Did We OVER-HYPE Oppenheimer? A Filmmakers Review

[@Alexzarfatifilms]

If you want to chat with me further about the movie, join my new Discord server: discord.gg/dczkZTk5

[@aamirkhanday7552]

Exactly!! The whole movie was like an extended trailer. Never gave time to audience to absorb a single moment in movie

[@Alexzarfatifilms]

💯

[@SuperALBSURE]

100% agree. I was saying that as soon as I walked out. A 3hr film edited like a trailer.. strange choice.

[@sama2086]

Actually the worst review I've ever seen, you've genuinely entirely missed the point. We don't watch footage of the bombings because we watch oppenheimer as he cowardly looks away at what he unleashed on the world, he can't look the consequences of his actions in the eye. This is so much more powerful and informative than seeing needlessly violent gratuitous footage of Japanese people being incinerated. It gets the point of the horror across while also effectively calling oppenheimer out, as kitty states earlier in the movie, "you don't get to commit a sin and then just expect us to feel sorry for you." This movie gives is brilliant insight into oppenheimer, but I don't think it's trying to get us to feel bad for him. Instead I think Nolan is calling him (and many others, e.g. Strauss) out as cowards and manipulators. (how oppenheimer treats Jean is another example of this) You didn't feel the remorse from oppenheimer because he never stated he regrets creating the bomb. Its not that simple in his mind (whether we think it should be or not.) The trial is vital for what the film is trying to say about American exceptionalism and the cut throat nature of the mccarthy era. Oppenheimer did not fall flat. Its equally brilliant as both a character study and a critique of the American political system, and how their belief in American exceptionalism has pushed our species to the brink more than once.

[@brettthemonster]

I agree. Incredible craft, but I didn't care about any of the relationships or characters. Nolan only seems to be making films for himself at this point. On top of that, it is way too long. I felt like I was watching a director's cut. It is disappointing.

[@sama2086]

This film is way way better than imitation game or a beautiful mind lol

[@djstarsign]

Definitely more ambitious and daring, but it would have been a more gratifying watch if it wasn’t so thin on actual story. To paraphrase a recurring comment on the film, it felt like a long trailer (or series recap) followed by a drawn out courtroom drama. The end result was clunky. And I think it also depends on personal preference. Because I’ve seen many people disappointed with Wes Anderson’s latest (they raise some fair points) but I ended up loving it. Not so much with Nolan’s latest.

[@zachgalluzzo4829]

Imitation game and beautiful mind are 1 million times better

[@সায়ক]

Fandom can be so blind sometimes. Let's just accept it, Oppenheimer is a boring cinema

[@Camera_n00b]

What are you doing man? You're telling us the story of movie before seeing it? I stopped watching to the clip to not ruin the movie surprises in cinema.

[@Alexzarfatifilms]

Lol I literally said before I got into the review not to watch the video until you see the movie

[@mikejones9480]

Very interesting analysis, its fascinating to hear an interpretation from a true film expert. And thank you for verbalizing everything I felt about this movie, very well said, and I couldn't agree more.

[@ShaafStudio]

I genuinely agree with you on the last three nolan films not building up any emotional connection with the characters. Nolan did such an amazing job with interstellar and making the audience feel emotions all the while telling us a story, it felt like we were involved in the action and we were constantly imagining scenarios in our head to protect the character whose story is being told. But this element is not there in the recent film. A lot of people really liked tenet, i did not becauuse it just felt empty somehow and I think you pointing out the reason in the video actually makes total sense.

[@djstarsign]

Absolutely agree. That’s the film that lost me. I watched the movie 4 times and it gets worse with each viewing. Nolan’s gift was his ability to bring an auteurist vision to mainstream films but he’s proven to be more obsessed with style over substance with his last 3 films. Super disappointed in how his career has gone.

[@errwhattheflip]

@@djstarsign I don’t think that really applies to Oppenheimer tbh

[@LHollan]

Well have you ever thought he’s doing this INTENTIONALLY?

[@ShaafStudio]

@@LHollan Look, I love the films and I absolutely think that tenet is a masterpiece that I will and can watch multiple times. Its just a little annoying that after the film I don't have that emotional connection with the character. It is subjective but nevertheless I still notice it.

[@joshbieker7388]

Nolan movies are always pretty divisive. Personally, when the movie ended I was mentally exhausted. I just kept digesting it. I loved the style and especially that third act. It’s great that Hollywood can still give us not easily digestible content on this scale. There is hope

[@diaz_fam354]

I truly believe the most emotionally grasping part of the movie was not the character, but rather the overall theme. The overlapping feeling through the movie was how humanity is capable of creating such a destructive tool. There were so many subtle hints through the three hours where I truly believe Nolan tried to emphasize this. Oppenheimer the person was used as a vessel to express the overarching theme in my opinion. I don’t think Nolan missed the mark. When I left the theater, the first thing I told Michelle was I can’t believe we’re capable of doing that shit to other humans…I think he killed it

[@Alexzarfatifilms]

I just felt like I was waiting to care about something or someone and I really didn’t. I think overall it a good movie but not great. I was expecting too much maybe instead of just enjoying it for what it was but personally I think it fell flat

[@Nightsinwhitesatin645]

@@AlexzarfatifilmsI think the criticism that Nolan’s films have no emotional attachment to the viewer is becoming a trope. A “go to” criticism when a viewer can’t find much to complain about. I saw this today and left the movie absolutely stunned by its brilliance and emotionally drained. It just feels like people are trying to find reasons to not like this movie and those reasons don’t make any sense.

[@PintheElfKingdom]

​@@Nightsinwhitesatin645 Frankly I also find the characters bland, uninteresting, which never happened to me before in a Nolan film. There are way too many characters with way too little development. I literally couldn't feel anything towards them by the end of the film.

[@liljoe31]

Absolutely. Historical dramas to be truly instructive or edifying to the audience should focus primarily on the consequences to the world, i.e., history. Is it so crucial to understand the man or the end result of the man's life and contribution to history? The ending of Oppenheimer is also perfectly executed considering the state of world events in our own unfortunate historical moment, if you get my meaning...

