Matthew Lewis’s review published on Letterboxd:
As of writing this review I have now seen Oppenheimer three times. I loved it the first time I saw it, but admittedly gave it shy of a full five stars at the time. I came out of it exhausted and suspected that it was because the film was too long.
Having now seen it two more times I realise that my exhaustion was more due to me being in a fully packed cinema and it being boiling hot. Seriously, I'm thrilled this film has done so well and love to the see the industry in general do great, but I must admit I did not miss being packed like sardines in a cinema.
I'm writing this to complete my watch-through of Christopher Nolan's work, but to be honest I really don't know what else can be said about this film. Tenet is my favourite Nolan film but I do agree that this is likely his greatest film. It really does feel like the film he was put on this earth to make, and if Nolan called it quits today I think this would be the single best place to end it on.
For a three hour film Oppenheimer does flow really well, and it's never boring. The last time I watched it I was almost surprised when the Atomic Bomb test happened because it felt like no time had passed at all. The first time I watched it I said was left exhausted by it, particularly in its third hour. On my repeated viewings I have come to appreciate how intentional that was. You are supposed to feel tired by it because it's an incredibly frustrating and unfair situation that Oppenheimer is being put through.
Nolan's known for his complex concepts and use of time, and like a lot of his film Oppenheimer is non-linear, but here Nolan uses this non-linear narrative to create and ambiguity and differing interpretations of Oppenheimer himself. Was Oppenheimer a genius man asked to do a terrible thing that he later regretted, or was he egotistical and martyring himself after the war? Maybe Lewis Strauss's view of Oppenheimer is not entirely unfounded, and he simply went about silencing Oppenheimer the wrong way.
It's a bold choice. A lot of biopics take a firm stance and want to have the definitive take on a person, but Oppenheimer displays a confidence to give us multiple perspectives and takes the point of view directly away from Oppenheimer for good chunks of the film, so that we see how others perceive him. Considering that Oppenheimer's actions are debated hotly to this day, it only makes sense to avoid taking one side.
I know a lot of Oppenheimer's success is in no small part due to the "Barbienheimer" cultural phenomenon, but I also like to think that Oppenheimer's success is in part because of peoples desire to see good old fashioned filmmaking. 2023 has been a transformative year for the industry, and not just because of the (much justified) strikes. We've seen industries giants like DC and Marvel underperform along with almost everything Disney has put out, which includes once considered reliable IP like Indian Jones and Pixar.
I don't wanna go full Martin Scorcese here but Oppenheimer gives me hope that maybe viewers do want more than just comic book films. Not just Oppenheimer but stuff like John Wick 4 or international hits like RRR. Films that aren't just green-screened, conveyer-belt monstrosity's, but are films of passion that aren't afraid to go big and bold, and can wrangle up an absolute A-Star cast like Oppenheimer did.
There's a long way to go, of course. I'm disheartened The Creator did so poorly, and while I'm thrilled it's getting a cinema release I'll be surprised if Killers of the Flower Moon sells well considering how long it is, but Oppenheimer's success does give me hope that what can lure people back into the cinema isn't cinematic universes but just GREAT cinema.
Once again, it's not my favourite Nolan film, but without hesitation it's his best film. It's also the best film of 2023 (so far), even if again it's number one favourite.
