|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Sept 5, 2023 6:25:39 GMT
In the scene where Kitty refuses to shake Teller's hand, Blunt does this weird thing with her mouth and I'm just now realizing that it's because earlier in the film she said she would have "spat in his face" when she's admonishing Oppenheimer for shaking his hand.
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Sept 5, 2023 21:48:20 GMT
Nolan continues to thrive at underwriting women.
|
|
|
Post by ireallyamsomething on Sept 9, 2023 11:17:18 GMT
A re-watch of Oppenheimer made me think of Nolan's expertise when it comes to endings - specifically final lines - and how the effect they have on the overall experience can't be overstated.
Bryan Cox's character in Adaptation said: 'Wow them in the end' - of course, an otherwise bad film can't magically be brilliant due to its ending (one may even argue that a bad movie *cannot* have a brilliant ending since the quality and impact of an ending is inextricably linked to what came before), but good films can move towards greatness with a memorable ending. At times an impactful ending could even make you think a film was better than what it actually was.
A significant reason behind Nolan's widespread and enduring appeal may be that more than almost any other modern filmmaker, he seems to understand the importance of endings to a story and what effect it has on an audience - he has often mentioned knowing how a story will end well in advance; also how definite endings are what separates movies from other mediums. Thinking about his filmography, there's a remarkable consistency in all of his work having visceral or emotionally satisfying endings. Not just the final scene, but even the very final line or image in his films have often left a lasting impression, almost acting as a succinct exclamation point for the whole film.
A common thread to some of these endings is that they return to a scene that has been established previously in the story, perhaps seen with a new, revealing perspective (of the audience and/or of the characters). We often gain a richer, deeper appreciation of a work upon revisiting it. I think a reason why his endings are especially effective is that they offer that repetition in a single viewing, further helping ingrain (or uh, incept) themselves in our minds and bodies - and making the audience leave on a high.
Overall could appreciate it more the 2nd time when I could look at the film rather than what I was expecting out of it (Though I still perhaps don't love it as much as many seem to) For better or for worse it feels like a few different types of films crammed into one. And the score is sublime which really makes the opening and ending (which I talked about at length earlier) soar.
|
|
|
Post by TylerDeneuve on Sept 17, 2023 22:35:06 GMT
Just wanted to share the most meaningful highlight of my trip to Japan earlier this year - it was such a huge honor to hang paper cranes of hope in honor of Sadako Sasaki at Hiroshima Memorial Park. The people of Hiroshima truly appreciate Americans visiting their city - it means so much to them. The Japanese are the kindest, most welcoming people.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Sept 26, 2023 21:31:20 GMT
I continue to be absolutely floored by what Nolan's been trying out since Dunkirk which I'd describe as a fusion of mainstream and experimental filmmaking on the biggest scale possible. This might be his greatest achievement to date (I need to live with it a little bit to pass that final judgment) and possibly the most accomplished usage of his beloved time shenanigans right alongside Memento. The way in which glimpses of past and future - and of subjective and objective - inform and shed light on each other was fascinating to observe, and Jennifer Lame's overall no-holds-barred editing style just took my breath away. Look, Lee Smith and Hans Zimmer were fantastic collaborators but I think something truly beautiful has happened when Lame and Ludwig Göransson took on as their replacements - what they brought to the table was not only a freshness but also a boldness of approach which I find radical and magnificent. And for a movie this uncomfortable and even disturbing to have done as well as it did with audiences worldwide... I'm just in awe. Wanted to write more but kinda ran out of gas since I'm really tired so a few quickies will have to do: - Murphy is astonishing (and I was never that into him before) - the Trinity test is "scene of the decade" type of stuff - looking at this and Munich, I guess I actually really like it when top directors do crazy, totally unexpected sex scenes... gotta find me some more of those to check out! - wasn't able to see it in IMAX (since it left my godforsaken country) but it was completely gorgeous even in regular DCP form. The colors, the contrasts, the B&W
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Dec 4, 2023 4:39:49 GMT
Things I liked:
1. Trinity test and the victory speech aftermath. Awe-inspiring and masterful direction. I'm really glad that silence is utilised here because it needs it (I'll get to that later).
