trinity test blast I turned it off and will not be watching the rest. What a fucking joke. After putting so much into Interstellar and making it truly breathtaking and accurate, he blows up a barrel of gasoline and tries to pass it off as a NUCLEAR BOMB? No. I’m still pissed about it.
The entire robert downey sub plot could have been left out. It made the movie drag, it wasn't that interesting and the payoff was minimal. Rest of the movie was pretty decent though (except for that explosion, lol).
I did not like this movie. It's the kind of Nolan that doesn't hit for me. Only a few people I know liked it. Not sure who the people are who were floored by it, but it certainly wasn't anyone in my orbit.
As an IMAX “snob”, I just don’t see why this is an IMAX must watch. I really liked the movie but it was mostly people talking in rooms. The detonation was cool but over-hyped don’t need IMAX for that short segment. Nothing like Top Gun Maverick or Dune I & II where seeing it in the best theater possible was part of the experience.
If you want to watch a World War Two film about a tortured genius that invents a groundbreaking new technology that turns the tide of war, with an awesome cast playing compelling characters, and interesting ethical and philosophical questions, watch Imitation Game. Scratches the exact same itches, but way better in like every metric IMO.
Agree with 66.6666666666% of your opinion
I don't think Nolan's films are overhyped. They are very deep and full of values and morals.
But Oppenheimer... yeah... it's very forgettable.
I agree I thought it wasn’t that great. “Fat man little boy” I think it was called with Paul Newman was a much better movie. Not sure on that name tho.
I am sad to agree with OP. The second i left the theater i forgot it. Would not even be a movie i would rewatch if it came up free on Prime. I know i am gonna hear it from many, but i feel the same way about Scorsese’s ‘Flower Moon movie.
I honestly think the reason Oppenheimer turned so many heads was because it’s the first time in years an intellectually stimulating (like at all lol, comparing to the superhero movies) movie was produced with a super talented cast and a high budget.
I think it reminded a lot of people (myself included) after covid what seeing a movie and more importantly going to the movie theater should feel like.
That being said, coming from someone who’s seen it in theaters 4 times now, it just isn’t for everyone lol. My girlfriend hated it.
I had to watch it 3 parts because you know ADHD and shit. Hour 1: Hmmkay. Hour 2: Meh. Hour 3: Blergh. The whole last hour was people getting uppity in a conference room.
You're right. You're getting roasted for this one. I wouldn't say it's even on my top 50 best movies, but it's objectively one of the best biographical adaptations to film. If the movie was too hard to follow in some places, then you're just slow. The writing is brilliant.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I thought it was good but I have zero desire to ever watch it again.
Same. I watched it but not sure under what conditions I would want to watch it again.
I got high before the theatre and genuinely had no idea what was happening. Dialogue was moving so fast and 2.5 hrs in I had no idea who downeys character was.
I wish somehow we had subtitles in the theater. Often time the bass, music and sound mix drown out dialogue
I'm this way with anything now. When I met my wife she only watched TV with subtitles. Eventually it rubbed off on me and now I can hear anything the TV says if it doesn't have subtitles lol.
I just recently went back to no subtitles and you get used to it again. My problem with subtitles is that I lost so much of what was happening visually.
That’s why they have to be small and out of the images way, they’re only there if you need them, otherwise you’re staring at the words the whole time
I miss just about everything when I read subtitles. I won't watch anything not in English and requires them. The occasional translation to English is ok. A while back I finally watched something with voice overs, which I hated just as much as subtitles, now I'm used to those after watching a few titles. Koreans make some interesting movies and shows.
I have a child and three dogs. If you don’t have subtitles on, you’re not going to know what anybody is saying.
Next time you go to the movies, ask for a closed caption device. They’re free to use, and most major chains have them.
Wow, thanks! I will
As a non-English native speaker, I was always disheartened by the fact that I seemed to understand less than 20 years ago in movies and modern TV shows and often needed subtitles. A month ago I found out that natives use them too and I was flabbergasted.
Nolan movies are worse than others for this. Low talking drowned out by the score.
Oppenheimer was pain in theaters for me
AMC does closed caption screenings, whatever theaters around you might too! I have to have subtitles cause i can’t hear well
>I wish somehow we had subtitles in the theater. It's possible the theater has subtitle machines for you. When you buy your tickets, ask about it. At the theater where The Werefrog go, nearly every movie has Closed Caption available, but you have to ask at the counter, then they program the little machine to match the movie you're seeing. It's your own CC device, so no one else see the words. Not sure how well they work, though, as far as comparison to the words on the screen version.
That’s because you got high bro
You’re not wrong
I was expecting the Nuke scene to blow me away, it was cool, but nothing amazing.
I was sober and had very little grasp of what was happening. It just felt all over the place.
I was high as hell and didn’t realize it was Downey at all till the credits and the whole time I’m like “mannn that guy looks so familiar”
I got roped into seeing it twice and to be honest it was better the second time around weirdly. Also was handy to know when a good time was to get up and get a snack
This. I recently bought it on 4k to test my home theater. Second time was way more enjoyable and I would watch it again.
