Had that a bit too, mostly because of the consistent building music

@@mellewillemsyes. It was unbearable. The music was so loud in the mix and it was nearly omnipresent. I started to notice the scenes that didn’t have music and it felt like it was only 10% of the movie. I love great editing and montage, but it felt like the first hour was the equivalent of the Mr. X montage from JFK. In Stone’s film, that scene was a great exposition dump but it lasted 5 minutes or so. In Oppenheimer, the effect was disorienting and frustrating. It seems as if he’s incapable of telling a compelling story-even with top tier talent-so he’s covering it up with distracting editing choices and music score. By the time the unrelenting montage was finally giving way to a more conventional narrative structure, it felt like 2 hours of assault. And I appreciated how he built tension but it proved to be a weakness of the film. I wished he could have balanced his penchant for visual flair, overlapping timelines, and montage sequences with grounded storytelling. When you have a slew of characters and so much exposition delivered to you at cocaine pace, you feel like you’re on a bullet train and catching glimpses of what was there when it would have been nice to slow down the pace a bit more to savor the talent on screen. I can’t even remember Josh Hartnett’s character’s name. And same goes for Emily Blunt’s character. Too much whizz-bang and not enough heart (as is the common takeaway from Nolan’s films). When I watched Out of Africa, a story about Karen Blixen, I wasn’t expecting to become so engaged in the film. But I was completely absorbed by the story. The editing of the film was concise and it jumped around where you understood that even though it wasn’t spoon feeding you and trusted you to fill in the blanks, you never felt lost. The characters were compelling and you became absorbed in the story of this woman’s life and forgot about the technical aspects of the movie. Nolan is an expert craftsman who is excellent at creating trailers and commercials but aside from the technical aspects, his stories are weak and uninteresting. This could have been a great film but it isn’t. And of course, all of this is subjective. If you like overlapping timelines, whizz-bang, incessant music, excessive editing, and a cliff’s notes approach to storytelling, then Bob’s your uncle.

If they ever release the 12 hour cut, I am ready with popcorn

@@mellewillems Yes! it was overbearing at times.

@@djstarsign you put it so much more intelligently than i could have ever done.

That's an Arts & Crafts motiff

@@chrisfitzpatrick2421 If by Arts and Crafts motiff you mean an atomic explosion made with ginko biloba leaves, then yes you're right. LOL

@@KatStephen when all you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail.

@@chrisfitzpatrick2421 It's not a nail, it's ginko biloba leaves, Now quit bothering me.

Do you find timezones difficult to understand as well? I know americans struggle with these things.

@@throfur3489 lmao comparing it to time zones is such a silly comment. Nolan kept intercutting between three time periods which I thought was incoherent from a narrative structure. So I guess “confusing” was actually the wrong word to use on my part. The time jumping prevented me from caring what was happening on screen more than anything

@@throfur3489funny how so many dumb people feel smart acting like this was a good movie lol

The last 30 minutes really worked (at putting me to sleep)

@@xXxRK0xXx I'm happy I quit at halftime. Irritating is the right word, along with boring.

Me too, but it did not prevent it from being crap 🫢

I just can't see it.

@@sosomelodies659I don’t think you get the true meaning of Oppenheimer.

@tylertheroux966 Schindlers List and JFK were entertaining. Oppenheimer was not.

@@sosomelodies659 that’s cool 😎 not everyone likes the same thing. Those are great movies you listed

Are you really smart for saying you liked the movie.

1 hour of the 3 hour long movie played in a lockerroom. Let that sink in.

Not a movie that needs a theatrical viewing is a ridiculous statement. Scenes like the trinity test, the speech, even the ending with the music are elevated so much by the sound design and visual spectacle. Just because the majority of the movie is not as dynamic as mission impossible does not mean that it isn't technically one of the best movies ever made.