[@djstarsign]

@@Nightsinwhitesatin645nope. These are valid criticisms, not nitpicks. Nolan failed to make an engaging movie. He chose to show events and to film them with a lot of beauty, but there was no heart in this movie. A cast full of A list talent in minor roles and I couldn’t tell you what they meant except for Damon and RDJ’s characters. Nolan gave us a beautiful looking film that felt like an experience, but really it’s just a montage of things that happened with no real character development. That’s the gripe. It doesn’t mean that the movie was terrible. It just means that it fails to be great. Nolan also has a tendency to overcomplicate his stories and it’s become his signature style, along with his fetishistic obsession with imax. And I just kind of wish we had the more balanced Nolan that was able to be ambitious and challenging but was able to emotionally bring us into his worlds (like in his films prior to Dunkirk). Instead of getting caught up in the story, we’re just watching things happen but don’t become fully invested.

[@paulgerhard5170]

Finally someone says it. Though you are not correct to point to the editor and sound design. Tenet was brilliant. It’s just that Oppenheimer and Dunkirk were meh.

[@johnfurseth9791]

I tend to agree. Although haven’t finished reading “American Prometheus” yet, it seems CN was committed to covering the entire book in a film. Instead, CN could have removed some of the courtroom drama and other scenes to allow the film to portray a few individuals and relationships with material outside of the book, compelling us to truly care about them

[@LHollan]

Maybe he intentionally tried to avoid that, not all films are compulsory romances or novels, Nolan is presenting a different thing with no intention to make us to feel related to any character

[@Kaotix_music]

TL;DR - Christopher Nolan films are not meant to be watched just once. I think Nolan leaves his audience confused on purpose. I dont think hes spoken about this but I figured this out over interstellar and it took 9 viewings of Tenet to legitimately understand Nolans films. His films are made in a way where YOU HAVE TO watch it more than once. You will always walk away from his films saying "Im confused". Since inception everyone has told me that movie was confusing. I watched that 100 times and its no where near confusing for me. Its just about using dreams to plant an idea in a mans head...but an idea so simple. Thats it. People said the ending was confusing because he spun his totem and it kept spinning and then it went black. So you never knew if he was in a dream world or the real world. Nolan uses quick passing dialogue for Easter eggs to give you the answers you thought you didn't have. Inception - Cobb says "in the dream world it will just keep spinning...not even topple." 3 words gave you the answer to the ending. 4 seconds before the movie ends...it started to topple. He was infact in the real world. Thats Nolan testing the audience if they were paying attention or not. Dialogue we just simply kinda blank out on in movies because were so used to action and chases and gunfights and other climatic scenes in movies where Nolan is not about any of that. Tenet - Ives said "you need to stop thinking of time as linear my friend", Nolan didnt have Ives say that to The Protagonist, he said that to the audience of the film...through telling it to The Protagonist. We watched this film all the way up to the final battle still thinking of time has a linear thing. Well, shit. Now you have to watch the movie again and stop watching this movie as a linear timelined film. Because its not. Neil says multiple times "Whats happened, happened." because Neil was the most well versed individual in the story on how the time inversion worked. After all, hes what saved Ives and The Protagonist at the end using his knowledge and finding the inversion machine in the tunnel to go back and make the plan work. The entire film already happened. Over, and over, and over, and over again. He makes very quick dialogue but its teh answer to your confusion...you just werent paying attention. He inverts for his first time and the woman gives him the most brief and generalized description of being inverted in an uninverted world. She briefly mentions what would happen if he came across his own self in the real world...that it would annihilate each other. Hence the black tactical suit in the art bank when they went back. So this answers the question - why was he stored in a wind turbine in the beginning of the movie? Look at the boat he was on before he was dropped off. Then look at the boat hes on when inverting through time. Its the same boat. Its the same time. They put him inside that turbine so he never saw his inverted self...which was already on that ship. Why did the Protagonist not remember ever recruiting Neil? Remember? He was in a coma after the Ukrainian Oprah House siege. His memory could have seriously faded during that time. You have to pay attention to the very small details. But you will never see them the first time around, nor the second or maybe even a third. You need to pick up on the small pieces which answer your large questions. Nolan gives you the answers - alot just look in the wrong place and over complicate it. Oppenheimer - was not about the atomic bomb. It was about the man...Oppenheimer. Its literally in the title of the film. A film about a very complicated man in the field of quantum mechanics who was the godfather of the Atomic bomb. Yes, the edit felt fast paced for sure...but this was totally done on purpose. It made the film feel "complicated" a complicated film made about a complicated man. Oppenheimer was a complicated man and the edit shows it greatly. Glazing over introducing Hiesenburg is again done on purpose. THe movie is called "Oppenheimer", were seeing the movie through HIS lens of his life. WE dont need an introduction. And even throughout the film, hes still not an important figure of the film. At all actually. Even in real life he wasn't. Now we want to say he was an antagonist during his security clearance renewal trial because he would not hire Oppenheimer again. But he continues to say "Quite frankly, i wouldn't hire a single one of those scientists again." Hes just a General...being a General. There was no bonding relationship between the two characters even in real life. And thats where youre wrong "Its not about his love life...its about how he created the Atomic Bomb", no its not. We were half way through the movie and the Trinity Test was already done. What more is there to talk about? Oppenheimer's story doesnt end there. Oppenheimer never saw the bomb drop and my girlfriend even said "they could have atleast had a scene where they dropped the bombs". If we did, we lose the entire purpose of this film. And thats Oppenheimer was Jewish. He wanted this bomb dropped on the Nazis. Take note of how he starts to feel conflicted with this bomb after he gets the news Hitler is dead and the war in Europe is now over. Again, were watching the movie as if WE are Oppenheimer. No outside objective views. Only his. And yes, the rest of the film is the politics - but that was Oppenheimer's biggest hurdle was the aftermath. His ties with communists and extreme liberalism, being accused of being a spy for the soviets at Los Alamos and giving the soviets the tech to make their own bombs. Making the bomb was cool. Now what? Well...lets see! Thats what the second half is about. Now what? Look how Strouse just BURRIED Oppenheimer with lies upon lies, lying before a senate hearing, and Doctor Hill played by Rami Malek who literally had no lines in the film and up until this point had a total of 60 seconds of screen time....became the piece to the entire puzzle. The climax wasnt the bomb...the climax was Dr Hills testimony to the Senate. And if you paid attention, Dr Hill hated Oppenheimer. Yet hes defending him now? Dr Hill went around with a clipboard wanting a petition signed that this bomb would only be used for demo purposes. NOt to actually use it. Oppenheimer throws that clipboard out of his hands. Dr. Hill seemed hes realized his greatest fear about this bomb, now became Oppenheimers greatest fear about this bomb and now is defending him and exposing Strouse. Where I think this movie was messed up...was the trailer. Not the movie itself. We felt like we were going to watch a film about how the atomic bomb was made and thats it. But Oppenheimer was still very much involved with nuclear weapons YEARS after Hiroshima and Nagasaki so what happened in those years after? Its very important. Its not about the bomb. Its about a time in history where we opened pandoras box to destroy the universe. I can see your dislike for Dunkirk, Tenet, and Oppenhiemer not having any connection to the characters and "Im just watching things happen" but for all 3 of those movies...thats exactly what those movies are about. Just a "thing" that "happened". Tenet, Pryia makes it very clear when DJW says "Im the Protagonist in this operation!" she laughs and says "No, you are *A* Protagonist." Meaning there is more than one. Is Neil one? Is Sater one? Is Kat one? Is Ives one? Is Pyria one? Humanity is the protagonist. Sater was going to destroy the world. With Dunkirk, I think we are just used to watching a film following one person, whos the "main character" when there is no "main character" in Dunkirk. A story writter could have chosen to pick one mans accounts, over dramatize it and make it a film, but instead we were just shown the shear horror of the events that took place that day through many different lenses. Its all a subjective view through many people. Thats why Oppenheimer had its switch between black & white and color. Color being we are now watching through Oppi's lens in a SUBJECTIVE way. Black & White being Lewis Strouse's lens in an OBJECTIVE way. Its why we felt no connection or emotion towards any other character. Lets remember, Oppenheimers emotions are all over the place...the man tried to kill his professor by poisoning an apple. Why did we need to know that in the film when it came to him building the atomic bomb? To give the audience context...he has no emotion. He lacks alot of human empathy except for two things....Jean...and now the power he has just created for Humanity to destroy itself. This is where we see Oppenheimer now start to show more emotion and empathy, as hes lacked this from what it appears to be almost his entire adult life. The man gave his new born son away. Who the fuck does that? Thats to show you how he just doesn't care about anyone. To include his own son. So why are we given no connections to characters? Because we watched this movie through his mind, eyes, body, and soul. Not from the outside looking in. Thats what the Black and White was for. I guess were so used to typical "movie" structures and formats that once a rule is broken - we dont know how to feel about it. But I have a feeling once "Oppenheimer" goes to streaming and we have unlimited time to watch the movie over and over again - well all appreciate it much much more.

