I have several friends who insist that modern day film audiences are incapable of making their own decisions on films, so they take their cues on what to see and what they should think about them from social media. Someone(s) on social media appear to decide in advance what will be the films of the year and will start hyping them up (or conversely assassinating them) before a frame of film has been viewed. I am beginning to put credence in this view as that is literally the only excuse I can find for the gushing adulation received by Christopher Nolan's latest opus, Oppenheimer.
Based on the life of controversial scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer, the film follows his formative years to his involvement with the Manhattan Project, and then his later years defending himself against smears to declare him a security threat to the US.
Oppenheimer is not a bad film, but it is not a great one either.
I am old enough to remember that much of this tale was relayed 30+ years ago in the Paul Newman-led Fatman and Little Boy, so the novelty of Oppenheimer is lost on me. The former is a more straight forward approach and an hour shorter, and benefits from both aspects.
While I enjoy some of Nolan's films, I can by no stretch be considered a fanboy, so I am not afraid to call out flaws. And the 3-hour running time is a huge flaw.
A lot of my problems with this film stem from Nolan's directing style. Oppenheimer is yet another example of Nolan's obsession - the non-linear narrative - where the film jumps back and forth across the timeline. A film like Memento is highlighted by this approach, but it is pointless in a biopic like Oppenheimer. We jump from an older Oppenheimer having a tete-a-tete with Einstein to young Oppenheimer trying to poison his teacher with a cyanide apple to Oppenheimer giving lectures, and back and forth.
While the cinematography looks amazing, Nolan also employs so many absurd visual gimmicks to distract viewers that the film ends up coming off like a "very serious" production for the ADHD generation. I am hard-pressed to recall many dialogue moments that last very long or are allowed to generate their own drama. It feels as though someone is standing by with a stop watch to shout "OK - too much talking! A viewer might be checking their phone! Flash something across the screen!" So scene after scene is interrupted by flashes of light, visions of dancing molecules and shooting stars, explosions, fantasy sequences, and when all else fails, Florence Pugh shows up to shake her naked boobs at the camera.
The acting is largely underwhelming as well since people are expected to flesh out roles that are basically cliff notes. Almost no role - even the walk-ons - is not filled by recognizable faces who are mostly wasted. One can play spot the star. Oh, look! There's Kenneth Branagh for 3 minutes. Was that Tom Conti as Einstein? It was too quick to tell. I didn't know Rami Malek was in this! Oh wait, barely. And there's Casey Affleck as a diabolical military guy, and he still can't act. Ironically, the performance I found most natural and appealing comes from an actor I usually find wooden, Josh Hartnett.
The actors with more screen time often do not fare much better.
Matt Damon is solid and no-nonsense as the general heading the project. It is pretty much taken for granted now that he will contribute reliable work in whatever he is in.
The aforementioned Florence Pugh has a thankless role as Oppenheimer's emotionally fragile mistress, who shows up intermittently to growl, throw his flowers in the trash, and get naked for sex. We have no insight as to why Oppenheimer is attracted to her or continues this affair, or why she is unstable. One low point is a fantasy sequence where Oppenheimer is being interrogated and his wife Kitty envisions a naked Pugh writhing around on his lap in the conference room. Why an actress of Pugh's caliber took such a dismal part is beyond me.
Emily Blunt seems to be assured a supporting actress nomination as Kitty. I normally love Blunt, but she is not very good here. Kitty is as much a cipher as everyone else. I can tell you following about her: she's a lush, she despises raising her children, she's selfish, she's outraged that her passive husband won't stand up for himself. Their courtship scenes are as laughable and perfunctory as the scenes between Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen in Attack of the Clones. She gets one good moment near the end where she lashes out at the interrogators. Otherwise, she is one-dimensional time filler.
The one actor who seems assured an Oscar win is Robert Downey, Jr. I could normally watch Downey read a phonebook, but this is a nothing role that hamstrings him. For 90% of the film's running time when he infrequently appears, he has no emotional range or anything of worth to do. Then, in the film's final moments, he suddenly becomes a mustache-twirling Bond villain to provide a nemesis to Oppenheimer. There is nothing subtle or very credible about the character and I cannot say that hundreds of other actors would not have been the same or better.
For a bit of unintentional camp, Jason Clarke as a manipulative prosecutor has been instructed to up the glib smugness to the rafters to the point where he almost doesn't resemble anything human.
Which brings us to Cillian Murphy as Oppenheimer. Murphy is a good actor, but I keep hearing people proclaim that "at long last he can get a deserved Oscar", which makes me wonder what prior Oscar-caliber performances from him that went unnoticed are they referencing? Going by past clips and interviews, Murphy does not much sound like Oppenheimer - but mimicry does not necessarily make a good performance. Unfortunately, Murphy's take on Oppenheimer is so restrained and insular that he begins and ends the film as an enigma. I got no feel for the inner workings of the man, what his views were on the nuclear nightmare world that his controversial creation plunged us into, or what his actual feelings were about people in his orbit. He often comes across as a narcissist, who is effete, yet somehow also passive, weak and non-descript.
For 2 hours and 15 minutes, the film feels like it is hitting notes by rote and meandering. There is little in the way of suspense, insight, or drama. The last 45 minutes drums up some interest, when Murphy is tarred by the dastardly machinations of Lex Luthor - excuse me, Downey's Lewis Strauss. Prior to that though, the film has nil dramatic momentum and that is a lot of running time to squander on visual trickery and star cameos. By the end, the film is much like Murphy's interpretation of Oppenheimer himself - nice to look at and polished, but completely lacking in dimension, fascination, or depth.