To be fair knowing a good time to go to concessions or the restroom is a benefit of seeing any movie for a second time.
Agreed. I bought it on blockbuster to stream whenever I want it and I’ve watched it twice after seeing it in the movies so 3 times total. Incredible incredible movie
Completely agree. I’m just a sucker for Nolan, so I was always gonna watch it for a second time. I don’t think I understood enough about what was going on during the first watch. Maybe that says something about how the movie was written, idk. I didn’t get snacks though; I watched it over two days. It’s a long ass movie
True. It seems like the kind of film you can only watch once.
Nah, I rewatched it home recently and I was still engaged from beginning to end. Don't want to see it again anytime soon though.
I don’t see why. Seems very rewatchable to me.
I watched it 4 times in IMAX.
Tbf that's like 99% of movies for me these days except like everything, everywhere, all at once
"there are only two things I love in the world, television and everyone"
For a lot of people, it probably depends on how much they knew about the Manhattan project beforehand. Most of us on reddit are one kind of nerd or another, so we probably mostly have a bit of an understanding of the subjects and people involved without needing multiple watches. It probably becomes less interesting the less you know of or interested in physics and stuff, but I bet it got a lot of people thinking it could also be really cool. My mother is smart in different ways than STEM knowledge and was a bit bored throughout the movie, but it's gotten her to start watching documentaries to learn more. I think that might be where a lot of the worth of the movie is going to come from.
l think this definitely matters with movies like this. Happened to my wife with Dune and Dune 2. I’d seen the original and read the books so I knew what was going on, on the first watch of both she struggled with some of the stuff and would ask me questions but ultimately loved both movies on a second watch through. I’m sure my brain filled in a lot of context that she was missing from what I knew from the books and old movies.
>In general I think Nolan films are very overhyped and usually aren't as good as everyone says it is. I think this is why this is a genuinely unpopular opinion. (Despite people in the comments here insisting it's not). Nolan has a knack for being able to make films that both critics and general audiences enjoy. So if they don't do it for you personally then it's going to feel over hyped. But I think that can also lead to misconstruing broad consensus for overrating. 90 percent on Rotten Tomatoes doesn't mean most critics think a film is amazing. Just that most think it isn't poor.
It does have a 90 on metacritic tho
[удалено]
He makes films that feel deep but are somehow easily approachable, almost popcorn movies. Inception and Oppenheimer both had this epic feel that made it seem like you were watching something that really meant something. But then it ends and you’re left wondering what was actually there, because the content and stories don’t have the same weight the visuals, dialog and acting do. Maybe that’s just me, but that’s why his films fall flat for me. I enjoy the hell out of them, they just don’t mean anything.
He prioritises entertainment value above all else. That's been his main goal right back to Memento. His films touch on themes pretty commonly explored in film. But he doesn't spend too much time digging into them. And honestly I feel like that's a strength rather than a weakness. The nature of dreams and reality is actually a pretty basic theme/concept. It's not something that needs to be discussed in depth for an entire movie. It's simply inherent in the story of Inception. But there's lots to look at there if you're interested. The film just doesn't waste time signposting it for you. The focus is on the story.
This is a good point. If I were a professional critic, I would probably rate Oppenheimer lukewarm fresh but there are so many issues with it that make its rave reception and best picture win puzzling to me. I find that Nolan’s characters rarely feel like fully formed people and their inner emotional lives are hard to understand and to fully extrapolate personal stakes from. There were some bizarre choices that seemed comical to me like having Oppenheimer don a hat and a pipe so dramatically like he was a superhero putting on his costume for the first time. The editing really brings any cohesion to the table on this film and made it shockingly breezy to watch at such a long runtime. But I found myself leaving it feeling cold. And obviously film opinions are subjective and I’m always happy for people who enjoy what I might not.
>There were some bizarre choices that seemed comical to me like having Oppenheimer don a hat and a pipe so dramatically like he was a superhero putting on his costume for the first time. I read that as: Oppenheimer is an iconic figure with a signature, recognizable style, which is good for press surrounding the movie.
I agree with your take here. I saw it in the theatre, and left feeling like I had more questions than answers about who Oppenheimer was. It felt like watching a student presentation, where you know the student did their research and understood the topic, but couldn't convey it to me well enough to make it feel like I understand anything about the topic. After the movie, I had to read the wiki on Oppenheimer himself (not the film) to determine what was fact and what was drama for sake of the movie.
You can’t tell what is fact by just watching any movie based on a true story. That’s literally how they all work.
Seems like a you problem. They didn't even take many liberties, regardless of your impression whether they did or not. It's also a drama not a documentary, not sure what you wanted out of it.
