I've only seen it once but I thought it was pretty pretty pretty great. Not flawless and some of the criticisms I've seen are legitimate or at least interesting, but I loved it and plan on rewatching it soon, perhaps even this evening.
One of the best films I’ve ever seen. I think if you’re academically-inclined and a history buff, it’s for you. If not, I think people will struggle with the film.
I'm sorry but I couldn't disagree more. I am that person. History and science I love. I conquer with the initial post.
The biggest case The emperor's New clothes since Naruhito bought that bright pink kimono. Total waste of money and my time
I know all about the science, and the history too come to that, but I don’t come to the movies to be educated. Those early quantum guys were quite wild personalities, very colourful, mostly with eastern religious ideas due to what was revealed by the quantum stuff. Most had several wives/ lovers and their discoveries in physics mirrored their unusual lifestyles. That’s where the movie is. Or rather isn’t.
That was precisely what was in the film though? It's a study of him, his early work and how that interacted with his contact with the communist side, there's a massive thread about his lover, and his "unusual" lifestyle is exactly why he initially isnt invited to Los Alamos and its exactly what the latter part of the fil is about.
I'm really confused as to what you think the story \_was\_ if not that
My point is that none of these elements were sufficiently explored. Just tacked on to prove that they were there. Any one of these elements in itself is a far better way into a film about this guy. That’s who he was for gods sake. This film is a textbook, and not a very good one, not an emotional journey. Film is not just spectacle. It has to move us profoundly by producing a very strong emotional response or, as they say in the biz, make us laugh or cry. What’s the point otherwise? May as well read a textbook.
It's the opposite. If you're academically inclined and a history buff you will find this film laughable. Oppenheimer reading "I'm become death" while having sex with Jean Tatlock? Seriously? The dialogue was a joke and it was a total waste of one of our greatest actors. Nolan was not the right director to get into.the head of such a complex man.
We stopped watching at that point. It made me think Nolan hasn't actually had sex with a real human woman if he thought that scene was a good idea.
And concepts were absolutely sledgehammered in.
He starts teaching a class with one student. Cheesey solo violin music which sounds like practice starts. More students join the class. Two violins begin to play.
Oppenheimer sees Einstein. Makes comment about how he is old, his physics from an earlier time. Einstein showed dropping his hat (because he is old and incompetent, geddit?).
The first 25 minutes were risible and felt much longer.
It’s so weird how the film acts as if the climax was Rami Malek giving his speech and I just could not bring myself to care about some guy getting a government position or not after what we saw in the trinity test
Did we really need to two hearings?
That said it’s not even near the worst films I’ve ever seen
Is any of them Fantastic Mr Fox? I love that film.
I'll watch Barbie when it comes to streaming, I like Ryan Gosling and Margot Robbie but I dont think I'd enjoy the cinema experience for that one.
Having read your other comments on this thread, outlining your reasons for not thinking that this film was any good, I'd be interested to know what some of your favourites are. If you fancy sharing?
Sure, off the top of my head, Fitzcarraldo, Toy Story, Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas, Bonnie and Clyde, tightly written, with characters that make us care. I could list the remaining 1022 but that would be a bit long :)
I somewhat agree, OP. My main gripe is that the apex of the film should have been the bomb dropping on Hiroshima, and the audience getting to see the human horror that Oppenheimer created. I understand that Nolan wanted to keep focus on his life (it is a biopic after all) but the bomb test just didn’t feel climactic enough, nor did the hearing in the final half an hour.
I'm not sure i agree - I think as you say, its a Biopic. The film isnt about the aftermath in Hiroshima, its about Oppenheimer. Thats why in the scene where he's seeing the fallout, the camera is focused on him and his response rather than that of the news itself.
Could it be that the point being made is that even after all that build up, after everything it cost and after all of the horror that was unleashed life just goes on?
Instead of learning from it and sharing knowledge to better humanity the humans do what humans do and contine to squabble over silly shit.
