Oppenheimer

🔥 1st Watch | Top 100 | 2023 Ranked “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” Those are the words of someone filled with guilt, filled with fear... filled with horror. Oppenheimer directed by Christopher Nolan perfectly navigates the audience through the mind of J. Robert Oppenheimer as he struggles to balance between his morals and ambitions. Interestingly, Christopher Nolan wrote Oppenheimer in the first person, and his decision to do so couldn't have been more felt. Christopher Nolan is known for producing immersive cinematic experiences, but Oppenheimer's enticing atmosphere dwarfs anything that Nolan has made before, keeping the audience completely engaged with the film. If Christopher Nolan directs a movie, there is a high chance that the movie will play around with time in peculiar ways. Oppenheimer is no different, with multiple timelines that intersect each other all throughout the film. In a way, it was very reminiscent to The Social Network, a film that I will praise to the end of eternity. However, equating the narrative structure of Oppenheimer to The Social Network doesn't quite reveal the full picture, however. The Social Network's non-linear timeline is a lot more subtle. On the contrary, Christopher Nolan made sure his non-linear story structure was presented to the audience with a bang. Oppenheimer hasn't received much criticism, but if it has, the reasoning lies with the critics not liking how Nolan jumps between different parts of the story. However, the non-linearity of Oppenheimer actually benefits the film as a whole in a variety of ways. Oppenheimer is a three-hour journey, chronicling the triumph and fall of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb. Oppenheimer isn't an action spectacle, and due to its long runtime, the pacing needs to be perfect in order to keep the audience from getting bored. Fortunately, Oppenheimer flows flawlessly. Admittedly, there are specific periods where the timelines rapidly alternate, which can feel a little obnoxious. But in truth, it symbolically reflects the paradoxical nature of his character. When Oppenheimer's duality between ethics and ambition isn't expressed, usually the timelines swap in a more diluted and seamless manner, allowing the tension to develop more fluidly and smoothly. It's only when Oppenheimer's juxtaposed character traits are shown explicitly where the timeline alternates violently back and forth. The intense nature of these jumps within the timeline reflects Oppenheimer's conflict is expressed and prevalent. This occurs mainly in the beginning of the story when Oppenheimer's path isn't clear and then in the end when Oppenheimer's realization kicks in. Oppenheimer completely immerses the audience into the lens of J. Robert Oppenheimer, and once it grasps the audience, it never let's go. The film grabbed ahold of the viewer, fixating their eyes onto ours, allowing both the viewer and the film to simultaneously stare into each other's souls; the viewer gets a deep examination on one of the most prominent men in history, and the film manages to manipulate our feelings as we follow the fascinating physicist. It's this impeccable level of immersion that makes Oppenheimer so engrossing. And unlike the atom, trying to break those forces that keep the viewer engaged with the film is an impossibility in theory and practice. Technically speaking, Oppenheimer might be three hours, but like Nolan's other films, the runtime moves so quickly that the film feels much shorter than that. Throughout the film, a constant stream of tension is produced, and it piles into a body so massive that the level of tension is comparable to that of a horror film. And to be frank, I don't disagree with those folks. As the film got closer and closer to its climax, the more and more people held their breaths. Oppenheimer has a lot of big names in the Hollywood industry. Its cast is striking, and going into the movie, I admittedly thought the quantity of the cast would undermine its quality, but I couldn't be more incorrect. Robert Downey Jr. gives the greatest performance of his career without a shadow of a doubt. The subtleties, complexities, and brilliancies of his performance were magical to witness and cannot be overstated. Matt Damon also gives an exceptional performance as General Leslie Groves. The delivery of all of Damon's lines were perfect and he brought so much vitality to his character and the film as a whole. He lit up the entire theater, as if the nuclear blasts didn't do enough already. Emily Blunt had another notable performance. Her emotion and raw demeanor were so authentic to the character she portrayed. All three of these actors should be recognized by the Academy Awards for their splendid performances, whether it's in the courtesy of a nomination or more deservingly the grand prize itself. However, the magnificence of the acting doesn't culminate there: Every actor was phenomenal, and their talented performances surprisingly distracted me from sidetracking to the actors themselves. I saw Strauss on the big screen, not Robert Downey Jr. I saw Leslie Groves on the big