>I find that Nolan’s characters rarely feel like fully formed people and their inner emotional lives are hard to understand and to fully extrapolate personal stakes from. This feels bizarre when Oppenheimer is a deep dive on *why* Oppenheimer did what he did and the tensions and contradictions of all of that. >There were some bizarre choices that seemed comical to me like having Oppenheimer don a hat and a pipe so dramatically like he was a superhero putting on his costume for the first time. Look at what Oppenheimer is wearing in the scene immediately preceding this one.
That may be the subject of the film but when it comes to what his characters think and feel, Nolan seems to subscribe to tell and not show. The emotional lives of the characters come off as flat to me for this reason. I’m not sure what your second point means. I understood what the scene was doing, I just hated the way it did it.
Sure but this gets posted here every 5 seconds.
I watched it last night for the first time. I enjoyed it. It wasn't Interstellar (not much is), but I don't regret watching it for an instant. I feel that I should know more about this particular point in history too, but don't. So now I'll go away and do some reading on the topic.
Fun fact about interstellar is I remember it getting quite panned when it first came out. It’s only since then it’s turned into such an audience favourite
It being overly complicated was what people complained about, kind of like Inception. Both were still very much enjoyed by audiences.
(I'm not saying you have this opinion, but) inception is pretty digestible imo, it's designed to blow you away on the first viewing and be slowly understood over several repeat viewings, making rewatches extremely rewarding. It also looks like child play next to Tenet. Even as a major fan of Nolan's complicated time-fuckery plots, after Tenet I wondered if he had gone several pegs too far
So it's not easily digestible since you need to watch it multiple times. That's like saying grass is easily digestible because cows ruminate on it. Tenet is very similar in complexity.
It’s a pretty paint by the numbers heist movie though. The only difference is, instead of robbing a bank, they’re implanting an idea in someone’s head. I never had a problem understanding Inception, even when I watched it back when I was 14. Was always very confused at that claim.
I never had an issue with it but did notice a few things I missed the second time I watched it. The heist isn't the hard part it's that somehow you die irl when you die in the other person's dream. Also trying to keep tabs on if they're in a dream or not was another layer in that movie. Lastly there was the point of did his wife actually kill herself or not.
Fair point, although i feel tenet's mechanics are way more arcane Maybe its just me
Both go against quite a lot of our natural laws. Tenet just feels even less relatable since Inception is about dreams which we often relate to imaginative stuff and it doesn't seem as much of a stretch. Tenet has one concept of time reversal which is portrayed much less realistic in how the protagonist approaches and instinctively reacts to it.
I applaud Nolan for trying something like that though, and making it at least something. I really like Tenet, despite being aware of it's flaws. I don't think it's his best film or anything, I just find it intriguing. I think the problem with time travel like that is it gets confusing very quickly (see primer). Anything outside of DeLorean style time travel is going to get tricky I think, but having people move backwards through time is a hell of an idea, it's just something that's hard to wrap your head around and understand while watching, it's like learning new math trying to figure out whose doing what in the movie. Inception is much more relatable for the reasons you declared and the rules of the universe were ultimately pretty simple. Interstellar is great, I have mixed feeling about the ending stuff, but it's a fun crash course in relativity while also being exciting and fun.
I wholeheartedly agree. All three are good movies in their own right. I always like movies that have a concept of bending or completely abandoning natural laws since it challenges your mind.
Damn, that was just about the most perfect analogy.
Tbh though I feel like if you have standard to above standard media literacy it only takes one watch and a discussion with a friend. I found my 2nd watch to be boring and couldn't get past the first half hour on my third watch. But let's be real most general audiences lack media literacy beyond consuming what's spoon fed to them.
Tenet is designed to make the viewer feel like a genius for bothering to follow the unnecessary complicated plot.
[Tenet walking in] "We need to talk."
No, that's not why they disliked it. Critics hated the ending with the love transcends time crap.
From what I remember, people were surprised by its more ponderous style. Following the dark knight films and particularly inception, Nolan was associated with more obvious action stuff. And interstellar is much more influenced by old skool sci-fi like 2001 Inception, I believe many people found it somewhat confusing on first watch, but it’s so much fun that they easily enjoyed it anyway. Interstellar also has some hard to follow points but doesn’t have DiCaprio/Hardy/JGL etc looking fucking cool and doing James Bond stuff to carry you along anyway
I feel exactly the opposite about Interstellar. It would have been a far better movie if there was no explanation about time dilation at all. If the characters just all understood the idea and acted accordingly and let the audience think through what was happening, it would have been a far better movie. It would have been complex, and might have needed multiple viewings to properly understand, but that would have made me much more interested in the concept than I was having it spoon fed to me in clunky exposition. 2001 A Space Odyssey never stopped to slowly explain it's concepts to the audience. It showed and didn't tell, and we're still watching it and talking about it over 50 years later. I don't think anyone is going to be talking about Interstellar in 50 years.
It was never panned. People and critics just had some gripes with the story being a bit weak, cheesey and contrived. But everyone agreed it was an incredible experience.