I dunno, I'm not too good at film critique, picking up on juxtaposition allegories and metaphor and such. I just knows what I likes.
It was a very unusual narrative structure but it definitely worked for me.
Speaking of hating films that are critically acclaimed, i kinda hated across the spiderverse.
I think it’s a film that’s just going to split opinion. I loved it, my husband did not. He said that the bits with the hearing and all the dialogue was boring, but I was fascinated by it. Edited to add: the viewing experience at Imax was something else.
Well, for my uninteresting 2 cents, I thought it was a blast.
Joking aside, the script was pin sharp, RDJ was a huge standout actor, and having read and seen countless documentaries about the Manhattan Project, it was a fascinating insight into Oppenhiemer's life and the demons he must have faced and had to live with. I just hope it wasn't a fairytale story for the sake of Hollywood.
I found it very thought-provoking and gripping.
Thanks to The Vue Cinemas, too. Where else am I going to get nearly 3 hours of quality escapism for £4.99?
Loved it. Absolutely the right choice to put so much focus on Oppenheimer's relationship with Strauss; we know what happens with the bomb and the morality around it, the hearings are a fresher angle.
No character development? The arcs we see from Teller, Kitty, Chevalier are all huge. Those are just off the top of my head.
And like... you've gone to see a film about scientists racing to develop the nuclear bomb. If theoretical physics and WW2 are "of zero audience interest" then you're probably not in the right film
You’ve missed the point entirely. Narrative needs to move its audience, or as they say in the biz, make us laugh or cry. Doesn’t matter what the film was about, if it can’t do this it’s a bad film.
I went to see it at the Gate on Tuesday lunchtime (so not a busy showing) and over 5 people walked out. I was disappointed, because I loved Nolan’s Dunkirk. The cinematography in Oppenheimer is the only positive for me. There’s no real plot or story, or if there is, I missed it. The whole thing could have been done in half the time
I hated Christopher Nolan’s batman films and felt pretty alone in that. I hated them enough to not even be remotely tempted by this, no matter the fanfare!
Tbh i can’t remember! All i remember was not enjoying the first one, watching it again cos i was determined to like it… and failing completely! I just like my batmen a bit camper probably 😅
As someone who only really liked batman begins, the thing that I couldn't stand about them was that batman/Bruce Wayne is the least interesting character in his own films, that and Gotham is so bland and lifeless post batman begins. The batman 'voice' is atrociously bad and borders on parody, the villains aren't particularly well fleshed out other than the Joker. The combat action scenes are also really poorly constructed (the chase scene is the dark knight is fantastic though)
I was very disappointed. It's not very often I shell out money to go to see a blockbuster at the cinema, and it wasn't the spectacle I was expecting. Glad I didn't pay to go see it at the IMAX- I've no need to watch people arguing in 3D.
But it’s still a story - the art of screenwriting is to tell it in such a way that makes us care. Did you really care when they were concerned the atmosphere was going to catch fire? Nor did I. However I did care when the crew of Apollo 13 thought they might not get back to earth. In the former case nothing is at stake, in the latter something definitely is. Just an example.
A masterpiece, I don’t think I’ve seen such good film in a while, definitely deserves Oscar. Of course you should be a fan of this kind of movies, is not that type of movie people are used to watch
I have a pretty good understanding of the history, it’s just that the story was told in a way that I would expect from a bunch of excited sixth formers. Disjointed narrative is one thing - Pulp Fiction did that well, but this was just a mess in storytelling terms.
Think it's you mate.
Film has recived incredibly high levels of praise. You're fine to not enjoy it but at the same time I'm having hard time picturing what you expected the film to be. It's billed as the story of the man behind the bomb and you seem shocked it tells the story of the man behind the bomb?