2. Everything that happens in the interrogation room (except that embarrassing Florence Pugh nude scene).
3. RDJ who is the second MVP for me. He effortlessly balances Strauss' gravitas and vindictiveness with a hint of RDJ humour that works very well for the character.
4. The final scene is fantastic.
5. Special shout-out to Casey Affleck. His monotone is exceptionally chilling, unnerving and oppressive. In his brief screen time he established an absolutely haunting presence that lingers. MVP of the film imo. Wish he had been given more screen time.
Things I disliked:
1. Some really awkward and unnatural dialogues that are nothing like how people talk in real life in the first hour. Namely Oppenheimer meeting Heisenberg, all the scientists freaking out about atmospheric ignition, and all the scenes between Oppenheimer and Jean Tatlock. It gets better from the second hour onward though, and overall there are fewer of these in this film relative to his previous films.
2. The two female characters. They are not just underwritten. They are poorly-written. Pugh was completed wasted on a nothing character, and Kitty, who's supposed to this layered, complex, integral woman in Oppenheimer's life, felt almost like a parody. Blunt did the best she could with the poor material but almost every scene that involves Oppenheimer and her is pretty awful. She only shines when she's the sole focus (e.g., the hearing sequence).
3. Gratuitous nudity. There weren't many fo those but they were completely unnecessary and frankly just stupid.
4. Hot take in the house, but I find the music often too loud and distracting. I also find that the moody music really didn't mash with many scenes.
Overall it's a very strong film. The negatives are relatively minor and mostly just nitpicks. Nolan's best or second best after Memento. I would have no problem with it winning BP next year. I would argue that this is the American The Wind Rises.
|
|
rhodoraonline
Badass
Your Generosity Hides Something Dirtier and Meaner
Posts: 1,027
Likes: 506
|
Post by rhodoraonline on Dec 4, 2023 6:48:51 GMT
I saw this one week after Barbie and since I'm usually watching late night when I'm tired and sleepy (that's the only time slot I mostly get) I'd figured it will take me two seatings to finish. But it got so thrilling and engrossing as it went on that my sleep disappeared. Only Nolan can turn a series of meetings and investigations into a nested structure thriller with proper build-up of tension.
But curiously the impact the movie left during and right after the watch didn't stay as strong as I was expecting, I think for these reasons:
1. It was very hard to buy the attitude turn in Oppenheimer before and after the bomb. Yes, I can believe that learning of the damage extent (much more anticipated than the estimate shown in the move "before") can do that, but come'on; they were freaking out about the whole atmosphere burning just a while ago. So why dismiss the possibility of damage underestimation so naively? Especially when his own on-location community was taking a stand and even protesting. So the sudden switch later wasn't that convincing. Maybe an even more layered performance from Cillian could have sold it...?
2. The movie didn't sell neither of his two relationships quite convincingly. Even though some time was devoted to Tatlock earlier, and than later some time to the wife, none of that felt lived in. Also the supposed womanizer thing too was not too apparent and it was just hard to understand why are these two people attracted to each other in both cases. It was bland all around.
3. The denouement. When the wife kept challenging him why isn't he protesting the security-cancellation thing harder, it seemed like he had something... as if he might use something or turn the situation around later. And that's what it seemed like was happening with the thrilling Rami Malek testimony against Strauss. But the reward... it didn't feel like a reward and coupled with what Einstein had told him "they would give you something to make you feel happy" or something to that effect, it didn't feel like a win at all. (Even though Strauss's loss, and Oppenheimer's selection should have felt like a win.) Also because he seemed so subdued and embarrassed in that last scene when they are all receiving him in the cabinet including Safdie's character. So it didn't feel like a true payoff and the "high" of Rami Malek's testimony and Strauss's loss is immediately nullified.
But all this is just minute analysis. It will be a well deserved winner in both Pic and Director. Actors, not so much.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 4, 2023 18:33:06 GMT
I did end up liking this quite a lot. Murphy's performance is pretty remarkable. A man with the weight of this horrible secret on his shoulders and you feel it in Murphy's weariness and quiet intensity (he does a lot with seemingly very little -- a textbook great restrained performance). But Jennifer Lame does so much heavy-lifting for this especially with all the other tech elements we associate with Nolan's work (the cinematography, the action, the soundscape) playing second fiddle or not being present at all. She goes so far in the editing room to make this among Nolan's most exciting and fast-paced films, with the story constantly folding back in on itself at a fast clip while still propelling a satisfying A to B story.