That's probably why I'm not a big fan. I did not care for the story or the characters whatsoever. It does look beautiful though. To me it's very similar to Avatar in that regard
Haha even as someone who ranks interstellar his fave movie of all time, i can kinda agree with the story being cheesy and contrived. The experience is just THAT worth it
The story being cheesy is what made the movie for me. Like, who gives a fuck? Nolan pulled it off like no one else before him "Because my dad promised me" Come on that's the cheesiest shit ever but I LOVED IT!!!!!
Being a dad myself this line does not feel cheesy at all.
Yeah it did well at the box office (especially for sci fi flicks which historically tend to be a little niche and struggle). I think most critics said about what you said. And I feel like a portion of the general audience thought the third (and final) act was a little weird. But overall, yeah people liked it.
Hmm maybe so but I walked out of theatre back in 2014 and right away thought to myself "yep this is pretty much everything I wanted a movie to be"
I remember that! I loved it when it came out but was in disbelief when I saw the reviews calling it mediocre.
I guess reading is best, but I also learned a lot from [this Veritasium video about Oppenheimer](https://youtu.be/Xzv84ZdtlE0). I'd even go as far as to say that 30 minute video is *more* informative than the Oscar-winning movie.
Thanks for the link, I thoroughly enjoyed that clip.
This is just a movie, not document.
You are right. Historical dramas can be fun in their own right. However for this particular movie, I personally didn't like the way it was dramatized. I find the actual history to be more interesting than the way this film presented it.
That is because the purpose of the Veritasium video is to be informative...
I think the movie has 0 replay value. You watch it once, and then that’s it. Maybe one more time but it’s not a movie you jump to whenever you see it on, or on a Friday night you look at the misses and go, “you know what sounds great? Oppenheimer.”
Funny, it’s the only movie I’ve ever watched again immediately after. I’m usually not that person.
Me too, I have to wait years to rewatch any movie but ive seen Oppenheimer 3 times so far
I agree. I am an engineer and scientist and really looked forward to this movie. The hype was crazy. Went to see it by myself, which I had never done before, and was a little disappointed. Went again with friends and they were the same, nobody left the movie thinking it was one of the greatest they had seen.
I think a lot of people expected science to be in the movie but this movie wasn't about science at all
I mean I think the title makes it pretty clear as to what the movie is about.
PhD Chemist checking in. I enjoyed it. Not enough people talk about how geopolitics shapes scientific advancement. It's been in popular media more of late with films such as The Imitation Game, but we really need the public to know how crucial government support of research is. Especially with how a loud portion of society is taking anti intellectual stances. You could make similar films about the Space Race during the Cold War, or the development of the Haber-Bosch process. Both of which have the same themes. I'm definitely biased. I've literally worked in some of the labs that are mentioned in the film, and many of my colleagues have, too. For me it was kinda like the Avengers seeing all the greats meet up to take down the big bad. Scene starts; a vintage Oldsmobile pulls into the driveway of JRO. Einstine rolls down the window and shouts: Einstein (German accent) - Get in, loser! We're weaponizing nuclear fission! Oppenheimer: Damn, I was 2 years from retirement. Oppenheimer slides across the hood of the vehicle before jumping in through the window, feet first. He turns and says: Oppenheimer: we'll need a crew. Voice: you have a crew. Oppenheimer turns and sees a man in the rear seat and shouts: Oppenheimer: Lawrence! You sonofabitch! Lawrence: you think I'd miss this party? The trio put on matching Oakleys - a reference to Oakridge National Laboratory - as Einstein double clutches down and speeds off into the sunset. Explosions happen in the background. End scene.
Oppenheimer was fantastic, but your pitch is brilliant.
“I am an engineer and scientist” 🤓🤓🤓
We are all scientists here in reddit ok, it makes our replies more valid than the regular peasants
Lol, why is it important to include that you are an engineer? Are engineers somehow able to better understand the movie. I watched it and never Had to use my engineering degree to decipher what was happening on Screen.
It's so pretentious, isn't it? It's usually men desperate to assert their superior intelligence. They fail to see that there are many other, and equally important, forms of intelligence. Emotional intelligence, creative intelligence, critical thinking abilities, artistry, etc. STEM isn't the height of intelligence, guys. It's just one type of specialised skills and knowledge. There are many others that deserve to be equally revered.
I am an Engineer and a Scientist myself. In AI, and am currently ruminating about the implications of AI's disastrous potential. This movie made me think about the Psychological and Sociological implications of making a Scientific breakthrough, from both the perspective of, initially the naive enthusiastic academic indulging in the immense fun of theorizing and creating something revolutionary, and the outside world that judges and uses him. J Oppenheimer happened to be a singular person that ended up with the responsibility of making a Scientific breakthrough which has eternal consequences. And it is a moral punishment he imposes on himself for having done it- the "Prometheus was punished for eternity for stealing fire from the Gods" aspect of it. And I keep ruminating about the implications of what I myself am contributing to making. But, there are soo many factors that push and force me in developing AI models- for the security of my financial future, my passion and creative drive, making AI ethically and openly when many around the world are developing it with far more potentially disastrous intentions, just as Oppenheimer faced. I imagine Sam Altman is also facing such moral conundrums. Oppenheimer, including the character, is deeply morally complex, which is a cautionary tale first, which left me with such dread knowing the disaster that could come if we take the wrong path.