[@hazelnut5945]

Beautifully said my friend, people still fail to understand that some movies are portrayed not how you should understand it but rather how the characters in the movies understand it, I see people complaining that the movie is so long, it gets boring after the trinity test and what not. It's a BIOPIC, you can't expect it to have over the top drama and/or action elements, the script was written in first person, giving less room to get attached to a character because that's how it was in Oppenheimer's eyes.

[@Kaotix_music]

@@hazelnut5945 Cillian Murphy literally said he knew the script was amazing when he said "I read the script and instead of it saying "Oppenheimer goes to the window"....it said "I go to the window" " This is a new way of film making and story telling and while confusing to most...its not meant to be offensive...I think people are used to short attention span content and films. I saw Barbie on the same day (gilfriend dragged me...but i dragged her to Oppenheimer lol) and im not gonna lie....Barbie WAS A great movie. I loved it, especially that the movie wasnt jsut meant for women. Ken plays a very important role. Outside, hes the antagonist of the film...but is he? It over dramatizes that men have to hold everything inside and made it as the Kens being an "oppressed" people in Barbie Land. SO to men, Ken was the Protagonist and Barbie was the antagonist. But to women, it was the opposite. Very well put. But Nolan - hes different. Thats EXACTLY what makes him an amazing screen writer and director. His movies are made for the intelligent. higher IQ'd, full attention audience. Not people who watched Barbie. Barbie is the usual movie format. Oppenheimer is not. I also think people seeing both in the same day was a GIANT mistake. Its night and day. Barbie is the straight forward film youre used to, Oppenheimer isn't. No Nolan film is ever straight forward. And some people went to see Oppenheimer not knowing the director and his style of story telling and came back saying "ehhhh it was ok." But its because they didnt udnerstand what they just watched. Go back and watch it 10 more times....you understand every bit of it now. I just wish I had a way to watch it at home to understand it more but ill have to wait for that. IM going again this weekend to see it once more now knowing what I know about the film now that I have the context because like i said - Christopher Nolan's films are not meant to be watched just once.

[@hazelnut5945]

@@Kaotix_music ikr 181 mins and you still feel overwhelmed by what you saw while exiting the hall, so yeah it needs to be watched more than once to unravel the true storytelling behind the movie, imo the movie would truly get the appreciation it deserves after it's available on ott platforms, people need more exposure to this film to get the charm it exudes.

[@Kaotix_music]

@@hazelnut5945 Nolan was pissed Tenet went straight to streaming with Warner Bros. SPECICALLY told them DO NOT put this straight to streaming. I want it in the movies for 100 days. And the day it came out...went to streaming. Thats why Nolan moved to Universal (also why i think Barbie was released the same day because Barbie was Warner Bros) and he was pissed...but in my opinion - it was best. I had all the time after my first watch to watch it again, and again, and again and around the 4th time i started to udnerstand the movie better and i still learn something new everytime I watched it. Its sooooooo lightly touched in that film that everyone who touched the Algorithm at the end of the movie was supposed to die. Niel says it after they breach the art vault. He says "I guess ive seen too much now, right? But im still alive" and they very quietly talk about WHEN The Protagonist will kill Neil when this is all over. Again, another point of dialogue people NORMALLY tune out of but so important to the movie.

[@marklewen9384]

Perfect analogy: DUNKIRK & OPPENHEIMER covered important topics, were BEAUTIFULLY made, but 100% forgettable.

[@djstarsign]

💯

[@phyotennis7462]

Just rewatch the “ Thin Red Line “ way better than Dunkirk. Beautiful mind way better than Oppenheimer.

[@marklewen9384]

@@phyotennis7462 dunkirk and oppenheimer were like watching those 1940s news reels verbatim. I ve seen them both, and dont remember ANYTHING about them...

[@VFXforfilm]

The movie you got: a ripoff of Oliver Stones JFK and Natural Born Killers (including an over the top Robert Downey JR B&W scene). It was also trying to channel PT Anderson (contrast filmic, violin streaks). Also Nolan was trying to be Kubrick with that second sex scene which was tonally amateur and desperate . There are great filmmakers and then there are wannabee fanboy filmmakers: that’s Nolan. He has no academy award for this reason.