@@kj3397 the point of watching movie in an imax is that you watch something that is worth watching on a big screen. The trinity test was hardly something epic. There have been many explosions in cinema. It was too short to be considered great. One of the best movies ever made? Youre deep in the fanboy spectrum mate

​@@samasoku You are misrepresenting my statement about one of the best movies ever made. I specifically included the word 'technically' as Oppenheimer is objectively one of the best made movies ever on a technical level. Shot in 70mm Imax, no CGI, beautiful soundtrack and cinematography, even a brand new type of film being created for the black and white scenes. You can nitpick at certain scenes of the movie all you want, but not recognizing how technically impressive this movie is just reveals your bias. Also saying that the trinity scene is 'too short to be considered great' is very funny to me. While you're right there have been many explosions in cinema, you've also seen hundreds of people talk or get shot in movies. Just because something happens quickly does not mean that it is not impactful or worthy of consideration.

@@kj3397 putting actors in a locker room for 1 hour of a 3 hour long runtime hardly is a technical masterpiece. If you look at the camera and the setup, and the materials, then yes. But that's not what makes a "technical masterpiece" what it is. Technical is also making use of color, scenery. The movie simply does not have that. Picking out 5 minutes of a 3 hour long discussion fest is cherry picking. So I disagree with you vehemently.

I would respectfully disagree. From the misleading (to put it nicely since Nolan hasn't been deceptive in marketing before) trailers ajd advertisements, to the black and white scenes that change into color with no obvious reasoning, this movie feels messy. Not to mind the totally unnecessary time skipping and a cast so big that there's no way to keep track of all of it on the first 1 or 2 viewings. Then there's the subplot of a spy in Los Alamos that isn't even teased until years after it happened, despite it having large ramifications on the 3rd act. All in all this felt like it should have been a limited series that got crammed into 3 hours.

Oppenheimer is a colossal mess like most Nolan's movies. Not even close to being Amadeus, Citizen Kane or JFK! Get real.

I disagree as well. There is nothing complicated in the film. Nolan tries to make it look complicated, like it was Tenet, but it's just three timelines mixed up without any dramatic or valuable reason. Commy hunting is straight out boring, noone cares about that anymore. And Oppenheimer's security clearance, wow, what a plot... You gather all the greatest scientific minds of the time and you make caricatures of them. Einstein, Gödel, Feynman look stupid. You understand nothing of the motivations of Oppenheimer, it's just facts after facts filmed in trailer style movie snippets stacked one on other, with an incredibly annoying score all over the place. It's an unenjoyable, over-hyped crap.

The contrast is not this movie and "amusement park cinema." That's an either-or I am not talking about.

There are action movies way more intelligent than this crap. Over-hyped as a blockbuster, trying to look like a thought-provoking author's film, yet it's just a badly cut pile of boring crap, without any character development, without any profound thought, nor anything you could learn from all those brilliant men. They are just puppets on a scandalously poorly written canvas. Security-clearance hearings? I mean, come on. I gather that it is from the book, yet there are thousand more things in this story worth unfolding, questioning.

Thank you

oops, this one should go under the Oppenheimer review. I was wondering what The Master had to do with Barbie!!

Wonder how it showed up on the Barbie thread. It was meant to be for the Oppenheimer review.

- Paul Thomas Anderson . His movies remind me of the more emotionally // // morally // sentimental movies that Stanley Kubrick put out such as " " Paths Of Glory " " // // " " Full Metal Jacket " " // & // " " Spartacus " " . Those S . K . movies that where " " l e s s " " ambiguous regarding Right & Wrong . . . yet still H I G H L Y thought provoking . Paul Thomas Anderson . Very B R A V E in the departmental area of being Artistically Experimental . In my opinion . . . Christopher Nolan is now more than ever before following in the vein of Terrence Malick // Stanley Kubric // & // Paul Thomas Anderson (( of course . . . likely . . . unconsc - - iously )) . Bravo Mr. Nolan . I A P P L A U D your efforts (( ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ )) to M A K E your viewing audience step - up // & // T H I N K rather than be . . . merely . . . entertained . A guess . . . ( 3 ) more " " f i l m " " makers whom " " may " " be . . . unconsciously " " inspiring M r. Nolan (( ? ? )) . . . Federico Fellini // Fritz Lang // // & // Carol Reed (( The Third Man -- The Fallen Idol -- Odd Man O U T )) . The following . . . an apology ---- I ' m such a Pretentious // Pseudo - - intellectual (( redundancy intended )) . How D A R E I pretend to understand the goings - - on within the mind of such an accomplished " " Film - Maker " " . Disgusting ! ! ! I apologize . However . . . mildly . . . in my defense . . . it is N O T entirely my fault . Christopher Nolan causes my mind to . . . go - places // think . A good thing . Specifically . . . " " Oppenheimer " " reminds me of T W O Movies : - ●● " " Good Night // And Good Luck " " starring Robert Downey Jr. & David Stratairn . - (( 2 0 0 5 )) ●● " " Fail Safe " " starring Henry Fonda & Walter Matthau . - (( 1 9 6 4 )) -