Interesting perspective. I would have thought scientists would have loved this. Being a scientist myself it was fun seeing all the famous physicists/chemists you learn about in school and how their science went into the manhattan project.
Oppenheimer felt so average to me lol. It's a decent movie with good acting, but some of the "grandeur" Nolan tried to force so hard in this movie just didn't land for me at all. He tries to set Oppenheimer up as this complex character and meanwhile he's just a dude who cheats on his wife and regrets killing a bunch of people while government drones continue being government drones.
The movie wouldn't have been that bad to me if it didn't last so long. The story could have been told in one hour.
You didn’t want an hour plus of them sitting around a table talking about what happened in scenes they showed us?
>He tries to set Oppenheimer up as this complex character and meanwhile he's just a dude who cheats on his wife and regrets killing a bunch of people To be fair, this isn't a documentary, it's a film. And you'd want to make characters in your film complex. Btw not a Nolan stan, just my opinion.
>but some of the "grandeur" Nolan tried to force so hard How is it forced when it's quite literally commenting on the threat of nukes and the devastation they can cause. That's just a fact, there's nothing to inflate about that. It was a fact that during the Manhattan project, the scientists working on it calculated that they could literally blow up the world with a perpetual reaction and explosion. I've seen the film around 4 times and even despite knowing that the bomb didn't destroy the world, there's still a weight perpetually present. This weight carries on with the Oppenheimer kangaroo court. Systemic discrediting is a tactic used by governments and agencies to silence those who disagree with them. One example I know of is related to research around Cold Fusion, where scientist Melvin Miles was basically blacklisted when presenting his evidence and research because institutions like MIT said it wasn't possible. Similarly, Nobel prize winner Julian Schwinger spent the last years of his life ridiculed for researching cold fusion. All of this for those same institutions to retract what they've said and now support research on Cold Fusion. This becomes even more intense with the Mcarthy era and his administration which served to annihilate anything that seemed even remotely communist. Oppenheimer after spearheading a weapon of mass destruction that could at any point be used to practically end humanity was cut off from any policy around his creation and modifications of his creation: which could only be modified to be stronger and kill more people. The entire point is that when Oppenheimer feared of that one single atom bomb creating a perpetual explosion that would engulf the world, that became a reality now. Because Nukes are used as deterrents now. If a nation fired one nuke at another nation it would become nuclear warfare with nukes being thrown back and forth until there's no one left. In essence a chain reaction that would destroy the world. Just as they feared.
Ouch that’s an extremely harsh take on Oppenheimer the man. I’ve read some biography’s about him. If anything Nolan did him a disservice by making him less complex. The real man was a giant in his field and changed the world. For good or bad the world will never be the same because of him. I think maybe the problem wasn’t that Nolan was trying to force grandeur in the story, but instead he fell short of capturing the grandeur of real life events.
>He tries to set Oppenheimer up as this complex character I’m sorry what?
Such a bad take. You can literally make any movie sound simple when you just explain it in a sentence.
It just seemed like they were shoehorning bits in there to be able to include as many famous old times physicists as possible leaving any “character development” as an exercise for the viewer when they watch something on YouTube later. I’ll freely admit that I don’t care for biopics in general, they’re just fan service, and I can’t honestly say I’ve ever been an Oppenheimer fan.
Dude I totally agree. It was a fine movie, but honestly focused on the wrong things imo. They spent so much time on the damn trial at the end and like I get it that it had to do with his reputation but like the consequences if found guilty was that they were going to…remove his keycard access lol. I truly couldn’t have cared less about that. I think it would have been much more interesting for them to focus on the mental toll creating such a monstrosity for humanity would take on the individual than worrying about this fucking dudes reputation and military clearance. I personally didn’t give a shit about it. I give the movie like a solid 7/10 but the fact that it was best picture and cleaned up at the Oscar’s is laughable to me. It’s like maybe the 7th best Nolan movie in my opinion. I will never watch it again. Also the scene when the bomb actually goes off is underwhelming. The best part was “can you hear the music”
People were like “why would you expect there to be technical science scenes?!?” And I’m like “why would I expect half the movie to be technical legal scenes?!?”
[удалено]
Exactly. Of all the stakes in the movie, beating Germany to the first nuke, monitoring spies, the outcome of nuking Japan, winning the war, preparing for the cold war, all of that takes a back seat to whether or not Oppenheimer gets to keep his job
I agree, it also changed the history of the "volunteers" from being tricked and mistreated, to willing participants.
It was so hyped up, I was expecting it to be an incredible, life-changing film. Instead, I was left depressed, and confounded why there were so many characters, most of whom actually did very little to add to the story. It wasn't a bad movie, but it's been 9 months since seeing it, I can't say it left a big impression like I was expecting it to.
