Oppenheimer - thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Easily the best movie I've seen in years. I think Oscars for Cillian Murphy, Robert Downey, Jr., and Christopher Nolan are a lock. The acting is superb, the story is riveting, and it didn't feel too long to me at all.

To the PP who asked about nudity - yes, not full frontal, but breasts are shown for maybe 60-90 seconds of screen time total and there are a couple very brief sex scenes. I had heard it was a lot more, so I didn't take my 16yo son, but now that I've seen it, I would let him go. He might not want to sit next to me though!

To the PP who asked about Oppenheimer's personal life - it's not a huge focus of the story but it's not glossed over yet. He comes across as the genius he was, but very much as the flawed human he also was. A big plot point is how his arrogance and questionable personal life come back to haunt him in the early 1950s.

I think Oscar nominations are a lock, but Killers of the Flower Moon could be some SERIOUS competition for Oppenheimer!

Said to be Scorsese best movie. That’s saying something!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember it is THREE HOURS in a theater. I wish I had not committed to going with DH. I was absolutely miserable.

It didn’t lagged in any place. I would have been happy with more actually. I’m a huge fan of Richard Rhodes’ book, Making of the Atomic Bomb. I guess if you aren’t interested in the subject matter it would be boring.

It's not an area of particular interest for me, but I found it engaging and not too long at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Easily the best movie I've seen in years. I think Oscars for Cillian Murphy, Robert Downey, Jr., and Christopher Nolan are a lock. The acting is superb, the story is riveting, and it didn't feel too long to me at all.

To the PP who asked about nudity - yes, not full frontal, but breasts are shown for maybe 60-90 seconds of screen time total and there are a couple very brief sex scenes. I had heard it was a lot more, so I didn't take my 16yo son, but now that I've seen it, I would let him go. He might not want to sit next to me though!

To the PP who asked about Oppenheimer's personal life - it's not a huge focus of the story but it's not glossed over yet. He comes across as the genius he was, but very much as the flawed human he also was. A big plot point is how his arrogance and questionable personal life come back to haunt him in the early 1950s.

I think Oscar nominations are a lock, but Killers of the Flower Moon could be some SERIOUS competition for Oppenheimer!

I'm excited about that one too. Feels like we're finally getting some good movies after such a looooong time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s put it this way, it’s the first time I’ve been in a movie theatre audience and no one was chatting or chomping rudely on food. Everyone in that audience was engaged in the dialogue. Strange, not used to this type of audience in the theatre. My dh and I thoroughly enjoyed it

Same! DH + I saw it last night. Excellent movie. Everyone behaved at Georgetown AMC. We saw Barbie on Sat. Enjoyed both!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I usually detest Robert Downey Jr's brand of manic, self-aware acting - but he totally played against type here and did a fantastic job. Very believable.

Cillian Murphy was excellent too. The whole movie was too long though, and WAY too much constant dialogue.

Downey is an excellent actor who wastes his time with stupid superhero movies. He was excellent in Chaplin! He is phenomenal in this movie. As was Oldman, Murphy, and Blunt.

Fantastic movie. The cinematography is gorgeous. If you can afford the higher ticket price, see it in imax. It was filmed in imax so it really is immersive and spectacular.

Blunt was fine, but the character was poorly written, at least for the first portion. So over the top and in your face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Easily the best movie I've seen in years. I think Oscars for Cillian Murphy, Robert Downey, Jr., and Christopher Nolan are a lock. The acting is superb, the story is riveting, and it didn't feel too long to me at all.

To the PP who asked about nudity - yes, not full frontal, but breasts are shown for maybe 60-90 seconds of screen time total and there are a couple very brief sex scenes. I had heard it was a lot more, so I didn't take my 16yo son, but now that I've seen it, I would let him go. He might not want to sit next to me though!

To the PP who asked about Oppenheimer's personal life - it's not a huge focus of the story but it's not glossed over yet. He comes across as the genius he was, but very much as the flawed human he also was. A big plot point is how his arrogance and questionable personal life come back to haunt him in the early 1950s.

I think Oscar nominations are a lock, but Killers of the Flower Moon could be some SERIOUS competition for Oppenheimer!

Said to be Scorsese best movie. That’s saying something!