And as someone who's dogged Nolan on his screenplays for 10 years, I have to say this screenplay is for the most part aces. It still has some of those same Nolanisms -- sometimes the dialogue feels banally functional and mechanical with the actors trading off lines much too quickly (noticed this especially in the scenes with Pugh) and there are a couple lines that are trying to be too clever ("You're not just self-important, you're actually important") but for a 3-hour movie chalk full of dialogue I found very few to nitpick. Yes I agree Kitty is underwritten but I can forgive that because the movie's not about her and Blunt gives an admirable performance that helps fill in the gaps in Nolan's writing. The Pugh scenes on the other hand are quite bad with her nude scenes feeling gratuitous because of her one-dimensionality. I don't know how any of them shot the nude scene in the hearing room with a straight face. There were so many issues with that scene not the least being it's the only moment in the entire 3-hour movie about Oppenheimer that it assumes Kitty's POV -- and it's to establish her sexual jealousy. Gross. BUT... if you excise that Pugh scene from your memory it's an excellent screenplay that works in conjunction with Lame's editing to propel forward a story that's entirely about men talking in a succession of different rooms while centering the apocalyptic stakes of Oppenheimer's work.
Robert Downey Jr. was soooo good as Strauss too. There were some elements of the script that strained believability (how he kept obsessing over that single moment with an obviously despondent-looking Einstein by the pond and read some slight into it) but the "lowly shoe salesman" line communicated all the viewer needed to know about the chip on his shoulder. Great payoff in the script there -- you know when Strauss looks mildly hurt and corrects Oppenheimer ("just a shoe salesman") that there was going to be a lot more to their relationship.
Loved spotting Oldman as Truman too. Surprisingly creepy cameo. I'd watch a 3-hour Nolan movie about *that guy* next. The way he waves the tissue at Oppenheimer. Ew
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 4, 2023 21:05:15 GMT
this isn't a nitpick but Hoyte van Hoytema's cinematography wasn't very interesting here. I'd place this at the bottom of his Nolan collabs and although you arguably can't do *that* much to make a bunch of dudes talking in rooms visually dynamic, the desert vistas and establishing Los Alamos shots didn't really stand out either. That the film still feels like a tech marvel is credit to Lame's editing and Göransson's music more than anything else, but I was surprised at how visually lowkey this was. Don't think it would deserve a cinematography nod tbh, even in what's looking to be a weak year for the category.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Dec 4, 2023 21:15:43 GMT
1. Some really awkward and unnatural dialogues that are nothing like how people talk in real life in the first hour. Namely Oppenheimer meeting Heisenberg, all the scientists freaking out about atmospheric ignition What specifically did you find awkward and unnatural about the dialogue for these scenes? 1. It was very hard to buy the attitude turn in Oppenheimer before and after the bomb. Yes, I can believe that learning of the damage extent (much more anticipated than the estimate shown in the move "before") can do that, but come'on; they were freaking out about the whole atmosphere burning just a while ago. So why dismiss the possibility of damage underestimation so naively? Especially when his own on-location community was taking a stand and even protesting. So the sudden switch later wasn't that convincing. Maybe an even more layered performance from Cillian could have sold it...? 3. The denouement. When the wife kept challenging him why isn't he protesting the security-cancellation thing harder, it seemed like he had something... as if he might use something or turn the situation around later. And that's what it seemed like was happening with the thrilling Rami Malek testimony against Strauss. But the reward... it didn't feel like a reward and coupled with what Einstein had told him "they would give you something to make you feel happy" or something to that effect, it didn't feel like a win at all. (Even though Strauss's loss, and Oppenheimer's selection should have felt like a win.) Also because he seemed so subdued and embarrassed in that last scene when they are all receiving him in the cabinet including Safdie's character. So it didn't feel like a true payoff and the "high" of Rami Malek's testimony and Strauss's loss is immediately nullified. 1. The shift in attitude wasn’t so much about underestimating damage so much as it had to do with the fact that he was finally confronted with the reality of its effects (whereas before it had been more of an abstract consideration). He also realized how naive he was about his initial assumption that such a weapon would end all war forever. 