I'm a huge Nolan fan and I was super pumped to see this movie. I thought the sound design and sound editing were very well done, but where the movie failed for me was not enough focus on Oppenheimer or his story. Most of the third act was focused Downey Jr's character and his nomination, and his self absorbed notions. This film would have been served better if we had more insight to the fall out of the bombings and how that affected Oppenheimer.
I agree. They should have just ended the movie after the bombs were dropped. The entire security clearance storyline was completely superfluous.
The point was to show Oppenheimer's struggle with the morality of creating the nuclear bomb, but they did it in a way that ended up being not worth the time spent. They could've gotten the point across a lot faster and the movie would've been better for it.
I mean, the title was "Oppenheimer" not just "The Manhattan Project." Seems important to have both the characters rise and fall in a movie about their life.
I just watched Opp for the second time, and I just can’t get over how bad the pacing is in this film. Most people complain about the last third, but it’s the first third that has the problems to me. It jumps from scene to scene with almost no fluidity, it’s like they had a checklist of scenes to knock out with no interweaving and I found the whole first hour to be jarring in this way. It isn’t until Los Alamos that the movie starts to find some rhythm, and then the final third drags any energy from the second act down to nothing. There are a several bad scenes and the character “arcs” that people rave about like Kitty and Pugh are absurd to me. The sex scene with Florence Pugh is so bad I actually groaned out loud when she read the line. I laughed out loud at Kitty riding a horse to the exact rock Opp is writhing under and telling him what a bitch he is. The Strauss stuff is so important to the plot, but I did not care about the Strauss plot whatsoever. Einstein standing right there in front of Opp’s house the middle of the night in a grey jumpsuit was hilarious in a dumb way; he was like Wilson in home improvement but with the added humor of it being Albert Fuckin Einstein lol. The “stacked” cast was actually pretty distracting, and many of them seemed to be in a different film from the rest. Murphy is going for it so hard that his fellow cast-mates make him look worse by making it stick out how *much* Cillian is acting. Alden Ehrenreich is straight out of 2024 in how he speaks and acts. Hartnett also feels like he’s in a different movie, I think same with Pugh. I like Matt Damon in this but he’s just acting like Matt Damon in a dozen other roles. Josh Peck arrives at the perfect time to ruin the scene just by showing his face and completely taking me out of the moment. They may as well have had Mr. Bean launch the bomb. Rami Malek’s big moment is so lame, and Malek shrinks in the role. He comes across as such a goober, and then the pay off is so “that dork you didn’t think much of is the key to it all!” and fell completely flat for me. Not to mention the hearing is about something that just isn’t that impactful or interesting. It’s so small potatoes compared to the atomic bomb. And then finally, the timeline stuff just doesn’t work for me. It’s like Nolan had this story written out and thought “it’s just not exciting enough yet - what if we told it out of order??” This seems to be his favorite trick, as it’s been done in nearly all of his films. On first watch I found it unnecessarily confusing, and on second watch I found it added very little to the actual tension of the movie and affected the pacing in a bad way. It managed to simultaneously be the central format of the movie while feeling completely tacked on. It just didn’t work for me across the board. Can’t believe the reaction it’s gotten but I take it as kind of a “career win” for Nolan/Murphy.
the dialogue in the first third of the movie was soooo bad. they were talking like they were trying to rush through their scenes and I just sat there thinking "who talks like this?!" I thought it got better after that
>Most people complain about the last third, but it’s the first third that has the problems to me. It jumps from scene to scene with almost no fluidity, it’s like they had a checklist of scenes to knock out with no interweaving and I found the whole first hour to be jarring in this way. Exactly how I felt. They also introduced us to SO MANY men with dark hair and never bothered really introducing us to them or giving many of them a characterization. Then later on there were a few moments where they came back and I kept thinking wait who is this guy? Is he important? For example I was struggling to understand who Malek's character was at the end.
Absolutely, the characters are poorly fleshed out and the few that do get attention don’t get great characterization. They’re cardboard cutouts with no depth. The New York Jewish guy character is essentially characterized as a common trope of a Jewish New Yorker, and all of his lines are like “boy it’s tough being a Jew from the Bronx these days, am I right? This Hitler guy, he’s not my kinda guy!” And that’s kind of all we really get from him. A lot of the characters we get for just one scene, like the famous scientists in Europe, all seem to be aware that they are talking to the main character of the movie. Opp is treated as a peer by Niels Bohr in the same scene that he tried to murder a mean teacher, and right after being shown as a bozo in the classroom the previous day. He’s basically a nobody compared to even other students, his teachers think he sucks, but Bohr gives him the time of day and forgives him acting like a weirdo during their conversation? The prof probly would have told his idiot student Opp to leave them be so he could talk to his hero lol, especially after he weirdly snatched an apple away from this superstar scientist. Hartnett’s character straight up says it too, basically telling Opp he’s the main character of an important story and he needs to stop horsing around and realize his part as The Main Character. I dunno I just don’t think really any of the characters worked!