- P . S . --- I suspect that Mr. Nolan is on a mission // crusade to T R Y and make the world a better place to live on . Funny . . . . . . before " " Oppenheimer " " he already - accomplished that . -

yup

I do wonder if/what his brother would do to the script. I think Nolan was different when Jonathan was working with him. If you are not a world-class genius, it helps to have a sharp partner to make things better. (I could certainly use one!)

@@LearningaboutMoviesI agree. Even Inception (which I don’t think Jonathan was involved with) was pretty fantastic, but everything he’s done since has been a big disappointment.

Agreed. The first 2/3 was amazing. The Nolan-style exposition dumps were quick and energetic. The abstract flashes of science-related b-roll are gorgeous.Then the movie gets bogged down in that room and it's just a chore to get through. The revelation of the "villain" wasn't very effective for me either. Overall still good, but the movie has a big flaw with its third act.

​@@ThaninViriyaki Yes, "that room" went on for 45 minutes too long. Absent that, would have been phenomenal. Cilian Murphy as "Oppy" leaves us....questioning. The bleecher scenes, etc.

thank you.

I think you will be pleased, and you should definitely watch the movie if you can.

are you a bot?

Excellent, thank you

The same exact thing happened when I watched it in a fairly crowded theatre as well.

Which city in the world did they applause? My theater was silent

@@soulpath1 This was in Northern VA, outside of DC.

I had the same thought -- Einstein is a bit of a prop in this movie. I think Nolan would claim it's all a tinted perspective, which is Oppenheimer's, so whatever you are seeing of Einstein is a distorted vision by Opp. That is the way I would rescue the portrayal of Einstein here, or an attempt to justify it.

Don't know but I am glad you mention that forgotten film.

good point, this seems to be his issue, namely communication. we all have a great menagerie of ideas and logic in our own mind based on our pov, but if we put a piece of art into the world it has to be able to speak for itself - to communicate

for letter grades, B+ sounds about right to me. I'm interested to see if this movie is influential to other filmmakers or not.

C+ for me. Could easily have been a B- though with some edits.

this movie is more TikTok than one would like to admit, at least by older standards.

the music in incessant for long stretches. It's used as a connecting device, yet it doesn't give anybody a break from action ramping up.

not a fan of Nolan either

Former Nolan fan here. The movie isn’t bad by any stretch. But considering the amount of talent and resources he had to work with, it’s abysmal. I applaud auteurist filmmakers and I definitely applaud him for being bold and daring to do something different. But the end result feels like an exercise in technique at the sacrifice of story. And my biggest problem wasn’t the relentless montage approach to story that constitutes at least 90% of the film. It’s his lack of nuance that makes the heavy handed commentary so simplistic. We know that Oppenheimer is wrestling with his guilt because everyone is “sad” and the people out to destroy his credibility are “mean” This is one step removed from the villain in the tv show Lost wearing black and the hero wearing white and everyone was so impressed with the names of philosophers popping up all over the show, the time jumping, the mystery of the island. But the end result was super disappointing. I used to be able to overlook the flaws in his films because I loved that there was someone making these kind of movies on this scale. But that goodwill is gone and now, it’s more frustrating than anything to see such potential result in disappointment.

@@djstarsign Very well and concisely said.

Thanks. I believe that this will be a common reaction.

Exactly. I was so aware of the filmmaking techniques being employed that the story came second. Aside from Oppenheimer, Strauss, Einstein and a few other important figures and characters, I couldn’t tell you Matt Damon’s character’s name or same for Emily Blunt’s character. At 3 hours in length, at least an hour could have been trimmed and we would have lost nothing. Impressive cinema techniques on full display but the actual story felt like an after thought. At this point, it felt like Nolan is lost in the excess of his success and his overindulgence still doesn’t make up for weak storytelling.