3. It wasn’t supposed to feel like a win, the point was that the ceremony was a charade, as Einstein explains: “When they've punished you enough, they'll serve you salmon and potato salad, make speeches, give you a medal, and pat you on the back telling all is forgiven. Just remember, it won't be for you... it will be for them.” The Pugh scenes on the other hand are quite bad with her nude scenes feeling gratuitous because of her one-dimensionality. I don't know how any of them shot the nude scene in the hearing room with a straight face. There were so many issues with that scene not the least being it's the only moment in the entire 3-hour movie about Oppenheimer that it assumes Kitty's POV -- and it's to establish her sexual jealousy. Gross. I wouldn’t say the nudity is gratuitous since there is a thematic purpose to it... though whether or not it works for you is of course a different matter. I don’t think it’s quite fair or accurate to say it’s the only moment in the entire movie that assumes Kitty's POV just because it’s the only moment of surrealism where she’s a participant. It’s a shared subjectivity (not just her POV) between her and Oppenheimer since they both feel vulnerable and exposed with the sordid details of their life being put on display for all to see.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 4, 2023 21:35:15 GMT
The Pugh scenes on the other hand are quite bad with her nude scenes feeling gratuitous because of her one-dimensionality. I don't know how any of them shot the nude scene in the hearing room with a straight face. There were so many issues with that scene not the least being it's the only moment in the entire 3-hour movie about Oppenheimer that it assumes Kitty's POV -- and it's to establish her sexual jealousy. Gross. I wouldn’t say the nudity is gratuitous since there is a thematic purpose to it... though whether or not it works for you is of course a different matter. wasn't referring just to that scene even though it's representative of everything I dislike about how that character was treated. Jean Tatlock is only present in the narrative to make Kitty jealous and be emotionally unstable and horny (and be a tentative link to Oppie's communist connections but that's established via other characters better), so the fact that Pugh is naked for most of her scenes feels gratuitous and not a good use of Ms Flo's talents. Her role is highly sexualized and reductive.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Dec 4, 2023 22:09:13 GMT
I wouldn’t say the nudity is gratuitous since there is a thematic purpose to it... though whether or not it works for you is of course a different matter. wasn't referring just to that scene even though it's representative of everything I dislike about how that character was treated. Jean Tatlock is only present in the narrative to make Kitty jealous and be emotionally unstable and horny (and be a tentative link to Oppie's communist connections but that's established via other characters better), so the fact that Pugh is naked for most of her scenes feels gratuitous and not a good use of Ms Flo's talents. Her role is highly sexualized and reductive. I actually meant the nudity in general has a thematic purpose outside of just that scene - it’s telling that this is the only Nolan movie featuring nudity (outside of the autopsy scene in Insomnia). Well I’d say that description of her character is somewhat reductive. She’s also there to illustrate Oppenheimer’s inability to consider the consequences of his actions – what he was putting her (and Kitty) through, and later regretting it. You might say that it’s yet another instance of Nolan using women as merely a plot point in service of a man's arc, but here it’s but one strand of the narrative that’s demonstrating a pattern regarding his inability to consider the consequences of his actions, whether it be with women, Strauss, or the bomb.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Dec 4, 2023 22:38:55 GMT
this isn't a nitpick but Hoyte van Hoytema's cinematography wasn't very interesting here. I'd place this at the bottom of his Nolan collabs and although you arguably can't do *that* much to make a bunch of dudes talking in rooms visually dynamic, the desert vistas and establishing Los Alamos shots didn't really stand out either. That the film still feels like a tech marvel is credit to Lame's editing and Göransson's music more than anything else, but I was surprised at how visually lowkey this was. Don't think it would deserve a cinematography nod tbh, even in what's looking to be a weak year for the category. I actually kinda agree with this tbh.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Dec 5, 2023 1:34:39 GMT