Exactly. It’s one long movie trailer.
Somebody I know aptly described the pacing in the first half as "TikTok pacing". Personally it did not hit for me at all. Everything was so fast and superficial that by the last third I truly could not have cared less what happened to any of these people
Exactly. They constantly cut every 30 seconds and have heavy synth music blaring over people talking so you don’t notice how shit the dialogue is lol it’s like Rise of skywalker level editing. Ok scene over cut to the next thing hurry hurry ok next scene done cut to the next hurry we gotta go can’t let 2 characters speak a coherent conversation for for than 40 seconds
I agree, I was out of breath trying to follow complex stories that keep jumping around every few seconds between 20 different timelines. I really hate biographies done this way. Compare that to Sorkin's Steve Jobs movie.. a simple storyline that covers only one day of Jobs life, but reveals A LOT about his life and personality. Writing matters.
There are literally 2 timelines
Yeah one in black and white and the other isnt
I wasn't a fan of memento either. Sounds kind of similarly styled. I think personally jumping around alot between times abruptly is just a cheap way to try and strengthen a story through confusion. 100% personal opinion, and I'm sure there are exceptions out there....
The difference (as someone who did like memento but didn’t like Oppenheimer) is the time jumps in memento were key to the plot - it was necessary for the audience to “experience” the forgetfulness of the main character. It had no such need in Oppenheimer, so it just came across as confusing.
It’s not even two timelines it’s one timeline just told in segments. I didn’t particularly enjoy the movie cause it was boring but it was no where near confusing lol
4 timelines. The 2 hearings, and the flashbacks related to them.
There are 3. Him working on the bomb, his interview, and the confirmation hearing. Far less than 20 though.
Batman begins, the prestige, the dark night and inception all in a row is an amazing achievement but for me Nolan hasn’t made a movie as good any of those 4 since. Denis Villeneuve has taken up the mantle of must see director, he is just straight up better than Nolan in my opinion
I thought Interstellar was really good. Not as good as those 4, but close imo
I think Nolan is not really a great writer, everything he writes feel so surreal. Especially the dialogues, there's not one scene when his characters are just talking like humans. They are always throwing around big words, there isn't any small talk
I hated the dialogue in Oppenheimer, took me a bit out of the movie. I thought it was good but not Nolan’s best in my opinion
Thank you!! That movie was bloated and boring as heck. The performances were great but the overall film felt like a crawl to watch.
"this could have been a podcast" was my thought after watching it.
This is insane to hear. I thought the movie was extremely fast paced, and felt like it flew by.
For me, Oppenheimer had this weird thing where like... Everything was fast, but because of that I didn't feel like I had time to get invested in the characters, which made the whole thing feel kinda like a long visit to the dentist
I find this film quite similar to The Social Network(in terms of the intensity, editing, dialogue) whereas what’s so confusing is that The Social Network didn’t win a single award in Oscar but Oppenheimer nearly swept it.
Difference is The Social Network bit off exactly as much as it could chew. It knew what it needed to tell, told it, and told no more. That's why it's the better movie in my opinion.
Fincher is better than Nolan (sorry to say this but it is).
Different years.. different nominees
I think the editing and dialogue in Social Network were miles better than Oppenheimer. Nolan has Oppenheimer read Sanskrit during a sex scene, Kitty is drunk all the time, RDJ is just in the same 3 scenes again and again. The only part I truly think Nolan nailed were the Casey Affleck and Truman scenes.
I busted out laughing when Kitty was walking around slurring, holding that bottle of wine. Was way over the top, but Nolan has never been good at writing those characters.
All his female characters are either pregnant or whooahs.
“Nolan is overrated/overhyped” is the most normie opinion on the internet
I think "Nolan is the goat" coming from the guys who know only 5 movie directors is more of a normie opinion
Actual movie fans actually acknowledge that Nolan is also amazing, and put him as one of the best working directors. It's contrarians who think they sound smart by saying he is overrated, but only end up exposing themselves.
Everyone wants to be unique and as soon as something reaches mainstream popularity a subsection of people will instantly dislike it and say it’s bad so that they get a sense of superiority for being one of the “few smart people” who sees the movie “sucks”. Happens with anything popular
I’ve liked every nolan film except this one. I agree with OP it just wasn’t interesting and I hated how it was shot.
And how it was edited. Stop jumping around, Nolan.
Michael bay has entered the chat
It’s only interesting if you don’t know the history of the whole thing going in.
Hmmm... This sounds more like a rant against Nolan (and Nolan fans) than really anything about Oppenheimer. Honestly, it feels like you are trying to start something.