Don't care. I teach for a living, and I know when a story will bewilder college students. If I used this in class, we'd have to spend half our time just talking about what happened and when. If you can tell the difference between communism in the 30s and the 50s, great. But most can't.

Those are key features of the biography. For whatever reason, Nolan saw the need to focus on that.

He could have mentioned them in a text at the end, basically as footnotes. The way he did it, he couldn’t decide what the film is, a rivalry in the style of Amadeus, or a film about Oppenheimer, or about the atomic bomb. And again, basing the central conflict of the film on a misunderstanding is a trope that should be avoided, because it is weak as motivation. Mention it in passing but don't base the entire dramatic narrative on it. The political intrigue was very mild. Much of what Straus was saying made sense. He was right about the spy, about Oppenheimer's recklessness. He was not even really ideologically opposed to him. The consequences for either of them were not that serious. So Oppenheimer didn't get to have that many people suck up to him. And Straus didn't get a job ten years later.

@@raum2811 He could have made it a simple biopic, following Oppenheimer's life from point A to point B, end with some text and maybe few photos and hope that the acting and typical oscar-bait nature of it is enough. Not many people would rush to theaters for it (especially not IMAX), it would make some money and probably be forgotten not soon after. Also, many more people would probably find it boring. I think the movie is clearly about Oppenheimer, with the bomb, his moral conflicts, his political ideologies and social connections all being vital parts of the story of the man. All those play a big part. I don't know how a central conflict could be based on a misunderstanding- big conflict is obviously within Oppenheimer and the other is Oppenheimer v Strauss, based on Strauss' vindictiveness and fragile ego. Whether he was right or wrong about Oppenheimer, he acted out of desire to bring the man down and succeeded but eventually had to pay the price. I would say that the consequences for both of them were serious, from their perspectives especially, which is what the movie focuses on.

Strauss was too unimportant. Especially his own job interview 10 years later. Oppenheimer was incidental to it. It isn’t cathartic. He just didn't get the job, that's all. He didn’t go to jail. That thing happens every day in Washington. The correct approach could have been like with Citizen Kane, which isn’t a simple narrative to begin with. Tell us that he lost his security clearance, imply that it was unjust. Then proceed with the story in mon-linear fashion, of how it happened and why and that it wasn’t as black and white as it is implied at the beginning. End it with Nagasaki.

No, it would rank it at #7 on the IMDb top 250. Whether you take that be a definitive list of best movies of all time is up to you. There's no real way to "rank" movies, I'm sorry.

IMdb rating changes during the first month of movie release. Proper rating will be formed only after atleast 4 months. Every movie 10/10 on first day. Never observed this before?

It is a shitty feminist propaganda

😂

It can be if you are trying to make hundreds of millions and the average IQ is 100.

Not at all, but needlessly complicated begs to ask how the choices add value. Art is subjective and I’ve enjoyed a few of his previous films, but it seems like he gets a kick out of convoluted storytelling as an exercise in and of itself with no purpose other than to do it. Many people will enjoy the movie and the talent is impressive. But making a film needlessly complicated doesn’t make it better.

Thanks for the reproof. I will consider this seriously.

Sorry, I know it’s none of my business, but I feel compelled to reply here. Why is it a problem if his review makes someone not want to see the movie? It’s his review. He’s giving an assessment of what I felt like to watch the movie and if someone determines that sounds like something they don’t want to watch, wasn’t that the entire point of a review? You say the people you saw it with were already reluctant, so this one person’s review on KZfaq would not have factored largely into their decision to begin with. If they were the type to decide to go based on reviews anyway they probably would’ve seen the high metacritic or rotten tomatoes score and decided that most critics recommend it. I don’t think it’s a critic’s job to mind read their audience, it’s the audience’s job to find critics who are like minded to them that they can rely on.

meh

thank you

yes. I think it's good-but-flawed. Would be fun to watch this and then Dr. Strangelove right afterwards.

@@LearningaboutMovies Yes, but that might not be “fair” on Nolan.

Do you teach for a living? Have you taught hundreds of different stories and movies to thousands of young adults?

I am going in about an hour.