[@meJEES]

Inception is in my opp... best picture of chris nolan because of its uniqueness and epicness . I watched it years ago Still now some part of it processing in my mind and i begain to observe my dreams more like taste of food gravity shift etc .Getting prove as time gets forward😂

[@djstarsign]

Inception was such a great balance of lofty ideas, stunning visuals and enough investment in the characters to really care about the outcome. Which is why I’m disappointed that Oppenheimer zipped through so many events and by the time we get to the interrogation, you feel exhausted, and know you should care more about the characters but there wasn’t enough time given to treat them as people. So you end up understanding the implications while not feeling much of a connection to care. I liked Oppenheimer but it felt so overindulgent where Inception felt like a unique experience you wanted to revisit.

[@jesustovar2549]

Inception was the movie that got me into Nolan, still remembering watching it for the first time on dvd (I had it along with The Dark Knight), I loved Oppenheimer and I think it's Nolan's most mature film to date.

[@Thomzz95]

This movie was definitely overhyped lol confusing, boring, nothing but talking, talking, and talking and the bomb going off looked and felt underwhelming. The acting was incredible though. RDJ deserves an Oscar but that’s all good I have to say about this movie. I probably won’t watch it again though.

[@FerallHog]

Yes, it is Extremely Over hyper. Terrible waste of 3 hours. Boring. Monotonous. It’s for pseudo intellectuals. It really is just a Bad film.

[@Superplayer_2]

Absolutely underwhelming, but only after we overhyped it....all I heard for 2 years was how they built a real bomb and actually set it off and how there's no CGI at all... then when the bomb goes off all they show of it was close up flames 😑 ...the bomb at the end of Spectre was better.... love Matt Damon's performance though

[@mcardphoto1057]

Sitting here shouting yes, yes, like a maniac at my screen xD Everyone I have spoken to about the movie I have said the exact same thing to them, the pacing was too fast, it almost felt like... a three hour trailer xD Other than that - pretty incredible movie

[@HirschyK]

“It’s about how he created the atomic bomb. I get it” No you don’t get it, sorry. I could type a paragraph, but I’ll put it simply: his life was nuts. It’s a 3 hour movie trying to sum up his life with a sprinkle of RDJ antagonist twist. Also, if you wanted news clips or footage of the bombings, perhaps you’d be more interested in a documentary.

[@chriswhite599]

Sir... this was a perfect review! You've managed to convey exactly how I feel about this movie. One thing that stood out to me was the editing: this was a masterclass in film editing and I can only imagine how difficult it was to piece this together.

[@Userytghnmjk-e6w]

Yes and Nolan fans are like a cult, who cannot accept that the movie was boring and badly made

[@thestoryofmycinema9598]

Finally an honest opinion reflecting the flaws in this movie An over hyped piece of propaganda

[@ashmcgee5963]

Your critique of his films is something I have been discussing with other people for a long time, namely the contributions of Jonathan Nolan on his better, earlier films. Story is character and Nolan does not know character. It's a shame because I think he's a great filmmaker, but that will only take his body of work so far when he refuses to collaborate with writers who are so far better at the craft. After Dunkirk I forgave. After Tenet, my faith was lost. I'd normally see his new film, but unfortunately I fear his ego would be in my eyes. It's a hard pass this time. Spot on review.

[@masaladosafication]

Most of the Hollywood movies concentrates on being perfect through use of technology rather than focusing on characters and emotions. This movie is about the character, a little bit more than the theme. We know about the atom bomb Hiroshima Nagasaki etc and who made it, but not much about the inventor apart from his name and country. Take for example the Tokyo story. There is a theme, but the director gets the characters emotions to convey the theme beautifully. As for the film making technique it was simple, like a Haiku. But the message it conveys stays on for quite sometime. Hollywood for me over complicates. Sometimes the films are over-directed.

[@dattmougherty_5392]

I agree with your synopsis completely. I was left disappointed. Yes, it's a visually stunning film but besides that, many of the shortcomings you mentioned were too big for me to truly enjoy it. 1. His backstory is completely rushed (feels weird to say for a 3 hour movie) and you don't get a good sense of what exactly his personal relationships are and where his sympathies lie, like with communist party or not. 2. The Manhattan project, which I had hoped would be the bulk of the film, is also a rushed sequence of student-professor tropes but they don't even give a good explanation of the science behind the building of the bomb. There's ways to do that tactfully, like in the Chernobyl HBO series. 3. The bomb test I guess was the climax and it was an amazing scene - but I agree with you that the news of dropping the bomb itself was so briefly included. To grasp the magnitude and horror of the event, I truly think they should have shown more than just one scene of him daydreaming in the lecture hall. 4. Because of the lack of his character development, the trial and cabinet hearing are utterly boring. How are we supposed to be invested in either of these drawn out procedures when they seem so disconnected from the rest of the film. They weren't exactly gripping narratives and the "villian" of Strauss is just confusing

[@SahilGoesHARD]

I feel you on that rushed feeling. The last hour was a miss for me because of how much they expected us to care about the politics side when I don't believe a lot of the viewers wanted to see that as much as the gripping dilemma Oppie had to deal with in order to make the bomb.

[@Samuelkonetsky]

I feel like it portrays Oppenheimers life perfectly as a scientific mind goes through life and processes big events. Leaving us sometimes feeling cold with emotions It’s amazing how films can impact people in various ways. Absolutely stunning film

[@cinexeon]

I can't like any film that doesn't make me feel for the characters, either love or hate, doesn't matter. Hit me in the gut with something. Nolan might be a man who will never learn to understand how to elicit human emotion.

[@camdencoblentz3245]

That last sentence feels all too accurate and why I find Christopher Nolan so overpraised as a filmmaker. Admittedly, sometimes I can enjoy a film even if I don't find most of or all of the characters compelling if there are other aspects that really stand out, with Nope being a more recent example. But Christopher Nolan films tend to have more problems than just shallow characterization by being overly-complicated and not having compelling narratives either, at least for me. It's all subjective of course, but Oppenheimer had me questioning why I'm still watching these movies from Christopher Nolan.

[@creepyqueen1523]

I was also kind of disappointed with this movie. It seems that Nolan just decided to discuss to many plot lines from Oppenheimers life at once and some of them are left flat and sort of unresolved. Even after 3 hours. It’s not a bad movie, not at all. But it’s not a masterpiece in my opinion and this story could be told way better.

