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

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of Bethe, Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe could not comprehend von Neumann’s incredible intellect: “I have sometimes wondered whether a brain like von Neumann’s does not indicate a species superior to that of man.”

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.

John Von Neumann was probably the most important. The bomb wouldn't explode without his calculations for the explosive lens.

He's also the one who basically did all of the theoretical physics to figure out that you don't detonate the bomb in the surface, but detonate in the atmosphere to inflict maximum damage.

If you read the biography of John Von Neumann, you'll read how his peers both in the Manhattan Project and at the Institute of Avanced Studies at Princeton we all intimidated by JvN's intellect. We are talking about some of the greatest minds in mathematics and physics who have ever walked the Earth. Peers like Einstein, Godel, Oppenheimer, etc. etc. were afraid of how smart von Neumann was. He was described by even those kinds of peers as being completely from a different planet and alien like. By the time he was 10 he could already speak like 6 languages and was doing advanced calculus.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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!

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

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

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