Based on the life of controversial scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer, the film follows his formative years to his involvement with the Manhattan Project, and then his later years defending himself against smears to declare him a security threat to the US.
Oppenheimer is not a bad film, but it is not a great one either.
I am old enough to remember that much of this tale was relayed 30+ years ago in the Paul Newman-led Fatman and Little Boy, so the novelty of Oppenheimer is lost on me. The former is a more straight forward approach and an hour shorter, and benefits from both aspects.
While I enjoy some of Nolan's films, I can by no stretch be considered a fanboy, so I am not afraid to call out flaws. And the 3-hour running time is a huge flaw.
A lot of my problems with this film stem from Nolan's directing style. Oppenheimer is yet another example of Nolan's obsession - the non-linear narrative - where the film jumps back and forth across the timeline. A film like Memento is highlighted by this approach, but it is pointless in a biopic like Oppenheimer. We jump from an older Oppenheimer having a tete-a-tete with Einstein to young Oppenheimer trying to poison his teacher with a cyanide apple to Oppenheimer giving lectures, and back and forth.
While the cinematography looks amazing, Nolan also employs so many absurd visual gimmicks to distract viewers that the film ends up coming off like a "very serious" production for the ADHD generation. I am hard-pressed to recall many dialogue moments that last very long or are allowed to generate their own drama. It feels as though someone is standing by with a stop watch to shout "OK - too much talking! A viewer might be checking their phone! Flash something across the screen!" So scene after scene is interrupted by flashes of light, visions of dancing molecules and shooting stars, explosions, fantasy sequences, and when all else fails, Florence Pugh shows up to shake her naked boobs at the camera.
The acting is largely underwhelming as well since people are expected to flesh out roles that are basically cliff notes. Almost no role - even the walk-ons - is not filled by recognizable faces who are mostly wasted. One can play spot the star. Oh, look! There's Kenneth Branagh for 3 minutes. Was that Tom Conti as Einstein? It was too quick to tell. I didn't know Rami Malek was in this! Oh wait, barely. And there's Casey Affleck as a diabolical military guy, and he still can't act. Ironically, the performance I found most natural and appealing comes from an actor I usually find wooden, Josh Hartnett.
The actors with more screen time often do not fare much better.
Matt Damon is solid and no-nonsense as the general heading the project. It is pretty much taken for granted now that he will contribute reliable work in whatever he is in.
The aforementioned Florence Pugh has a thankless role as Oppenheimer's emotionally fragile mistress, who shows up intermittently to growl, throw his flowers in the trash, and get naked for sex. We have no insight as to why Oppenheimer is attracted to her or continues this affair, or why she is unstable. One low point is a fantasy sequence where Oppenheimer is being interrogated and his wife Kitty envisions a naked Pugh writhing around on his lap in the conference room. Why an actress of Pugh's caliber took such a dismal part is beyond me.
Emily Blunt seems to be assured a supporting actress nomination as Kitty. I normally love Blunt, but she is not very good here. Kitty is as much a cipher as everyone else. I can tell you following about her: she's a lush, she despises raising her children, she's selfish, she's outraged that her passive husband won't stand up for himself. Their courtship scenes are as laughable and perfunctory as the scenes between Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen in Attack of the Clones. She gets one good moment near the end where she lashes out at the interrogators. Otherwise, she is one-dimensional time filler.
The one actor who seems assured an Oscar win is Robert Downey, Jr. I could normally watch Downey read a phonebook, but this is a nothing role that hamstrings him. For 90% of the film's running time when he infrequently appears, he has no emotional range or anything of worth to do. Then, in the film's final moments, he suddenly becomes a mustache-twirling Bond villain to provide a nemesis to Oppenheimer. There is nothing subtle or very credible about the character and I cannot say that hundreds of other actors would not have been the same or better.
For a bit of unintentional camp, Jason Clarke as a manipulative prosecutor has been instructed to up the glib smugness to the rafters to the point where he almost doesn't resemble anything human.
Which brings us to Cillian Murphy as Oppenheimer. Murphy is a good actor, but I keep hearing people proclaim that "at long last he can get a deserved Oscar", which makes me wonder what prior Oscar-caliber performances from him that went unnoticed are they referencing? Going by past clips and interviews, Murphy does not much sound like Oppenheimer - but mimicry does not necessarily make a good performance. Unfortunately, Murphy's take on Oppenheimer is so restrained and insular that he begins and ends the film as an enigma. I got no feel for the inner workings of the man, what his views were on the nuclear nightmare world that his controversial creation plunged us into, or what his actual feelings were about people in his orbit. He often comes across as a narcissist, who is effete, yet somehow also passive, weak and non-descript.
For 2 hours and 15 minutes, the film feels like it is hitting notes by rote and meandering. There is little in the way of suspense, insight, or drama. The last 45 minutes drums up some interest, when Murphy is tarred by the dastardly machinations of Lex Luthor - excuse me, Downey's Lewis Strauss. Prior to that though, the film has nil dramatic momentum and that is a lot of running time to squander on visual trickery and star cameos. By the end, the film is much like Murphy's interpretation of Oppenheimer himself - nice to look at and polished, but completely lacking in dimension, fascination, or depth.