[@Alexzarfatifilms]

I agree 1000% I think it’s good but not Great and definitely not a masterpiece. I thought Interstellar and inception were both significantly better

[@mattcrumbley6923]

What has to be taken into consideration is that the movie is from Oppenheimer’s prospective. Jean is a fleeting character because she wasn’t a profound part of his life. His guilt over her death is due to the fact that he feels he’s failed her. Parallel to his guilt about the bomb and how he failed to institute any regulations to save the earth from his own invention. And I firmly disagree with the take on Kitty. She takes up a ton of screen time and we get several in depth views into their relationship. When she finds him after Jeans death and shakes sense into him. The meetings with the lawyer in the hotel rooms when she admonishes him for not fighting. Her testimony at the hearing (her best scene which you didn’t even mention). We don’t see the bombs drop in Japan because he didn’t see that. Also don’t get how anyone can see the look on Cillian Murphy’s face, hear the score, see his eyes and say they didn’t feel emotion?

[@rome316ae3]

Dont go to this movie with high expectations. Most people think this is an action movie and after they watch they would be disappointed. Before watching this first research about this movie and go with no expectations and you will definitely like it .

[@roybatty6368]

Lots and lots of walkouts due to this. Of course the companies don't care as they got their money. should have had a warning...BORING movie ahead

[@StephMoo59]

This is exactly how I felt!!!

[@darioscomicschool1111]

Nolans LEgacy comes Crashing Down. Hype Train is Wrecked.

[@SplicerYT]

All those awkward sex scenes should of been replaced with graphic violence of the horrible affects of the atomic bomb to really set the impact in. This was a simple story that didn’t even need Nolan’s non linear trademark narrative approach at all. Probably would not of been as artsy fartsy in the hands of other directors but it would certainly of been more clearer and entertaining.

[@ethandrood]

Nah, its a great film.

[@heavennature]

I had watched imax ,and disappointed this movie

[@TimeisReel]

Agreed, Nolan is a Brilliant Film Maker. His films are always technically brilliant, but sometimes overly so. And it sacrifices Character Development sometimes. Interstellar, Dunkirk, Tenent and now Oppenheimer, shows that. He's still one my favorite Directors. But he is about 50/50. But Chris keep making Original Content...

[@tommy33177]

Giving the fact the movie was based of the novel American Promethues. The Novel like the movie was loose with its interpretation of events. It was never a movie about a bomb but more its. Inception and consequences. It was better than Tenet. But it suffers from its lack of pace. There times in this movie I could of sworn that I was hearing the sames lines of dialog over and over just paraphrased in the Span of 3 hrs. Another thing to note. Runtime of 3hrs is too long especially when it the pacing is an issue. Tenet had that issue and Oppenheimer suffers from it as well.

[@djstarsign]

I watched a documentary about Oppenheimer that covers pretty much the exact narrative as the Nolan film. And I was surprised at how much more heart and emotion the documentary had than Nolan’s dramatization. You actually felt the implications of what was unleashed into the world and the impact of revoking his security clearance was a lot more clear and a lot more Machiavellian than how it was presented in the movie (which seemed to focus on Strauss feeling offended and using his power to discredit him). The failure of the film to communicate this effectively seemed like a major blunder.

[@jesustovar2549]

@@djstarsign There's a difference between documentary and dramatization.

[@shaggyfeng9110]

The perfect version would be a 70mm IMAX film format with a new sound system and a small crowd. As someone who like science and history and politics and cinema and music, Oppenheimer is my favorite film of all time. The first 2 hours and 15 min felt like an hour. The last 45 min felt like 1.5 hour. Already watched 2 times, both on best seat, IMAX 70mm and digital IMAX. I will watch it again when IMAX 70mm is not fully packed. Oppenheimer felt like a piece of real memory.

[@christopherp.hitchens3902]

I also found the film disappointing and exhausting trying to follow Nolan’s tangled timelines. Mostly, I found the casting to be ABSURD …but particularly Matt Damon. Much like Robert Redford in A Bridge Too Far, Damon is the studios idea of a “bankable” star. They had to put him SOMEWHERE in the film, ANYWHERE. Trouble with Damon is that he’s largely an “Action” movie star (not an actor) and serves as a distraction with his only talent being his ability to play Matt Damon. You would need to be a real actor to convince people that you are the head of this nuclear program. Matt Damon and Josh Hartnett are nuclear trained physicists? Hell, then why not cast Keanu Reeves as Albert Einstein?

[@marklewen9384]

They spent 40% of this movie making it about MCCARTHYISM,but totally under developed that angle the movie. People often conflagrate content of what movie was about, and how movie delivered it. The movie was engrossing when they were at los alamos, but the mccarthyism stuff was clunky and cringe- worthy...

[@camdencoblentz3245]

You absolutely nailed it. I was very underwhelmed by Oppenheimer overall, mainly due to the characterization, which is unfortunately a huge problem I have with Christopher Nolan's style of filmmaking. The fact that I never really got to know anyone in the film in depth really made the experience feel shallow, and when it's a character driven film that's approximately 3 hours long, it's a huge problem for me if the characters aren't compelling. There were admittedly a few highlights here and there, but there were far too few for me, so it was yet another disappointment in Christopher Nolan's filmography for me, and he unfortunately has more misses than hits for my personal tastes in film.

[@zev36deans]

Nolan is the perfect director for bros who want to feel smart without having to understand anything. Interstellar was retarded (ghosts are just time travel?!) and sappy af. Inception was fun but entirely nonsensical. Nolan is no Kubrick. He’s an idiot savant at best. Oppenheimer was boring af and completely botched the most meaningful aspects of the history of the A bomb. Cowardly omitting the reality of the decision to bomb Japan & the horrors that followed is a mistake you simply shouldnt get away with in 2023

[@schismedUp]

I'd urge you to watch the movie again. I'll ask a couple of questions... If you watch it and you have some answers of your own, then maybe you might appreciate the movie better.. 1) what's the difference between black and white and color scenes.. Not just on the surface, but how it connects to the opening scene where they say fusion and fission.. 2) why was there no explosions, no real depth in relationships, no grandeur, both positive and negative in the movie..?

[@intimpulliber7376]

I loved this movie. So goddamn good.

[@VFXforfilm]

Chill out film student.

[@itzkhronical]

@@VFXforfilm You have your opinions, and he has his. Let it be.

[@kaneda7368]

@@VFXforfilm Tell me you're insecure about your opinions without telling me you're insecure about your opinions.