screen, not Matt Damon. In short, Oppenheimer's cast is filled with high-quality performances, and every ounce of greatness was put to use. This especially includes Cillian Murphy's performance as the titular character himself. Oppenheimer marks his sixth collaboration with Christopher Nolan yet only his first role as the main character. However, it was definitely worth the wait. Murphy's similar appearance to the real-life Oppenheimer was already enough to warrant his casting of the character, but adding Murphy's splendid performance to the equation further proves that he was the only real candidate to portray the character to begin with. Just like how the performances were terrific, the screenplay of Oppenheimer is fantastic as well and effectively tells the narrative Christopher Nolan intended. Recently, Christopher Nolan has received a lot of criticism for his transition from focusing more on characterization to focusing more on spectacle. While in some cases I disagree that Nolan's shift towards spectacle compromised his ability to write compelling characters (Interstellar, for instance), there are cases such as Tenet where I don't have a defense. Oppenheimer definitely has spectacle, but there is also a huge emphasis on the characters. The writing of each character is mature in the way that their characters are given proper development and treatment to feel complete. No character is dry or bland. Rather, they are rich and interesting. In addition, the dialogue in the film is immaculate and meaningful, serving the story wonderfully. And contrary to Tenet, there wasn't any issue with the sound mixing; the dialogue is actually audible. Nolan's films never fail to amaze in regard to their ability to leave the viewer in awe at their technological brilliance. Oppenheimer is no different. Ludwig Goransson proves once again that he is a worthy substitute for Hans Zimmer. Oppenheimer's score was a crucial factor for developing the rich atmosphere of the film. Without his breathtaking score, Oppenheimer wouldn't be the same. The score perfectly complemented Oppenheimer's character, amplifying his emotions he experiences throughout the three-hour journey. The excellence of Oppenheimer's sound design extends far beyond the score. Everything from sound of the wind, the rain, the footsteps, the explosions, the echo of the room, and even the silence are flawlessly captured in Oppenheimer, resulting in this ultimate cinematic experience that immerses the viewer into the heart and soul of J. Robert Oppenheimer and those around him. It shouldn't be any surprise that Oppenheimer looks stunning. Like Memento, Oppenheimer was produced with black-and-white and colored film, and like Memento, how those different film stocks were utilized carried a purpose. In Memento, the different types of film distinguished which parts of the movie were moving forwards or backwards. In Oppenheimer, while the different types of film do distinguish the different segments of the timeline, its purpose far deeper. In an interview, Christopher Nolan actually confirmed how the black-and-white film was used in scenes with an "objective view" of Oppenheimer while the colored film was used in scenes with a personal view. If that was Nolan's plan on using both types of film, then it definitely worked. The black-and-white film felt like something was missing, symbolizing how just by observing Oppenheimer with an objective perspective, no one can truly understand the whole story. However, with the color, each frame feels complete and rich with emotion. The color symbolizes his complexity as a character, as he needs the entire spectrum to be fully understood rather than just the two polarities called black and white. To achieve the stunning visuals that were present in Oppenheimer, there were a lot of challenges that had to be tackled. Firstly, IMAX cameras had never shot black-and-white film before, so the Oppenheimer team had to develop 65mm black-and-white film to become compatible with IMAX. Secondly, they also had to find a practical way to film the violent nuclear explosions, as Christopher Nolan will not resort to CGI if he has to. At the end, both problems were solved with dazzling execution. The quality of the black-and-white IMAX shots were astonishingly pretty, and witnessing the roaring fire that raged on the projector screen left me awestruck and at a loss for words. Christopher Nolan is one of the most prominent and appreciated directors of the modern cinematic age, and Oppenheimer's gleaming success only proves his capability as a director. Despite The Dark Knight's astronomical impact on film, some people have already called Oppenheimer Nolan's magnus opus. Immediately, Oppenheimer has had a significant impact on me; it's already become one of my favorite movies, and with future rewatches of the film and more time to delve into my thoughts about the film, I only expect my appreciation and enjoyment for Oppenheimer to rise. It's incredible that a three-hour biopic without one sliver of action could become one of the tensest and most thrilling films of the twenty-first century. ⬅️ Previous Review: Tenet