Oppenheimer - thoughts?

[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.

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.

They didn't portray him solving problems - he even jokes that isn't hands-on and isn't good at math - he is bringing together teams of brilliant scientists. Amazing how all of the pieces came together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

They didn't portray him solving problems - he even jokes that isn't hands-on and isn't good at math - he is bringing together teams of brilliant scientists. Amazing how all of the pieces came together.

Cool. Have not seen it yet but was hoping they didn’t make him out to be some typical Hollywood caricature who “did it all.” That said, I think many of those who did do the work quietly downplayed it for the rest of their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

They didn't portray him solving problems - he even jokes that isn't hands-on and isn't good at math - he is bringing together teams of brilliant scientists. Amazing how all of the pieces came together.

Cool. Have not seen it yet but was hoping they didn’t make him out to be some typical Hollywood caricature who “did it all.” That said, I think many of those who did do the work quietly downplayed it for the rest of their lives.

Not at all. They portrayed his many struggles and faults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

They didn't portray him solving problems - he even jokes that isn't hands-on and isn't good at math - he is bringing together teams of brilliant scientists. Amazing how all of the pieces came together.

Cool. Have not seen it yet but was hoping they didn’t make him out to be some typical Hollywood caricature who “did it all.” That said, I think many of those who did do the work quietly downplayed it for the rest of their lives.

And their struggle with the work is portrayed as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He's awesome, and that's his wheelhouse, but the extent of his contribution, at least publicly known. He peaked later, he *was* young and there was the dying wife. His own memoirs place him in a bit part, and he knew how to tell a story when there's one to tell.

[Anonymous]

This movie is da bomb

[Anonymous]

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

I passed this one after Dunkirk was so bad…such a pivotal historical event made bland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He's awesome, and that's his wheelhouse, but the extent of his contribution, at least publicly known. He peaked later, he *was* young and there was the dying wife. His own memoirs place him in a bit part, and he knew how to tell a story when there's one to tell.

Actually, he was one of the youngest involved in the planning for the overall set up of the entire project and soon came to have a number of people working under him. He was also brought in on a number of the key questions and asked to help solve or plot a path forward. The Los Alamos Technical Review captures much more than he admits or others have noted. He is the greatest American born physicist of the 20th Century and his greatness began in New Mexico/Tennessee in about 1943.

[Anonymous]

Liked it but didn’t love it. I think Nolan tried to cram too many approaches - it’s a biopic, it’s a political drama, it’s about the weight of being a genius, it’s a cinematic beauty. I just wanted it to choose one. Either make it 5 hours or 2 hours and 20 min.

[Anonymous]

In terms of scientific genius biopics, I think “A Beautiful Mind” is way better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In terms of scientific genius biopics, I think “A Beautiful Mind” is way better.

Nah- both are good. I bet you haven't seen Oppenheimer yet.

[Anonymous]

I liked it but agree there was a lot of dialogue and it could have been shorter.
My 11yo saw the trailer and wanted to see it but I said no because of the R rating and sex scenes. Tbh I don’t think she would have enjoyed it anyway. It’s a lot to take in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can I take my 13 year old to see this? What sort of R-rating is this stuff?

Several scenes of completely gratuitous nudity and sex. I don't know why every single movie has to have so much gratuitous sex. It adds nothing to the story. I was embarrassed seeing those scenes with my 19 year old.

Other than that, it's fine for a 13 year old.

I found it too long, with a poor script and very hard to follow (too many characters), but superb production values. I did not like the lead actor. He was so gaunt and unappealing to me, and his character wasn't all that interesting.

Robert Downey Jr. completely overacting. Matt Damon was good, just right, I thought.

Watch it when it comes out on Netflix. I wish I hadn't wasted three hours of my life watching it. The NYT raved about it, but I don't think it lived up to the hype.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP and I’d love for him to stop casting Robert DeNiro in his movies. His acting is so bad now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I take my 13 year old to see this? What sort of R-rating is this stuff?

Several scenes of completely gratuitous nudity and sex. I don't know why every single movie has to have so much gratuitous sex. It adds nothing to the story. I was embarrassed seeing those scenes with my 19 year old.

Other than that, it's fine for a 13 year old.

I found it too long, with a poor script and very hard to follow (too many characters), but superb production values. I did not like the lead actor. He was so gaunt and unappealing to me, and his character wasn't all that interesting.

Robert Downey Jr. completely overacting. Matt Damon was good, just right, I thought.

Watch it when it comes out on Netflix. I wish I hadn't wasted three hours of my life watching it. The NYT raved about it, but I don't think it lived up to the hype.

I want to see it but cringe at the thought of being stuck in a theater seat for 3+ hours, I'll probably wait until it's on my TV, although I would probably enjoy the gratuitous nudity and sex on a super huge theater screen more so it's a dilemma.