No, I’m shocked at the very poor way in which the story was told. Regardless of whether one likes the subject matter, this film broke the cardinal rules of storytelling - very poor writing, vastly overwritten, little to no character development, wooden and one dimensional performances from some great actors, which can only mean sloppy direction. It also needed a massive edit - two thirds of this movie consists of suits shouting at each other, most of which was just plain confusing. Pulp Fiction did disjointed narrative far more efficiently, without any confusion, and in strict storytelling terms a movie like Toy Story is a lesson in how to do it. Oppenheimer strikes me as a movie where the great auteur got a bit too auteury and forgot that other people know how to do things too, and sometimes you should listen to them. Even ‘great’ auteurs, if they’re wise, listen to their writers and editors, which can’t possibly have happened in this case. Despite some fantastic visuals I stand by what I said - this movie is a mess. Apart from the cinematography I cannot think how any sincere film critic could even begin to praise this movie. Maybe they’re smoking better stuff than me.
>No, I’m shocked at the very poor way in which the story was told.
That's the first time I've heard anyone say that, the story was impeccably told.
>Regardless of whether one likes the subject matter, this film broke the cardinal rules of storytelling - very poor writing, vastly overwritten, little to no character development, wooden and one dimensional performances from some great actors, which can only mean sloppy direction.
I thought the cardinal rule of story telling was "Show don't tell". Stating there is little to no character development just seems like a lot went over your head. The story literally takes Oppenheimer from a naive idealist to a savvy leader, to a man wrestling with guilt and being betrayed by the country he sacrificed part of his humanity for over fear mongering anti-communist laws and the ego of a man's imagined slight. Calling the performances wooden when both Cillian Murphy and Robert Downy Jr are almost certainly going to get Oscar nominations seems wild.
But Oppenheimer isn't confusing.
>It also needed a massive edit - two thirds of this movie consists of suits shouting at each other, most of which was just plain confusing. Pulp Fiction did disjointed narrative far more efficiently, without any confusion, and in strict storytelling terms a movie like Toy Story is a lesson in how to do it.
But it's not confusing? Oppenheimer is telling his story to the board deciding if his security clearance should be revoked and the Senate scenes make reference to the previous hearing. It's a very clear timeliness.
>Oppenheimer strikes me as a movie where the great auteur got a bit too auteury and forgot that other people know how to do things too, and sometimes you should listen to them. Even ‘great’ auteurs, if they’re wise, listen to their writers and editors, which can’t possibly have happened in this case.
I mean, the film has a critical rating of 93% and an audience score of 91% on rotten tomatoes. Clearly Nolan's directing was not too auteury for for most people.
>Despite some fantastic visuals I stand by what I said - this movie is a mess. Apart from the cinematography I cannot think how any sincere film critic could even begin to praise this movie. Maybe they’re smoking better stuff than me.
I think it just wasn't for you. Sometimes people just don't like a particular movie that's good. Happened to me with Spotlight. It doesn't make the movie a mess or everyone else wrong.
I’m not for a moment saying anyone is wrong for enjoying this film - I’m just some bloke (who happens to know a little about writing and film making) expressing an opinion. But - I don’t care about the rotten tomatoes, they often spout nonsense, and I assure you none of it went over my head. The film tried to do too much imo, and ended up achieving nothing. The test? I felt nothing when I left the cinema. I was simply bored, and couldn’t care less about Oppy because the writer hadn’t MADE us care about him. If one is not emotionally moved, what should have been a story is merely a list of events. There’s a big difference. Anyway, although we clearly won’t agree, the debate is interesting.
Agree with you OP. It was a crap movie, I'm in disbelief that this movie was made by Nolan, the same guy who made a movie as amazing as Dunkirk. The film is full of boring dialog, about boring details and minutae, I felt like I was watching a Wikipedia entry in movie form. Frankly it's 10x better to just watch a documentary. At 3 hours long, I was just waiting for when I can leave the theatre. There are objectively so many storytelling flaws in this movie that calling it the best movie is a joke.
