Oppenheimer

One man, an exacting professional, obsessive about the minutiae of his craft, creates something he hopes will change the world. Enough about Christopher Nolan though, what’s his new movie ‘Oppenheimer’ like?

It’s good. Very good. Maybe not the masterpiece it thinks it is, but still very good.

Armed with a fascinating subject and an extraordinary ‘hey, it’s that one guy” cast filling out a dizzying amount of speaking parts, Nolan pulls together a tight and tense, near three hour biopic that charts Oppenheimer’s rise and fall. It’s never less than watchable, and, considering that it’s mostly guys in rooms talking, often quite exciting. It reminded me of Oliver Stone’s ‘JFK’, another three hour movie about guys in rooms, but Nolan isn’t Oliver Stone, and that stops Oppenheimer from reaching a level of true greatness.

Nolan is at his best when he’s being clever, playing with time and editing structure, keeping the audience on their toes as he weaves his tale. Without these gimmicks his films often feel a little pedestrian - I’m not a great fan of his Batman movies, which, while perfectly fine, feel like he’s trying to make something, anything, other than a Batman movie: The Dark Knight feels more like Nolan’s attempt to make ‘Heat’, but has Batman stuff shoe-horned in, leaving it feeling like a middling version of both things. Oppenheimer often feels like Nolan’s attempt to make ‘JFK’ but he lacks the vision and craft that makes that film so breathtaking.

And then there’s his use of music. *shakes head* I’d assumed the blaring cacophony to be Hans Zimmer, but it turns out it’s Ludwig Goransson, doing a really good attempt at a Hans Zimmer blaring cacophony. For some reason Nolan doesn’t trust his script and actors’ to deliver the emotion of the scene so has almost every scene violated by a thundering score that tells you THIS IS DRAMATIC, THIS IS SAD, THIS IS TENSE. This approach worked on the under-rated ‘Dunkirk’, which was a more purely cinematic experience - the visuals and music working in harmony to tell the story. Here, it drowns out the dialogue and is incredibly distracting when it should be invisible.

It’s the writing then that saves it. Effectively beginning with the US attempt to turn Oppenheimer from war hero to nobody for reasons that I’ll leave you to discover yourself. This allows Oppenheimer to flashback to his beginnings, and his part in the creation of the first atomic bomb, then the film to catch up with itself, continuing on with an engaging courtroom based last act. It is this approach (it’s basically a courtroom drama) that was the films biggest surprise for me and stopped the film from bogging down into the traditional ‘and then’ linear biopic narrative.

Ultimately then there is much to enjoy here. A tad more traditional than Nolan’s usual fare, which may be a good or bad thing depending on your tolerance for puzzle movies. Well written (maybe not the female characters), competently directed, beautifully acted (the whole cast is top notch) and thought provoking (the last scene is a knock out), yet, I still feel like it should have been (even) better. Maybe not a ‘fun’ night out at the flicks but definitely a worthwhile one.

What about Barbie though? Did you go and see Barbie too because reasons of pop culture?

I did not. I like Greta Gerwig but the style of the film from the trailer puts me off and I find Margie Robbie...grating. I'm sure I'll kick myself when I do finally get around to it but my cinema going time is limited so I choose wisely. A fun fact though: Nolan fell out with Warner Bros when they released 'Tenet' to streaming against his wishes. In a petty move, WB scheduled 'Barbie' on the same day as 'Oppenheimer' assuming that Nolan would move his movie. He didn't and it ended up working out for everyone by becoming a huge, if silly, pop culture event.