Oppenheimer has phenomenal performances, cinematography and, for the most part, direction. It also has a superb score by Ludwig Görannson (and it has a lot of score, too - 94 minutes of it to be precise). Also, its use of practical effects is staggering. I have no idea how some of the shots were achieved.
The story is an interesting one, too, but its editing style nearly always kept me at arms length emotionally. The whole film is edited like the world's longest trailer, jumping from scene to scene so quickly that you rarely get chance to feel anything before being thrown into a new environment, timeline or perspective. Nolan seemed to adopt this editing style with his previous effort, Tenet; I wasn't a fan of it then and I'm certainly not a fan of it now. For a man who wants you to not "try to understand it", but to "feel it", this seems like a very strange choice. Yes, there is a lot to cover here but there is also 3 whole hours to cover it. The rapid editing doesn't do the length any favours either; it makes it feel its length because there are so many scenes and so much information is thrown at you in each and every one of them.
Where the film works best is when it actually slows down a little; the whole Trinity test sequence takes its time to build tension and is truly fantastic. The same can be said for a post-Trinity speech scene that really delves into the titular protagonist's psyche. That scene is my favourite of the entire year; its formalistic flourishes (the type of which Nolan typically tends to avoid) are used to perfection and create a really affecting atmosphere. I just wish more of the picture had taken its time to build emotion instead of being more concerned with rapidly throwing information at you left, right and centre. It's a good film for sure, and deserving of the many Oscars that are sure to be thrown its way, but for my money it's not one of Nolan's best.
The story is an interesting one, too, but its editing style nearly always kept me at arms length emotionally. The whole film is edited like the world's longest trailer, jumping from scene to scene so quickly that you rarely get chance to feel anything before being thrown into a new environment, timeline or perspective. Nolan seemed to adopt this editing style with his previous effort, Tenet; I wasn't a fan of it then and I'm certainly not a fan of it now. For a man who wants you to not "try to understand it", but to "feel it", this seems like a very strange choice. Yes, there is a lot to cover here but there is also 3 whole hours to cover it. The rapid editing doesn't do the length any favours either; it makes it feel its length because there are so many scenes and so much information is thrown at you in each and every one of them.
Where the film works best is when it actually slows down a little; the whole Trinity test sequence takes its time to build tension and is truly fantastic. The same can be said for a post-Trinity speech scene that really delves into the titular protagonist's psyche. That scene is my favourite of the entire year; its formalistic flourishes (the type of which Nolan typically tends to avoid) are used to perfection and create a really affecting atmosphere. I just wish more of the picture had taken its time to build emotion instead of being more concerned with rapidly throwing information at you left, right and centre. It's a good film for sure, and deserving of the many Oscars that are sure to be thrown its way, but for my money it's not one of Nolan's best.
Tell Your Friends