[@marklewen9384]

They didn't develop the mccarthyism or treason angle at all, and it was 40% of movie. The guy who turned out to be spy at los alamos had ONE LINE("I was german until hitler made me not one)...not a well made movie. Beautifully aesthetic, but not GREAT movie...

[@djstarsign]

This is in no way to say that the movie was awful, but because of my experience (which pretty much aligns to what you described in this review), some people will interpret my disappointment in the film as pure hate and scorn. Which isn’t the case. I liked it, but felt underwhelmed by the story and overwhelmed by the experience of watching a movie so overstuffed with information and characters I couldn’t get invested in. For all of Nolan’s visual mastery, he’s shockingly clunky and melodramatic. The Bhagavad Gita quote was so ham fisted in how it felt embarrassingly bad. It’s the equivalent of watching a Bob Dylan biopic and there being a scene at the Gaslight where he and Dave Van Ronk are at the bar having a topical conversation and the actor portraying Dylan casually says “the times, they are a changing” before pulling a drag off his cigarette and heading to the stage, guitar in his hand. My biggest critique is how I felt the editing of the film was wrong. What we got was an extremely rushed series of montages leading up to the bomb being built and a lengthy courtroom drama used to strip Oppenheimer of his security clearance so he would no longer have the credibility to be appointed to high level committees. The film should have spent more time fleshing out the characters in the first two acts and could have used a sharper edit in the final act. It would have helped with creating a connection to the characters as opposed to just watching events happen. By the time the movie ended, I felt as drained and frustrated as I did with Dunkirk and Tenet. Nolan made a good film, but a flawed film that doesn’t achieve the greatness of its potential (despite having a dream cast, budget, and resources available only to the elite). It’s not a failure, but it is another disappointment from such a talented director.

[@Janwillem91]

agreed on your view on Tenet, to me the least favorite Nolan movie. I also see where you're coming from regarding Dunkirk, but that movie, even though it lacks character development, to me is one of the greatest movies to watch and one of the few movies I watch again and again, just because of the craftsmanship of Zimmer and Hoytema. I have never seen a movie where they build op tention better than in that one. even though you never see one German soldier. I really really love the use of sound and the camerawork for that movie. For Oppenheimer: I agree mostly on what you're saying, although I do think this movie has the best climax I have seen in a movie since Inception. (you could consider the following sentence as a spoiler, so if you have not seen the movie stop reading now). The final conversation between Einstein and Oppenheimer, putting everything in a completely different perspective is a better climax than any bom explosion could have been. One thing I also did really like is the way they made the audience part of Oppenheimers thoughts, with the sound design and editing of those small special effects.

[@lalaLAX219]

Very well said, you articulated a lot of my own thoughts about this film in regards to the audience lacking any emotional connection to the characters. I also found what you said about his brother not being on the project particularly interesting-it wouldn’t be the first time a successful filmmaker failed to understand just how much of their success was due to the contributions of their collaborators…believing their own hype and surrounding themselves with “yes” men who cause the final product to suffer as a result (see George Lucas). I hope Nolan hasn’t found himself caught in this trap.

[@omaralcantara1142]

I agree with you at the fast pacing throughout a long 3 plus hour film can seem to throw off an audience, but I feel like after reading about the book that inspired him for the film he wasn’t try “ glamorize “ Oppenheimer feel like if character development was a route they went with the internet would’ve bashed the movie saying it’s “ one sided “ making him look like an American superhero and with the catastrophic events that took place after I don’t think we need to define his character traits any deeper especially it being all just real history, most of us probably after went & researched him for more info it’s a win/lose with biopics because you have to nail that image correctly, great video though btw man love your content!! 🙏🎥

[@SuperALBSURE]

great review. really said exactly how I saw the film. No character development, edited like a trailer. But looked amazing. However, it never made me "care". Maybe that was the whole point of it? Oppenheimer or most of the people who made the bomb never really saw the destruction it actually caused first hand. It was rather remote, as war generally is for people not on the front line. So maybe the real take is that Oppenheimer shows that while people "politik" about the world, real people actually die and ultimately those people are not really important. The film, exudes all of that..

[@thecasualpolemic7572]

I haven't seen the movie yet so I don't have an opinion, but I wanted to leave a comment to say that, while I do think Nolan has made some excellent films, his direction seems to have recurring issues. This goes against popular wisdom so there are a lot of folks who passionately disagree. I think you pointed out a key observation which is that a lot of the success of a Nolan film will rely on his having assembled the right team. I think Interstellar was a great movie, but the fact of the matter is that Zimmer's score and the visual effects did a lot of the heavy lifting. The strengths might change from film to film. The Dark Knight was largely carried by Ledger's performance as the Joker. I recommend anyone who is interested to go back and revisit some of his films. You'll notice, for example, his films rely a lot on exposition. Sometimes this works, as in Inception or Interstellar, since the subject-matter is interesting enough to keep us engaged despite having actors read us the plot in paragraphs. In general though, it makes for some pretty bad dialogue and aloof characters. It can also make the performances very uneven - emotionally captivating scenes right next to totally flat ones. For example, in Inception, when Cobb is explaining the peril of dropping into limbo, Leo's delivery is spectacularly bad. In fact, it's usually the example that comes to mind when I think of bad acting. This isn't to say I think Leo's performance in the film is bad, he does just fine. I think at this point Nolan only knows how to make big movies and he needs to make sure he hires the right help to pull those off successfully. My guess is Oppenheimer will leave me disappointed but I'm still open to enjoying the film.

[@obiewilliams523]

Funny you mention the lovely lighting in that scene with Einstein... I was completely distracted by what I think was a prominent boom pole shadow going across his chest.