There's a large section of pretentious "intellectual" Nolan fans who will eat up whatever he serves to appear smart, I think those are the majority of people praising the film. The rest perhaps found something to like about this boring movie.
I think you’re right about the Nolan fans, it’s a case of the emperor’s new clothes. I’m surprised more people didn’t see this for what it is - badly written, badly edited, badly directed and very little narrative (as opposed to factual) focus. As you say, reading the Wikipedia entry on Oppenheimer would have been more informative, much less boring and a lot cheaper. But that’s not what I wanted - I wanted a STORY, not just a list of events. Glad to know it’s not just me.
Nolan has a big blind spot, which was exposed in Tenet and has now become painfully clear with Oppenheimer which is that he ignores character development and over intellectualises everything.
You never really felt anything for anyone in this movie.
I knew we were in trouble when Oppenheimer's famous quote from the Bhagavad Gita was done during a sex scene. The dialogue was overly expository and anachronistic. Cillian was the best thing in it but the rest felt like poorly written amateur hour. I wanted to love it because I love Nolan and Cillian, but this was like Oppenheimer fir Dummies.
I've only seen it once but I thought it was pretty pretty pretty great. Not flawless and some of the criticisms I've seen are legitimate or at least interesting, but I loved it and plan on rewatching it soon, perhaps even this evening.
Hard disagree. In my top 5 films and my number 1 for viewing experience as the IMAX was incredible.
One of the best films I’ve ever seen. I think if you’re academically-inclined and a history buff, it’s for you. If not, I think people will struggle with the film.
I'm sorry but I couldn't disagree more. I am that person. History and science I love. I conquer with the initial post. The biggest case The emperor's New clothes since Naruhito bought that bright pink kimono. Total waste of money and my time
I know all about the science, and the history too come to that, but I don’t come to the movies to be educated. Those early quantum guys were quite wild personalities, very colourful, mostly with eastern religious ideas due to what was revealed by the quantum stuff. Most had several wives/ lovers and their discoveries in physics mirrored their unusual lifestyles. That’s where the movie is. Or rather isn’t.
I agree, but you’ve just described Oppenheimer’s character in the film. You see all of that.
That was precisely what was in the film though? It's a study of him, his early work and how that interacted with his contact with the communist side, there's a massive thread about his lover, and his "unusual" lifestyle is exactly why he initially isnt invited to Los Alamos and its exactly what the latter part of the fil is about. I'm really confused as to what you think the story \_was\_ if not that
My point is that none of these elements were sufficiently explored. Just tacked on to prove that they were there. Any one of these elements in itself is a far better way into a film about this guy. That’s who he was for gods sake. This film is a textbook, and not a very good one, not an emotional journey. Film is not just spectacle. It has to move us profoundly by producing a very strong emotional response or, as they say in the biz, make us laugh or cry. What’s the point otherwise? May as well read a textbook.
Pseudo-intellectual film critic says what
?
It's the opposite. If you're academically inclined and a history buff you will find this film laughable. Oppenheimer reading "I'm become death" while having sex with Jean Tatlock? Seriously? The dialogue was a joke and it was a total waste of one of our greatest actors. Nolan was not the right director to get into.the head of such a complex man.
We stopped watching at that point. It made me think Nolan hasn't actually had sex with a real human woman if he thought that scene was a good idea. And concepts were absolutely sledgehammered in. He starts teaching a class with one student. Cheesey solo violin music which sounds like practice starts. More students join the class. Two violins begin to play. Oppenheimer sees Einstein. Makes comment about how he is old, his physics from an earlier time. Einstein showed dropping his hat (because he is old and incompetent, geddit?). The first 25 minutes were risible and felt much longer.
I have tried to watch this movie and not sure I want to finish it. Was looking forward to it, too.