this isn't a nitpick but Hoyte van Hoytema's cinematography wasn't very interesting here. I'd place this at the bottom of his Nolan collabs and although you arguably can't do *that* much to make a bunch of dudes talking in rooms visually dynamic, the desert vistas and establishing Los Alamos shots didn't really stand out either. That the film still feels like a tech marvel is credit to Lame's editing and Göransson's music more than anything else, but I was surprised at how visually lowkey this was. Don't think it would deserve a cinematography nod tbh, even in what's looking to be a weak year for the category. I actually kinda agree with this tbh. Idk, I think what he's doing with depth of focus, particularly during the more intense scenes in Oppenheimer's perspective, and the macro lens photography (the stuff to shoot all the atoms colliding and stuff to do that without CGI) are massively impressive. And even in its simpler scenes, van Hoytema's lighting and lens help to make the movie feel so much larger than it would in a standard "guys talking in rooms" way. Like, I enjoy Spotlight (just an off-the-cuff example) but it is not nearly as visually dynamic in its photography as what van Hoytema and Nolan are doing here. This was actually the most impressed I've been with van Hoytema as Nolan's collaborator and the first time where I didn't miss Pfister at all.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Dec 5, 2023 12:25:48 GMT
1. Some really awkward and unnatural dialogues that are nothing like how people talk in real life in the first hour. Namely Oppenheimer meeting Heisenberg, all the scientists freaking out about atmospheric ignition What specifically did you find awkward and unnatural about the dialogue for these scenes? When Oppenheimer meets Heisenberg the script goes like this: "I remember your paper on blahblahblah we should publish together!" "I have to get back to America." "Why? There's no one there taking quantum mechanics seriously." "That's exactly why." Then Oppenheimer told this complete stranger that he had a ranch in New Mexico and Heisenberg called him "cowboys". Who talks like that to someone whom you just met? And why did he even go to Germany to see him if his plan was to go back to America? The atmospheric ignition is even worse because none of them ever read what was written on the paper. They looked at it for a millisecond and everyone was like OMG THE WORLD IS ENDING. That's daytime soap. It's the equivalent of answering the phone without placing the receiver near your ear.
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Dec 10, 2023 16:08:01 GMT
lmao.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 10, 2023 16:18:52 GMT
That mid-credits stinger was genius.
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Jan 17, 2024 10:12:36 GMT
The best episode of this or what
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Jan 21, 2024 21:44:54 GMT
I got a big adrenaline rush after seeing this. Now this is partly because I'm finally watching movies again. But I can't explain how exciting it was to see something made today that will actually stay with me. I haven't had that feeling for a long time. I have to give Christopher Nolan his flowers. And I don't normally single out sound, but the sound editing here is insane. Top 5. The scene where he is speaking (with conflicting feelings) before the crowd after the event might be my favorite. (Richard Feynman playing his beloved bongos gets an honorable mention ) Cillian Murphy! Tremendous performance. I will be rooting for him. The last part of the hearing up until the very end? He's great all the way through, but that's award-worthy stuff. And about that ending? Normally, I would be the kind of viewer for not showing what was said between Oppenheimer and Einstein. However, because of what was said - I really felt Einstein's dialogue there- I am for the reveal. Robert Downey Jr. was given the opportunity to flex once it got to the last third - which was nice. I liked Emily Blunt's hearing scene. The writing of the character and marriage could have been stronger on the coherence scale. That is one aspect of the film I will criticize. Incredible cast. I'll tell you who really stood out to me, though: Strauss' senate aide played by Alden Ehrenreich. He killed and had a presence.
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Jan 21, 2024 21:46:47 GMT
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Jan 27, 2024 15:54:03 GMT
For when you need a brush up but don't have 3 hours to invest
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 27, 2024 20:03:30 GMT
I'll be rewatching this in Imax in a couple hours
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jan 27, 2024 22:07:44 GMT
I'll be rewatching this in Imax in a couple hours Not in the front row, I hope!
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Jan 28, 2024 11:15:55 GMT
I am super late to the Oppenheimer party, but I finally watched it last night. Pretty darn good -- mark me down as a fan. It's weird that this was seen as a companion piece to Barbie. Oppenheimer's presentation was subtle in its acting, directing, writing, editing, and production values. It never goes over-the-top and its structure never feels confusing. It's also a three-hour movie that felt like 2 hours and you wanted more. My only complaint is that the female characters -- Blunt and Pugh -- were given very little screen time. I have no issues with the nominations for Bunt, Downey, and Murphy -- All quite good. You have to give Blunt a lot of credit for putting a lot of effort into a very small role. Definitely going to re-watch the film to see what I missed the first time.
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Jan 30, 2024 0:26:51 GMT
Why does the aspect ratio of this keep changing for real tho? and isn't it like a bad thing, for a BP frontunner?
|
|