[@The_Great_Game_Begins]

_Original Context behind Openheimers Quote_ *Lord Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his Duty to vanquish all evil, thus to impress him takes on his Celestial multi-armed form* *_"If the radiance of infinite suns were to explode at the same time in the sky, that would be the splendor of the mighty one"_* - *Prince Arjuna in shock and awe, describing Lord Vishnus celestial multi-armed form* *Lord Vishnu to Arjuna* - *_"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds, hence it matters not if thy dont pick up your celestial astras to fight for what is right(dharma) either ways I will obliterate all adharma(evil), Everyone and everything on this battlefield shalt soon cease to exist"_* - *Bhagawat Gita Chapter 11 Verse 32* - *The Hymns/Songs of the most Ancient Gods*

[@mathewluke5081]

What i believe is Oppenheimer isnt just a movie but a document which could end up in a time capsule as a historical documemt or like a historical archive , hence i belive it is information dense and it specifically revolves around Robert j Oppenheimer,nuke that he created, and the trials which shows how corrupt politics/democracy is in reality. If taken in that context the entire movie makes sense on why it was so fast paced and why not much work was done regarding his relationships because a lot of important things had to be shoved into an already long movie. Those are just my opinions 😅

[@generalbandege1184]

Man, you missed a lot in the movie. Mainly though, you came into the movie think that the point of the film is depicting the creation of the atomic bomb. When in fact it was filmed to highlight the man who made it, and his struggles to prevent humanity from destroying themselves with it. The climax if the movie was not when trinity was tested, but rather when American made a decision on how the technology should be handled with other countries in the future. And although from Oppenheimer's perspective in the film we failed and humanity would surely destroy itself, what we actually got was the cold war. And the everlasting threat of nuclear anhilation. This is summed up nicely by the last bit of dialog in the movie between Einstein and Oppenheimer.

[@topcraft2844]

While I do agree with you that we did not have enough time to connect with the characters and understand the characters, I still make an argument that it was because the movie was solely about Oppenheimer himself. To be honest I'm in a middle in this matter, because it's really hard to compress that much information into a 3 hours movie. Nolan really tried his best to tell the story of Oppenheimer's life in 3 hours and it was really hard to do so. Even though we did not get enough screen time to connect to other characters, Nolan and Murphy did a great job at connecting us to Oppenheimer himself. We might not get enough of his early life, we did get a lot of him in the time of the Manhattan Project and the aftermath however. In my opinion I think that was what Nolan wanted us to see and understand. I was actually hooked into the final hour that was the politics part and I did not think it was underwhelming. I got to understand and empathize with Oppenheimer getting such a treatment after contributing something significant. At the end of the day the movie is still a great movie in my opinion despite its flaws, it's not a perfect movie and none of the movies are. I think that those flaws are outweighed by the great things about it.

[@deka0014]

Yeah. The movie is mediocre at best

[@phillyking]

The better the villain the better the movie and with Nolan trying to use the struggle of war alone as the enemy? Dunkirk once again. There is no star to really hate. The bomb is a lifeless villain forced on us but is it a villain? Nolan could have shown the Nazis but he might thinks that pushing to support the bomb.

[@12oq]

"we all can agree that Nolan is a great director" erm..NO. He isn't

[@Shotswith.aj_]

I’ll have to disagree in a couple of things, making a comparison to the other Nolan films when it comes to story is just not fair, most of the films that you mentioned are sci fi films and Oppenheimer is a bio pic. As for the part that he could have done more to develop a bit more the character yes, I would’ve like to see more of that but that doesn’t necessarily cuts out a connection to the character. The story is about he achieve what he achieved and the aftermath of it, how the government betrayed him and here I have to disagree when you said “why do the portray the trial as something so important” it is important because this is the way that Nolan utilize to present us with the whole timeline of the movie, and I would say that you can definitely feel throughout the whole movie Oppenheimer’s emotional burden because of this. Last thing you mentioned about Oppenheimer’s regret of what happened but historically he was proud of his invention, and he never said otherwise.

[@sodiumlights]

Yes...to get clicks. Then a video titled 'did WE over-hype? Yes, again to get clicks.'

[@stevenlancestoll629]

I agree completely..it lacked humanity from the characters to the total ignoring of the moral questions and horrendous destruction of the bomb.

[@PapaWooody]

Grass is grazed over. Topics are glazed over. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@soulpath1]

I feel like it’s supposed to be a sort of impressionistic painting of all that oppenbeimer is and went through. I loved it

[@shaggyfeng9110]

Oppenheimer felt like a piece of real memory.

[@djstarsign]

@@shaggyfeng9110Oppenheimer felt like the longest, most expensive recap montage I’ve ever seen followed by a prolonged interrogation set piece that could have been cut in half.

[@shaggyfeng9110]

@@djstarsign All the anti-commu thingy is what Nolan grew up with. Much like our anti-racism thingy we have today. Our grand children will have a hard time understand why people spent so much time on these boring thingy. They are all just ideology BS.

[@rorygilmorelove6]

You ate so brave 😂. Yes the movie is overrated unless you want to see nudity in 70mm IMAX 😅

[@stevensonrf]

I’d give the film a 6 out of 10.

[@basileallegre7411]

I disagree. The climax was great without any footage of hiroshima.

[@Meowmeowingz]

I was so bored with the movie I walked out halfway and left my husband to finish the rest

[@toky0san]

You’re hyping it some more

[@stef3565]

I don't think they wanted us to know his true character.

[@seismixx]

soo.. did we overhype oppenheimer?

[@cliftonsledge962]

Like what you’re doing, giving you the thumbs up for supporting your channel 👍🏾

[@Alexzarfatifilms]

Thanks brother

[@Chillphones]

i simply didnt like the movie.

[@chrisobrien6254]

Good review! For me Batman 3 was where Nolan started to lose me. Interstellar I didn’t connect with at all.

[@roybatty6368]

Agreed. Contrived and boring.

[@jesustovar2549]

It's not thad bad as people wants to put it.

[@milenailic1437]

It is so boring move to me.

[@Becausetheinternet2]

In short. No we did not.

[@christieh.1500]

I agree with you

[@raminMTL]

You on point my G

[@leandersvids]

100% agree

[@JG-sz5nj]

yes

[@brandonperlow9091]

I agree with many of your points, and you explained some better than I could. I saw the movie at the TCL Imax in Hollywood, and I found the sound to be overbearing. The sound design at least to me was problematic as it obscured some important dialogue that I couldnt hear through. I felt sometimes the music was forcing tension when it was already there with the cinematography and actiing. It ruined the storytelling when I couldnt hear the dialogue. I was not the only one, my brother in FL saw it and had the same issues. I think you explain the editing better than we did, but in my brothers words- " it felt like a 3hr trailer for a 10 hr tv series". I also agree that trial scenes might have been superfluous. I also didnt like the switch to black and white for Strauss's POV. It felt a little MTV/Film School type of choices. I dont think this was a masterpiece, or one of the best movies of the year, it was just pretty good, and really needed some captions for me to enjoy it more.