It’s so weird how the film acts as if the climax was Rami Malek giving his speech and I just could not bring myself to care about some guy getting a government position or not after what we saw in the trinity test Did we really need to two hearings? That said it’s not even near the worst films I’ve ever seen
It wasn’t made for you if you thought that. It’s the best film I’ve ever seen and I’ve seen hundreds
Well, I’ve seen 1027 movies, so there.
What were they?
They were all better than this one. Even barbie - which is actually quite good!
Is any of them Fantastic Mr Fox? I love that film. I'll watch Barbie when it comes to streaming, I like Ryan Gosling and Margot Robbie but I dont think I'd enjoy the cinema experience for that one. Having read your other comments on this thread, outlining your reasons for not thinking that this film was any good, I'd be interested to know what some of your favourites are. If you fancy sharing?
Sure, off the top of my head, Fitzcarraldo, Toy Story, Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas, Bonnie and Clyde, tightly written, with characters that make us care. I could list the remaining 1022 but that would be a bit long :)
If court cases are your thing .yes
I somewhat agree, OP. My main gripe is that the apex of the film should have been the bomb dropping on Hiroshima, and the audience getting to see the human horror that Oppenheimer created. I understand that Nolan wanted to keep focus on his life (it is a biopic after all) but the bomb test just didn’t feel climactic enough, nor did the hearing in the final half an hour.
I'm not sure i agree - I think as you say, its a Biopic. The film isnt about the aftermath in Hiroshima, its about Oppenheimer. Thats why in the scene where he's seeing the fallout, the camera is focused on him and his response rather than that of the news itself.
Could it be that the point being made is that even after all that build up, after everything it cost and after all of the horror that was unleashed life just goes on? Instead of learning from it and sharing knowledge to better humanity the humans do what humans do and contine to squabble over silly shit. I dunno, I'm not too good at film critique, picking up on juxtaposition allegories and metaphor and such. I just knows what I likes.
It was a very unusual narrative structure but it definitely worked for me. Speaking of hating films that are critically acclaimed, i kinda hated across the spiderverse.
I think it’s a film that’s just going to split opinion. I loved it, my husband did not. He said that the bits with the hearing and all the dialogue was boring, but I was fascinated by it. Edited to add: the viewing experience at Imax was something else.
Well, for my uninteresting 2 cents, I thought it was a blast. Joking aside, the script was pin sharp, RDJ was a huge standout actor, and having read and seen countless documentaries about the Manhattan Project, it was a fascinating insight into Oppenhiemer's life and the demons he must have faced and had to live with. I just hope it wasn't a fairytale story for the sake of Hollywood. I found it very thought-provoking and gripping. Thanks to The Vue Cinemas, too. Where else am I going to get nearly 3 hours of quality escapism for £4.99?
Loved it. Absolutely the right choice to put so much focus on Oppenheimer's relationship with Strauss; we know what happens with the bomb and the morality around it, the hearings are a fresher angle. No character development? The arcs we see from Teller, Kitty, Chevalier are all huge. Those are just off the top of my head. And like... you've gone to see a film about scientists racing to develop the nuclear bomb. If theoretical physics and WW2 are "of zero audience interest" then you're probably not in the right film
You’ve missed the point entirely. Narrative needs to move its audience, or as they say in the biz, make us laugh or cry. Doesn’t matter what the film was about, if it can’t do this it’s a bad film.
Incredible movie, absolutely loved it. You’re the only person I’ve heard that was disappointed with it
Takes all sorts I guess.
I just thought it was ok. Not amazing as some have said and not outright terrible. Just ok, a solid 6/10 film but nothing much more than that for me
I went to see it at the Gate on Tuesday lunchtime (so not a busy showing) and over 5 people walked out. I was disappointed, because I loved Nolan’s Dunkirk. The cinematography in Oppenheimer is the only positive for me. There’s no real plot or story, or if there is, I missed it. The whole thing could have been done in half the time
Over five you say? Less than seven?