It does look good but the casting kind of makes me worried that it will just be Gangs of NY set on tribal land. I'd kind of like for him to choose someone other than Dicaprio for once even though I know he is his muse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s put it this way, it’s the first time I’ve been in a movie theatre audience and no one was chatting or chomping rudely on food. Everyone in that audience was engaged in the dialogue. Strange, not used to this type of audience in the theatre. My dh and I thoroughly enjoyed it

Same! DH + I saw it last night. Excellent movie. Everyone behaved at Georgetown AMC. We saw Barbie on Sat. Enjoyed both!

Shut up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie was outstanding. But then, I like thoughtful movies that leave me thinking about the subject when I leave the theatre. Great casting.

Is Richard Feynman featured in the movie and is he depicted with accuracy (ie being the most creative and thoughtful member of the team)?

He’s in it but not a huge role. Young and smiley.

Well that is just silly, especially if they make Oppenheimer more than a project manager. The brains were with the young guys, especially Feynman.

[Anonymous]

I was nervous about it being 3 hours, I sometimes have a hard time sitting through 2 hours. But it didn’t feel long at all, fast moving storyline, lots to think about, interesting characters. I’d say worth seeing in a theater bc you’re forced to get off your phone and pay attention and it’s a movie you don’t want to just half watch

[Anonymous]

Absolutely brilliant scientists. Can’t believe they were able to make the bomb decades before computers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely brilliant scientists. Can’t believe they were able to make the bomb decades before computers.

As if the project itself wasn’t enough, you should read about the “side bets” on physics and other mathematical problems many of them had while they were there. They literally were up to something 24/7.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie was outstanding. But then, I like thoughtful movies that leave me thinking about the subject when I leave the theatre. Great casting.

Is Richard Feynman featured in the movie and is he depicted with accuracy (ie being the most creative and thoughtful member of the team)?

He’s in it but not a huge role. Young and smiley.

Well that is just silly, especially if they make Oppenheimer more than a project manager. The brains were with the young guys, especially Feynman.

That's not correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie was outstanding. But then, I like thoughtful movies that leave me thinking about the subject when I leave the theatre. Great casting.

Is Richard Feynman featured in the movie and is he depicted with accuracy (ie being the most creative and thoughtful member of the team)?

He’s in it but not a huge role. Young and smiley.

Well that is just silly, especially if they make Oppenheimer more than a project manager. The brains were with the young guys, especially Feynman.

That's not correct.

The work Feynman did was crucial. What he did with Bethe stands out for example:

Efficiency of the device was particularly difficult to calculate because it depended on the evolution of the assembly in time, but a breakthrough came early in the project. One evening following Robert Serber's overview of efficiency in his April 1943 introductory lectures, Bethe and Feynman discussed efficiency and "the physical parameters which matter" since they did not know how to solve the complicated diffusion and hydro-dynamical equations for supercritical systems. "I think we guessed," Bethe later recalled, that the rate of decrease of multiplication during the expansion, assuming known beginning and endpoints of the expansion, would be proportional to the relative expansion. To fix the overall constant, Bethe and Feynman used Serber's result, as described in his lectures, for small excesses over the critical mass, a case that was relatively simple to analyze. Using this approach, Bethe and Feynman developed a formula for efficiency. This, according to the authors of the technical history of Los Alamos, was "the most brilliant example of theoretical problem solving" under the difficult conditions at the lab. Bethe and Feynman identified the crucial physical parameters in the calculation. Guided by their extraordinary physical insight and understanding of physics, they were able to use their limited knowledge of the phenomena and available data to produce a workable approximate formula for efficiency. As this feat shows, finding the best approximations to theoretical problems hinged on a talent for integrating and interpreting information in relation to a deep understanding of the laws of physics, a skill possessed only by the most talented scientists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie was outstanding. But then, I like thoughtful movies that leave me thinking about the subject when I leave the theatre. Great casting.

Is Richard Feynman featured in the movie and is he depicted with accuracy (ie being the most creative and thoughtful member of the team)?

He’s in it but not a huge role. Young and smiley.

Well that is just silly, especially if they make Oppenheimer more than a project manager. The brains were with the young guys, especially Feynman.

Oppenheimer could follow along with all of the science but he was never creative enough to figure out how to solve some of the very tricky problems involved. Still, he ranks in the smallest top levels of human intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, but I cannot stand Emily Blunt. Very overrated actress. Smug, annoying and she has a horse mouth.