[@recetasfaciles2816]

La he visto a estas alturas dos veces. Y sigo pensando que se trata de una obra maestra de nuestro siglo. No había tenido este tipo de experiencia cinematográfica desde hace mucho tiempo. Todo era tan grande. Todo era de primer nivel. La fotografía es maravillosa. El sonido y como lo usan para guiarnos a través de la mente de Oppenheimer es magnífico. La narrativa es compleja, pero al final las piezas encajan revelándose como un conjunto sólido que permite diversas lecturas. Es un fascinante estudio de personaje, un análisis de la sociedad de la época y una advertencia para nuestra generación y las futuras. Cillian Murphy está sublime en esta película. De Óscar. Sobre los puntos que expones me parece que tienes un punto. No puedo decir que comparto tu opinión, pero es verdad puede sentirse así. Desde mi punto de vista, funcionó de un modo que nos permitía mostrar los hechos como si fuese un juicio. Además generaba un thriller al ocultar información, todo lo relacionado a la conversación de Oppenheimer y Einstein. Y también le daba a la película esa impresión de ser como la mente fragmentada de Oppenheimer.

[@mattstark9144]

I'm glad they didn't show the direct carnage of the bombs on people while showing the film from Oppenheimer's perspective, because that wasn't his or any other American's perspective. America received the news in a very heroic way through papers and radio. Oppenheimer is one of the only people on the planet who could imagine at that time what he has done. A scene in the movie illustrates it very well. Not being transported to Japan is part of the niche storytelling in this movie, and I really enjoyed the themes of trying to understand what HE was feeling.

[@fabiomorich]

I think the emotion was not around his love for them, there was no time for it. I agree with the sound design, so good!

[@MarcusJauernig]

Your review is exactly the way I felt about Oppenheimer

[@nitishachar]

You perfectly verbalized my feelings... 👏 Very good review.

[@kmt488]

I resonate your opinion. I went into the theater feeling hyped. As the movie begins, I was getting confused, but hoping to get some answers as the movie picks up, but it just keeps on getting more and more confusing. About 1 hour into the movie, I was lost, and had no emotional attachment to any character in the movie. I wasn't rooting for anyone. And that's how it ended for me.

[@jesustovar2549]

If anything, Oppenheimer is not that confusing than Tenet, I watched many videos and read lot about Oppenheimer before watching the movie, with that in mind, it didn't dissapoint me, I loved the 1st act showing Oppenheimer in his student years and travelling through Europe (and other real locations where Oppenheimer stepped on), I loved how they showed a score of The Rite of Spring by Igor Stravisnky (as a classical music fan, I see nobody is mentioning this reference), I was amazed when I heard Cillian speaking in german, I also love the Albert Einstein scenes, despite how brief they were. Nevertheless, the acting was spot on, RDJ did his best acting work in years (if you haven't watched his bio-pic "Chaplin", do so). I also love the Harry S. Truman (Gary Oldman) scene, I was really expecting that, when they asked about what they were going to do with Los Alamos and Oppenheimer mentioned "giving it back to the indians", I felt like auch. These are some of the reasons of why I think the movie is great, I know it's not for everyone, but sometimes movies that aren't for everyone are more interesting than those commercial ones that try to appeal to everyone, it opens more field discussion.

[@YasharJavan]

This film was not only a waste of three hours, but also wasting of all those moments i was looking forward to watch sooner and i just wanted to get reconciled with the director after the later disappointing experience: Tenet! What a big failure to follow the marketing which tries to emphasize on showing big things but at the end: nothing! And then they blame you for not understanding the movie! At least i know I'm honest with me and i dont wanna fool myself. I prefer to stay with my better memories with his filmography, so, Christopher Nolan's next film!? So you wanna keep disrespecting your audiance again? Thanks, but no thanks!

[@shabberto]

Whats with the white lines is that just me?

[@doubllechief6926]

he plays to his strengths. everytime nolan starts "exploring characters" his movies go down hill. his movies are thrill rides, not character studies. you gotta know that going in

[@djstarsign]

This seems to be the case with every subsequent film. I miss the Nolan who gave us Insomnia, The Prestige, and Inception. The director who could present both ambitious and highly visual ideas while still treating his characters with enough consideration for the audience to actually care about the story. The last three films feel as if his emphasis has been to focus more on the theatrics, leaving the end product as good, but lacking. “I miss the old Nolan” 😂

[@stueff]

Reupload?

[@Alexzarfatifilms]

Yeah I had to fix audio and color 😅

[@parasuraman1155]

Answer is an empahati “NO”.

[@evilroy6568]

I felt almost exactly the same way.

[@Pleasing_view]

Quentin Tarantino thinks otherwise regarding Dunkirk which I agree. The best movie of the century 🐐

[@marklewen9384]

THERE WILL BE BLOOD....

[@roybatty6368]

He is WRONG as wrong can be

[@IRenegadEEEEE]

I agree with you on Tenet and Dunkirk but the Oppenheimer take is laughably off the mark for me. It was brilliant

[@44gg37]

I agree. I felt almost no emotions after leaving the movie. I’d feel more emotions watching a documentary on the same subject.

[@knwr]

I don't think this film was over-hyped. However I do think that some people developed expectations that did not align with what this film was intending to accomplish. I think this film may be tough to fully embrace without knowing all the characters and their own stories within the manhattan project. I've read other books like the Making of the Atomic Bomb and know much of the scientific concepts through Chemistry and Physics courses I took in college. Knowing how epic each of these characters were outside of their brief appearances made the whole film extremely exciting. Some might say that a film should be fully contained and that you shouldn't require any outside knowledge to fully grasp the work, however I wholly disagree. There are many films that don't require outside efforts and the ones that do are very rare these days. It would be nice to have 10 character based films leading up to this for more impact, but it's just not possible given the subject matter and I'm glad he didn't compromise on the number of cameos he pulled off. This film was totally cerebral and felt like an Avengers for scientists. It may not be for everyone, but it definitely was for me and clearly is the film for a lot of other people as well... I would also have to disagree with the changes that were recommended here. I'm not sure what to say if nothing was felt during the speech scene, it was probably my favorite scene in the film 🤷‍♂

[@SuperTweedledum]

I think it would be helpful if you looked into some of the interviews Nolan and the authors of the original book participated in. It's hard for me to understand how much more we would have needed to connect to the defining moment of the modern era?

[@djstarsign]

I recommend watching the documentary The Day After Trinity. They were able to make a film with more heart, more stakes, and more emotional investment in a non-fiction movie that starred real people (as in non-actors) than Nolan did with all his fancy imax cameras, stylish editing, nonstop music, and top tier acting talent. Which is a testament that big budgets and enviable access to the best resources still don’t mean greatness if the emotional heart at its core is the size of a walnut.