the_ruck’s review published on Letterboxd:
Oppenheimer doesn't explode with action, but with boredom, which unfortunately makes the film a bomb disappointment and at the same time the worst Nolan film.
The day came and I watched Oppenheimer first, which was good. Because you should always take the worse first, because then the better one is even more fun.
Well, all Nolan fans are about to freak out, because how can a movie by one of the best directors of the 21st century ever be bad? Because without a doubt, Nolan is a brilliant director who has made brilliant films with the Dark Knight trilogy, with Interstellar, Inception or probably my favorite film of his, The Prestige.
However, his films have always had problems such as the characters, which tend to take a back seat in his films and, above all, have to give way to the epic and confused plot. Of course it's difficult when a film is about a single person.
But let's start from the beginning, because it was actually clear to me in advance that Oppenheimer would be a failure. Well, at least in my opinion. Because the trailers could hardly convince me, the fact that the film is 3 hours long put me off and I'm generally not a fan of historical films. Which doesn't mean that I hate every historical film, because of course I don't. But at least I wasn't really looking forward to the movie and that's simply because the movie has some weaknesses, which I'll get to in a moment.
For example, the first thing we have is the length of the film, which is simply too long. Actually nobody can say anything against it, because the film is simply too long. There are enough 3 hour movies that are good, like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but the running time is justified there too. This running time is by no means justified in Oppenheimer, because the film could easily have been shortened by an hour and a few fewer Hollywood stars simply had to appear.
Above all, this long running time causes one thing, because the film loses tension. The film is really slow and boring at some points. Even if there are places where there is really tension and I think everyone will know which scenes I mean by that. But these tense scenes are too rare and don't reverse the unnecessarily long running time. Which is why the film only gets really interesting after two hours, which is undoubtedly too late.
But I can most likely ignore the running time, because the narrative style is rather annoying. As we all know, Nolan has a very unique storytelling style that is quite intricate and complicated, although most of the time there is a fairly simple core behind it. Nolan also used this narrative style with Oppenheimer and so the first hour of the film almost seems like a trailer. The first hour is almost a single montage of moments in Oppenheimer's life, in different time periods. Only then does the film really start and then it gets better. However, the problem is simply that this unstringent narrative style doesn't fit the film. After all, it is a historical film, which should primarily be there to describe a historical event, to bring it to the screen and to enlighten the viewers about the event. However, you hardly learn anything from this film, because the narration is just too confusing. In addition, the film focuses more on the actors and the bombast than on telling a story and dealing with the characters. Which causes Oppenheimer to have the same problem that Elvis had last year. In the end, I didn't really know more about the eponymous person for either film, although both films run for 3 hours and are absolutely impressive visually and in terms of the acting.
Well, these problems all add up to my main problem, because that's wasted potential. Because Oppenheimer is a character, or rather a person, with many levels. But that never really comes through in the film. You never really see the burden and burden that Oppenheimer had to carry after developing the atomic bomb. The person of the Oppenheimer is never really addressed, so that the film really wastes potential.
But the movie isn't bad. At least not as far as the whole production and the actors are concerned. Because the actors are just brilliant. First and foremost we have of course Cillian Murphy, who is finally allowed to play the leading role in a Nolan film. Well, and rightly so, because he plays his role absolutely fantastic. The film doesn't focus so much on the Oppenheimer man, but in part Cillian Murphy makes up for that. Because Oppenheimer comes to life through his facial expressions alone.But the rest of the actors are also really good, such as Robert Downwy Jr, who is finally allowed to shine again after the MCU. So does the rest of the cast, with most of the characters just appearing briefly and then disappearing again. There are so many characters played by so many well-known actors, but this has two consequences. On the one hand, due to the vast number of figures, all of the figures are actually neglected. Well, and secondly, it looks like you're trying to cover up the thin figure drawings with familiar faces. This is the case, for example, with the female roles, which are without a doubt neglected in the film.
Well, at least one thing you can't fault about the film is the way the film looks, whether it's the costumes, the settings, or the explosion itself, everything just looks fantastic. They built real sets and even had their own city built, as well as causing a real explosion, which you can tell. While Nolan's weaknesses are evident in the film, so are his strengths. Because it is remarkable that everything is handmade and Nolan thus falls back on old values.
The soundtrack is also an aspect that has been praised to the skies again and again, although I can't agree with that. So Ludwig Göransson can't come close to Hans Zimmer, because the musical accompaniment seems quite interchangeable. Even if it gets loud and booming in between, the music didn't stick in my memory.
So we finally come to a conclusion. Oppenheimer is by no means bad, but it's also far from being good. the actors and the settings are impressive and some moments are really tense. However, the film's weaknesses are still a bigger bomb, such as the unnecessarily long running time, the unnecessarily many characters and guest appearances, the inappropriate narrative style, the forgettable soundtrack and the fact that the film doesn't focus on the essentials. Namely Oppenheimer himself. Because there are some scenes that are really brilliant and responsive to the character, like the one scene where he stands in front of the crowd and then everyone cheers for him, but he doesn‘t cheer. However, it's just too little and too late, because the film only gets reasonably exciting after the halfway point.
Well, I'm not really disappointed as I was already expecting something similar. But nonetheless, I just have to say that Oppenheimer is the worst Nolan film yet. Well, as far as Barbenheimer goes, Oppenheimer is definitely the loser, even though I haven't even seen Barbie yet. But it can only go uphill.