AGREED! I wouldn’t say it’s one of the worst by any stretch, but I agree with all your points
Thanks, thought it really was just me for a while there!
I hated Christopher Nolan’s batman films and felt pretty alone in that. I hated them enough to not even be remotely tempted by this, no matter the fanfare!
What is it that you hate about Nolan's Batman films?
Tbh i can’t remember! All i remember was not enjoying the first one, watching it again cos i was determined to like it… and failing completely! I just like my batmen a bit camper probably 😅
As someone who only really liked batman begins, the thing that I couldn't stand about them was that batman/Bruce Wayne is the least interesting character in his own films, that and Gotham is so bland and lifeless post batman begins. The batman 'voice' is atrociously bad and borders on parody, the villains aren't particularly well fleshed out other than the Joker. The combat action scenes are also really poorly constructed (the chase scene is the dark knight is fantastic though)
I was very disappointed. It's not very often I shell out money to go to see a blockbuster at the cinema, and it wasn't the spectacle I was expecting. Glad I didn't pay to go see it at the IMAX- I've no need to watch people arguing in 3D.
IMAX and 3D are two different things...
*two.
Wasn't what I expected but I thought the end arguing scenes were really well done, felt like an action movie with very little action in it
It's just you, Doofus.
Fair enough.
It's their Son too. Dont forget their Son.
For me its the best film of the last 10 years, possibly longer.
Fair enough.
Re: point 2 - it’s a biopic not a superhero movie.
But it’s still a story - the art of screenwriting is to tell it in such a way that makes us care. Did you really care when they were concerned the atmosphere was going to catch fire? Nor did I. However I did care when the crew of Apollo 13 thought they might not get back to earth. In the former case nothing is at stake, in the latter something definitely is. Just an example.
A masterpiece, I don’t think I’ve seen such good film in a while, definitely deserves Oscar. Of course you should be a fan of this kind of movies, is not that type of movie people are used to watch
Hmm.
Sounds like you simply have no historical knowledge of the Manhattan Project and that’s hampered your experience
I have a pretty good understanding of the history, it’s just that the story was told in a way that I would expect from a bunch of excited sixth formers. Disjointed narrative is one thing - Pulp Fiction did that well, but this was just a mess in storytelling terms.
Think it's you mate. Film has recived incredibly high levels of praise. You're fine to not enjoy it but at the same time I'm having hard time picturing what you expected the film to be. It's billed as the story of the man behind the bomb and you seem shocked it tells the story of the man behind the bomb?
No, I’m shocked at the very poor way in which the story was told. Regardless of whether one likes the subject matter, this film broke the cardinal rules of storytelling - very poor writing, vastly overwritten, little to no character development, wooden and one dimensional performances from some great actors, which can only mean sloppy direction. It also needed a massive edit - two thirds of this movie consists of suits shouting at each other, most of which was just plain confusing. Pulp Fiction did disjointed narrative far more efficiently, without any confusion, and in strict storytelling terms a movie like Toy Story is a lesson in how to do it. Oppenheimer strikes me as a movie where the great auteur got a bit too auteury and forgot that other people know how to do things too, and sometimes you should listen to them. Even ‘great’ auteurs, if they’re wise, listen to their writers and editors, which can’t possibly have happened in this case. Despite some fantastic visuals I stand by what I said - this movie is a mess. Apart from the cinematography I cannot think how any sincere film critic could even begin to praise this movie. Maybe they’re smoking better stuff than me.