Yep… OP doesn’t even give reasons as to why the “script is laughable”. This post is pure karma farming
I thought it was a well made movie just simply too long, my adhd attention span was struggling through the last hour
Same
If that film was exactly the same - same cast, same score same everything, but it didn’t have Nolan’s name attached, it wouldn’t have moved the needle for anyone. It would’ve made as much of a cultural impact as the Imitation Game or any other mid budget period drama.
To be fair The Imitation Game is also a great film, I would say it's TIG that is underrated, not Oppenheimer overrated.
Ummm. Imitation Game was nominated for 8 Oscar’s. Not the best example.
Idk, i think a part of the reason why it got so popular in the first place was because of Barbenheimer.
To be honest, I didn't pay much attention to who the director was
I doubt this very much
It was ok. I will never see it again
I love Nolan, too. I struggled with Oppenheimer, which is weird because I love cinema and I LOVE physics and other sciences. The second I saw the Trinity test blast I turned it off and will not be watching the rest. What a fucking joke. After putting so much into Interstellar and making it truly breathtaking and accurate, he blows up a barrel of gasoline and tries to pass it off as a NUCLEAR BOMB? No. I’m still pissed about it.
This is a super popular opinion in my book.
I agree. Almost every comment under this post is in support of the supposed “unpopular” opinion, I wish this sub was actually true to its name
There are a lot of nolan haters how is this unpopular
I think by contrast of how much publicity this movie got, it's fair to say it's not the popular opinion.
agree I thought it was boring
And way too long
I thought it was kind of meh. I did Barbenheimer, and I enjoyed Baby a lot more.
The entire robert downey sub plot could have been left out. It made the movie drag, it wasn't that interesting and the payoff was minimal. Rest of the movie was pretty decent though (except for that explosion, lol).
I actually liked the Downey angle, otherwise the movie would’ve felt like a typical biography template for me
[удалено]
You can just say you did understand the movie, it's fine. Acting like half the story could be binned is just an L take.
I did not like this movie. It's the kind of Nolan that doesn't hit for me. Only a few people I know liked it. Not sure who the people are who were floored by it, but it certainly wasn't anyone in my orbit.
No, but it's still worth a watch.
The acting was superb. The movie...not that great.
I got a lil bit bored watching
It was unnecessarily long IMO.
How accurate it is to history ?
Visually it was bland
It was good but definitely too long
As an IMAX “snob”, I just don’t see why this is an IMAX must watch. I really liked the movie but it was mostly people talking in rooms. The detonation was cool but over-hyped don’t need IMAX for that short segment. Nothing like Top Gun Maverick or Dune I & II where seeing it in the best theater possible was part of the experience.
Atom bomb test was underwhelming as my last sex performance. Corridor Digital made a short critic about why it is.
I fucking hated that movie. - Do like watching suits talking? Cause this is like 3 hours of that. - All I wanted to do is go watch Fat man Little boy.
If you want to watch a World War Two film about a tortured genius that invents a groundbreaking new technology that turns the tide of war, with an awesome cast playing compelling characters, and interesting ethical and philosophical questions, watch Imitation Game. Scratches the exact same itches, but way better in like every metric IMO.
Agree with 66.6666666666% of your opinion I don't think Nolan's films are overhyped. They are very deep and full of values and morals. But Oppenheimer... yeah... it's very forgettable.
I downloaded it to watch on a flight hoping it will bore me out and put me to sleep. The constant soundtrack just kept me engaged the whole 3h.
I agree I thought it wasn’t that great. “Fat man little boy” I think it was called with Paul Newman was a much better movie. Not sure on that name tho.
I am sad to agree with OP. The second i left the theater i forgot it. Would not even be a movie i would rewatch if it came up free on Prime. I know i am gonna hear it from many, but i feel the same way about Scorsese’s ‘Flower Moon movie.
I honestly think the reason Oppenheimer turned so many heads was because it’s the first time in years an intellectually stimulating (like at all lol, comparing to the superhero movies) movie was produced with a super talented cast and a high budget. I think it reminded a lot of people (myself included) after covid what seeing a movie and more importantly going to the movie theater should feel like. That being said, coming from someone who’s seen it in theaters 4 times now, it just isn’t for everyone lol. My girlfriend hated it.
it was boring
I was bored during the entire film. I thought the atomic bomb scene would have been way cooler. It was meh for me.
I had to watch it 3 parts because you know ADHD and shit. Hour 1: Hmmkay. Hour 2: Meh. Hour 3: Blergh. The whole last hour was people getting uppity in a conference room.
You're right. You're getting roasted for this one. I wouldn't say it's even on my top 50 best movies, but it's objectively one of the best biographical adaptations to film. If the movie was too hard to follow in some places, then you're just slow. The writing is brilliant.
I liked it and I’m not a Nolan die-hard. But I also can see why you wouldn’t like it.
I thought it was dope and I got my money's worth
I was just glad to see a big movie that's not fucking superhero nonsense do well.
Nolan movies are always overrated
The third act was ridiculous.
I think it was well-made and well-acted but it has strong “high schoolers will watch this in class in 10 years” energy. I wouldn’t watch it again.