Just saw it last night and came away with the opionion that it was, okay. Despite the high profile actors and director, in the end it's just your normal biopic and it suffers from the pitfalls...
Just saw it last night and came away with the opionion that it was, okay.
Despite the high profile actors and director, in the end it's just your normal biopic and it suffers from the pitfalls that plague all biopics. I find the genre usually bland as compressing the life, or a large portion thereof, of a person into a 2-3 hour film is always going to be a monumental undertaking. The only way in this case to build a connection with the audience is through the protagonist as the protagonist's relationships with other characters must be glossed over due to the sheer amount of content being covered. This leaves these types of films dull and always a bit rushed. While Nolan's forte dealing with multiple concurrent timelines (ala Dunkirk, Inception, and Tenet) does help tremendously with the later, his brilliance as an engineer and penchent for his films to be missing heart does no service to the former.
What can I say? As a biopic it was phenomenal in the same vein as Ray, Green Book, and Walk the Line. But as a genre, I find that biopics are almost universally middling and sadly even Christopher Nolan's epic couldn't undo my perception
I had no real interest in Elvis but I'll add it to my watchlist based on your recommendation. I did see Amadeus, phenomenal film, but I wouldn't call it a biopic. If I remember correctly, the film...
I had no real interest in Elvis but I'll add it to my watchlist based on your recommendation. I did see Amadeus, phenomenal film, but I wouldn't call it a biopic. If I remember correctly, the film is largely a fictionalized take on Mozart's life and not actually biographical in the sense of the biopic genre.
I believe that heavy fictionalization is integral to the definition of almost everything that is grouped under the genre called "biopic". Some movies are better at hiding it than others, that's all.
I believe that heavy fictionalization is integral to the definition of almost everything that is grouped under the genre called "biopic". Some movies are better at hiding it than others, that's all.
I haven't seen it, but I was definitely confused why it had so much buzz. There's a bunch of historical bio pics every year that tend to be decent but don't really get people excited. I still...
I haven't seen it, but I was definitely confused why it had so much buzz. There's a bunch of historical bio pics every year that tend to be decent but don't really get people excited. I still don't know what made this one so different that it's been so hotly anticipated.
I think it's just the fact that a big blockbuster director like Christopher Nolan is directing, people are expecting it to be more than it is. Very minor spoiler: Spoiler A coworker was...
I think it's just the fact that a big blockbuster director like Christopher Nolan is directing, people are expecting it to be more than it is. Very minor spoiler:
Spoiler
A coworker was disappointed today when I let him know that the film didn't merit IMAX treatment as there was almost zero action and even the great reveal of the atomic bomb was not what I would have expected from Nolan. But given that early A-bombs were nothing like the more familiar Marshall Islands Hydrogen Bomb tests, he was just remaining true to what it was actually like (visually anticlimactic)
I think Oppenheimer is my favorite Christopher Nolan film. But that's entirely because I generally dislike his films. What brought me in to the theater is my love for this era of mathematics and...
I think Oppenheimer is my favorite Christopher Nolan film. But that's entirely because I generally dislike his films. What brought me in to the theater is my love for this era of mathematics and physics. Slipping in a scene with Einstein and Gödel is the type of mathematician fan service I'm here for.
Merits:
Great performances by the cast all around.
Nolan has a strength in juxtaposing the intimate and the grand. He did well with the scope and scale of the project while incorporating the human aspects of running this type of research program.
High marks for sound design and cinematography. Again, Nolan knows what he is doing with a camera.
A good sense of the existential dread that many people involved must have felt. My advisor's family is all staunch pacifists after their work on the Manhattan Project.
Detractions:
For the love of god, why does Nolan refuse to tell a story in an ergonomic way? I am a fan of sci-fi, I am a fan of art house films that expect a lot from the audience. But every Nolan films feels like some type of Mulholland Drive exercise in deciphering who and what is happening in what order. I get that it is the raison d'etre for Inception and Tenet. I think the issue at the crux of it is that he put this work on the audience with no intellectual payoff. The weight and scale of Oppenheimer's work is self-evident, why make the audience work just to understand the timeline?
I understand a trade-off had to be made between mass appeal and full frontal math. But I would have preferred more science.. we have physicists and mathematicians on screen whose work was revolutionary. All at a time when the STEM disciplines began to fragment and specialize.
In all I'd recommend it. I don't expect to rewatch. I'll definitely be giving Barbie a rewatch.
This was the most dramatic and serious film I've seen in a long time. I guess the politics of physicists in the early 20th century and the logistics of large scale scientific collaborations just...
This was the most dramatic and serious film I've seen in a long time. I guess the politics of physicists in the early 20th century and the logistics of large scale scientific collaborations just don't do it for me. I found this movie super boring (but well done)!
Just saw it last night and came away with the opionion that it was, okay.
Despite the high profile actors and director, in the end it's just your normal biopic and it suffers from the pitfalls that plague all biopics. I find the genre usually bland as compressing the life, or a large portion thereof, of a person into a 2-3 hour film is always going to be a monumental undertaking. The only way in this case to build a connection with the audience is through the protagonist as the protagonist's relationships with other characters must be glossed over due to the sheer amount of content being covered. This leaves these types of films dull and always a bit rushed. While Nolan's forte dealing with multiple concurrent timelines (ala Dunkirk, Inception, and Tenet) does help tremendously with the later, his brilliance as an engineer and penchent for his films to be missing heart does no service to the former.
What can I say? As a biopic it was phenomenal in the same vein as Ray, Green Book, and Walk the Line. But as a genre, I find that biopics are almost universally middling and sadly even Christopher Nolan's epic couldn't undo my perception
The recent Elvis is an interesting take on the genre. I'd also point to Miloš Forman's Amadeus and Man on the Moon.
I had no real interest in Elvis but I'll add it to my watchlist based on your recommendation. I did see Amadeus, phenomenal film, but I wouldn't call it a biopic. If I remember correctly, the film is largely a fictionalized take on Mozart's life and not actually biographical in the sense of the biopic genre.
I believe that heavy fictionalization is integral to the definition of almost everything that is grouped under the genre called "biopic". Some movies are better at hiding it than others, that's all.
I haven't seen it, but I was definitely confused why it had so much buzz. There's a bunch of historical bio pics every year that tend to be decent but don't really get people excited. I still don't know what made this one so different that it's been so hotly anticipated.
I think it's just the fact that a big blockbuster director like Christopher Nolan is directing, people are expecting it to be more than it is. Very minor spoiler:
Spoiler
A coworker was disappointed today when I let him know that the film didn't merit IMAX treatment as there was almost zero action and even the great reveal of the atomic bomb was not what I would have expected from Nolan. But given that early A-bombs were nothing like the more familiar Marshall Islands Hydrogen Bomb tests, he was just remaining true to what it was actually like (visually anticlimactic)
I think Oppenheimer is my favorite Christopher Nolan film. But that's entirely because I generally dislike his films. What brought me in to the theater is my love for this era of mathematics and physics. Slipping in a scene with Einstein and Gödel is the type of mathematician fan service I'm here for.
Merits:
Detractions:
In all I'd recommend it. I don't expect to rewatch. I'll definitely be giving Barbie a rewatch.
This was the most dramatic and serious film I've seen in a long time. I guess the politics of physicists in the early 20th century and the logistics of large scale scientific collaborations just don't do it for me. I found this movie super boring (but well done)!
D:
can we please get an ~unpopular opinion community so I can upvote this ?