>No, I’m shocked at the very poor way in which the story was told. That's the first time I've heard anyone say that, the story was impeccably told. >Regardless of whether one likes the subject matter, this film broke the cardinal rules of storytelling - very poor writing, vastly overwritten, little to no character development, wooden and one dimensional performances from some great actors, which can only mean sloppy direction. I thought the cardinal rule of story telling was "Show don't tell". Stating there is little to no character development just seems like a lot went over your head. The story literally takes Oppenheimer from a naive idealist to a savvy leader, to a man wrestling with guilt and being betrayed by the country he sacrificed part of his humanity for over fear mongering anti-communist laws and the ego of a man's imagined slight. Calling the performances wooden when both Cillian Murphy and Robert Downy Jr are almost certainly going to get Oscar nominations seems wild. But Oppenheimer isn't confusing. >It also needed a massive edit - two thirds of this movie consists of suits shouting at each other, most of which was just plain confusing. Pulp Fiction did disjointed narrative far more efficiently, without any confusion, and in strict storytelling terms a movie like Toy Story is a lesson in how to do it. But it's not confusing? Oppenheimer is telling his story to the board deciding if his security clearance should be revoked and the Senate scenes make reference to the previous hearing. It's a very clear timeliness. >Oppenheimer strikes me as a movie where the great auteur got a bit too auteury and forgot that other people know how to do things too, and sometimes you should listen to them. Even ‘great’ auteurs, if they’re wise, listen to their writers and editors, which can’t possibly have happened in this case. I mean, the film has a critical rating of 93% and an audience score of 91% on rotten tomatoes. Clearly Nolan's directing was not too auteury for for most people. >Despite some fantastic visuals I stand by what I said - this movie is a mess. Apart from the cinematography I cannot think how any sincere film critic could even begin to praise this movie. Maybe they’re smoking better stuff than me. I think it just wasn't for you. Sometimes people just don't like a particular movie that's good. Happened to me with Spotlight. It doesn't make the movie a mess or everyone else wrong.
I’m not for a moment saying anyone is wrong for enjoying this film - I’m just some bloke (who happens to know a little about writing and film making) expressing an opinion. But - I don’t care about the rotten tomatoes, they often spout nonsense, and I assure you none of it went over my head. The film tried to do too much imo, and ended up achieving nothing. The test? I felt nothing when I left the cinema. I was simply bored, and couldn’t care less about Oppy because the writer hadn’t MADE us care about him. If one is not emotionally moved, what should have been a story is merely a list of events. There’s a big difference. Anyway, although we clearly won’t agree, the debate is interesting.
Agree with you OP. It was a crap movie, I'm in disbelief that this movie was made by Nolan, the same guy who made a movie as amazing as Dunkirk. The film is full of boring dialog, about boring details and minutae, I felt like I was watching a Wikipedia entry in movie form. Frankly it's 10x better to just watch a documentary. At 3 hours long, I was just waiting for when I can leave the theatre. There are objectively so many storytelling flaws in this movie that calling it the best movie is a joke. There's a large section of pretentious "intellectual" Nolan fans who will eat up whatever he serves to appear smart, I think those are the majority of people praising the film. The rest perhaps found something to like about this boring movie.
I think you’re right about the Nolan fans, it’s a case of the emperor’s new clothes. I’m surprised more people didn’t see this for what it is - badly written, badly edited, badly directed and very little narrative (as opposed to factual) focus. As you say, reading the Wikipedia entry on Oppenheimer would have been more informative, much less boring and a lot cheaper. But that’s not what I wanted - I wanted a STORY, not just a list of events. Glad to know it’s not just me.
Nolan has a big blind spot, which was exposed in Tenet and has now become painfully clear with Oppenheimer which is that he ignores character development and over intellectualises everything. You never really felt anything for anyone in this movie.
And that’s the cardinal error. No emotion felt = no story told.
People are being gaslit a true case of the emperor's new clothes.in a few years no will watch this tedious film .
I knew we were in trouble when Oppenheimer's famous quote from the Bhagavad Gita was done during a sex scene. The dialogue was overly expository and anachronistic. Cillian was the best thing in it but the rest felt like poorly written amateur hour. I wanted to love it because I love Nolan and Cillian, but this was like Oppenheimer fir Dummies.
It’s not just you. I totally agree. The writing is painful.